False dichotomy - science or religion

[exchemist]

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.

That's not how read it. Isn't it just saying that science and religion have complementary functions and therefore do not need to conflict?

 

[Nakosis]

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.

I'm not saying people can't use religion as being part of whatever answer makes them feel comfortable. I just don't see why religion is necessary/needed for or as an answer. As you said, there may be other things as well used by people for answers. Some of them or none of them people may find necessary. Science is just a way to validate the answers. Folks who aren't concerned about validation can use whatever they wish.

 

[LuisDantas]

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.

I agree on general terms, but I think that there are a couple of significant points of disagreement.

One is that while it might be conceivable to have science without morality, that is hardly a problem in practice, because scientists are people and therefore have morality. It helps that scientific research needs a lot of cooperation, thereby enhancing the need and the ability to develop morality.

Religion proper is supposed to benefit from the same circunstance from an even greater degree, and often does... when it is not saddled with vices that it may impose on itself, such as dogmatism or theistic arrogance.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I agree on general terms, but I think that there are a couple of significant points of disagreement.

One is that while it might be conceivable to have science without morality, that is hardly a problem in practice, because scientists are people and therefore have morality. It helps that scientific research needs a lot of cooperation, thereby enhancing the need and the ability to develop morality.

Actually, that sounds more like we agree than differ. Science doesn't exist in a vacuum, and our decisions and morality (in practise, rather than theory) are always impacted to some degree by other considerations.

Religion proper is supposed to benefit from the same circunstance from an even greater degree, and often does... when it is not saddled with vices that it may impose on itself, such as dogmatism or theistic arrogance.

Here we differ, although I suspect it's how we formulate rather than in conclusion. Basically, I suppose religion can be almost anything, and don't really have a concept of what 'proper' religion is. But as with science, I don't think religion operates in a vacuum. The practical outcome is that religion (as science) is always combined with other considerations, to some degree.

 

[LuisDantas]

You may well be correct, @lewisnotmiller .

I do try to promote a view of religion that is somewhat less inclusive than most other atheists do.

 

[Marcion]

In some modernised spiritual paths this distinction between motivations of a purely rational or scientific origin and motivations driven from a preferred spiritual philosophy have become much more non-conflicting and more naturally blended. Religious dogmas are absent and the spiritual philosophy has become closely associated with real personal development that can actually be experienced.

People in the USA are losing interest in religious affiliation:
A closer look at America’s rapidly growing religious ‘nones’ | Pew Research Center

 

[Jim]

This doesn't seem isolated to any particular group, either.

So close, so close, to the needle in a hay stack that I'm looking for now.

 

[serp777]

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.

For me, that appears to assume a binary situation, where our motivations are driven by religious belief/faith, or by science.

I've never met, seen, or heard of anyone would ever claim that our motivations are determined by either science or religion. I would submit almost nobody thinks science and religion are a true dichotomy. Certain forms of religion are inconsistent with science, but i seriously doubt its a significant number of people who believe that.

But science without reference to morality is a path to eugenics, or Social Darwinism.

What evidence do you have to support this? Nothing in modern genetics, biology, etc could possibly suggest eugenics or social darwinism. In fact our evolution shows that its in our best interest to not implement social darwinism. So i don't know where you're getting this out dated idea. Many people are like "communists and nazis used science and were atheists! Therefore pure science means eugenics!" Not saying you're saying that exactly, but lots of people tend to go there.

 

[wellwisher]

Science is concerned with the hardware side of reality; that which can be perceived by the senses. Religion is concerned with brain software. The philosophy of science is designed to deal with hardware. It is not design to deal with the software side of the human brain. Science that attemots to deal with the software side is called soft science. Morality is about the operating system of the human brain.

As example of this contrast, say if I had a dream and I wanted to relate the dream details. This would not be considered provable, using the philosophy of science. Nobody could prove what I say I saw, and nobody could recreate this in the lab, in the exact way, that I relate it. Yet, we all have had dreams to know this is plausible.

Dreams are one example, where the philosophy of science breaks down, in terms of being able to deal with a common human reality and a scientific way. Dreams are not a hardware issue, per se. Science can see the impact of dreams on the hardware; REM and brain waves, but it can't directly see the output from the software, in the same level of detail, as the person who experiences the dream in the first person. There is a disconnect to science.

Religion deals with this software side, where science is not yet able to go. If I had a religious experience, that was generated by the software side of my brain, I would have an experience that can make physical changes to my memory, and create a lasting impression. This is real. However, there is no way for science to locate the exact change, other than take my word for it, which is not considered science.

Various concepts of God, in a loose sense, are analogous to the physics engines of game software, where the known laws of physics can be broken. Natural hardware cannot break the law of physics. My computer cannot break the laws of gravity. This is made possible, through simulation, via the software side. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith is software based, not hardware based.

It is possible to do make the software side subject to science, so science and religion are on the same page. The investigator would need to become both the scientist and the experiment, at the same time. If you could induce first hand experiences of the software, and remain objective to the experience, religion would become an aspect of science and science a tool of religion. This is the last frontier of science. However, it will require redesigning the philosophy of science to include software issues.

Science is not self sufficient, when it comes to its needed resources. Science is beholden to government and business for the lions share of its resources. Government is driven by politics and business is driven by money.

The needed resources of science, by coming from powerful benefactors, brings with it subjective obligations, which can add software issues to science. Science is not able to deal wth the software side. For example, PC politics makes it difficult for science to look under all rocks, and still get funding. The result is the overall data base, is made lopsided, even if each study is done by the book. Business will not fund any research that might alienate its customer base. Again good science is done where it is allowed, but the broader scope of science is made lopsided. This is a software issue that science cannot deal with, since it is beholden; game engine. Religion can see this easier since it deals in software issues.

A good example of this is male and female differ by an entire chromosome. However, politics, through resource allocation, has created the science illusion that men and women are the same. It funded only that which flatters the expected conclusion, while restricting resources to that which contradicts. Each study is done by the science book, but the lopsided studies, slants the overall conclusion to a fantasy world.

 

[Woberts]

Science is concerned with the hardware side of reality; that which can be perceived by the senses. Religion is concerned with brain software. The philosophy of science is designed to deal with hardware. It is not design to deal with the software side of the human brain. Science that attemots to deal with the software side is called soft science. Morality is about the operating system of the human brain.

As example of this contrast, say if I had a dream and I wanted to relate the dream details. This would not be considered provable, using the philosophy of science. Nobody could prove what I say I saw, and nobody could recreate this in the lab, in the exact way, that I relate it. Yet, we all have had dreams to know this is plausible.

Dreams are one example, where the philosophy of science breaks down, in terms of being able to deal with a common human reality and a scientific way. Dreams are not a hardware issue, per se. Science can see the impact of dreams on the hardware; REM and brain waves, but it can't directly see the output from the software, in the same level of detail, as the person who experiences the dream in the first person. There is a disconnect to science.

Religion deals with this software side, where science is not yet able to go. If I had a religious experience, that was generated by the software side of my brain, I would have an experience that can make physical changes to my memory, and create a lasting impression. This is real. However, there is no way for science to locate the exact change, other than take my word for it, which is not considered science.

Various concepts of God, in a loose sense, are analogous to the physics engines of game software, where the known laws of physics can be broken. Natural hardware cannot break the law of physics. My computer cannot break the laws of gravity. This is made possible, through simulation, via the software side. Faith is the belief in things not seen. Faith is software based, not hardware based.

It is possible to do make the software side subject to science, so science and religion are on the same page. The investigator would need to become both the scientist and the experiment, at the same time. If you could induce first hand experiences of the software, and remain objective to the experience, religion would become an aspect of science and science a tool of religion. This is the last frontier of science. However, it will require redesigning the philosophy of science to include software issues.

Science is not self sufficient, when it comes to its needed resources. Science is beholden to government and business for the lions share of its resources. Government is driven by politics and business is driven by money.

The needed resources of science, by coming from powerful benefactors, brings with it subjective obligations, which can add software issues to science. Science is not able to deal wth the software side. For example, PC politics makes it difficult for science to look under all rocks, and still get funding. The result is the overall data base, is made lopsided, even if each study is done by the book. Business will not fund any research that might alienate its customer base. Again good science is done where it is allowed, but the broader scope of science is made lopsided. This is a software issue that science cannot deal with, since it is beholden; game engine. Religion can see this easier since it deals in software issues.

A good example of this is male and female differ by an entire chromosome. However, politics, through resource allocation, has created the science illusion that men and women are the same. It funded only that which flatters the expected conclusion, while restricting resources to that which contradicts. Each study is done by the science book, but the lopsided studies, slants the overall conclusion to a fantasy world.

Religion isn't the "software side". If anything, it's more akin to the LED lights you slap on the side.
Not really necessary, and usually causes more problems than it fixes.

 

[wellwisher]

Religion isn't the "software side". If anything, it's more akin to the LED lights you slap on the side.
Not really necessary, and usually causes more problems than it fixes.

Dreams and visions are an important part of many religions.

Acts 2:17 "'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.

Both dreams and visions are an internal dynamics of the brain. God is not hardware but is spirit or software.

In religions, such as that of many tribes of the American Indian dreams and visions are the basis for their mythology and folk lore. They are naturally generated and teach lessons. The dreams and visions that persist and stand the test of time come from aspects of the brain's operating system.

Some forms of eastern and western religions use drugs to hear and see the gods. This approach was popular, back in the 1960's, as a way to witness alternate reality, which meant induce alternate perception of reality by the brain. In this case, a hardware tweak; drug, has an impact on how brain software operates.

It is easier to see hardware changes than software changes. Software requires knowledge of natural brain coding, which is the realm of religion. The philosophy of science could be altered to include brain software data, which would then build a bridge between the two orientations.