False dichotomy - science or religion

[Earthling]

I thought that this was an interesting perspective on the subject.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

The issue is not the data but the interpretation of the data

There is a difference also between science and scientism Scientism is a religion. Scientism is not as obviously a reliogus view as Scientology may be nevertheless is.

The Doxological Coda to Psalms

 

[exchemist]

I thought that this was an interesting perspective on the subject.

How does this address the subject of the thread, i.e. the issue of a false dichotomy?

 

[Earthling]

How does this address the subject of the thread, i.e. the issue of a false dichotomy?

Are you serious? Did you watch the video?

 

[exchemist]

Are you serious? Did you watch the video?

No. You presume too much on the time and patience of readers. If there's a decent point to be made, it should be possible to make it in words. What is the point being made?

 

[Quintessence]

It appears there are several false dichotomies perpetuated by culture, "science vs religion" being one of many. There are several other false dichotomies (or oversimplifications if one prefers) that feed into that one:

• Thinking vs. Feeling (aka, Reason vs. Intuition). This one feeds in to "science or religion" in that science is stereotyped as "thinking" or "reason" and religion is stereotyped as "feeling" or "intuition." All humans think and feel in tandem. Humans are fundamentally emotional animals that also are capable of reasoning. Most of the time humans operate via behavioral heuristics (aka, intuition) which can be paused when needed to put more critical thinking into something.
• Evidence vs Faith. As a general rule, humans place trust in something (aka, faith) because they have reason (aka, evidence) that leads them to do so. The reasons may not be viewed as particularly good ones, especially by third parties, but the reasons are present. Science gets cast as all about evidence with no faith involved; religion gets cast as all about faith with no evidence involved. Neither of these are true.
• Matter vs. Spirit. Science is seen as the domain of studying the natural world (matter), and religion the domain of studying the supernatural world (spirit). Neither of these poles are especially well-defined, and the dichotomy overlooks other ontological philosophies that do not hinge on such a dichotomy at all. Some assume there is only matter, some that there is only spirit, some that there are three or more fundamental substances.

There are others, but that's enough for the present. All that said, I think it's worth pointing out that some folks probably are simplistically driven. It's something I've had to learn working with many different kinds of students. There are the kids who are like me - who think too much for their own good and see all sorts of false dichotomies, gray areas, and complexity. And then there are the kids who aren't - who see things dichotomous terms, in black and white, and simplicity. While I can tell myself these kids "really" see the underlying complexity, the more likely truth is that many of them don't. They genuinely believe that, for example, science and religion are a dichotomy and that the two cannot operate in tandem. Who am I to say their perspective is wrong, I wonder?

 

[exchemist]

It appears there are several false dichotomies perpetuated by culture, "science vs religion" being one of many. There are several other false dichotomies (or oversimplifications if one prefers) that feed into that one:

• Thinking vs. Feeling (aka, Reason vs. Intuition). This one feeds in to "science or religion" in that science is stereotyped as "thinking" or "reason" and religion is stereotyped as "feeling" or "intuition." All humans think and feel in tandem. Humans are fundamentally emotional animals that also are capable of reasoning. Most of the time humans operate via behavioral heuristics (aka, intuition) which can be paused when needed to put more critical thinking into something.
• Evidence vs Faith. As a general rule, humans place trust in something (aka, faith) because they have reason (aka, evidence) that leads them to do so. The reasons may not be viewed as particularly good ones, especially by third parties, but the reasons are present. Science gets cast as all about evidence with no faith involved; religion gets cast as all about faith with no evidence involved. Neither of these are true.
• Matter vs. Spirit. Science is seen as the domain of studying the natural world (matter), and religion the domain of studying the supernatural world (spirit). Neither of these poles are especially well-defined, and the dichotomy overlooks other ontological philosophies that do not hinge on such a dichotomy at all. Some assume there is only matter, some that there is only spirit, some that there are three or more fundamental substances.

There are others, but that's enough for the present. All that said, I think it's worth pointing out that some folks probably are simplistically driven. It's something I've had to learn working with many different kinds of students. There are the kids who are like me - who think too much for their own good and see all sorts of false dichotomies, gray areas, and complexity. And then there are the kids who aren't - who see things dichotomous terms, in black and white, and simplicity. While I can tell myself these kids "really" see the underlying complexity, the more likely truth is that many of them don't. They genuinely believe that, for example, science and religion are a dichotomy and that the two cannot operate in tandem. Who am I to say their perspective is wrong, I wonder?

Someone older and wiser?

 

[dfnj]

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

People who put religious dogma above all else are not capable of admitting or recognizing their own beliefs as superstitions. People who put the dogma of scientism above all else do not believe anything that is done or could be done through the practice of science is immoral. Hence, we have millions of people pretending to be healed through faith. And we have weapons of mass destruction capable of wiping out the whole human race if ever the weapons were to be used.

It does seem to me people pretending to be healed through faith or talking to snakes is a less dangerous than Tsar Bomba.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

 

[exchemist]

People who put religious dogma above all else are not capable of admitting or recognizing their own beliefs as superstitions. People who put the dogma of scientism above all else do not believe anything that is done or could be done through the practice of science is immoral. Hence, we have millions of people pretending to be healed through faith. And we have weapons of mass destruction capable of wiping out the whole human race if ever the weapons were to be used.

It does seem to me people pretending to be healed through faith or talking to snakes is a less dangerous than Tsar Bomba.

NUKEMAP by Alex Wellerstein

Don't blame science or scientism for all the nukes. It wasn't scientists who devoted the money and effort to make them. It was you and I, through voting the way we did for our governments and paying our taxes. And due also to Stalin and his hideous successors, of course.

 

[dfnj]

I thought that this was an interesting perspective on the subject.

Absolutely brilliant talk.

 

[dfnj]

Don't blame science or scientism for all the nukes. It wasn't scientists who devoted the money and effort to make them. It was you and I, through voting the way we did for our governments and paying our taxes. And due also to Stalin and his hideous successors, of course.

I disagree with your opinion. In my opinion, scientists are responsible for making weapons of mass destruction. Putting scientism over transcendent morality has consequences.

 

[dfnj]

Are you serious? Did you watch the video?

That is exactly what I thought.

 

[Nakosis]

I've seen this in more than one place over time, but it was a thread by @PopeADope which prompted this OP. Not that I'm directly addressing anything he said, or even refuting anything in particular, just that his words got my creative juices flowing, so to speak.

In terms of motivations and beliefs, I have often seen some reductionist assumptions used. This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.
For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science. It's not often stated as baldly as that, and I'm not suggesting that's universal, but thought it worth throwing up an OP on this.

To me, nobody seems so simplistically driven.
It would take an extreme (dare I say broken) psyche to base decisions and morality only on religious dogma, and not reference science. Simplistically, this is a path to religious fundamentalism (at best).
But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

Happily, this doesn't seem much more than a straw-man, near as I can tell. Our motivations are never purely scientific/rationale, and nor are they purely religious. Taking it one step further, they are never even a mix of the two. There are lots of things at play when we make decisions, and in how we determine morality, and neither religion, nor science, nor BOTH can explain that fully.

In terms of an OP, I'm aware that's a little closed, but I'd be interested in any disagreements, or comments around this entire area. Consider it a loose proposition.

Morality is too unpredictable for science to deal with atm. Morality is about feelings and what drives our feelings is very complex. Religion of course can drive our feelings. It's a tool I suppose to manipulate our feelings in a general direction.
Fiction drives our feelings, art, music, poetry. Simple words can drive our feelings. Religion has these things in abundance.

While I don't see religion as being necessary, it's been the goto for these feeling drivers for thousands of years.

Science on the other hand does its best to stick with facts. Facts drive us rationally, not emotionally.

The subconscious mind is not rational, it is emotion driven. It also for the most part dominates our conscious thinking. Religion caters to the subconscious mind. Science doesn't.

 

[exchemist]

I disagree with your opinion. In my opinion, scientists are responsible for making weapons of mass destruction. Putting scientism over transcendent morality has consequences.

Do you blame Rudolf Diesel and Nikolaus Otto for global warming, then, rather than the people who built, and the people who bought, motor vehicles?

 

[exchemist]

Are you serious? Did you watch the video?

OK, in view of dfnj's remarks I have now watched it. It says nothing about the subject of the thread, so far as I can see. He just argues (rather badly and repetitively) a case that claims one needs religion for morality and that therefore, in his opinion, atheism is A Bad Thing. It says nothing at all about science, so far as I can see.

If you think it addresses the subject of this thread, you will need to explain how.

 

[Quintessence]

Someone older and wiser?

Not how I would frame it - such words carry the assumption that some perspective is "correct" and the other is "incorrect." Dichotomies (or lack thereof) are constructs and while constructed with reason, are essentially arbitrary. They are maps of territory.

 

[Vee]

As someone who deeply believes in God's existence, I see science as a gift. Humans are curious. We want to know the how's ans why's and what if's. That curiosity lead to some amazing discoveries and inventions and I believe we're only getting started.
Science and religion don't have to be enemies. On the contrary, they both have positive things to give us, just not the same things. Like Ellen pointed out, different tools.

 

[exchemist]

Not how I would frame it - such words carry the assumption that some perspective is "correct" and the other is "incorrect." Dichotomies (or lack thereof) are constructs and while constructed with reason, are essentially arbitrary. They are maps of territory.

You are commendably modest.

But I take a less relativist position on this. It seems evident to me that the dichotomy in question is demonstrably false, due to the existence of coherent versions of major religions (Judaism and Christianity being two examples) that are in harmony with science.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Morality is too unpredictable for science to deal with atm. Morality is about feelings and what drives our feelings is very complex. Religion of course can drive our feelings. It's a tool I suppose to manipulate our feelings in a general direction.
Fiction drives our feelings, art, music, poetry. Simple words can drive our feelings. Religion has these things in abundance.

While I don't see religion as being necessary, it's been the goto for these feeling drivers for thousands of years.

Science on the other hand does its best to stick with facts. Facts drive us rationally, not emotionally.

The subconscious mind is not rational, it is emotion driven. It also for the most part dominates our conscious thinking. Religion caters to the subconscious mind. Science doesn't.

You appear to be playing into the false dichotomy I'm talking about though. Why does science OR religion need to be the answer? It can be .both, but it can also be other things entirely.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Not how I would frame it - such words carry the assumption that some perspective is "correct" and the other is "incorrect." Dichotomies (or lack thereof) are constructs and while constructed with reason, are essentially arbitrary. They are maps of territory.

In terms of thinking being 'right' or 'wrong', I would agree. But not all thinking is of equal value. Or, if you prefer, not all grey is the same shade.

Else learning becomes impossible.