Science = Atheistic?

[logician]

IMO, one doesn't need religion to answer these questions. However, traditionally, this hasn't stopped religions from not only attempting to answer it, but investing heavily in the answers they give.


Do you think there isn't an overlap on these questions?

- they are within the purview of scientific inquiry. We can come up with testable, falsifiable hypotheses that work toward answers to these questions, as well as testable, falsifiable hypotheses that would contradict other answers to them.

- at the same time, they're within the traditional domain of religion. In fact, many religions make these questions absolutely central and fundamental to their entire belief systems.

AFAICT, there are only two ways that we could create a system where the domains of science and religion don't overlap on these issues:

- arbitrarily limit science by setting up and enforcing artificial boundaries: "technically you could investigate this, but we're not going to let you."

- reduce the domain of religion to a shadow of what it traditionally has been: "well, I know that our church used to say all sorts of stuff about God creating the world, answering prayers and talking to prophets, but we've decided that we don't want to say anything that could ever be proven wrong by science, so now all that's off-limits."

Both of these would be tremendous changes from the status quo, where religion and science conflict all the time.

Still didn't asnwer my question, just because religion ATTEMPTS to answer said questions doesn't mean they are NEEDED to answer said questions.

 

[Willamena]

All right... if science and religion are non-overlapping, then which one gets to answer these two questions?

How did the universe come into being?

Can a person's intelligence or consciousness survive the death of the person's body?

Can't they both answer it, from distinct perspectives?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Still didn't asnwer my question, just because religion ATTEMPTS to answer said questions doesn't mean they are NEEDED to answer said questions.

And I think you missed my point: whether religion is needed to answer these questions is irrelevant.

The question of whether religion and science have to overlap is distinct from the question of whether they actually do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Can't they both answer it, from distinct perspectives?

They can do whatever they want. However, if the "distinct perspective" of religion in this arrangement includes making factual claims, then it overlaps with the domain of science.

The only way to get rid of this overlap (without arbitrarily hampering science) is to not include any factual claims in the religious perspective. If this works for you, fine, but as I said before, this would mean that religion would shrink to a domain that's tiny compared to the territory it traditionally claims.

Now... I should probably point out that I haven't said that religions have to shrink their domain or stop making factual claims about physical reality within the context of their religion. If they want to do that, it's their prerogative. However, it's simply not consistent to do this while also saying that the religious domain and the scientific domain don't overlap.

IMO, when someone claims NOMA, there's one of three possibilities:

- the person thinks that the rightful domain of religion should be shrunk significantly from what people typically consider it to be.

- based on a misunderstanding of either science or religion, the person doesn't think that science will be ever capable of asking questions about the tenets of their faith.

- the person thinks that artificial limitations should be placed on science to prevent it from investigating subject matter that's typically considered to be "religious" in nature.

In my experience, the first option isn't usually considered acceptable by people who are heavily emotionally invested in religion. I think many religious people fall into the second category, but my worry is that because it is based on a false assumption, it will end up devolving into the third option if they don't abandon the idea of NOMA.

We've seen this over and over again, IMO. Most recently, with the evolution/creationism "controversy": we have people who are unwilling to acknowledge the idea that there might be a conflict between their beliefs and science, while also being unwilling to abandon their religious ideas. This results in science being pushed aside.

I think what you describe is a variation of the first option: grant religion and science "different perspectives", and cede factual matters of physical reality to science. However, as I said, I think this leaves religion with only a fraction of its traditional territory, and IMO, this is a change that many, many religious people won't accept.

 

[Willamena]

They can do whatever they want. However, if the "distinct perspective" of religion in this arrangement includes making factual claims, then it overlaps with the domain of science.

The only way to get rid of this overlap (without arbitrarily hampering science) is to not include any factual claims in the religious perspective. If this works for you, fine, but as I said before, this would mean that religion would shrink to a domain that's tiny compared to the territory it traditionally claims.

Now... I should probably point out that I haven't said that religions have to shrink their domain or stop making factual claims about physical reality within the context of their religion. If they want to do that, it's their prerogative. However, it's simply not consistent to do this while also saying that the religious domain and the scientific domain don't overlap.

IMO, when someone claims NOMA, there's one of three possibilities:

- the person thinks that the rightful domain of religion should be shrunk significantly from what people typically consider it to be.

- based on a misunderstanding of either science or religion, the person doesn't think that science will be ever capable of asking questions about the tenets of their faith.

- the person thinks that artificial limitations should be placed on science to prevent it from investigating subject matter that's typically considered to be "religious" in nature.

In my experience, the first option isn't usually considered acceptable by people who are heavily emotionally invested in religion. I think many religious people fall into the second category, but my worry is that because it is based on a false assumption, it will end up devolving into the third option if they don't abandon the idea of NOMA.

We've seen this over and over again, IMO. Most recently, with the evolution/creationism "controversy": we have people who are unwilling to acknowledge the idea that there might be a conflict between their beliefs and science, while also being unwilling to abandon their religious ideas. This results in science being pushed aside.

I think what you describe is a variation of the first option: grant religion and science "different perspectives", and cede factual matters of physical reality to science. However, as I said, I think this leaves religion with only a fraction of its traditional territory, and IMO, this is a change that many, many religious people won't accept.

I haven't read Gould, but it seems to me (from Wikipedia) that when he stresses that "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm," that he is also stressing that the magisterium of religion does not. He allegedly describes the latter as covering "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value." His NOMA is talking about granting religion and science their relative, and relevant, perspectives.

Therefore, the facts described by, for instance, the seven day creation, do not have to be taken literally (where the empirical would reign). A symbolic seven day creation equally portrays facts, though nonliterally and not the same facts. It seems to me that the "overlap" described earlier is two disciplines addressing an issue from two distinct perspectives, each magisterium holding "the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution."

I disagree that that leaves religion with only a fraction of its original territory, as I don't think that the literal interpretation is it's original territory. I see it as opening a much wider playing field.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I haven't read Gould, but it seems to me (from Wikipedia) that when he stresses that "the magisterium of science covers the empirical realm," that he is also stressing that the magisterium of religion does not. He allegedly describes the latter as covering "questions of ultimate meaning and moral value." His NOMA is talking about granting religion and science their relative, and relevant, perspectives.

Therefore, the facts described by, for instance, the seven day creation, do not have to be taken literally (where the empirical would reign). A symbolic seven day creation equally portrays facts, though nonliterally and not the same facts. It seems to me that the "overlap" described earlier is two disciplines addressing an issue from two distinct perspectives, each magisterium holding "the appropriate tools for meaningful discourse and resolution."

I disagree that that leaves religion with only a fraction of its original territory, as I don't think that the literal interpretation is it's original territory. I see it as opening a much wider playing field.

But the disciplines overlap, and IMO contradict, in much more fundamental ways. Questions like "what caused the universe?", "do human beings have 'souls' in some real sense?", or even "does God exist?" are questions that science can strive toward answering. Don't these sorts of questions have theological implications?

Or, for something closer on the horizon, consider this: some researchers (e.g. Steven Pinker) have hypothesized that a huge amount of our personalities and behavioural traits, including morality, are innate: we're born to think, feel and act in certain ways. Now... I recognize that much of what Pinker suggests is currently very controversial, but as more research is done and more facts come in, that controversy will eventually be resolved one way or the other. If it turns out that he's right, and that we are born unable to change our underlying moral (or immoral) natures, don't you think that this will create issues for any belief system that simultanously holds that God intentionally created us the way we are (even if he used evolution as the means) AND that we (as opposed to God) are responsible to God for our moral choices?

I have a fundamental disagreement with Gould's formulation of NOMA, because I think the two "magisteria" he describes are actually interrelated. Science may not be dependent on religion, but religion is dependent on science: any discussion of the values or meaning inherent in the way things are has to take into account the way things are for the discussion to be meaningful itself.

 

[Willamena]

But the disciplines overlap, and IMO contradict, in much more fundamental ways. Questions like "what caused the universe?", "do human beings have 'souls' in some real sense?", or even "does God exist?" are questions that science can strive toward answering. Don't these sorts of questions have theological implications?

Only where the narrative is taken literally. Where religion's claims are taken to be only about the empirical, rather than about "the spiritual" (commonly termed), or about "the nonliteral" --that is, where both are shoved into the same playing field, held to be looking at issues from the same perspective --religion necessarily falls down. Nothing can survive long out of its native context.

All positive claims, period, could conceivably find themselves within the domain of scientific (empirical) inquiry. No exceptions. That's because the empirical context is literally true. By its nature, it is not (and so necessarily ignores) any nonliteral, symbolic, meaning-context.

If I address the narrative of Genesis literally, I am seeing a step by step description of the universe coming into being. But if I address it nonliterally, taking each step as symbolic of a mythic "Genesis" within myself, for instance a genesis of consciousness, or a genesis of my cultural group, or an analogy of Jesus' story, then the steps describe something entirely different (no longer about creating the universe, but using the creation to symbolize the creation of consciousness, or the cultural group, or tell Jesus' story, or whatever), but still factual. In that case, the two disciplines are only addressing the issue from the same perspective "if we say so." We are the ones who can put them on the same playing field or not, as we need. (And to "not", here, means allowing them to keep their native context.)

Or, for something closer on the horizon, consider this: some researchers (e.g. Steven Pinker) have hypothesized that a huge amount of our personalities and behavioural traits, including morality, are innate: we're born to think, feel and act in certain ways. Now... I recognize that much of what Pinker suggests is currently very controversial, but as more research is done and more facts come in, that controversy will eventually be resolved one way or the other. If it turns out that he's right, and that we are born unable to change our underlying moral (or immoral) natures, don't you think that this will create issues for any belief system that simultanously holds that God intentionally created us the way we are (even if he used evolution as the means) AND that we (as opposed to God) are responsible to God for our moral choices?

Not as long as the nonliteral interpretation persists. Whether our underlying moral natures can be altered isn't relevant to the meaning, and meaningfulness, of a narrative depicting, nonliterally, the creation of consciousness.

I have a fundamental disagreement with Gould's formulation of NOMA, because I think the two "magisteria" he describes are actually interrelated. Science may not be dependent on religion, but religion is dependent on science: any discussion of the values or meaning inherent in the way things are has to take into account the way things are for the discussion to be meaningful itself.

Fair enough.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Hey Penguin -- perhaps some of the disagreement stems from the is/ought fallacy. That is, NOMA is really a statement about how the relationship between religion and science *ought* to be. But Gould (and those who agree with him) make the mistake of saying this is how the relationship *is*. But you are pointing out the relationship is not always like NOMA, because many religions address matters of fact which are becoming accessible to science (like how the universe was created, is there a soul, etc.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only where the narrative is taken literally. Where religion's claims are taken to be only about the empirical, rather than about "the spiritual" (commonly termed), or about "the nonliteral" --that is, where both are shoved into the same playing field, held to be looking at issues from the same perspective --religion necessarily falls down. Nothing can survive long out of its native context.

Are you saying that the "native context" of religion is entirely non-literal?

Historically, I don't think it is this way at all. IMO, religion first arose as an attempt by people to make sense of the physical world they saw around them.

And today, I think you'd find that most religious people are not willing to concede that when they say that, for instance, God exists, or that people will go to Heaven after they die, or that Moses/Jesus/Baha'u'llah/Joseph Smith/etc. walked the Earth proclaiming the word of God, that they don't mean these things in a literal sense.

If I address the narrative of Genesis literally, I am seeing a step by step description of the universe coming into being. But if I address it nonliterally, taking each step as symbolic of a mythic "Genesis" within myself, for instance a genesis of consciousness, or a genesis of my cultural group, or an analogy of Jesus' story, then the steps describe something entirely different (no longer about creating the universe, but using the creation to symbolize the creation of consciousness, or the cultural group, or tell Jesus' story, or whatever), but still factual. In that case, the two disciplines are only addressing the issue from the same perspective "if we say so." We are the ones who can put them on the same playing field or not, as we need. (And to "not", here, means allowing them to keep their native context.)

But you do agree that this approach would represent a huge change for most followers of the religions in question, right?

Not as long as the nonliteral interpretation persists. Whether our underlying moral natures can be altered isn't relevant to the meaning, and meaningfulness, of a narrative depicting, nonliterally, the creation of consciousness.

But it's entirely relevant to whether it would be just to judge humanity for its actions.

And even a non-literal interpretation still means something.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey Penguin -- perhaps some of the disagreement stems from the is/ought fallacy. That is, NOMA is really a statement about how the relationship between religion and science *ought* to be. But Gould (and those who agree with him) make the mistake of saying this is how the relationship *is*. But you are pointing out the relationship is not always like NOMA, because many religions address matters of fact which are becoming accessible to science (like how the universe was created, is there a soul, etc.)

Right - I recognize that this vagueness between "is" and "ought" is going on, and I think that's where most of the problem lies.

IMO, when NOMA is bandied about, it's usually in a context like "science has its sandbox over here and religion has its sandbox over there, so both can play without fighting"... it's portrayed as the "is" perspective.

However, when we look deeper, I think the meaning ends up being something more like one side or the other thinking something like "he's playing over there and I'm playing over here, but almost all of the sandbox we're both playing in really belongs to me. When everything's right with the world, he won't be allowed to cross the line into my territory like he's doing now"... IOW, the "ought" perspective.

 

[Willamena]

Are you saying that the "native context" of religion is entirely non-literal?

The stories of religion, yes. That's my layman judgment, and in my opinion, and in my experience, in keeping with those who claim non-empirical meaning for the stories of religion.

Historically, I don't think it is this way at all. IMO, religion first arose as an attempt by people to make sense of the physical world they saw around them.

And today, I think you'd find that most religious people are not willing to concede that when they say that, for instance, God exists, or that people will go to Heaven after they die, or that Moses/Jesus/Baha'u'llah/Joseph Smith/etc. walked the Earth proclaiming the word of God, that they don't mean these things in a literal sense.

I'm sure they do. But popularity doesn't equate to tradition, in my opinion.

But you do agree that this approach would represent a huge change for most followers of the religions in question, right?

Probably, yes. I'm rather looking forward to the apocalypse (I hear it's pretty).

But it's entirely relevant to whether it would be just to judge humanity for its actions.

And even a non-literal interpretation still means something.

But the judgement of humanity for its actions can be taken nonliterally (as, oops, I just did above).

 

[logician]

And I think you missed my point: whether religion is needed to answer these questions is irrelevant.

The question of whether religion and science have to overlap is distinct from the question of whether they actually do.

Sure, they may overlap in attempting to answer questions, but the thread topic is, is science atheistic, which it us.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sure, they may overlap in attempting to answer questions, but the thread topic is, is science atheistic, which it us.

As I touched on before, while we can wrangle things to the point that we can call science "atheistic" (or, by the same token, a "bachelor"), I don't think it's particularily useful.

Also, now that I think about it more, if we do have to apply these sorts of labels to science, if we have to pick one, I'd say that it would be more appropriate to call science's approach to the question of god(s) ignostic:

The view that a coherent definition of god must be presented before the question of the existence of god can be meaningfully discussed. Furthermore, if that definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist position that the question of the existence of god (per that definition) is meaningless. In this case, the concept of god is not considered meaningless; the term "god" is considered meaningless.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings.

How did the universe come into being?

Religion answers the original creation (as well as providing spiritual guidance for the present), and science addresses the "how" of everything since the Big Bang.

Can a person's intelligence or consciousness survive the death of the person's body?

Religion clearly answers this with a definite "yes!": quotes upon request.

Peace,

Bruce

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Religion answers the original creation (as well as providing spiritual guidance for the present), and science addresses the "how" of everything since the Big Bang.

Then we have a conflict. While the Big Bang does represent a barrier for our current state of knowledge, the question of what happened before it is certainly within the domain of science, and will continue to be pursued by scientists.

Or do you think that scientists overstep their bounds when they hypothesize things like a cyclic universe?

Religion clearly answers this with a definite "yes!": quotes upon request.

Again, we have a conflict. Neuroscience is very busy at mapping the brain and trying to link human traits, including everything we could reasonably call "us", with different parts of the physical brain... i.e. part of the substance that dies with the body.

Again: do you think that scientists overstep the "proper" bounds of science when they do this sort of work?

 

[Willamena]

Then we have a conflict. While the Big Bang does represent a barrier for our current state of knowledge, the question of what happened before it is certainly within the domain of science, and will continue to be pursued by scientists.

Or do you think that scientists overstep their bounds when they hypothesize things like a cyclic universe?

Do you mean, like, "how the Big Bang came about"? But didn't Bruce hold up the "how" of science in constrast to religion?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you mean, like, "how the Big Bang came about"? But didn't Bruce hold up the "how" of science in constrast to religion?

I didn't get that from what he said. I took it more to mean that the Big Bang was the dividing line, and the "how" after belonged to science, while the "how" before belonged to God ("the original creation", as he put it).

 

[cynic2005]

Let me sum it up as this. Belief and faith is conviction. As Friedrich Nietzsche said, conviction is the anti-thesis to truth.

Why is conviction the anti-thesis to truth? Well from my interpretation, once you are convinced of something, you stop learning. Truth is a continuous process. The moment you are convinced that something is true, you stop asking and questioning about it. Learning stops. Truth is not some apex of knowledge that you reach, and upon reaching it, forget how you got there. Truth is a continuous journey, and it will always be continuous. Science will always be a continuous journey where more questions are raised than answered. That is the difference between belief and a hypothesis. With a belief, you stop learning. A hypothesis is a conceptual framework that guides a scientist into asking the right questions. A hypothesis is a tool that helps the scientist initiate investigation into what is not clearly understood, whether if the hypothesis is accurate or not. A scientist accepts the possibility that the hypothesis is wrong, despite evidence supporting the hypothesis. Sometimes in the field of science, we have what is called a paradigm shift, that is a scientific revolution where standard theories are called into question whenever they fail to explain a series of unavoidable anomalies. For example, let us take the standard cosmological model. In the standard cosmological model, the universe has distributed matter evenly. Recently however, scientists have discovered what is now referred to as "dark flow." It appears that the universe has a structure to it, with many galaxies being pulled into a single point. This anomaly (if real) cannot be explained by the standard cosmological model. This anomaly may even suggest that the standard cosmological model is wrong, requiring a paradigm shift.

Concerning the existence or non-existence of a God, science does not presume either. As I said in a previous reply, science is not about reconfirming or disproving preconceived beliefs. Anyone who uses the scientific method in such a manner is conducting bad science. Science is about data. Information speaks for itself. Based on current data, science has little say on the existence or non-existence of God.

 

[BruceDLimber]

While the Big Bang does represent a barrier for our current state of knowledge, the question of what happened before it is certainly within the domain of science, and will continue to be pursued by scientists.

Perhaps, though I have no idea what there is they can investigate then! As far as I know, there's nothing they can examine.

And no, I have no problem with a cyclic universe, though that's still strictly hypothetical since scientists haven't yet (the last I heard) found enough matter to support its possibility.

Neuroscience is very busy at mapping the brain and trying to link human traits, including everything we could reasonably call "us", with different parts of the physical brain... i.e. part of the substance that dies with the body.

Again: do you think that scientists overstep the "proper" bounds of science when they do this sort of work?

They're most welcome to investigate it, but it has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with the Next Life, it being after the death of the physical body, which is no longer relevant to what will then occur!

Peace,

Bruce

 

[PhosphorylatedHypnoMonkey]

Agreed