6 ms·

That smells of equivocation. There is science, the methodology, and there is the body of knowledge constructed using that methodology, colloquially also often j

That smells of equivocation. There is science, the methodology, and there is the body of knowledge constructed using that methodology, colloquially also often just called 'science'. Yes, obviously one can use scientific methodology to study religion, and given that religiosity is a very common human behavior, it is hardly surprising that you can learn something about human psychology this way, thus contributing to the scientific body of knowledge. But that does not in any way suggest that the methodology (that is, the epistemological practice of science) has anything to learn from religion, which is obviously the claim that Dawkins and Pinker are rejecting, because that is the claim that religions make when they make assertions about how the world works, as all religions do. So, the article at best substantiates the obvious and completely uncontroversial interpretation of the title that you can make empirical observations of religious behaviour, while failing to provide any arguments in favor of the interpretation that at least some people will be prone to read into the title, that religion somehow has to offer any useful methods for distintuishing fact from fiction that should be adopted by science.

mikekchar 8y ago
I think you are absolutely correct. Many famous scientists were and are deeply religious. Science as a methodology is antithetical to religious methodology. The only problem with this is that some people think it's a problem. Science attempts to make observations, build models and predict things based on those models. It tries to actively falsify its own models by checking whether new observations follow the predictions based on the models. Your choice of whether or not to believe in the reality of the models is still your choice. While unfair and out of context, I like to quote Einstein here: "God does not play dice with the universe". He didn't like quantum mechanics because it didn't sit well with his belief of how the universe worked. Similarly, after Michelson and Morely won the nobel prize for demonstrating that the speed of light was a constant, no matter what reference frame you were in, they spent the rest of their years trying to disprove it! They knew that the consequences of a constant speed of light was crazy physics as envisioned by Einstein and they didn't believe in that kind of universe. This happens all the time in science. We use our scientific models because they are useful, not because we believe in them as some kind of absolute truth. Granted, some people do believe that, but that belief is not science. The big takeaway is that it doesn't matter what you believe if you are using a scientific methodology. It is irrelevant -- you use what works, not what you believe. Religion is a methodology of belief. I can't tell you the number of people I've met in my life who would curl up and shut out the world if they didn't believe in something more than they could measure or extrapolate form existing models. This is human nature, for better or for worse. Belief is necessary for most people -- even scientists (though, as I said, quite a few of them choose to believe their own models). Like some people, I have a problem with many organised religions. Historically, religions have been very adept at using people's belief in order to liberate them from their money or their freedom (or even their lives!). However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that service. It's just that having inserted themselves into that picture, people have a tendency to abuse their position (often with a considerable amount of internal justification, but I think it is abuse none-the-less). On the other hand, I've seen religious organisations do a world of good as well. This rallying force of belief is extremely strong. Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state as the object of belief. This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ). WRT the idea that traditional ideas may have useful applications for science, this is undeniable. But many traditional ideas are also just snake oil. The best methodology for telling the difference that I know of is science. Starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are likely to be beneficial, I think is a poor idea. However, so is starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are necessarily snake oil. If you have a question, make observations, build a model, make predictions, test those predictions with new observations. You might be wasting your time, but you might not. That's science. If you want to believe something and it makes you feel happy, then go for it. That's religion.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Science as a methodology is antithetical to religious methodology. “Religious methodology” varies by religion and, in some cases, varies by individuals within a religion. In a number of those religious variations, scientific methodology is an acceptable (or even the preferred) methodology for some (or even all) of the scope to which it can apply on its own terms.
- nilsocket 8y ago
  That's how Hinduism is like a service. Other major religions like Christianity, Islam were forced upon people.
  - mikekchar 8y ago
    I would hope we could discuss the general idea without promoting or slamming any individual groups.
    - codecrusade 8y ago
      Truth is Truth. Learn to face it.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. That I would disagree with. The defining characteristic of religion is faith, or the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as factual truth. Faith is the most dishonest and irresponsible epistemology there is and has an obvious potential to be used for justifying unlimited badness, as has been demonstrated over and over. Ideas that have such massive risks I would say are pretty obviously a problem. > Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that service. That sounds very much like an unsubstantiated claim. The mere fact that it is common does not imply an innate need, but would be explained just as well by indoctrination--and the fact that lots of people who once felt just that need do overcome it using rational thought also suggests that it's at least not as inherent to humans as you make it out to be. > Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state as the object of belief. I don't think that's a contradiction. Countries that aren't autoritarian just don't care about (lack of) religiosity of their citizens, but authoritarian states always demand submission to their doctrine and thus ban all other belief systems--in the case of theocratic states, they ban all other religions and sects, in the case of non-theocratic states, they ban all "traditional religions". None of that is about religion vs. lack of religion, it is only about banning competition. > This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ). I don't see why that should be.

mikekchar 8y ago

I think you are absolutely correct. Many famous scientists were and are deeply religious. Science as a methodology is antithetical to religious methodology. The only problem with this is that some people think it's a problem. Science attempts to make observations, build models and predict things based on those models. It tries to actively falsify its own models by checking whether new observations follow the predictions based on the models. Your choice of whether or not to believe in the reality of the models is still your choice. While unfair and out of context, I like to quote Einstein here: "God does not play dice with the universe". He didn't like quantum mechanics because it didn't sit well with his belief of how the universe worked. Similarly, after Michelson and Morely won the nobel prize for demonstrating that the speed of light was a constant, no matter what reference frame you were in, they spent the rest of their years trying to disprove it! They knew that the consequences of a constant speed of light was crazy physics as envisioned by Einstein and they didn't believe in that kind of universe. This happens all the time in science. We use our scientific models because they are useful, not because we believe in them as some kind of absolute truth. Granted, some people do believe that, but that belief is not science. The big takeaway is that it doesn't matter what you believe if you are using a scientific methodology. It is irrelevant -- you use what works, not what you believe. Religion is a methodology of belief. I can't tell you the number of people I've met in my life who would curl up and shut out the world if they didn't believe in something more than they could measure or extrapolate form existing models. This is human nature, for better or for worse. Belief is necessary for most people -- even scientists (though, as I said, quite a few of them choose to believe their own models). Like some people, I have a problem with many organised religions. Historically, religions have been very adept at using people's belief in order to liberate them from their money or their freedom (or even their lives!). However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that service. It's just that having inserted themselves into that picture, people have a tendency to abuse their position (often with a considerable amount of internal justification, but I think it is abuse none-the-less). On the other hand, I've seen religious organisations do a world of good as well. This rallying force of belief is extremely strong. Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state as the object of belief. This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ). WRT the idea that traditional ideas may have useful applications for science, this is undeniable. But many traditional ideas are also just snake oil. The best methodology for telling the difference that I know of is science. Starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are likely to be beneficial, I think is a poor idea. However, so is starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are necessarily snake oil. If you have a question, make observations, build a model, make predictions, test those predictions with new observations. You might be wasting your time, but you might not. That's science. If you want to believe something and it makes you feel happy, then go for it. That's religion.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Science as a methodology is antithetical to religious methodology. “Religious methodology” varies by religion and, in some cases, varies by individuals within a religion. In a number of those religious variations, scientific methodology is an acceptable (or even the preferred) methodology for some (or even all) of the scope to which it can apply on its own terms.
nilsocket 8y ago
That's how Hinduism is like a service. Other major religions like Christianity, Islam were forced upon people.
- mikekchar 8y ago
  I would hope we could discuss the general idea without promoting or slamming any individual groups.
  - codecrusade 8y ago
    Truth is Truth. Learn to face it.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
> However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. That I would disagree with. The defining characteristic of religion is faith, or the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as factual truth. Faith is the most dishonest and irresponsible epistemology there is and has an obvious potential to be used for justifying unlimited badness, as has been demonstrated over and over. Ideas that have such massive risks I would say are pretty obviously a problem. > Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that service. That sounds very much like an unsubstantiated claim. The mere fact that it is common does not imply an innate need, but would be explained just as well by indoctrination--and the fact that lots of people who once felt just that need do overcome it using rational thought also suggests that it's at least not as inherent to humans as you make it out to be. > Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state as the object of belief. I don't think that's a contradiction. Countries that aren't autoritarian just don't care about (lack of) religiosity of their citizens, but authoritarian states always demand submission to their doctrine and thus ban all other belief systems--in the case of theocratic states, they ban all other religions and sects, in the case of non-theocratic states, they ban all "traditional religions". None of that is about religion vs. lack of religion, it is only about banning competition. > This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ). I don't see why that should be.