Religious scientists... an example of 'Doublethink'

[mountainhare]

I'm always a little puzzled when people say that science and religion can co-exist. They say that science tells us 'how' things happen, whereas religion tells us 'why'. Hence, they can compliment each other. How convenient!

Yet science is a process relying on observation, empirical evidence, critical thinking, and making logical inferences. Religion involves the opposite of all of these things: Blind faith.

In otherwords, when an individual is in 'science' mode, he has a very high standard of critical thought and logical inferences, and must have empirical evidence, repeatability, and other requirements of the scientific method. But in 'religion' mode, he is merely satisified with having 'blind faith', and empirical evidence is suddenly no longer required.

Isn't such a 'change' in attitudes to provide both a satisifactory explaination of reality, and inner emotional security, a rather good example of the Orwellian concept of 'Doublethink'? While scientific and religious statements are not necessarily contradictory, the methods and mindset used in their acceptance are.

 

[S.A.M.]

I'm always a little puzzled when people say that science and religion can co-exist. They say that science tells us 'how' things happen, whereas religion tells us 'why'. Hence, they can compliment each other. How convenient!

Yet science is a process relying on observation, empirical evidence, critical thinking, and making logical inferences. Religion involves the opposite of all of these things: Blind faith.

In otherwords, when an individual is in 'science' mode, he has a very high standard of critical thought and logical inferences, and must have empirical evidence, repeatability, and other requirements of the scientific method. But in 'religion' mode, he is merely satisified with having 'blind faith', and empirical evidence is suddenly no longer required.

Isn't such a 'change' in attitudes to provide both a satisifactory explaination of reality, and inner emotional security, a rather good example of the Orwellian concept of 'Doublethink'? While scientific and religious statements are not necessarily contradictory, the methods and mindset used in their acceptance are.

Religion and science don't address the same issues. Anyone who thinks so is confused about religion and/or science.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I'm always a little puzzled when people say that science and religion can co-exist. They say that science tells us 'how' things happen, whereas religion tells us 'why'. Hence, they can compliment each other. How convenient!

I actually agree with the assertion that science and religion can co-exist. Science is a method of asking reality questions and religion is a method of human relationship. The only incompatibilies are fantastic religious claims of objective reality that science reveals are false; the most common one being "magic exists".

If the fantastic objective reality claims are removed from religion then any incompatibility might simply disappear.

I do however utterly disagree with the assertion that science only answers 'how' and religion answers 'why' assertion. Consider the following 'why' questions.

* WHY is the sky blue?
* WHY did it rain yesterday?
* WHY did he eat 50 hard boiled eggs?

None of these questions are magically beyond scientific inquiry, but there are in fact both 'how' and 'why' questions that would appear to be beyond the reach of science:

* HOW do Ghosts work?
* WHY does my car hate me?

Of course such appearances are deceptive. In fact the only reason to consider such questions 'beyond' the reach of science is to magically give them validity and 'protect' them from scientific inquiry. However, if science is nonetheless applied to such questions then you do in fact get concrete answers:

Q: HOW do Ghosts work?
A: The question flawed because Ghosts do not exist.

Q: WHY does my car hate me?
A: The question flawed because cars are not conscious.

Now imagine if such questions were really accepted as being beyond the scope of science. That would automatically (I)mply the following:

Q: HOW do Ghosts work?
I: It is a known fact that Ghost's exist.

Q: WHY does my car hate me?
I: It is a known fact that cars are conscious,

Armed with this knowledge it seems that religion could not only be rendered compatible with science if the magical objective reality assertions are discarded, but religion could also be improved if the process of science is integrated into it. Imagine if such changes had been applied to religion thousands of years ago:

THE DISTANT PAST:
Q: Why are we here?
A: Nobody knows why or even if the question is correct.

 

[SkinWalker]

Religion and science don't address the same issues. Anyone who thinks so is confused about religion and/or science.

Why, then, do religious adherents consistently deride science and scientific discovery and process?

I understand what you're suggesting and, in principle, I'd like to agree. Ideally, science and religion would be non-overlapping magisteria, but the unfortunate truth is that the religious will not ignore science. The push for "intelligent" design in public schools was demonstrably a religious movement. The push to limit stem cell research has a religious origin. Even the bigotry toward homosexuals is often argued by the religious who make appeals to science for reasons that support their religious doctrines (though, admittedly, this is not a direct interference by religion on science).

From the perspective of science, I agree that there's no overlap necessary. Unfortunately, the religious don't seem to agree.

 

[Baron Max]

Why, then, do religious adherents consistently deride science and scientific discovery and process?

I'm sure you can find a few such ignore souls, but to imply that all religious people "deride" science is wrong ...it's just not true.

May the gods help me, but I must agree with Sam ...the two issues don't address the same things at all. Those who think so are, I believe, in the minority, and I might go so far as to say they're fanatics/extremists.

Baron Max

 

[GeoffP]

I think adherence to NOMA sort of depends on the individual. There are deriders of each "magisterium" on both sides. However, skin is right in that the religion side is pushing a new political approach. Then again, one could also say that those science-and-reason-lovers have had it all their own way for a long time in education. But in yet another view, I'm going to go do a PCR.

 

[SkinWalker]

I'm sure you can find a few such ignore souls, but to imply that all religious people "deride" science is wrong ...it's just not true.

Of course they don't. Nor am I attempting to argue that they do. But a significant number -a number that is impossible to ignore- do. Those that do cannot be ignored because their religious delusions interfere with science on many levels. These deluded few (or many) are affecting science through legislation and public attacks on science and they do think that science and religion are congruent.

May the gods help me, but I must agree with Sam ...the two issues don't address the same things at all. Those who think so are, I believe, in the minority, and I might go so far as to say they're fanatics/extremists.

I agree with your last statement in part. For those in science to ignore the insistence by the religious that science and religion overlap and that science affects religion would be foolhardy. It is true that science could care less whether religion is affected and it isn't important to science in that it is irrelevant to scientific discovery. But many (and not just a few, though I agree it may be a minority -albeit a very vocal and heard minority) within religion feel that science has direct bearing on their beliefs and must be countered. In so doing, reason is being met with unreason. Empirical understanding is being met with un-evidenced belief (faith).

 

[mountainhare]

Perhaps I've been a little vague.

I'm willing to accept for the sake of my argument that religious beliefs, and scientific beliefs, don't necessarily overlap! One can quite easily believe in a superior being, and explain observations in the natural word with science.

My gripe is that a religious scientist essentially has double standards. Very high standards are required when analyzing his scientific beliefs, but very low standards 'FAITH' are required when analyzing his religious beliefs.

In find the existence of two such 'contradictory' standards an example of doublethink. Why is a religious scientist willing to accept religious beliefs based on 'faith', yet requires extraordinarily high levels evidence before accepting scientific discoveries.

 

[S.A.M.]

Why, then, do religious adherents consistently deride science and scientific discovery and process?
From the perspective of science, I agree that there's no overlap necessary. Unfortunately, the religious don't seem to agree.

Since science began with the monasticism of religion thats not a true argument. I would say political processes have more to do with hindering science than religion. Or poor investment in science education.

 

[geeser]

Since science began with the monasticism of religion thats not a true argument.

and how do you know that, that is a complete assumption.
science is more likely to have begun, alongside religion hence the constant questioning and deriding from religion, only stopping and accepting science when it suits them.
what better way, to appear more logical, then to have some of your own people, doing the very thing you deride.
you get accepted by more patrons that way, well until they see religion for what it really is.

 

[heliocentric]

I actually agree with the assertion that science and religion can co-exist. Science is a method of asking reality questions and religion is a method of human relationship. The only incompatibilies are fantastic religious claims of objective reality that science reveals are false; the most common one being "magic exists".

I suppose it depends on how you define 'magic' very subjective notion really.
There's no reason why science in theory shouldnt be able to explain everything 'magical' (apart from subjectivity which obviously can never be objectively measured).
The problem comes i think when science isnt quite upto the job of explaining 'magic'.
The religious person might accept a temporary faith-based solution in the absense of a workable/adequate.
By the same token a science buff might simply stretch-out known science to cover the gaps in scientific knowledge.
In both cases i think its this ingrained need to gloss over the gaps, and assume absolute knowledge.

 

[Ophiolite]

Why is a religious scientist willing to accept religious beliefs based on 'faith', yet requires extraordinarily high levels evidence before accepting scientific discoveries.

Any half ways decent scientist begins the process of doing science with blind faith. This blind faith may take one of two forms.
a) He believes the question he is seeking an answer to is a valid scientific question. [For example, I see no justification for calling string theory science. I have described it, more than once, as mental masturbation for mathematicians. Those scientists engaged in developing string theory are doing so imbued with the faith that eventually their specualtions may become testable.]
b) Typically, the scientist begins an experiment with a fair idea of what the outcome will be, yet this expectation is based upon 'belief' and 'faith' as much, indeed more, than it is upon hard evidence.

The religious believer also subjects their beliefs to constant, continuous and deep scrutiny, measuring and modifying their faith against a backdrop of their relationships with other, the world around them, and their inner selves.

What is incompatiblewith science, without a doubt, as others have mentioned, is any form of religious fundamentalism. Otherwise, a religious outlook, based upon a sense of inner spirituality is wholly compatible with, and arguably supportive of, a scientific outlook also.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

I suppose it depends on how you define 'magic' very subjective notion really.

Subjective notions are so because they typically no 1:1 external objective counterpart.

There's no reason why science in theory shouldnt be able to explain everything 'magical'

I agree; however, I would reassert the statement as:

"There's no reason why science in theory shouldnt be able to explain everything THAT SEEMS 'magical'"

Magic doesn't really exist and the original statement implies that it does.

(apart from subjectivity which obviously can never be objectively measured).

I don't think that's obvious at all... to the best of existing knowledge, subjectivity is still the result of real and potentially measurable brain activity.

The problem comes i think when science isnt quite upto the job of explaining 'magic'.

At present, I don't think there is any objective 'magic' phenomenoa to explain and alot of subjective experiences that seem (to the experiencer) to defy objective reality are turning up to be natural human hallucination.

The religious person might accept a temporary faith-based solution in the absense of a workable/adequate.

The typical religious person isn't accepting a faith based solution as a possibility, they are accepting it as objective truth. In other words, the religious person often has many values that supercede objective truth.

By the same token a science buff might simply stretch-out known science to cover the gaps in scientific knowledge.

In both cases i think its this ingrained need to gloss over the gaps, and assume absolute knowledge.

That is a human behavioral tendency... to be asbolutly 'right' about everything. Science however, acts a check against that behavior because any knowledge derived from the process is falsifiable and can therefore adapt to new knowledge. The same is not true for Thiesm.

 

[heliocentric]

"There's no reason why science in theory shouldnt be able to explain everything THAT SEEMS 'magical'"

Yes, agreed, infact thats sort of what i was getting at myself, there isnt really anything magical - just stuff that you cant fully comprehend/understand.

I don't think that's obvious at all... to the best of existing knowledge, subjectivity is still the result of real and potentially measurable brain activity.

What i meant was...you cant measure or observe subjectivity, i.e. - the mind/body problem.

In other words i cant ever get 'inside' your interiority, your inner experience. It's beyond science.
I can perhaps objectively measure the firing of your neurons, but that wont tell me much about the quality (qualia) of your experience.
And even if mind isnt the sole product of the brain, and we have some sort of 'consciousness field' as some people believe there is, that still wouldnt tell us anything about the subjectivity of experience.
We might be able to measure a freq, map it's cordinates but it wouldnt really get us in touch with direct experience itself.

At present, I don't think there is any objective 'magic' phenomenoa to explain and alot of subjective experiences that seem (to the experiencer) to defy objective reality are turning up to be natural human hallucination.

Well, the problem i see it is that objective reality is really just the sum total of scientific knowledge, which by it's nature is incomplete.
So we dont know what objective reality really is.

Theres a danger i think of tricking yourself into believing that science is a complete system in which everything is, and should be explainable.
If it was then yes, you could absolutely write off any mysterious/ghostly phenomena as emergent aspects of the mind.
But we dont at present have a complete model of reality, so as yet you cant really sideline anything anomalous as being non-existant because it falls outside of our models.
If anything we should assume that as science is incomplete, events and phenomena will absolutely fall outside of it from time to time.

The trick then becomes working out and monitoring when prosaic explainations dont add up, is it an 'adequate fit' ? or are you atempting to shoe-horn an event into a specific framework just for the sake of it being explainable?

That is a human behavioral tendency... to be asbolutly 'right' about everything. Science however, acts a check against that behavior because any knowledge derived from the process is falsifiable and can therefore adapt to new knowledge. The same is not true for Thiesm.

Thats a good argument, unless of course we're just building castles in the sky - which we may very well might be.

In 100 years time GR/SR could be proven to be complete bunk.
In which case a great deal of 20th century science has been little more than blind technology-based solutions driving society and the free market.

i.e. - We dont really know how anything works atall - but if we apply certain models to specific events and predict future events with reasonable accuracy then we can make it look like we do.
And then we can use that knowledge to create greater autonomoy through technology - generating wealth and greater freedom of choice.
Who on earth would want to argue with that??

We might not view 20th century science in that way atall of course, but you get the point. Everything we believe now could appear everybit of wrong-footed as creationism does to (most of us) now.

 

[iam]

lol, i just had a two religious crackpots call ME (atheist, leftist) a bush fanatic??!!

I spoke AGAINST religion. Isn't Bush a devout, right-wing christian??

I'm so confused, i don't know what to make of that. huh? whaa??

Do christians just make shit up as they go along?? Just like their fairytale of a godhead? So now i'm a bush fanatic because they say so! HAHAHAHA!!

The above is an example of the flagrant intellectual dishonesty, doubletalk, and doublethink of religionists.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

What i meant was...you cant measure or observe subjectivity, i.e. - the mind/body problem.

In other words i cant ever get 'inside' your interiority, your inner experience. It's beyond science.
I can perhaps objectively measure the firing of your neurons, but that wont tell me much about the quality (qualia) of your experience.
And even if mind isnt the sole product of the brain, and we have some sort of 'consciousness field' as some people believe there is, that still wouldnt tell us anything about the subjectivity of experience.
We might be able to measure a freq, map it's cordinates but it wouldnt really get us in touch with direct experience itself.

I think you are exploring alot of the challenges with measuring subjectivity; however, that does not mean it is beyond measurement. The only real factor that limits our ability to measure the subjective seems to be our current state of knowledge and technology.

Well, the problem i see it is that objective reality is really just the sum total of scientific knowledge, which by it's nature is incomplete.
So we dont know what objective reality really is.

I think objective reality is just objective reality. Our understanding of it as present is only limited by our visibility and mental capabilities. The nice thing about objective reality is that is self evident. It might have alot of layers to it, but as science has demonstrated over and over again that visibility can be attained directly or indirectly.

Theres a danger i think of tricking yourself into believing that science is a complete system in which everything is, and should be explainable.
If it was then yes, you could absolutely write off any mysterious/ghostly phenomena as emergent aspects of the mind.

But we dont at present have a complete model of reality, so as yet you cant really sideline anything anomalous as being non-existant because it falls outside of our models.

Well that's not true. Take the classic operating room OOBE for example. Several hospitals in the U.S. whom routinely stop and start people's hearts have LCD monitors facing upwards with very distinct pictures on them. To date, 100% of OOBE experiencers on such operating rooms have never seen the pictures yet thought they saw everything from an overhead view. What this tells us is two things. The experience is generated by the brain and there are many other anomolous phenomena that have been shown to be human hallucination. It forms a recognizable pattern of paranormal==hallucination (or delusion).

If anything we should assume that as science is incomplete, events and phenomena will absolutely fall outside of it from time to time.

The trick then becomes working out and monitoring when prosaic explainations dont add up, is it an 'adequate fit' ? or are you atempting to shoe-horn an event into a specific framework just for the sake of it being explainable?

Science is just a process that the concept of completion really doesn't apply to. Scientific knowledge of course is incomplete; however, that fact should not protect human ideas such as 'God', 'Vampires', 'Demons', 'Souls', 'Telepathy', etc. from falsification of their mere existence.

Thats a good argument, unless of course we're just building castles in the sky - which we may very well might be.

In 100 years time GR/SR could be proven to be complete bunk.
In which case a great deal of 20th century science has been little more than blind technology-based solutions driving society and the free market.

i.e. - We dont really know how anything works atall - but if we apply certain models to specific events and predict future events with reasonable accuracy then we can make it look like we do.
And then we can use that knowledge to create greater autonomoy through technology - generating wealth and greater freedom of choice.
Who on earth would want to argue with that??

We might not view 20th century science in that way atall of course, but you get the point. Everything we believe now could appear everybit of wrong-footed as creationism does to (most of us) now.

I agree that in the future no doubt much of our knowledge will be different. Knowledge will evolve through the process of science and again I don't see anything as being beyond the reach of science.

 

[heliocentric]

I think you are exploring alot of the challenges with measuring subjectivity; however, that does not mean it is beyond measurement. The only real factor that limits our ability to measure the subjective seems to be our current state of knowledge and technology.

Well it might be achievable one day who knows, all you can say is - its beyond science as of now.
I think to really guage subjectivity accurately, youd essentially have to 'be' or 'inhabit' the objective entity having the subjective experience.
Its really the only way i can think of, otherwise youre always going to be guessing or infering how their subjective experience might feel to them.

I think objective reality is just objective reality. Our understanding of it as present is only limited by our visibility and mental capabilities. The nice thing about objective reality is that is self evident. It might have alot of layers to it, but as science has demonstrated over and over again that visibility can be attained directly or indirectly.

Sure, all i meant was our idea of objectivity reality is an incomplete construct, i think its important to remind yourself of that.
I like to anyway.

Well that's not true. Take the classic operating room OOBE for example. Several hospitals in the U.S. whom routinely stop and start people's hearts have LCD monitors facing upwards with very distinct pictures on them. To date, 100% of OOBE experiencers on such operating rooms have never seen the pictures yet thought they saw everything from an overhead view. What this tells us is two things. The experience is generated by the brain and there are many other anomolous phenomena that have been shown to be human hallucination. It forms a recognizable pattern of paranormal==hallucination (or delusion).

Well prosaic explainations arnt a problem in all cases, if the explaination genuinely works s'all good.

Science is just a process that the concept of completion really doesn't apply to. Scientific knowledge of course is incomplete; however, that fact should not protect human ideas such as 'God', 'Vampires', 'Demons', 'Souls', 'Telepathy', etc. from falsification of their mere existence.

I dont think its really about protecting anything remotely 'outlandish' so those sorts of things can escape examination. Or at least that's certainly not my view.

My point is, a pathological need for everything to be currently explainable (i.e. for our scientific models to be complete) will offen result in current scientific thought being stretched and mis-used to explain a whole range of anomalous events/experiences.
Prior to the late 80s/early 90s for instance, before we knew what upwards electrical storms were. Any piolet seeing a sprite at high altitudes would be told they were mearly hallucinating and told to go and get a good nights rest.

They experienced something outside of scientific though/scientifc understanding and were told they imagined it. See the problem im getting at?

This is where i think its important to say..
'Ok something has been experienced outside of what we currently believe can/should occur - therefore this event either exists outside of science or it doesnt exist atall'.
You really need to take both possiblities into account.
Otherwise you end up with complete religiosity at either end of the spectrum.

 

[iam]

Nontheists need to wake up and realize that religion has a power and political structure and agenda. It's flagrantly obvious, the church was the government and their proponents will work to establish it again. Do you think just because they call themselves a "religion" that people cannot or willnot act outside the dictates of what they claim they are??...If it weren't the case, they would mind their own business and worship in private.

How many people put on an act everyday and act contradictory to the image they project? Many. Simple

The push for "intelligent" design in public schools was demonstrably a religious movement. The push to limit stem cell research has a religious origin. Even the bigotry toward homosexuals is often argued by the religious who make appeals to science for reasons that support their religious doctrines (though, admittedly, this is not a direct interference by religion on science).

They don't mind their own business, not only are they in everyone else's business but they don't respect the separation of church and state. Ironicly, they are quite anti-american as they oppose progress, freedom, promote prejudice, and operate like a political party. The worst hypocritical mistake the founding fathers made was to rally support around the idea that america was founded on their god yet espouse the radical and progressive underneath that umbrella. That is the problem of "religion" versus philosophies. Those who live by their own philosophy still can coexist with others. The reason why religionists cannot do this because it is inherently disrespectful of others and totalitarianism is it's goal even if they can't foresee the ramifications of the outcome. "Religiosity" borne anew is not the solution because its just a new spin on the old problem. Just as virus mutates to survive. When it comes down to the wire, you can bet their true dogmatic beliefs will surface. You have to understand it's all fundamental because it is a "religion." The greatest threat is their authoritarian and fixed belief system which is actually undemocratic but many are too stupid to realize it which incidentally doesn't leave it harmless.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

Well it might be achievable one day who knows, all you can say is - its beyond science as of now.

I wouldn't say its beyond science (the process), I would say humans don't have enough knowledge to pull it off.

I think to really guage subjectivity accurately, youd essentially have to 'be' or 'inhabit' the objective entity having the subjective experience.
Its really the only way i can think of, otherwise youre always going to be guessing or infering how their subjective experience might feel to them.

That might be a stepping stone in measurement. I can forsee once the experience can be shared then the information becomes very measurable on its own.

Sure, all i meant was our idea of objectivity reality is an incomplete construct, i think its important to remind yourself of that.
I like to anyway.

I agree.

I dont think its really about protecting anything remotely 'outlandish' so those sorts of things can escape examination. Or at least that's certainly not my view.

I have seen enough evidence of psi, paranormal, and magic junky behavior to know that protecting their cherished beliefs from scientific inquiry is of top importance.

My point is, a pathological need for everything to be currently explainable (i.e. for our scientific models to be complete) will offen result in current scientific thought being stretched and mis-used to explain a whole range of anomalous events/experiences.

That's just human behavior. Remember that any scientific assertions are themselves exposed to scientific inquiry.

Prior to the late 80s/early 90s for instance, before we knew what upwards electrical storms were. Any piolet seeing a sprite at high altitudes would be told they were mearly hallucinating and told to go and get a good nights rest.

A pilot might loose credibility claiming the existence of of minature elf/fairy like creature. If they communicated what they saw rather than some anthropomorphic version then someone may have taken then seriously.

They experienced something outside of scientific though/scientifc understanding and were told they imagined it. See the problem im getting at?

I think it's clear they imagined a magical sentient life form. There are generally two types of false claims of existence. 1) It doesn't exist. 2) Something else exists but not what is being claimed.

This is where i think its important to say..
'Ok something has been experienced outside of what we currently believe can/should occur - therefore this event either exists outside of science or it doesnt exist atall'.
You really need to take both possiblities into account.
Otherwise you end up with complete religiosity at either end of the spectrum.

I think you just need to keep a bullshit filter handy, but either way there still doesn't appear to be anything for which science could not address.

 

[heliocentric]

That might be a stepping stone in measurement. I can forsee once the experience can be shared then the information becomes very measurable on its own.

Yup! basically its just a case of working out how to measure in a completely different way, as i said - its probably a long way off. If it's possible atall of course.

I have seen enough evidence of psi, paranormal, and magic junky behavior to know that protecting their cherished beliefs from scientific inquiry is of top importance.

Guess it depends who youre talking to, ive found alot of people (myself included) who are genuinely interested in critical research relating to anomalous phenomena.
As with anything else i think youre going to find a mixed bag of attitudes, beliefs, and ideals foating about.

That's just human behavior. Remember that any scientific assertions are themselves exposed to scientific inquiry.

Definitely, infact that's all im really doing here - exposing how human behaviour is uniformly predictable no matter what paradigm it's opperating within.

A pilot might loose credibility claiming the existence of of minature elf/fairy like creature. If they communicated what they saw rather than some anthropomorphic version then someone may have taken then seriously.

I think you misunderstand; 'sprite' is just a short-hand term for upwards electrical storms, even scientists use it.
Theyre not saying theyre little pixie creatures living in the sky, just as cosmologists arnt saying white dwarfs are short bearded humans floating around in deep space.

I think it's clear they imagined a magical sentient life form. There are generally two types of false claims of existence. 1) It doesn't exist. 2) Something else exists but not what is being claimed.

See above, noone claimed these were living beings - just light emissions behaving in strange ways.
Obviously not strange now we understand that electrical storms shoot upwards as well as down, but back then it could only be a hallucination.