I stand accused of worshipping science as a god

[Kelvin Mace]

I am having a very civil and polite debate with a loved one who is Christian (of the sensible variety, a rarity these days).

My basic view is that cynicism and skepticism will serve you far better than blind faith every time, so I put my faith in science as opposed to "holy writ".

Religious people are used to getting pat, unequivocal answers, because sacred writ is considered infallible, and thus answers all questions. If you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent being, then all questions can pretty much be answered "Because God said so".These folks grossly misunderstand science and view it as unreliable since it can, and DOES change. To ask another after your question has been officially answered with the "supreme answer" (God said it, I believe it. That settles it.), is to commit heresy.

Science is all about the next question.

To which she responded:

You have to realize that "Science" is a god (not an objective concept), also. And one perfectly capable of being "wrong". It is as culpable to the people who create it as religion is.

This took me a bit aback and I had to think about my view of science and ask myself to honestly consider whether this was the case. After careful deliberation, I answered thus:

I don''t see science as a god. Gods by their very nature are omnipotent, omniscient, and almost always infallible, which science is not. Science is the construct of imperfect humans attempting to infer a rational explanation for perceived reality. Science is a tool, used to build other tools, to measure, study, and adjust that reality.

The infallibility of God is the main tenant of most religions, and is taken as a 100% certainty by adherents, but which is demonstrably false by any rational and objective study of God.

Ultimately the defining difference between science and religion is that science can postulate and accept the possible existence of an imperfect god, religion cannot.

The common criticism I hear of atheism is that there can never honestly be a "true atheist" since we can't "disprove God". At best, I can only be an agnostic.

My view is that while I cannot "disprove God" I can show that the God being sold to the masses by most religions cannot be infallible, omnipotent, omniscient and just, since these traits are self-contradictory in any realistic application or existence.

To me, God, as presented by believers, is like the pseudo-paradox of the irresistible force/immovable object. If you postulate an irresistible force, then by definition, nothing in the universe may resist it. If you postulate an immovable object, then by definition, no force in the universe may move it. As soon as you establish either criterion, you exclude the possible existence of the other. You can't set up mutually contradicting givens, then declare it an insoluble "paradox".

By the same token, you cannot have a god who is simultaneously all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, and all just, then declare that anyone who doesn't "understand" this god simply does not, or cannot know the "mind of god", or comprehend his existence with our "limited" human mind.

Your thoughts?

[JuniperLea]

1. Scientists argue every bit as bitterly as theologians and others...

History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men.

They argued about a round Earth, the beginnings of the Universe, the content of the Cosmos, the Theory of Relativity, Fractal Geometry, and now String Theory. Scientists can be very petty. So can religious people. I prefer spiritual people.

[darkstar3]

8. But argument is not just expected in science, it is required.

Scientific arguments are how we make progress. They are how we separate fact from hypothesis. This is very different from religion, where arguments are undesired and often quashed as heresies.

[JuniperLea]

11. And sometimes scientific argument is ego driven and wrong...

Have you read any of the recent arguments about fractal geometry and string theory? You'd think the debate was among 6th graders.

[darkstar3]

15. What's your point?

The tone of the argument is irrelevant.

[JuniperLea]

25. Uhhh... the point is simple...

Scientists are human too, and they argue over stupid things because of pride and ego.

[edhopper]

26. Which is why the scientific method

ultimately moves toward the truth because it works in spite of human foibles.

[darkstar3]

30. Thank you. n/t

[JuniperLea]

41. my point is...

Science and fact have been hindered by human ego. What is deemed fact today can become tomorrow's flat Earth.

[edhopper]

45. No, not really

I'll quote Ricky Gervais;
"The fact that science can say “we don’t know” is exactly my point. Science doesn’t start with a set of convenient conclusions and try to justify them. It follows evidence. In fact, it tries to prove itself wrong. When it can’t, it’s right. Superstition, religion and blind faith cherry pick the evidence and justify the results by changing the goal posts. There are no cover-ups in science. For better or worse it finds stuff out."

[skepticscott]

53. The important thing about science

and what distinguishes it from religion, is there is actually something that CAN be hindered, namely progress towards a better understanding of the physical world. And as others have pointed out, it still does make measurable progress towards that goal, because the process of science really does work in doing what it claims, despite all human foibles. Religion makes no progress towards knowledge, understanding, or much of anything else, except, if history is any indication, padding the coffers of those in control of the sheep.

[TZ]

65. I suggest you take a course and learn about the scientific method

before you leap to conclusions and make judgements based on what you believe. Oh wait, you have religion to do that for you..:sarcasm:

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. No, I wouldn't. -nt

[TZ]

64. Last time I CHECKED

no scientist was busy trying to tell YOU how to think, or re writing LAWS so that you have to believe everything they say!
Good grief, yeah, scientists are human, but I tell you what they are BY FAR the most rational, tolerant and intelligent people I know..But hey, if you want to choose people to admire, Sarah Palin, Pat Robertson,James Dobson, Billy Graham, over someone like Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan,Jonas Salk, I suppose you are welcome to. HOORAY for ignorance and intolerance! That beats out the occasional childish squabble in my book!!! :sarcasm:

[pokerfan]

29. But isn't that the strength of science?

That everything is subject to scrutiny? Answers that can't be questioned (religion) vs. questions that may or may not have answers? Yeah, science is done by humans and humans are fallible but, in the end, after all the arguing, the proof is in the testing.

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion." (Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address)

"I can live with doubt, and uncertainty, and not knowing. I think it's much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers, and possible beliefs, and different degrees of certainty about different things, but I’m not absolutely sure of anything, and in many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here, and what the question might mean. I might think about a little, but if I can’t figure it out, then I go to something else. But I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened by not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without having any purpose, which is the way it really is, as far as I can tell, possibly. It doesn’t frighten me."(Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out)

See also http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm">The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.

[Deep13]

62. Their arguments are based of evidence.

Scientists can have the same personal shortcomings as anyone else. Nevertheless, as a group they accept the primacy of objective evidence and science as a system relies on it. The issues you mention are pretty significant and it is important to find the right answers.

This has nothing to do with whether or not science is worshipped as a god. It isn't. Gods are beings and supernatural by definition. Science is a process that one does, not an object of worship.

[Laelth]

2. I see science as a "religion" in the sense that people invest their faith in it.

In fact, I would argue (as did Nietzsche) that science is the dominant religion of the Western world--proved by the fact that it is invisible as a religion. As soon as a belief system shows up as a religion (when we think of it as a religion and not just "the truth"), then you know that said religion is effectively dead. It no longer holds sway. It is vestigial. Christianity, in the West, is no longer the dominant religion. It has vestigial remnants only.

Proof: when people are sick they go to see the high priests of science (doctors) and not their local christian priests. When push comes to shove, on the issues that really matter, most of us "believe" in science, not some vestigial religion that we may or may not claim.

But your friend is right to say that science is as fallible as any other religion. History proves that. Science's strength is hat it is less dogmatic. Science can change its doctrine rapidly compared to other religions.

-Laelth

[darkstar3]

10. If you actually think that, then you need to be lectured all day.

We would first start with the different idiomatic uses of the words "faith" and "believe", so that you could understand that it is impossible to have religious faith in things that are not religions. Then we would progress to the difference between science and religion, explaining how the two approach worldly problems from diametrically opposed positions. Finally, we could investigate how comparing doctors to priests is a lot like comparing jetliners to oranges.

But seriously, if you don't have an inkling of this already, it would take more than a day of lecture to get it through to you.

[Laelth]

12. You are a good proselytizer for your religion.

But you are wasting your time trying to sway me. I am already a believer.

-Laelth

[darkstar3]

16. Has it ever occured to you or anyone

That referring to science as a religion in some snarky attempt at insult damages only religion?

[Laelth]

22. Well, I am not defending religion.

So, honestly, no. That hadn't occured to me, nor was it my intent. Not that harming religion would bother me. I am not invested one way or the other.

But I will note that those who fiercely deny that science is a religion are proving Nietzsche's point--that the dominant religion is invisible as a religion. That's how you know it's dominant. People don't realize (and refuse to even consider) that what they believe is a religion.

Or so Nietzsche argued. fwiw

-Laelth

[darkstar3]

31. There you go misusing the word "believe" again.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Where are the tree lobsters when you need them?

Some serious scientific molestation going on in this thread...:D

[darkstar3]

34. Agreed...

but I couldn't decide which toon to post. So many of them are relevant here.

[treelobsters]

59. Hmm, I don't think I have anything specific for this.

I'll see if I can come up with something for Monday's comic.

[Kelvin Mace]

48. Agreed

I don't have "faith" in science, I have trust in science. Trust is earned by empirical acts. Faith is simply belief based on heresay.

[Odin2005]

21. You are confusing worldview with religion.

It was a shift from a religious worldview to a secular worldview.

[Laelth]

23. Tell that to Nietzsche.

I was just explaining his theory that science is now the dominant religion of the Western world. It's a good argument, if you're interested.

-Laelth

[Odin2005]

24. It's a misuse of the term "religion".

Science does not rely on dogmas taken by blind faith.

[Laelth]

27. Well I'm glad I have a walking OED to tell me these things.

:lol:

No, it's a theory about the nature of science. It shares a lot of characteristics with traditional religions. One could even argue that it is a religion.

If you have a problem with that, take it up with Nietzsche.

-Laelth

[darkstar3]

32. If Nietzsche is your only reason for harping on this point,

let me congratulate you on nailing another logical fallacy...

[beam me up scottie]

33. She obviously worships her own unique definition of science with Nietzsche as the high priest.

"I am already a believer."

IT'S ANOTHER NEW RELIGION!!!1!

[Kelvin Mace]

50. Well, as you have mentioned the OED

Religion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:


Science

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.


Please note the absence of the word "belief" in science, and its presence in religion.

[Kelvin Mace]

49. Hmmmm

Well, that's his theory, could I have some empirical facts to back it up?

I am unaware of any scientific body that has ritualized behavior or prays to science, expecting deliverance. Science can provide enlightenment, but only to those who trouble themselves to think.

[Kelvin Mace]

35. Sorry, I must disagree

Proof: when people are sick they go to see the high priests of science (doctors) and not their local christian priests. When push comes to shove, on the issues that really matter, most of us "believe" in science, not some vestigial religion that we may or may not claim.

I don't see this as proof that science is a religion. People go to doctors because doctors have a far better track record for healing people than holy men. The reason they have a better track record is that science is a continuing process of answering questions, and seeking answers to the new questions that arrive from the answers. Science is about constantly seeking better ways.

Religion is rigid. Questions are given pat answers, and when the pat answers are shown to be wanting, the questioner is accused of lacking faith, so that is why he doesn't understand the answer. Religion is circular reasoning, whereas science doesn't allow circular reasoning.

As flawed as humans are, the best answer will eventually become accepted, and science will evolve. We have sects within Christianity that have only got around to admitting slavery was a bad idea in the 90s.

[Warpy]

3. I guess completely god centered people are incapable

of seeing any interest outside their god as being a competing, false god.

She's showing you the severe limitation of her own mind.

Human activity is not an idol of any type and engaging in human activity is not necessarily worship.

I never saw anybody setting up candles and flowers on lab benches at MIT, anyway.

[JuniperLea]

13. How about prayer to a Pagan Goddess before a scientific conference?

Cancun talks start with a call to the gods
By Juliet Eilperin
With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it's no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also "the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you -- because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools."

She called for "a balanced outcome" which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with "the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts."


U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres places a building block in a miniature Mayan pyramid at the site of climate negotiations in Cancun, Mexico, Sunday, Nov. 28, 2010. The "Pyramid of Hope" monument was erected by the TckTckTck climate awareness campaign to symbolize the many building blocks needed for a new climate agreement. (AP Photo/Karl Ritter)"Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skilful interlacing of many threads," said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. "I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/post-carbon/2010/11/cancun_talks_start_with_a_call.html

I don't think it was taken seriously but done more to make a point and to inspire, but still...

[Kelvin Mace]

36. Modern religion is given a pass on behavior

which is not tolerated in any other context. If a person tells me that they pray to Odin and that he "speaks to them", we size up that person as a candidate for the psych ward.

Substitute "The Holy Spirit" for "Odin" and suggesting that they person be evaluated is "an insult to their religion".

[Bad Thoughts]

4. "Gods by their very nature are omnipotent, omniscient, and almost always infallible..." No.

You are using a specifically Greco-Christian conception of religion and divinity.

[foxfeet]

17. +1 for common sense.

[Kelvin Mace]

37. We have in essence

replaced the logically more realistic gods (flawed, capricious, lusty, vindictive) of the past, with the modern god who is all of these things, according to the evidence of holy writ, AND "omnipotent, omniscient, and almost always infallible" This god is logically impossible.

[Bad Thoughts]

44. Logically circular

The qualities that you describe were developed by philosphers--Neo-Platonists--as the Greco-Roman world of the 2nd-4th centuries were inclining toward a more dogmatic and ideological view of religion. The fact that they insisted that any 'real' god be "omnipotent, omniscient, and almost always infallible" forced almost all belief systems in the Western World (not just Christianity) to remake their deities on the basis of these qualities. Christianity certainly fell hard for it, creating contradictions between late theology and textual sources. Within Christianity, the deity with personality always remains under the surface, percolating to the top when necessary. However, that's more about Christianity as other faiths/belief systems haven't embraced deities with eternal qualities or one side of a dualistic moral matrix.

[skepticscott]

54. Not even that

The Greek gods were in no way omnipotent or omniscient. But how this person knows what "the very nature" of "gods" is, is certainly a mystery.

[FiveGoodMen]

5. Science is an educated guess.

Faith is an uneducated one.

[Kelvin Mace]

51. I would say

that science is a systematic process to determine the truth.

Faith is simply accepting a "truth" based on heresay evidence.

[skepticscott]

55. Apparently science has done a bit more

than "guess" at how to get your computer to work. If science were nothing but a "guess" very little of what you see and experience every day would be possible.

Care to try for a less foolish characterization?

[FiveGoodMen]

56. You can argue with the word choice if you like, but there will always be room

for someone to argue that guesswork is involved.

Better to focus on educated rather than guess.

Consider your haughty derision to be fully returned.

[skepticscott]

57. There will always be room

for people to espouse all sorts of unfounded opinions, but that lends nothing to their validity. And you did not say that guesswork is "involved". You said quite plainly (and ridiculously, with no facts to back you up) that science IS an educated guess. Perhaps when you can actually justify that statement, you might be taken seriously. Until then, you've returned nothing.

[FiveGoodMen]

58. Many things that science has discovered have been confirmed to the point

that they are virtually unassailable now.

But, they all started out as guesses and many still are.

The main thing that distinguishes science from other attempts to know what's what is that experiments are performed to confirm what has been guessed.

I will put my love for science and its methodology up against anyone's.

You, on the other hand are rude beyond excuse.

Fuck off and die.

[skepticscott]

60. You still have provided NO justification

for your description of science as "guesses", at any point in the process. If demanding that you provide concrete evidence and examples to back up your claims is "rudeness", then I unapologetically plead guilty. And if you're put off by a disparaging attitude towards your injection of rank foolishness into the discussion, too bad. Without evidence, your statements deserve no better.

You may claim to love science and its methodology, but you understand it very poorly if this is how you characterize it.

[skepticscott]

61. Apparently your "love" for science and its methods

not to mention rational inquiry in general, is so deep that when asked to provide evidence to back up your claims, you refuse to provide it, and instead regard "Fuck off and die" as the most appropriate response and the final word on things. Good luck getting at the truth of anything that way.

[KansDem]

6. Religion is myth

Religion and myth had essentially the same definition: Both rely on the supernatural to support a worldview.

Science relies on empirical observation and replication to arrive at answers.

Science can be wrong; in fact peer review is encouraged. I've never heard of science being a "god" because of its potential for fallibility. Religion, on the other hand, is never "wrong." Mythical gods are infallible, unless you are studying Greek mythology. But contemporary Christian myth does not accept a fallible god.

[WiffenPoof]

7. Excellent Post!

I would only add that the burden of proof is with the theist not the atheist.

-PLA

[Name removed]

9. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

14. That's actually a pretty standard straw man.

You see, if believers can somehow twist science into nothing more than a belief, or in her case a god, then they can flatly state that there is no way this belief is superior to their own. Their god is better than all other gods, as they have been learning and repeating since childhood, so all they need to do to discount science and its clearly opposed position to faith is find a way to characterize it as a god.

[Jim__]

19. She made assumptions about science and you made assumptions about religion.

As in:

Religious people are used to getting pat, unequivocal answers, because sacred writ is considered infallible, and thus answers all questions.

I'm not religious, but I talk to a lot of religious people and none of them have ever come off that way to me.

And, of course:

You have to realize that "Science" is a god (not an objective concept), also.

is as incorrect about science as your remark was about religion.

[Kelvin Mace]

38. Then we have met different people

I was raised Catholic, and church doctrine is built upon very rigid dogma, and questions have specific rote answers. Certainly there have been liberal elements in the church, but they are eventually driven out. In the 60's the church started to move forward. In the last 30 years it has steadily regressed.

I also live in the South, and am exposed to many of Catholicism's splinter sects, which have splintered from splinter groups.

Their view is mostly "God said it. I believe it. That settles it!". Certainly Unitarians, Quakers, and some Episcopalians, can be more open minded, but they are NOT the people wielding the "Christian banner", so to speak. There used to be a very progressive Christian Left in this country, but they have pretty much ceded the title to the extremists.

[trotsky]

40. You'll find that such beliefs are common among many liberal believers..

and their "faitheist" defenders. Not only do I share your experiences with the nature of most people's beliefs, but survey after survey back up our experiences, not theirs. The large majority of this country are bible-believing Christians who want set, pat answers and believe their bible gives exactly that.

[Jim__]

42. I'm sure we have met different people. However, your statement was generic.

Religious people are used to getting pat, unequivocal answers, because sacred writ is considered infallible, and thus answers all questions.

So, the people I've met that it doesn't apply to, are sufficient to render your statement false.

[Kelvin Mace]

46. Then I correct my statement

According to the Pew Foundation there are 1 billion Catholics in the world. According to the World Evangelical Alliance there are 420 million evangelical Christians in the world. According to the LDS Church, there are 13.8 million Mormons in the World. The CIA World Fact book puts the total world Christian population at 2.2 billion, which means my observation is correct for almost 2/3s of Christianity and 24% of the world's population.

So, I correct my statement to:

Most Christians are used to getting pat, unequivocal answers, because sacred writ is considered infallible, and thus answers all questions.

[Odin2005]

20. Atheism is LACK OF BELIEF in God, not "disproving god".

[DeSwiss]

39. Another pitiful attempt.....

...by religion to brighten its sullied and tarnished reputation by trying to have itself comparably aligned next to science. Nice try.

- K&R

[Kelvin Mace]

47. Well, I would not characterize my friend

as scheming to that level. She rejects fundamentalist biblical interpretations.

In my experience there are three kinds of Christians:

1) Contemplative: This group rejects literal and rigid dogma, and are more interested in the "good works" aspect of Christian teaching. They were the core of the Christian Left during the Vietnam/Civil Rights Era. Theirs is a compassionate and benevolent God. People have the right to choose their own path to God.

2) Coercive: Almost the mirror opposite of the Contemplative Christian, their dogma is ironclad, unquestionable, and their view of morality is binary. Something is either a sin, or not a sin. There are no gray areas. Theirs is a jealous, vindictive and merciless God. Theirs is the only path to God, and all others are damned. As such, conversion is a major force in their movement. Pray. Pay. Obey. Convert.

3) Rote: These people attach themselves to a church but never really think about the ramifications of their faith beyond how it affects them. Church is a place they go to, part of their social culture, and bound by ritual that becomes ingrained is the psyche. Theirs is a distant God, who only comes into focus during times of personal crisis.

I can work with #1, but not #2. #3 can be worked with as long as I don't push them to actually think about their beliefs and the rituals they perform. This makes them uncomfortable, and they shy away. They really don't like the other two groups. Contemplatives, because they think a lot; Coercives because the demand a lot, are confrontational, and view the Bible as a kind of universal "X for Dummies".

My friend is a Contemplative Christian. She feels Christianity is not something to be endlessly debated, but something to be practiced, and by practice, she means showing compassion, love and mercy for her brothers and sisters, regardless of their beliefs.

[jeepnstein]

43. It's an apples and oranges kind of thing.

Any scientist who advanced a theory without rock solid data that could withstand the merciless scrutiny of his peers would quickly find himself unemployed. Scientists often view every aspect of their lives through the lens of the Scientific Method. For some the Scientific Method has to be so firmly adhered to as to resemble a religion. Difference is, in science nothing is sacred.

Any religious believer who stated that they had tangible evidence of the existence of God, well, they'd be lying. It'll never happen unless God chooses to reveal the evidence. The Bible is a history of the Hebrew people, of sorts, of the times when the rules of nature got monkeyed with just a wee bit. A religious believer will accept that these events are the exception and not the norm. Talking donkeys, flaming swords, pillars of salt, manna; the list goes on and on. So we have religion, which states that the laws of nature can be broken by the One who wrote the laws.

It's up to you to decide for yourself. I know scientists who are quite religious. I also know believers who have no problem with the Scientific Method. And then you have people who just go out of their way to stir up conflict where none needs to exist.

[Lost-in-FL]

52. Religion can benefit from science too.

[Deep13]

63. Some people can't understand that one can live well without religious belief.

We MUST believe in SOMETHING. Well sure, we believe in a lot of things, but supernatural beings that control the universe and our lives are not among them.

[immoderate]

66. It works like this: there are believers and there are skeptics. Not much crossover.

The tendency to have core beliefs, those beliefs which cannot ever be false, is rooted in the personality, deeper than the conscious mind. It is no more subject to logic than favorite flavor of ice cream, or sexual orientation, or political predilection.

A true believer cannot perceive anything that falsifies his central core beliefs. These are assimilated into the structure of the personality. When you attack that you are aiming a death blow at the "heart" of the self, and the person will fight with every conceivable defense. It's do or die. Most time they will start by deflecting the issue like saying, "Your belief is a religion too!" No matter how cleverly you retort, your attack has been deflected. Believer scores this as a win.

If you can keep them on the subject, you will get a string of behaviors that will satisfy an MSW thesis. Repression, regression, denial, projection, and a pantheon of others. you will also get the litany of fallacies trying to fend off the attack.

Anyway logic doesn't work. Wait until god really fucks them over, then -- offer counsel? :shrug:

--imm