5 ms·

I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that you're trying to say, so apologies if I misinterpreted it, but to me you seem to suggest that science and religion ar

I'm not quite sure what it is exactly that you're trying to say, so apologies if I misinterpreted it, but to me you seem to suggest that science and religion are somehow complimentary; two different ways of seeing "truth". Two different "domains" of truthiness, in essence. If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, then yes, that's evidently true, but I don't think it's a good thing. I have serious problems with this sentiment that there's some other way of knowing things besides studying reality. To me, it is not apparent at all that there even can be such a thing as "religious truth" as opposed to "scientific truth". I have never seen a definition of the former, so I don't know how to even discuss it meaningfully. Also, to claim that science has nothing to do with how a person views the world etc. is patently false. It is perfectly possible for example to derive a workable moral systems without involving religion. You just need an axiom to start with, and then you can do science to examine whether your actions lead to morally acceptable outcomes given that axiom. A common axiom for morality seems to be something like "maximal suffering for everyone is bad", which I personally would agree with. Similarly, neither is the "pursuit of contented life" in any way a concept outside science. I acknowledge that I may hold beliefs that are not true, but I will state with certainty that there is nothing religious about how I view the world. I understand religion as a social phenomenon, I am not convinced that it is, or can ever be, a tool for understanding "truths".

ta1234567890 7y ago
This is a philosophical issue, and it's also an ineffable issue. What is truth? Something that is the same for everyone at the same time? How could you ever prove something is true if you are not omniscient? (ie. you can only experience reality from your own point of view, but can never experience it from someone else's). To complicate things further, we are trying to use words and spoken language as a way to communicate meaning about something else (reality). How can you know for certain that the words you use have the same meaning for you and me? We can't even agree on the meaning of words for one language. Every time you say something, you are essentially translating what you feel/understand "in your head" to words, which you hope the receiver/listener will decode to mean the same thing you understand. But we can never be certain of the effectiveness of that. And we can only find relief in apparent agreement (ie. When the other person(s) ascents to what we say) In other words, what for you might not be true is your own perspective of reality, and it doesn't imply that the same thing is not true for someone else. Reality is subjective. If you can't force me to agree with you, then our realities will just be different, even if we can still share some aspects of it. And that's ok.
- chousuke 7y ago
  In the philosophical sense, I'd say truth is what reality is. In the practical sense, truth is what the evidence indicates, and anything else either remains unknown or is false if it contradicts the evidence. We're limited to never knowing the complete truth of most things, which is why we have science so we can make our practical truth approximation ever closer to reality.
  - ta1234567890 7y ago
    That is a circular definition of truth. Which very well exemplifies the limitation of our spoken/written languages and the ineffability of reality. Any evidence needs to be interpreted. You need to assign some sort of meaning to evidence. That interpretation is subjective. And this has happened a million times in science. If science actually discovered "truth", then it would never need to be revised. Nevertheless science is constantly discovering that it was wrong and keeps updating itself (well, us humans keep doing that). Science (like religion), is just a system for humans to assign meaning to their experiences. Meanings will differ, just like our individual experiences. Hence these systems are built on collective agreement and continuous re-building of their own meanings. Also, if as you say, we're limited to never knowing the complete truth of most things, then how could we possibly ever know that science is actually getting us closer to that truth?
    - pupe 7y ago
      I have no idea why this is getting downvoted so much. This is a great, well articulated comment that raises significant points by situating science as a human activity, and thereby subject to situated experienced. The often-overlooked fields of Science and Technology Studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, which have been around for decades (and which, contrary to what many believe, treat Latour as an initiator of further discussion that has spun into much more robust work, rather than as a decisive figure). I wholeheartedly recommend any interested readers to look into it, particularly Andrew Pickering’s 1992 edited volume Science as Cultural Practice as an introductory jumping off point. My second recommendation is always Karin Knorr-Cetina’s 2001 book titled Epistemic Cultures (anything else by her is also superb!).
wellpast 7y ago
I mean this with no offense but I think you're reflecting the deficit in thinking I mention. E.g. here: > If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. > I have serious problems with this sentiment that there's some other way of knowing things besides studying reality What is reality? Is science reality? Science has models. We are mistaken to think that "particle" is somehow a brutally real thing. "Particle" is a word used to model observations. > It is perfectly possible for example to derive a workable moral systems without involving religion. This is a contentious statement. There are intense debates about this. The Peterson/Harris Vancouver debates are famous (infamous?) vigorous but futile attempts at trying to sort this out. Actually -- just to make sure I'm clear. You can't derive a workable moral system from scientific axioms/observations. Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook.
- kiba 7y ago
  Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged. Ditto for system of morality where certain aspects can be subjected to empirical testing. It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians or some other religion X have no claims that could be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
  - tabtab 7y ago
    Science doesn't create "goals", only describes impacts at best. It has no will or motivation by itself. But I am bothered by the idea the primary reason religious people behave is due to fear of becoming BBQ. What about personal pride in not being a jerk?

ta1234567890 7y ago

This is a philosophical issue, and it's also an ineffable issue. What is truth? Something that is the same for everyone at the same time? How could you ever prove something is true if you are not omniscient? (ie. you can only experience reality from your own point of view, but can never experience it from someone else's). To complicate things further, we are trying to use words and spoken language as a way to communicate meaning about something else (reality). How can you know for certain that the words you use have the same meaning for you and me? We can't even agree on the meaning of words for one language. Every time you say something, you are essentially translating what you feel/understand "in your head" to words, which you hope the receiver/listener will decode to mean the same thing you understand. But we can never be certain of the effectiveness of that. And we can only find relief in apparent agreement (ie. When the other person(s) ascents to what we say) In other words, what for you might not be true is your own perspective of reality, and it doesn't imply that the same thing is not true for someone else. Reality is subjective. If you can't force me to agree with you, then our realities will just be different, even if we can still share some aspects of it. And that's ok.

chousuke 7y ago
In the philosophical sense, I'd say truth is what reality is. In the practical sense, truth is what the evidence indicates, and anything else either remains unknown or is false if it contradicts the evidence. We're limited to never knowing the complete truth of most things, which is why we have science so we can make our practical truth approximation ever closer to reality.
- ta1234567890 7y ago
  That is a circular definition of truth. Which very well exemplifies the limitation of our spoken/written languages and the ineffability of reality. Any evidence needs to be interpreted. You need to assign some sort of meaning to evidence. That interpretation is subjective. And this has happened a million times in science. If science actually discovered "truth", then it would never need to be revised. Nevertheless science is constantly discovering that it was wrong and keeps updating itself (well, us humans keep doing that). Science (like religion), is just a system for humans to assign meaning to their experiences. Meanings will differ, just like our individual experiences. Hence these systems are built on collective agreement and continuous re-building of their own meanings. Also, if as you say, we're limited to never knowing the complete truth of most things, then how could we possibly ever know that science is actually getting us closer to that truth?
  - pupe 7y ago
    I have no idea why this is getting downvoted so much. This is a great, well articulated comment that raises significant points by situating science as a human activity, and thereby subject to situated experienced. The often-overlooked fields of Science and Technology Studies and Sociology of Scientific Knowledge, which have been around for decades (and which, contrary to what many believe, treat Latour as an initiator of further discussion that has spun into much more robust work, rather than as a decisive figure). I wholeheartedly recommend any interested readers to look into it, particularly Andrew Pickering’s 1992 edited volume Science as Cultural Practice as an introductory jumping off point. My second recommendation is always Karin Knorr-Cetina’s 2001 book titled Epistemic Cultures (anything else by her is also superb!).

wellpast 7y ago

I mean this with no offense but I think you're reflecting the deficit in thinking I mention. E.g. here: > If you're just saying that people can use religions to make themselves feel better by believing in things that are false, I assume you're using science's rhetoric of false here. Which is really just can it be observed using the tools & vocabulary of science. > I have serious problems with this sentiment that there's some other way of knowing things besides studying reality What is reality? Is science reality? Science has models. We are mistaken to think that "particle" is somehow a brutally real thing. "Particle" is a word used to model observations. > It is perfectly possible for example to derive a workable moral systems without involving religion. This is a contentious statement. There are intense debates about this. The Peterson/Harris Vancouver debates are famous (infamous?) vigorous but futile attempts at trying to sort this out. Actually -- just to make sure I'm clear. You can't derive a workable moral system from scientific axioms/observations. Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook.

kiba 7y ago
Now someone may report to be an atheist and report that they have a moral outlook that involves respect for fellow man. I guess I won't insist that its Religion; I simply insist its not Science that is giving them their moral outlook. When people claimed that god exists, then it is a claim that can be challenged. If someone claimed that Jesus Christ came to back to life, then it is a claim that can be challenged. Ditto for system of morality where certain aspects can be subjected to empirical testing. It's intellectually dishonest to say that Christians or some other religion X have no claims that could be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
- tabtab 7y ago
  Science doesn't create "goals", only describes impacts at best. It has no will or motivation by itself. But I am bothered by the idea the primary reason religious people behave is due to fear of becoming BBQ. What about personal pride in not being a jerk?