8 ms·

> You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. They probably should. Religious belief betrays

> You've never heard God mentioned at a conference because the religious people are hiding from bigots like you. They probably should. Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. If you can apply one set of rules to determine, say, the efficacy of some new drug undergoing testing, but another set of rules to how you believe the universe works, then you don't really understand either.

PascLeRasc 11y ago
> Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. Can you go into more detail about what this means?
- deciplex 11y ago
  If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
  - sp332 11y ago
    Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.
    - deciplex 11y ago
      To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.) > Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)
    - deciplex 11y ago
      I guess I wasn't clear enough, but considering the topic of this thread, when I wrote "certain problems" I was referring to statements about the natural world. That is, the sort of stuff you would talk about at any scientific conference. You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).
      - murbard2 11y ago
        Yes, and by the same account, a good scientist shouldn't be a moral realist.
_nedR 11y ago
What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics. It betrays a propensity for scientists to ignore evidence, or to frame conclusions and experiments to fit their preconceived notions. I would include strong support of religious viewpoints, athiesm and even global warming under this rule. Once politics or agendas get involved, then science takes a back seat to convincing others that you are right.
- deciplex 11y ago
  > What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics. The controversy-value of a statement has no bearing on its truth-value, and to think so is deeply unscientific. Belief in the supernatural is unscientific by definition: once something crosses into the natural realm it comes under the dominion of science. In the meantime, God will not pop into existence if enough people believe in him. Even if I am so persuasive that I can convince every living physicist that I'm immune to the laws of gravity, when I jump off a tall enough bridge I will still plummet to my death. If the fate of our species should we continue on the path we're on, is the collapse of our civilization and binding to this one planet until our eventual extinction, then that is what will happen regardless of whatever clever arguments against climate change you can conjure up. The combined willpower of every living human being could not so much as change the spin of a single electron. The universe is indifferent, and it is hard to overstate just how dangerous it is to ignore this basic fact. Moreover, taking a strong standpoint is absolutely justified based on the strength of the evidence. To do otherwise implies that the evidence is not so strong. And again, controversy-value has no bearing on this, either.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. No, it doesn't. (I would argue that that statement betrays a misunderstanding of what science -- or religious belief -- is.) There's no fundamental conflict between science and religious belief, even in principle. There can be a conflict between science and particular religious beliefs, and a conflict between a quasi-religious scientism and other religious belief, but that's a different thing.
- deciplex 11y ago
  Unless you've redefined religion such that it does not require, on some level, belief in supernatural phenomena, yes there is a conflict, in principle. There is no room in science for supernatural events that have a cause and effect relationship with events in the natural world.

PascLeRasc 11y ago

> Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. Can you go into more detail about what this means?

deciplex 11y ago
If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. All else being equal, good scientists will possess neither of these qualities.
- sp332 11y ago
  Science only has bearing on testable, repeatable hypotheses. History, for example, isn't science even though it tries to deal in objective truth. "Testable predictions" aren't everything.
  - deciplex 11y ago
    To the extent that history is the organization and interpretation of known past events, no it is not science. But, neither does it need to be, since it is not factual discovery - it is not dealing in objective truth, rather cataloging known truths. However, the part of historical study that concerns itself with gaining knowledge about the past is absolutely science, and it can and should make testable predictions. If you read historical accounts of Mongolian invasions of Eastern Europe, you might expect and predict that Eastern Europeans would have a genetic heritage that is partially shared with present-day Mongolian people - and indeed that turns out to be the case. If they didn't, we would have reason to believe the historical accounts are exaggerated or even false. In other words, "history" might not be science depending on your definition, but anthropology certainly is. Any statement you make about reality, or a model for reality, should have a consequence in anticipated experiences. If it doesn't, you haven't gained any knowledge.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > If you are religious, then you either think that religion is a valid alternative to science for certain problems, or that testable predictions are not important in some domains. Testable predictions aren't even applicable in some domains. (e.g., fundamental moral principles.) Science can tell you whether certain actions fulfill a given set of moral principles, but it only answers "is" questions, and not fundamental "ought" questions. (It can sometimes answer derivative "ought" questions once you use some other means to select the answers to fundamental "ought" questions.) > Which is to say, either you think that scientific reasoning isn't always a good way to understand our world, or you don't think understanding how our world works is really so important. Or, you think that there are things worth considering besides the mechanics of how our world works. Certainly, some take the view that this is the only class of thing worth considering but this view is, itself, a quasi-religious and not-scientific view (and, as it is not a view about how the world works, somewhat self-inconsistent to hold in any case.)
  - deciplex 11y ago
    I guess I wasn't clear enough, but considering the topic of this thread, when I wrote "certain problems" I was referring to statements about the natural world. That is, the sort of stuff you would talk about at any scientific conference. You are correct that "ought" questions are not scientific in nature, but that's because they are not statements about the natural world. Moral principles will be rooted in your biology and your culture, and if your culture includes religion that will be reflected in your beliefs, but that certainly doesn't validate your religion. Of course, how your religion came to have those values in the first place is in the domain of science (anthropology).
    - murbard2 11y ago
      Yes, and by the same account, a good scientist shouldn't be a moral realist.

_nedR 11y ago

What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics. It betrays a propensity for scientists to ignore evidence, or to frame conclusions and experiments to fit their preconceived notions. I would include strong support of religious viewpoints, athiesm and even global warming under this rule. Once politics or agendas get involved, then science takes a back seat to convincing others that you are right.

deciplex 11y ago
> What betrays the rejection of science even more, is making blanket statements or taking strong standpoints, especially on controversial topics. The controversy-value of a statement has no bearing on its truth-value, and to think so is deeply unscientific. Belief in the supernatural is unscientific by definition: once something crosses into the natural realm it comes under the dominion of science. In the meantime, God will not pop into existence if enough people believe in him. Even if I am so persuasive that I can convince every living physicist that I'm immune to the laws of gravity, when I jump off a tall enough bridge I will still plummet to my death. If the fate of our species should we continue on the path we're on, is the collapse of our civilization and binding to this one planet until our eventual extinction, then that is what will happen regardless of whatever clever arguments against climate change you can conjure up. The combined willpower of every living human being could not so much as change the spin of a single electron. The universe is indifferent, and it is hard to overstate just how dangerous it is to ignore this basic fact. Moreover, taking a strong standpoint is absolutely justified based on the strength of the evidence. To do otherwise implies that the evidence is not so strong. And again, controversy-value has no bearing on this, either.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Religious belief betrays at least a partial rejection of what science even is. No, it doesn't. (I would argue that that statement betrays a misunderstanding of what science -- or religious belief -- is.) There's no fundamental conflict between science and religious belief, even in principle. There can be a conflict between science and particular religious beliefs, and a conflict between a quasi-religious scientism and other religious belief, but that's a different thing.

deciplex 11y ago
Unless you've redefined religion such that it does not require, on some level, belief in supernatural phenomena, yes there is a conflict, in principle. There is no room in science for supernatural events that have a cause and effect relationship with events in the natural world.