Science and religion

[Fido]

Originally Posted by krazy kaju

Science and religion have absolutely nothing to do with each other.

One uses a rational approach to explain natural phenomena while the other attempts to do the same using irrational and unprovable arguments.

The truth is that no philosopher has ever been able to successfully deduce the existence of God. Many have provided 'proofs' for the existence of some supreme deity, but all have failed in the light of evidence showing otherwise.

I have to disagreewith your conclusion that science and religion have nothing to do with each other.. Ultimately reality is as unprovable as existence and God. Both science and religion are based upon faith, but science is accepted because it better explains the phenomenon of reality, and it is simple and elegant with the truth. We want to know, and science provides as religion does not. Religion is certain of truth, so it adds nothing to knowledge, but certainty is the enemy of truth is science too.

[Aedes]

Science is based on faith? Only if you distort the definition of faith.

Scientists must have faith in previous science without repeating it all, but since it's published, including its methodology, then the only thing you really need faith in is that the publications aren't lies.

Scientists don't need to have faith in some unifying physical order. It's enough to say we learn about the universe through observation, and we don't know everything yet -- so that's why we still look.


That's, of course, different than science and religion. I'd say that religion has nothing to do with science, but science has a lot to do with religion.

Why? Well, scientists and science don't preoccupy themselves with religious issues or questions. But religious people do preoccupy themselves with scientific issues, including the existential issues raised by scientific discovery as well as many ethical issues. Religion tries to insert itself into pure science, like in this intelligent design stuff. I don't ever remember science trying to insert itself into a purely religious issue, though...

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Science is based on faith? Only if you distort the definition of faith.

What is the difinition of faith if my faith is your heracy? Reason is a mighty structure with a faith foundation. Science proves, but it cannot verify and is blind to past and future.

Scientists must have faith in previous science without repeating it all, but since it's published, including its methodology, then the only thing you really need faith in is that the publications aren't lies.

I think you misjudge the nature of knowledge. When people learn it is from concept to concept, so that specific gravity is a ratio of volume and weight; both known concepts. All concepts are conservative, so that once established they may be relied upon whether this is in basic math, or area, or mole, momentum, or or or... And from these Facts and Formulas we reason forward, and make presumptions, and in the process we learn. More.

Scientists don't need to have faith in some unifying physical order. It's enough to say we learn about the universe through observation, and we don't know everything yet -- so that's why we still look.


That's, of course, different than science and religion. I'd say that religion has nothing to do with science, but science has a lot to do with religion.

Why? Well, scientists and science don't preoccupy themselves with religious issues or questions. But religious people do preoccupy themselves with scientific issues, including the existential issues raised by scientific discovery as well as many ethical issues. Religion tries to insert itself into pure science, like in this intelligent design stuff. I don't ever remember science trying to insert itself into a purely religious issue, though...

I think there is an obvious faith in a unifying order. Why would anyone add two and two if they did not believe in an absolute sum somewhere. Doesn't this all add up? Isn't math good in this world and the next, since the saints are all book keepers? We accept a universal order, and this matter of faith keeps the scientist looking for that order while the priest takes it as proof of God. I think this faith blinds the scientist to reality, and I trust that when new facts are learned they teach their own logic. If they were logical from what seemed logical before, their reason would have been obvious. It was not, and what teaches people is the leap of insight based upon seeming senseless phenomen.

Ethics are not a matter of faith, but of family. Ones ethical obligations thin out away from ones own kind, and while the best situation would be for all to embrace a human family, I think denominations stand in the way.

Science does seem to go after religion's goat and disprove biblical explanations. Biblers could laugh that off. There is a lot of humanity and a little God in the Bible; and it tells the stories all humanity has taught and entertained itself with, like the tower of beanstalk, and, David the Giant Killer. They told what was important in their lives, and it is not important in our lives. We can't buy their God because he is a puny little shithead. At least Science has made God large.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

All concepts are conservative, so that once established they may be relied upon whether this is in basic math, or area, or mole, momentum, or or or... And from these Facts and Formulas we reason forward, and make presumptions, and in the process we learn. More.

Why do you regard this as faith in the foundational concepts rather than an understanding that is based on scientific descriptions?

I think there is an obvious faith in a unifying order. Why would anyone add two and two if they did not believe in an absolute sum somewhere. Doesn't this all add up? Isn't math good in this world and the next, since the saints are all book keepers?

I don't know about this one. If the whole premise of science is to uncover the unknown through reductionist observation, then how does one have faith in an overarching unknown? There are varying degrees of confidence in scientific knowledge from extreme confidence to no confidence -- but this is based on strength of data and nothing else.

Math, I'm afraid, does not suffice for me as an example of some immortal unifying order or even part of one. It's nothing more than a type of language, in fact a technical language. Pure math is divorced from applications, and applied math is used to describe particulars using its vocabulary. Math does not embody natural truths, because it is completely internally defined. 1+1=2 is not a statement of natural truth, it's simply a statement of equality in definition.

Science is concerned with a universal order only insofar as all experiments and observations are finite -- so there is an assumption of repeatability. However, most studies will statistically describe findings which is basically just a statement of certainty vs uncertainty. So the universal order you speak of has mainly to do with levels of statistical confidence.

Now I'm talking about the level of the scientific study and the generation of new data. The patchwork quilt that constitutes scientific theories, consenses, laws, etc, are also founded on evidence while using reason to draw all these data together. But even a law is finite if you question its basis enough, i.e. it's never really a law

We accept a universal order, and this matter of faith keeps the scientist looking for that order while the priest takes it as proof of God.

The scientist's search is reductionist -- it seeks to divide and divide and divide and describe those divisions. Science looks for processes, constituents, and forces by reduction -- it doesn't look for order. The farthest I'll go with you here is that a scientist needs to assume to some degree that findings are repeatable and therefore generalizable without actually repeating them. Is that really faith? Or is it a statement of confidence in our observations?

what teaches people is the leap of insight based upon seeming senseless phenomen.

I'm not sure what you mean here...

Science does seem to go after religion's goat and disprove biblical explanations.

Like where? Were Copernicus and Galileo and Newton going after religion's goat? Was Darwin? Was Einstein? Was Heisenberg? Was Bohr? How is it the fault of science that religious explanations are inconsistent with what science observes? Science also devotes plenty of attention to things that don't challenge religion at all -- no one in religion has any opposition to the physiology of the retina or the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

They told what was important in their lives, and it is not important in our lives. We can't buy their God because he is a puny little shithead.

I don't think I read the same journals that you do...

[krazy kaju]

Science is based on faith?

The only way to argue this is to argue in favor of solipsism.

But by definition, science cannot be based on faith as it uses evidence to support all of its claims. And unlike the faithful, scientists don't stick to their beliefs no matter what evidence comes out against them. Many scientists have been known to change their viewpoints when a hypothesis is clearly disproven.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

Why do you regard this as faith in the foundational concepts rather than an understanding that is based on scientific descriptions?

The value of all concepts is that they can be checked against reality and found whether they are true compared to it. If you are talking of a foundational concept like a first cause it means you can percieve of existence as a single thing so if you are a priest you look for a single hand in creation, or if a scientist, a single order; and these are both beyond proof.. Dogma is hard to live down. Once you have written truth in stone you have created an impediment to truth. And the fact is that we invest ourselves in our beliefs. The scientist is on more certain ground and it is a raft on quicksand. Since reality teaches them concepts their concepts must be true to reality.

I don't know about this one. If the whole premise of science is to uncover the unknown through reductionist observation, then how does one have faith in an overarching unknown? There are varying degrees of confidence in scientific knowledge from extreme confidence to no confidence -- but this is based on strength of data and nothing else.

Math, I'm afraid, does not suffice for me as an example of some immortal unifying order or even part of one. It's nothing more than a type of language, in fact a technical language. Pure math is divorced from applications, and applied math is used to describe particulars using its vocabulary. Math does not embody natural truths, because it is completely internally defined. 1+1=2 is not a statement of natural truth, it's simply a statement of equality in definition.

Look it as language then and what does it say: IS. one and one is two. It is full of statements of being, but why does it count what does not add up. Do you think all this matter wouldn't fit in a tea cup if the energy could be taken out? Math is a model for all of existence. Number is a universal form of comparison, once everything can be quantified. The problem is that the larger share of our lives cannot and so science does not work to properly explain anything, as in the moral world. I do not doubt there is a reason that can be found for what we do, but no objective measure. And to a large extent, religion is fueled in the moral world because churches all preach the prevailing morality.
allbeback.imback.

Science is concerned with a universal order only insofar as all experiments and observations are finite -- so there is an assumption of repeatability. However, most studies will statistically describe findings which is basically just a statement of certainty vs uncertainty. So the universal order you speak of has mainly to do with levels of statistical confidence.

Now I'm talking about the level of the scientific study and the generation of new data. The patchwork quilt that constitutes scientific theories, consenses, laws, etc, are also founded on evidence while using reason to draw all these data together. But even a law is finite if you question its basis enough, i.e. it's never really a law

I disagree. Scientific laws are laws par exellance. They are formulas of behavior. This effect will have that cause, and the cause will have that effect. Laws are no less than formulas, that if one follows then good will result. It is the formality of religion after all that led to alchemy and then to chemistry. It was once high science to burn a lamb to effect a friendly God, and there was no less a sense of cause and effect.

The scientist's search is reductionist -- it seeks to divide and divide and divide and describe those divisions. Science looks for processes, constituents, and forces by reduction -- it doesn't look for order. The farthest I'll go with you here is that a scientist needs to assume to some degree that findings are repeatable and therefore generalizable without actually repeating them. Is that really faith? Or is it a statement of confidence in our observations?

If science did not look for order it could not discover laws, and without predictability of outcome is could have no formula of behavior, no this before that, and no cause and effect.

I'm not sure what you mean here...


Like where? Were Copernicus and Galileo and Newton going after religion's goat? Was Darwin? Was Einstein? Was Heisenberg? Was Bohr? How is it the fault of science that religious explanations are inconsistent with what science observes? Science also devotes plenty of attention to things that don't challenge religion at all -- no one in religion has any opposition to the physiology of the retina or the biochemistry of photosynthesis.

Galileo certainly went after the Pope. The Pope correctly concluded that God being God could fashion reality after his own desires, and Calileo as much as called him an idiot. Galileo thought that what was true in physical reality was absolutely true, and infinitely true. And I see that all of science feels after this true thread in physics, as in laws as formulas of behavior, and why? The church accepts order believing we were created by a single creator. Science accepts order because order is how we learn of reality by taking obvious disorder and finding how it is governed. What if the order exists only within the limits of our space? What if the world is regularly destroyed and reformed, and when it is reformed it can reform after any fashion from entirely new parts and pieces? I think order is the ultimate presumption of both church and science.

I don't think I read the same journals that you do...

Sorry. I don't read journals at all except some odd law journal passed by my kid. I do read books, and I have read on many subjects. That does not mean I am not wrong but only that I doubt it.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

Look it as language then and what does it say: IS. one and one is two.

No, it says one plus one equals two. That's why you use a plus sign and an equals sign.

Furthermore, if you want to concentrate on the word is, you need to pick your definition of IS. This is not the IS of existence, and it's not the IS of predication, it's the IS of identity. The atomic meaning of this equation is self-contained and self-defining without any external reference. In other words, 1+1=2 is a circular argument.

If science did not look for order it could not discover laws, and without predictability of outcome is could have no formula of behavior, no this before that, and no cause and effect.

See, I think this is the difference between conducting science and philosophizing about science. I look at science from within, and the whole idea of looking for order and looking for universality is absent from everything I've seen. Scientists look for understanding, indeed look for fundamentals, but in reality the more you describe the more unanswered questions become revealed. In other words, the process of science continually reveals our lack of knowledge, more and more with every discovery. No final answer is ever final -- to discover that DNA is the genetic element answered a huge question, closed a book on an epoch, and opened up a million other questions that themselves spawn more questions. That's science from within. If science from without sees this as a search for order, it seems to me just idealism.

The presumption of repeatability in science is not based on faith in the constancy of physical laws. It's the other way around, i.e. the constancy of physical laws or even their possibility comes out of the probabilistic confidence of any set of observations.

I see that all of science feels after this true thread in physics, as in laws as formulas of behavior, and why?

Where do you see this?

Science accepts order because order is how we learn of reality by taking obvious disorder and finding how it is governed.

I don't agree with the idea of disorder here. Lack of knowledge is not disorder. It's just lack of knowledge. Science looks for components, or constituents -- this, specifically, is what data constitute.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aedes

No, it says one plus one equals two. That's why you use a plus sign and an equals sign.

Furthermore, if you want to concentrate on the word is, you need to pick your definition of IS. This is not the IS of existence, and it's not the IS of predication, it's the IS of identity. The atomic meaning of this equation is self-contained and self-defining without any external reference. In other words, 1+1=2 is a circular argument.

So one and one is not two? No wonder Bill Clinton could so easily confuse the population.

See, I think this is the difference between conducting science and philosophizing about science. I look at science from within, and the whole idea of looking for order and looking for universality is absent from everything I've seen. Scientists look for understanding, indeed look for fundamentals, but in reality the more you describe the more unanswered questions become revealed. In other words, the process of science continually reveals our lack of knowledge, more and more with every discovery. No final answer is ever final -- to discover that DNA is the genetic element answered a huge question, closed a book on an epoch, and opened up a million other questions that themselves spawn more questions. That's science from within. If science from without sees this as a search for order, it seems to me just idealism.

I don't see understanding without order, though there is sometimes order in time without any significance.

The presumption of repeatability in science is not based on faith in the constancy of physical laws. It's the other way around, i.e. the constancy of physical laws or even their possibility comes out of the probabilistic confidence of any set of observations.

What I see is that people learn by their knowledge when their knowledge pushes them to greater insight, but just as likely, looking for an order that is not there, when a whole different logical process is at work will blind people. It is not wrong to think reality does not behave rationally. but the rules of that rationale changes depending upon the focus, so that Nuetonian physics are still valid, as are the physics of Gallilaeo, but they do not explain Einstein's relativity, or nuclear physics.

Where do you see this?

Where do I see science feeling after the thread of truth? Always, but it is possible for knowlege to get in the way of understanding as when the ptolemaic universe became a difficult fossil that people dealt with because they could correct it, when a more elegant and true explaination would not require correction.

I don't agree with the idea of disorder here. Lack of knowledge is not disorder. It's just lack of knowledge. Science looks for components, or constituents -- this, specifically, is what data constitute.

Really? I look at every science text book I have, even on the moral sciences and the one thing they all do is systematize the subject. All bring order to apparant anarchy, and I am not saying that the order is not there. I am not denying that there may be one logical system that controls all logical systems. All I am saying is that science chips away at anarchy that presents itself as certain facts without cause or effect, and science seeks the cause and the effect. Data is like the many pieces of a jig saw puzzle, and when each piece of information can be put into a coherent whole then it can be concieved of as a idea, as opposed to so much data, some without meaning and some with much meaning.

[Aedes]

Originally Posted by Fido

So one and one is not two?

If by "and" you really men "plus", and using the verb "to be" you mean the is of identity, then yes, that is correct insofar as two can be defined by the sum of one and one. But remember that the verb "to be" has several meanings: identity (I am a human), predication (I am tired), and existence (there is life after death). When you use the "is" of identity, it is close to "equal" (though not necessarily -- because "I am human" is not a reciprocally true statement, where as 2=1+1 is).

However, a literal verbal reading of 1+1=2 is NOT "one and one is two", it is "one PLUS one EQUALS two".

Is it possible for 1+1 to not equal 2? Sure -- just redefine one symbol in that statement and it's no longer correct. There is nothing magical about those symbols.

It is not wrong to think reality does not behave rationally.

We assume rationality because it is the psychological mechanism that keeps our brain organized. But it is by no means our primary faculty, and the assumption of rationality in the world doesn't make it so. The world just is what it is, rational or not -- the rationality is our own projection.

but the rules of that rationale changes depending upon the focus, so that Nuetonian physics are still valid, as are the physics of Gallilaeo, but they do not explain Einstein's relativity, or nuclear physics.

Newtonian physics are still valid? They were never entirely valid even at the time Newton described them. Newton's predictions were inaccurate for the observed planetary orbits, he was inaccurate about the effect of gravity on light, he could not explain the equivalence principle, and he erroneously postulated that gravity was produced by motion (which he could not explain for planetary gravitation). While Newton's physics constituted a huge advance (certainly compared with Galileo, whose description was far less complete), nearly all of these problems were reconciled by general relativity and the introduction of curved space-time.

I look at every science text book I have, even on the moral sciences and the one thing they all do is systematize the subject. All bring order to apparant anarchy, and I am not saying that the order is not there.

For many sciences there are several parallel and competing ways of systematizing things. This is especially true in biology and medicine, where classical descriptions (using ultrastructure, anatomy, microscopy) have been supplanted by molecular taxonomy. Systematization might be intended to organize things according to a putative "ultimate", but it's often just done for cognitive convenience, i.e. ease of memorization and learning.

All I am saying is that science chips away at anarchy that presents itself as certain facts without cause or effect, and science seeks the cause and the effect. Data is like the many pieces of a jig saw puzzle, and when each piece of information can be put into a coherent whole then it can be concieved of as a idea, as opposed to so much data, some without meaning and some with much meaning.

I think we probably are saying the same thing, but we conceptualize it differently. I shy away from words like anarchy and order when regarding what we know or don't know. Data are not necessarily part of a jigsaw puzzle of truth -- they're part of a jigsaw puzzle of observation. I say this because data can be reinterpreted, supplemented, or overturned as our observational skills improve.

Medicine, of course, isn't a pure science by any means, but it certainly calls upon a lot of science. And people in medicine are fond of the saying:

"Half of what we know is right and half of what we know is wrong. The problem is we don't know which half is which."

[Fido]

I agree that we are saying much the same thing here, and in any event are beating a dead horse to a bloody pulp. Peece, and let's try again later.