10 ms·

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've a

by _gabe_ 4y ago

This article seems to be saying that science and religion are trying to answer the same question, how did we get here. But I feel like that's misguided. I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? We can explain how natural processes work, but, and I believe this is a question Aristotle asked with the immovable mover, we'll never be able to get to a root cause of why everything exists and what started it all. Either the universe is infinite and time has no beginning, or there is a beginning and potentially an end. If there's a beginning, what was before the beginning? If it's infinite, how did it all start? These are the questions that I thought religion tried to answer. Science can (most likely) never answer why. Science is fundamentally based on repeatable experiments, and that's fine. We can use it to build a model of how the universe works, but as of today, we can't use science to answer the fundamental questions about the reason for the universe.

andrewmcwatters 4y ago
Religion doesn’t answer why we are here. Non-religious people think that’s what religion does.
- azth 4y ago
  Depends on which religion. Islam does: * https://quran.com/51/56 https://quran.com/51/56 * https://quran.com/67/2 https://quran.com/67/2 And more.
  - andrewmcwatters 4y ago
    The Book of Isaiah says the same thing. That's not the point of either religion, and practitioners know this.
    - azth 4y ago
      Your accusing Muslims of knowing that the point of religion is something different from what the Quran says? That's quite brazen.
t0bia_s 4y ago
"I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?" And yet, that "how" is relative to actual knowledge that is shaping with time or even point of view.
bmitc 4y ago
> I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? This may be philosophical, but has science ever actually, and by that I mean explicitly, answered how? Is how even possible to answer? I think probably not, given our current understandings, or probably not just period. Science is about building models of the reality we experience. The models are not reality themselves, so they don’t answer how. They only answer how relative to our own knowledge and experience. Also, it isn’t clear if our experience of reality is objective. I have a feeling that there is such a thing as relative objectivity among the different participants of the universe. > Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? Religion is more of an organizational collective of power and control, but religion proper, let’s call it, and spiritually are more about consolation, in my view. This is related to why, but I think it also helps to frame religion and spirituality as “what now”? We’re here, there’s this life, this Earth, this Universe, so what are we supposed to do? I think why creeps in there as well. I’m reminded of A Serious Man and the repetitious “what’s going on?”.
_8j50 4y ago
Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not something is the will of the creator and how to implement that will. Of course that is monotheistic but with hinduism for example their many gods do things and that is why things are, how to do things to align with them is also a question as is with buddhism and reincarnation based on how well one implements the universe's will but my point is religion is what is there based on the answers to the questions you mentioned not the pursuit to answer that question. If you come up with a religion on your own I suppose you can call it that (although I must question the difference between that and a philosophical principle) but religion as is organized religion already has answers for the believer. Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? As in you need to know arithmetic before you can do linear alegbra? How can one understand anything religious without being theistic (buddhism aside). Most of the common atheist questions about faith are easily answered with the prerequisite of theism fulfilled for example. The fundamental difference between science and religion in my opinion is that science says "I will believe things only if I can understand them" while religion says "The things you can understand and that are beyond human capacity to understand are described this way" religion is based on the acceptance that one cannot understand all things in reality, that things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know are still real and have effect in our reality.
- whiddershins 4y ago
  There is a lot of non revealed theology. For an intro I would suggest The Last Superstition by Edward Feser. Basically Aristotle lays out the framework without getting anywhere near a religious text.
- trhway 4y ago
  >Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? I'd not give a damn about religion if it weren't shoving itself in my face everywhere. For example I don't care whatever religion some people on some remote islands may be practicing because they aren't forcing their religious dogmas on me (and as long as they don't abuse other people). The Big Religion though that we have around is forcing it's tentacles everywhere trying to strangulate everything, and thus even non believers have to deal with it defending themselves.
virtualwhys 4y ago
> If it's infinite, how did it all start? Ha, good one! Certainly would be quite wonderful if, despite death, there is neither a beginning nor end to it. I can't imagine life being finite, is that even possible given what we're in?
givemeethekeys 4y ago
I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established. We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science. It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.
- djokkataja 4y ago
  I think it could be handy if there was a "religion" that looked at the various ways that historical religions are beneficial for their adherents (in practices and beliefs) and tried to distill things down and build some new things up from whatever gets worked out in that way. From a secular perspective, religions contain quite a bit of invented material, so this doesn't seem that unreasonable. And this could potentially be combined with more scientific perspectives, where the whole set of beliefs and practices can be updated as new things are learned, though presumably the most foundational elements wouldn't change as much.
  - KMag 4y ago
    What if it turns out that for many actions, the game-theoretically optimal strategy for the individual isn't optimal for the society, and people's gut instincts are reasonably close to game theoretic analysis? In other words, what if it turns out that it's really objectively best for society if everyone is tricked into being good?
    - djokkataja 4y ago
      Even for something as simple as the prisoner's dilemma, there's quite a bit of variety in both situations and agents, so how do you decide what the "optimal" game theoretic strategy is for actual people in much more complex situations in reality? I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.
nestorD 4y ago
One thing I learned recently is that some religions[1] do not try to explain the world and its origin. It is just that the dominant religions do so we assume it is part of a religion's definition. [1]: One example would be Gardnerian Wicca.
atoav 4y ago
But there is intersection between science and believe systems. Knowing what we know about space for example, it would be hard to justify the believe a certain subjective perspective onto a star constellation influences a persons fate based on their birth date =astrology. In this case the more we know about the how of the stars in the sky the less we can believe the uninformed why astrology is trying to present us. Similar conflicts happen with religion and one cannot ignore that knowing the how deeply influences the why. Most members of our species can't stand the lack of meaning and the will use what they know to create stories that convey it. This is an understandable mechanism and in itself not a problem, but it can become one if the story is told in a way where it starts to clash with the facts. In the end these stories, even when they call themselves holy texts are written by humans from their own limited perspectives of the time. That doesn't mean, there can not be wisdom in there, but there can also be wisdom in other texts so that doesn't really cut it..
- pqs 4y ago
  Astrology is not a religion. It seems to me that it is just plain wrong science.
  - atoav 4y ago
    It is a believe. For most people religion is also just a believe
    - pqs 4y ago
      Then almost everything is religion. Even science, which is based on axioms. For example, in science we believe that nature is inteligible. This cannot be proven.
renox 4y ago
Religion doesn't have a good answer for that too, except 'burn the heretics who ask who created God'
xupybd 4y ago
I don't know if religion can totally answer the why question either. You end up with the unanswerable why is God?
- igouy 4y ago
  … I am that I am…
ykevinator2 4y ago
gxt 4y ago
Religion's only purpose is to fabricate legitimacy for those who want the power to dictate what people should do. Any other meaning that might be perceived is only there to deceive you. Kingdoms fabricate legitimacy by birthright. Democracies by elections (not the people LOL). Etc.
analog31 4y ago
I think it's simpler. Religion and science answer different questions, because if they ever disagree on an answer, it instantly ceases to be a religious question. Never the other way around. This asymmetry is like the arrow of increasing entropy, always pointing towards science. Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. I know lots of Catholic scientists, but no Catholic Buddhists.
- pqs 4y ago
  There are Catholic Zen Masters [1], so, somehow, it is possible to be Catholic and Buddhist. As a Catholic who dabbled in Zen when I was lost, I don't really understand how this can be combined, but this exists. My current view is that in Catholicism you'll find everything that Zen has to offer (silence, meditation, living in the present, honor the little details of life, etc.) and a lot more [2]. From a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction, whatsoever, between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible and there is no contradiction with scripture. The problems are with scientism. [1]: https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jesuit-priest-and-zen-master-part-i https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jes... [2]: See, for example, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.
- shakna 4y ago
  > Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions. There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find many blends of traditional Incan beliefs and Catholicism, despite the surface-level incompatibilities, in South America. One specific example might be Caodaism, which blends elements of Catholicism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Caodaism has about 2.5Mil followers in Vietnam. One of the core tenants of the religion is that we are now living in a period of time called the Third Amnesty, the end of which will be marked by the syncretism of _all_ religions into one.
  - 4y ago
pqs 4y ago
Science deals with quantities in the material world, religion deals with meaning.
taylodl 4y ago
I would argue the God concept is a poor explanation of why? because you're just kicking the can down the road: either God had a beginning and you have to explain that or God is infinite which puts us right back to the same problem of having a universe with infinite duration. If we're going to say God has existed forever then it's simpler (Occam's Razor) to say the universe has existed forever. Honestly, I think trying to answer why? is a misguided effort. There doesn't need to be a reason why, and moreover inanimate objects don't have motives. Why are we here? Because we're here!
- azth 4y ago
  We have proof (e.g. Big Bang) that the universe did not exist forever. Secondly, asking "who created God" is similar to seeing a piece of bread, asking who baked it, then asking "who baked the baker"? It's a logical inconsistency and absurdity.
- keane 4y ago
  In this context you seem to be expecting a rule of thumb to do quite a lot of lifting. You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all. Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I
  - taylodl 4y ago
    God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence. To a lesser extent one realizes those attributes of God also means God is conscious, which is not something we typically ascribe to the universe. I would argue since the universe lacks omniscience, omnipotence, consciousness, and by extension, will power it is a far simpler entity than God. So saying the universe has existed forever and saying God has existed forever are therefore two vastly different statements due to the different complexities inherent in the two different entities being compared. The universe is far, far, far simpler a construct than God and by using Occam's Razor I conclude a universe that has existed forever is far more likely than a God that has existed forever.

by _gabe_ 4y ago

andrewmcwatters 4y ago

Religion doesn’t answer why we are here. Non-religious people think that’s what religion does.

azth 4y ago
Depends on which religion. Islam does: * https://quran.com/51/56 https://quran.com/51/56 * https://quran.com/67/2 https://quran.com/67/2 And more.
- andrewmcwatters 4y ago
  The Book of Isaiah says the same thing. That's not the point of either religion, and practitioners know this.
  - azth 4y ago
    Your accusing Muslims of knowing that the point of religion is something different from what the Quran says? That's quite brazen.

t0bia_s 4y ago

"I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how?" And yet, that "how" is relative to actual knowledge that is shaping with time or even point of view.

bmitc 4y ago

> I've always been under the impression that science is descriptive, it answers how? This may be philosophical, but has science ever actually, and by that I mean explicitly, answered how? Is how even possible to answer? I think probably not, given our current understandings, or probably not just period. Science is about building models of the reality we experience. The models are not reality themselves, so they don’t answer how. They only answer how relative to our own knowledge and experience. Also, it isn’t clear if our experience of reality is objective. I have a feeling that there is such a thing as relative objectivity among the different participants of the universe. > Whereas religion is deeper than that and aims to answer why? Religion is more of an organizational collective of power and control, but religion proper, let’s call it, and spiritually are more about consolation, in my view. This is related to why, but I think it also helps to frame religion and spirituality as “what now”? We’re here, there’s this life, this Earth, this Universe, so what are we supposed to do? I think why creeps in there as well. I’m reminded of A Serious Man and the repetitious “what’s going on?”.

_8j50 4y ago

Sort of. Academic theologians want to answer why. A religious person already knows, if you have to find data and infer things then it is philosophy not religion. Religion is based on information directed by the creator either directly to the believer or via trusted proxy. For example if you asked me why the universe exists I already know: because God willed it so. Most religious questions are a whether or not something is the will of the creator and how to implement that will. Of course that is monotheistic but with hinduism for example their many gods do things and that is why things are, how to do things to align with them is also a question as is with buddhism and reincarnation based on how well one implements the universe's will but my point is religion is what is there based on the answers to the questions you mentioned not the pursuit to answer that question. If you come up with a religion on your own I suppose you can call it that (although I must question the difference between that and a philosophical principle) but religion as is organized religion already has answers for the believer. Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? As in you need to know arithmetic before you can do linear alegbra? How can one understand anything religious without being theistic (buddhism aside). Most of the common atheist questions about faith are easily answered with the prerequisite of theism fulfilled for example. The fundamental difference between science and religion in my opinion is that science says "I will believe things only if I can understand them" while religion says "The things you can understand and that are beyond human capacity to understand are described this way" religion is based on the acceptance that one cannot understand all things in reality, that things beyond our understanding or currect capacity or ability to know are still real and have effect in our reality.

whiddershins 4y ago
There is a lot of non revealed theology. For an intro I would suggest The Last Superstition by Edward Feser. Basically Aristotle lays out the framework without getting anywhere near a religious text.
trhway 4y ago
>Tangentially, I am a bit baffled by folks that are not believers yet try to make sense of a religion, don't they understand hierarchy of belief? I'd not give a damn about religion if it weren't shoving itself in my face everywhere. For example I don't care whatever religion some people on some remote islands may be practicing because they aren't forcing their religious dogmas on me (and as long as they don't abuse other people). The Big Religion though that we have around is forcing it's tentacles everywhere trying to strangulate everything, and thus even non believers have to deal with it defending themselves.

virtualwhys 4y ago

> If it's infinite, how did it all start? Ha, good one! Certainly would be quite wonderful if, despite death, there is neither a beginning nor end to it. I can't imagine life being finite, is that even possible given what we're in?

givemeethekeys 4y ago

I propose that religion incorporates the most accepted science of the time it was established. We haven't had a new popular enough religion that incorporates the current state of accepted science. It benefits the leadership of any organization to give its members a reason for its existence. The better the reason, the greater chance of growth. Religions aim to provide the complete package - rules for society and the individual and rules for life and what comes after it.

djokkataja 4y ago
I think it could be handy if there was a "religion" that looked at the various ways that historical religions are beneficial for their adherents (in practices and beliefs) and tried to distill things down and build some new things up from whatever gets worked out in that way. From a secular perspective, religions contain quite a bit of invented material, so this doesn't seem that unreasonable. And this could potentially be combined with more scientific perspectives, where the whole set of beliefs and practices can be updated as new things are learned, though presumably the most foundational elements wouldn't change as much.
- KMag 4y ago
  What if it turns out that for many actions, the game-theoretically optimal strategy for the individual isn't optimal for the society, and people's gut instincts are reasonably close to game theoretic analysis? In other words, what if it turns out that it's really objectively best for society if everyone is tricked into being good?
  - djokkataja 4y ago
    Even for something as simple as the prisoner's dilemma, there's quite a bit of variety in both situations and agents, so how do you decide what the "optimal" game theoretic strategy is for actual people in much more complex situations in reality? I'm not sure that it's tricking people, because society is people. I mean, suppose that people aren't tricked into being good, and then society is worse off. How could everyone in the worse off society be doing better than everyone in the better off society? This doesn't seem like a trick to me so much as adopting a different perspective.

nestorD 4y ago

One thing I learned recently is that some religions[1] do not try to explain the world and its origin. It is just that the dominant religions do so we assume it is part of a religion's definition. [1]: One example would be Gardnerian Wicca.

atoav 4y ago

But there is intersection between science and believe systems. Knowing what we know about space for example, it would be hard to justify the believe a certain subjective perspective onto a star constellation influences a persons fate based on their birth date =astrology. In this case the more we know about the how of the stars in the sky the less we can believe the uninformed why astrology is trying to present us. Similar conflicts happen with religion and one cannot ignore that knowing the how deeply influences the why. Most members of our species can't stand the lack of meaning and the will use what they know to create stories that convey it. This is an understandable mechanism and in itself not a problem, but it can become one if the story is told in a way where it starts to clash with the facts. In the end these stories, even when they call themselves holy texts are written by humans from their own limited perspectives of the time. That doesn't mean, there can not be wisdom in there, but there can also be wisdom in other texts so that doesn't really cut it..

pqs 4y ago
Astrology is not a religion. It seems to me that it is just plain wrong science.
- atoav 4y ago
  It is a believe. For most people religion is also just a believe
  - pqs 4y ago
    Then almost everything is religion. Even science, which is based on axioms. For example, in science we believe that nature is inteligible. This cannot be proven.

renox 4y ago

Religion doesn't have a good answer for that too, except 'burn the heretics who ask who created God'

xupybd 4y ago

I don't know if religion can totally answer the why question either. You end up with the unanswerable why is God?

igouy 4y ago
… I am that I am…

ykevinator2 4y ago

gxt 4y ago

Religion's only purpose is to fabricate legitimacy for those who want the power to dictate what people should do. Any other meaning that might be perceived is only there to deceive you. Kingdoms fabricate legitimacy by birthright. Democracies by elections (not the people LOL). Etc.

analog31 4y ago

I think it's simpler. Religion and science answer different questions, because if they ever disagree on an answer, it instantly ceases to be a religious question. Never the other way around. This asymmetry is like the arrow of increasing entropy, always pointing towards science. Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. I know lots of Catholic scientists, but no Catholic Buddhists.

pqs 4y ago
There are Catholic Zen Masters [1], so, somehow, it is possible to be Catholic and Buddhist. As a Catholic who dabbled in Zen when I was lost, I don't really understand how this can be combined, but this exists. My current view is that in Catholicism you'll find everything that Zen has to offer (silence, meditation, living in the present, honor the little details of life, etc.) and a lot more [2]. From a Catholic point of view, there is no contradiction, whatsoever, between science and religion. It is perfectly compatible and there is no contradiction with scripture. The problems are with scientism. [1]: https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jesuit-priest-and-zen-master-part-i https://www.ncronline.org/news/i-wanted-faith-was-deeper-jes... [2]: See, for example, Saint Thérèse of Lisieux.
shakna 4y ago
> Another asymmetry is that it's possible to hold scientific and religious beliefs at the same time (thanks to the above), but never two different religions at the same time. That's not true at all. Religious syncretism is a very old concept, and involves the blending of religions. There are Catholic Buddhists, for example, and there have been those professing to follow that since around the 1600s. You'll also find many blends of traditional Incan beliefs and Catholicism, despite the surface-level incompatibilities, in South America. One specific example might be Caodaism, which blends elements of Catholicism, Buddhism, and Taoism. Caodaism has about 2.5Mil followers in Vietnam. One of the core tenants of the religion is that we are now living in a period of time called the Third Amnesty, the end of which will be marked by the syncretism of _all_ religions into one.
- 4y ago

pqs 4y ago

Science deals with quantities in the material world, religion deals with meaning.

taylodl 4y ago

I would argue the God concept is a poor explanation of why? because you're just kicking the can down the road: either God had a beginning and you have to explain that or God is infinite which puts us right back to the same problem of having a universe with infinite duration. If we're going to say God has existed forever then it's simpler (Occam's Razor) to say the universe has existed forever. Honestly, I think trying to answer why? is a misguided effort. There doesn't need to be a reason why, and moreover inanimate objects don't have motives. Why are we here? Because we're here!

azth 4y ago
We have proof (e.g. Big Bang) that the universe did not exist forever. Secondly, asking "who created God" is similar to seeing a piece of bread, asking who baked it, then asking "who baked the baker"? It's a logical inconsistency and absurdity.
keane 4y ago
In this context you seem to be expecting a rule of thumb to do quite a lot of lifting. You seem to imply that the universe is self-evident to all and is therefore “simpler” as something that has always existed. That’s what theists are claiming God is: already self-evident to all. Conflating God and the universe as interchangeable is addressed by the Contingency Argument: https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I https://youtu.be/FPCzEP0oD7I
- taylodl 4y ago
  God is ascribed attributes the universe is not: omniscience and omnipotence. To a lesser extent one realizes those attributes of God also means God is conscious, which is not something we typically ascribe to the universe. I would argue since the universe lacks omniscience, omnipotence, consciousness, and by extension, will power it is a far simpler entity than God. So saying the universe has existed forever and saying God has existed forever are therefore two vastly different statements due to the different complexities inherent in the two different entities being compared. The universe is far, far, far simpler a construct than God and by using Occam's Razor I conclude a universe that has existed forever is far more likely than a God that has existed forever.