10 ms·

"Sometimes science must give way to religion"

16 points by ananyob 14y ago

ananyob 14y ago
So this is causing a bit of a storm. When I read it though, I thought this is sociology of science 101. To the layman, and to all non-specialists, science is a belief system. We take certain things on trust - like the discovery of the Higgs. It doesn't mean that science is not based on empirical evidence.
tompko 14y ago
I'm not sure I see the link between simplifying something so that a layman can understand it and appealing to magic or God to explain something away, or why having something simplified for you makes your acceptance of that fact an irrational act.
- think-large 14y ago
  I think that what he is getting at is that you are taking it on faith that the logic is solid behind the theory. One of the things about science is that it is an observation about the reality that we can see. I think religion is about the reality that we can't. It's not about explaining away something, but trying to put a boundary on what we do and don't understand. I think the biggest downfall of religion is when we (religious folks) try to make observations about the world with our feelings. That doesn't work. I can't feel a desk with my "heart" any more than I can feel radio waves with my hands. I think what is irrational is that science feels that it can explain everything all the way, but I'm of the opinion that the further we dig the deeper it will go. We used to believe the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest form of matter. What will be next? I have "faith" that something new will be discovered, which is where we step into an irrational realm. Faith in anything is irrational. Succinctly, To believe in that which is outside of your own thoughts is irrational, but we do and we must to survive.
  - icebraining 14y ago
    I think that what he is getting at is that you are taking it on faith that the logic is solid behind the theory. If we believed that, how come we're constantly throwing away and modifying theories? I think what is irrational is that science feels that it can explain everything all the way Science is incapable of feeling. That some people believe that is inconsequential is not a failure of science. We used to believe the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest form of matter. What will be next? I have "faith" that something new will be discovered, which is where we step into an irrational realm. That's a false equivalence. "Faith" as attributing a high degree of confidence in a event based on solid logical reasoning is not the same as religious faith. It's not even in the same ballpark.
yarrel 14y ago
"a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience" Somebody really needs to drop acid.
- fein 14y ago
  This is one thing I don't understand. Do the modern day followers of various religions not realize that they were founded by borderline drunks and psychonauts? These people don't just "talk to the gods" while completely sober; they're railed on a whole plethora of wonderful psychotropics. If any single follower of any religion wants to find out where it came from, eat a handful of mushrooms.
DaNmarner 14y ago
Several hundred years ago, nobody understands acceleration. Several decades ago, nobody understands the theory of relativity. Today, nobody understands the Standard Model. And they all submit to religion!
- laserDinosaur 14y ago
  God of the gaps.
retube 14y ago
is this "nature" as in the scientific journal? this kind of trolling for pageviews i expect from the dailymail or the guardian, not from one of the foremost and most respected publishes in Science.
snowwrestler 14y ago
In the time of Newton, there were numerous smart people trying to explain how gravity works. Newton's tremendous insight was that if he could develop a mathematical model that accurately predicted the movement of objects under the influence of gravity, it would not matter whether he could explain "how" gravity works. It was the original "shut up and calculate" moment, and the birth of our modern conception of mathematical physics. Science describes and predicts. Ultimately it cannot tell us "why"--or "should". These will always be the realm of philosophy and religion. Where religious dogma contradicts proven scientific understanding, the religious dogma must yield. But I worry that in our zeal to resolve that conflict, scientifically-inclined people also end up attacking the sense of emotional awe that is at the heart of the religious experience. That's a shame because it is also at the heart of why many kids decide to go into science in the first place. Carl Sagan addressed this a bit in his book "Contact", in which he calls that emotional experience "the numinous".
- zerostar07 14y ago
  I am going to be provocative and say that there are scientists that actively try to expand into the other realm. After all philosophy and religion are products of the human brain activity, which is composed of cells, so why can't these functions be approached in a scientific way? To say that we will have to stop inquiring about it would be lazy
  - lutusp 14y ago
    > philosophy and religion are products of the human brain activity, which is composed of cells, so why can't these functions be approached in a scientific way? That's easy to answer -- because they aren't subject to potential falsification, by way of comparison with reality. Scientific ideas, to merit the name, must be testable against reality, and if reality disagrees, the ideas must be discarded. Philosophy and religion don't have this property -- they (a) don't need to pass a reality test, and (b) in most cases they cannot pass a reality test. This is by design, not by accident -- if religion and philosophy had to meet this standard, their purpose (freedom to speculate about untestable things) would be undermined. > there are scientists that actively try to expand into the other realm. Perhaps, but not as scientists, only as individuals not doing science. And because science rejects authority, a scientist who philosophizes is just another philosopher, no better or worse than any other.
padobson 14y ago
"But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality." This reminds me of the episode of South Park where Cartman travels into the future to play Nintendo only to find a post-religious world mired in faith-based fighting. If your quest for understanding takes you down the path of science or of religion or both, at some point you are going to have to take something on faith, and to succeed you will eventually have to defend that faith - usually against someone else's faith in something else. We all have our cross to bear.
- tompko 14y ago
  Science doesn't require you to take anything on faith, for every theory and result it states it gives you the tools and methods to go away and verify it for yourself. It might be a stretch to expect someone to build another LHC, but if they don't trust the science coming out of there they could build it for themselves and see. Faith is the belief in or of something in the absence of proof, science not only provides the proof it makes it possible to prove for yourself. Science only requires trust in the scientists who are providing the results used to prove the theories.
  - offbyone 14y ago
    This. This, a thousand times.
  - alinajaf 14y ago
    Agree 100%. Moreover, any scientific theory is an open challenge. If you can create a reproducible experiment that disproves a theory, then we must throw it away.
    - sp332 14y ago
      We don't throw away useful models, even if they're incomplete.
  - mindcrime 14y ago
Toenex 14y ago
Belief is important in science. In science we only disprove a hypothesis (falsifiability). If we repeatedly fail to disprove it we begin to believe it true. Yet we can never rule out that one data the data may exist to disprove our strongly held hypothesis. We never prove it true we simply believe it true based on the continual failure of disproof.
WalterSear 14y ago
It was dubbed the 'god damn' particle, not the god particle.
zerostar07 14y ago
I couldn't find anything to take away from this article (and now this guy can claim to be publishing in Nature? What a load of BS). - Higgs was the goddamned particle, which was censored to 'god'. In any case it was just a joke - In a sense scientists believe in science, because it has never failed them. As much as most would not admit it, i believe they see some metaphysical meaning in searching for nature's truths. Plus there is some (neuro-)science that deals with metaphysical/religious feelings itself. - Just because certain places, thoughts and readings create certain chemical reactions in our brains that we perceive as deep mystical emotions doesn't mean they matter in themselves. I used to have a fear of locusts. - a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience: Isn't it weakness to stop there and say "OMG"? What causes those feelings, what purpose do they serve, and why do they happen in that Temple? Why do we even have the word "unknowable"? I think that's why science is more fun This guy needs to come out to himself as a theist
- think-large 14y ago
  Science is constantly failing us. I remember when I was taught the basic structure of an atom and all I needed were protons, neutrons, and electrons. And while quarks can be chalked up as an expansion pack for an high school teacher so can many of the changes that religious people make. How many scientific theories are proven not to be accurate models for the data? Is that not a failure? No, because it is just a failure on that particular scientist right? There is a perception that science does not fail. It does, frequently. The problem is that science was BUILT to fail. It is BUILT to be expanded upon. Religion, according to many was not. That is the fundamental failure in Religion. They want to appear to be constant and unchanging while they are not. Religion does adapt, and grow, and find failures. Much like science does. It takes a certain amount of faith to wake up every day and say that this world is the real one. It makes logical sense yes, but that doesn't mean it's the whole picture. TLDR; To be staunchly of either belief and NOT have any doubt THAT is illogical.
  - stephengillie 14y ago
    So the failure of science is...its inability to perfectly predict the future?
think-large 14y ago
I applaud this author for having an open mind on this topic. I think often times in science there is an ego that we can and we will uncover all the secrets of the universe, but that in an of itself is something taken on faith. It is actually something irrationally taken on faith, if experience and data counts for anything, then the only logical theory to this argument is that we can't and won't ever find an end to discovery. Why? Because as we uncover the mysteries of the universe an exponential number of mysteries open up to us. But then again, I'm taking that all on faith :-)
- icebraining 14y ago
  That some scientists may believe that, it doesn't mean that's inherit to science.
super_mario 14y ago
We can detect Higgs boson in principle (and may have recently). Religion on the other hand remains ramblings of bronze age goat herders who "knew" the secrets of the universe because a burning bush revealed it to them. We now have ample evidence that theistic gods are man made inventions. For those of us who care about what is true, this is enough to discard religion as a pure lie, which is not even a force for the good in the world (child raping, crusades, inquisitions, suicide bombers, jihads, Armageddons and end of times. These people just can't wait to die or if they can't live forever, kill everyone else as well with them). Science on the other hand is not a belief system. Evidence based reasoning doesn't work that way. It strikes me as odd that someone who is presumably a trained scientist hasn't even understood that basic charge theists put forward repeatedly (it boils down to "it takes equal amount of faith not to believe in god as it does to believe in god" applied to all kinds of things in this case science based on empirical evidence. As if there is even a trace of credible evidence for god. In fact when you start poking around various deities it gets incredibly uncomfortable for the religious because of how little evidence there is for historicity of say Jesus let alone his presumed divinity.). Awe and amazement is not exclusive to religion you know. Just like how religion has hijacked morals and now boldly claims you can't be a moral person without some kind of delusion in sky god (it doesn't even have to be their brand of delusion, anything is better than atheism or secularism). These people fail to understand that morals like language are also products of our wills and minds and therefore also a technology. We can decide slavery is not a good idea (despite endorsement from Yahweh). We can decide that fairly applied laws, rather than nepotistic favoritism, is a good idea. We can outlaw certain punishments with treaties. We can encourage accountability with the invention of writing. We can consciously expand our circle of empathy. These are all inventions, products of our minds, as much as lightbulbs and telegraphs are. People who insist on absolute biblical morality are really insisting on using bronze age technology absolutely. Time and time again, religion is proving itself incapable of catching up with the achievements of secular society, which is not surprising really, religion is now a branch of human ignorance. It was our first approximation of science, first explanation for everything primitive mind feared but could not explain, but it failed to evolve and improve because of its insistence on supernatural and supernatural explanations, which simply are not supported by evidence. And this brings me to a larger point, why do we even have religion today? Precisely because believing is lot easier than thinking. It takes time and effort to acquire knowledge but any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlessly. If it took any effort most people would not bother with it. And the biggest problem with all of this is this love affair with ignorance is made into a virtue by religion.
jorangreef 14y ago
Science is our best effort attempt to describe the world around us. Science can't go beyond that. All models are wrong but some models are more useful than others. It is unlikely that our models fit the data perfectly. Indeed we cannot know if we even have all the data in the first place. We should not mistake science for the real world, or the model for the data. Naturalists would say that there's nothing beyond that, nothing beyond the world around us as described by science. They have no rational reason to assert such a position. They have no philosophical or scientific tools to make such a claim. Indeed the scientific method was never intended to be used towards that end. Philosophy is similarly ill-suited. The mistake of naturalists is to conflate science with atheism and to confuse "faith" (conviction established by reason) with "blind faith" (unfounded conviction), two separate concepts. For example, "I have a degree of faith in you based on past performance" vs "I have a degree of faith in you based on whimsy". On the other hand, the supernaturalist believes there's something beyond the world around us. Likewise, the supernaturalist has no tools (philosophy, science) to assert such a position. Both the naturalist (represented by atheism) and the supernaturalist (represented by blind faith) are indefensible positions. Therefore there is no ground on which to outright reject or accept the possibility of miracles. This leaves the middle ground (represented by agnosticism). Here the position is such that we can't reach out and describe the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, unless it were to reach out and describe itself to us in a way that would clearly be supernatural. This would mean that we could only ever confirm the existence of the supernatural but never deny it. For that task, we would need to look to history, using the tools of historical inquiry, if indeed there is anything supernatural yet to be found in history. The claim of Christ, of the life and death and resurrection of Christ in history would be one such claim to examine: "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church." - Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians
laserDinosaur 14y ago
I think I understand what point he is trying to get at, in a very round-a-bout, incorrect premise type way (ha, God particle). Do I know we went to the moon? No, but I can do enough research that shows there is more evidence we did than didn't. Do I know that the LHC actually works? No, but I could do the research to find more evidence that they did than they didn't. Do I have time to do that research? No. Does that mean I've put 'faith' in scientists that it does exist? Hell no, I've given them the benefit of the doubt. In my mind that is two WILDLY different statements. 'Faith' that the higgs exists suggests I've done give up trying to find answers and will simply take the word of others as fact. Benefit of the doubt means the people in charge have built up enough credibility that I'm willing to believe them for now, but I'm never going to stop reading every bit of information on the topic I can until I can form a proper opinion. Faith in the sun rising tomorrow means I won’t stick my head out the window and look. Benefit of the doubt means I'll have a good night’s sleep, but I'll sure as hell be looking out that window in the morning.
sasoon 14y ago
Leon Lederman did not want to call it 'The God Particle', just the opposite 'Goddamn Particle'. "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Univer...
sodiumphosphate 14y ago
Fuck religion.
pepve 14y ago
Far more comments than upvotes. An article like this, fervent discussion is to be expected. Let me join in on the fun! "Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective experience, to provide an antidote to it." That is where the author lost me. Science is supposed to challenge beliefs, not personal experience. It's the difference between "I feel great today" and "four people complimented my new haircut today". Science still allows you to revel in beauty when looking at a temple, even while there may be a sound explanation for why you're having these feelings.
calciphus 14y ago
The author completely lost me at: "The Higgs, of course, has been labelled the ‘god particle’ because it accounts for the existence of mass in the Universe." No, it is called the "God Particle" because Leon Lederman called it the "Goddamned Particle" since he had so much trouble defining what it was and how it behaved, and his publisher shortened it to "The God Particle" because it had a snappier name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs#Political_and_religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs#Political_and_relig...
nano_o 14y ago
Sometimes it may be better not to explain than to resort to cosmic molasses and moonlight (terms taken from the NYT quote in the article). Here is, I think, Feynman explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM It seems to also apply to explaining through religion.
roop 14y ago
It appears to me that most commenters missed the point of the article, which (to me) is more on the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's third law: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Replace magic by religion.) We have all these scientists trying to explain how sub-atomic particles have mass, and in course of that explanation, talk about the spin of a particle, color charge, Higgs field, et al. Thing is, I can really understand their explanation only if I know what these terms mean. And for me to know what those terms really mean, I might have to spend years (or maybe decades, depending on my mental capacity) studying theoretical physics. But I believe them because science if all about repeatable experiments. While I'm ill-equipped to check the results, I guess other domain-experts can. Now, let's take a look at Hindu spirituality. A yogi might try to explain, say, why we exist, and in course of doing that, talk about Brahman, karma, cosmic cycle, et al. To really understand what he means, I would need to really understand what the terms mean, and doing that might take years or decades. See the parallels? That's what the article is trying to emphasize.
drucken 14y ago
Science != spirituality. The domain the author speaks of does not fall within the remit of science. Further, it cannot since spirituality is subjective. It would be like saying the an accurate and extendible description of a thing is like actually standing next to the thing. Like reading of the Grand Canyon is the same as being at the Grand Canyon... Also, the title of the article is critically misnamed. He is almost entirely describing spirituality not religious experience. Non-religious people, including atheists, accept that it is possible to have spirituality, i.e. to form a deeper connection with others and yourself, including via science. It is the means by how that is achieved that is the source of friction outside of science.

16 points by ananyob 14y ago

So this is causing a bit of a storm. When I read it though, I thought this is sociology of science 101. To the layman, and to all non-specialists, science is a belief system. We take certain things on trust - like the discovery of the Higgs. It doesn't mean that science is not based on empirical evidence.

tompko 14y ago

I'm not sure I see the link between simplifying something so that a layman can understand it and appealing to magic or God to explain something away, or why having something simplified for you makes your acceptance of that fact an irrational act.

think-large 14y ago
I think that what he is getting at is that you are taking it on faith that the logic is solid behind the theory. One of the things about science is that it is an observation about the reality that we can see. I think religion is about the reality that we can't. It's not about explaining away something, but trying to put a boundary on what we do and don't understand. I think the biggest downfall of religion is when we (religious folks) try to make observations about the world with our feelings. That doesn't work. I can't feel a desk with my "heart" any more than I can feel radio waves with my hands. I think what is irrational is that science feels that it can explain everything all the way, but I'm of the opinion that the further we dig the deeper it will go. We used to believe the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest form of matter. What will be next? I have "faith" that something new will be discovered, which is where we step into an irrational realm. Faith in anything is irrational. Succinctly, To believe in that which is outside of your own thoughts is irrational, but we do and we must to survive.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I think that what he is getting at is that you are taking it on faith that the logic is solid behind the theory. If we believed that, how come we're constantly throwing away and modifying theories? I think what is irrational is that science feels that it can explain everything all the way Science is incapable of feeling. That some people believe that is inconsequential is not a failure of science. We used to believe the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest form of matter. What will be next? I have "faith" that something new will be discovered, which is where we step into an irrational realm. That's a false equivalence. "Faith" as attributing a high degree of confidence in a event based on solid logical reasoning is not the same as religious faith. It's not even in the same ballpark.

yarrel 14y ago

"a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience" Somebody really needs to drop acid.

fein 14y ago
This is one thing I don't understand. Do the modern day followers of various religions not realize that they were founded by borderline drunks and psychonauts? These people don't just "talk to the gods" while completely sober; they're railed on a whole plethora of wonderful psychotropics. If any single follower of any religion wants to find out where it came from, eat a handful of mushrooms.

DaNmarner 14y ago

Several hundred years ago, nobody understands acceleration. Several decades ago, nobody understands the theory of relativity. Today, nobody understands the Standard Model. And they all submit to religion!

laserDinosaur 14y ago
God of the gaps.

retube 14y ago

is this "nature" as in the scientific journal? this kind of trolling for pageviews i expect from the dailymail or the guardian, not from one of the foremost and most respected publishes in Science.

snowwrestler 14y ago

In the time of Newton, there were numerous smart people trying to explain how gravity works. Newton's tremendous insight was that if he could develop a mathematical model that accurately predicted the movement of objects under the influence of gravity, it would not matter whether he could explain "how" gravity works. It was the original "shut up and calculate" moment, and the birth of our modern conception of mathematical physics. Science describes and predicts. Ultimately it cannot tell us "why"--or "should". These will always be the realm of philosophy and religion. Where religious dogma contradicts proven scientific understanding, the religious dogma must yield. But I worry that in our zeal to resolve that conflict, scientifically-inclined people also end up attacking the sense of emotional awe that is at the heart of the religious experience. That's a shame because it is also at the heart of why many kids decide to go into science in the first place. Carl Sagan addressed this a bit in his book "Contact", in which he calls that emotional experience "the numinous".

zerostar07 14y ago
I am going to be provocative and say that there are scientists that actively try to expand into the other realm. After all philosophy and religion are products of the human brain activity, which is composed of cells, so why can't these functions be approached in a scientific way? To say that we will have to stop inquiring about it would be lazy
- lutusp 14y ago
  > philosophy and religion are products of the human brain activity, which is composed of cells, so why can't these functions be approached in a scientific way? That's easy to answer -- because they aren't subject to potential falsification, by way of comparison with reality. Scientific ideas, to merit the name, must be testable against reality, and if reality disagrees, the ideas must be discarded. Philosophy and religion don't have this property -- they (a) don't need to pass a reality test, and (b) in most cases they cannot pass a reality test. This is by design, not by accident -- if religion and philosophy had to meet this standard, their purpose (freedom to speculate about untestable things) would be undermined. > there are scientists that actively try to expand into the other realm. Perhaps, but not as scientists, only as individuals not doing science. And because science rejects authority, a scientist who philosophizes is just another philosopher, no better or worse than any other.

padobson 14y ago

"But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality." This reminds me of the episode of South Park where Cartman travels into the future to play Nintendo only to find a post-religious world mired in faith-based fighting. If your quest for understanding takes you down the path of science or of religion or both, at some point you are going to have to take something on faith, and to succeed you will eventually have to defend that faith - usually against someone else's faith in something else. We all have our cross to bear.

tompko 14y ago
Science doesn't require you to take anything on faith, for every theory and result it states it gives you the tools and methods to go away and verify it for yourself. It might be a stretch to expect someone to build another LHC, but if they don't trust the science coming out of there they could build it for themselves and see. Faith is the belief in or of something in the absence of proof, science not only provides the proof it makes it possible to prove for yourself. Science only requires trust in the scientists who are providing the results used to prove the theories.
- offbyone 14y ago
  This. This, a thousand times.
- alinajaf 14y ago
  Agree 100%. Moreover, any scientific theory is an open challenge. If you can create a reproducible experiment that disproves a theory, then we must throw it away.
  - sp332 14y ago
    We don't throw away useful models, even if they're incomplete.
- mindcrime 14y ago

Toenex 14y ago

Belief is important in science. In science we only disprove a hypothesis (falsifiability). If we repeatedly fail to disprove it we begin to believe it true. Yet we can never rule out that one data the data may exist to disprove our strongly held hypothesis. We never prove it true we simply believe it true based on the continual failure of disproof.

WalterSear 14y ago

It was dubbed the 'god damn' particle, not the god particle.

zerostar07 14y ago

I couldn't find anything to take away from this article (and now this guy can claim to be publishing in Nature? What a load of BS). - Higgs was the goddamned particle, which was censored to 'god'. In any case it was just a joke - In a sense scientists believe in science, because it has never failed them. As much as most would not admit it, i believe they see some metaphysical meaning in searching for nature's truths. Plus there is some (neuro-)science that deals with metaphysical/religious feelings itself. - Just because certain places, thoughts and readings create certain chemical reactions in our brains that we perceive as deep mystical emotions doesn't mean they matter in themselves. I used to have a fear of locusts. - a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience: Isn't it weakness to stop there and say "OMG"? What causes those feelings, what purpose do they serve, and why do they happen in that Temple? Why do we even have the word "unknowable"? I think that's why science is more fun This guy needs to come out to himself as a theist

think-large 14y ago
Science is constantly failing us. I remember when I was taught the basic structure of an atom and all I needed were protons, neutrons, and electrons. And while quarks can be chalked up as an expansion pack for an high school teacher so can many of the changes that religious people make. How many scientific theories are proven not to be accurate models for the data? Is that not a failure? No, because it is just a failure on that particular scientist right? There is a perception that science does not fail. It does, frequently. The problem is that science was BUILT to fail. It is BUILT to be expanded upon. Religion, according to many was not. That is the fundamental failure in Religion. They want to appear to be constant and unchanging while they are not. Religion does adapt, and grow, and find failures. Much like science does. It takes a certain amount of faith to wake up every day and say that this world is the real one. It makes logical sense yes, but that doesn't mean it's the whole picture. TLDR; To be staunchly of either belief and NOT have any doubt THAT is illogical.
- stephengillie 14y ago
  So the failure of science is...its inability to perfectly predict the future?

think-large 14y ago

I applaud this author for having an open mind on this topic. I think often times in science there is an ego that we can and we will uncover all the secrets of the universe, but that in an of itself is something taken on faith. It is actually something irrationally taken on faith, if experience and data counts for anything, then the only logical theory to this argument is that we can't and won't ever find an end to discovery. Why? Because as we uncover the mysteries of the universe an exponential number of mysteries open up to us. But then again, I'm taking that all on faith :-)

icebraining 14y ago
That some scientists may believe that, it doesn't mean that's inherit to science.

super_mario 14y ago

We can detect Higgs boson in principle (and may have recently). Religion on the other hand remains ramblings of bronze age goat herders who "knew" the secrets of the universe because a burning bush revealed it to them. We now have ample evidence that theistic gods are man made inventions. For those of us who care about what is true, this is enough to discard religion as a pure lie, which is not even a force for the good in the world (child raping, crusades, inquisitions, suicide bombers, jihads, Armageddons and end of times. These people just can't wait to die or if they can't live forever, kill everyone else as well with them). Science on the other hand is not a belief system. Evidence based reasoning doesn't work that way. It strikes me as odd that someone who is presumably a trained scientist hasn't even understood that basic charge theists put forward repeatedly (it boils down to "it takes equal amount of faith not to believe in god as it does to believe in god" applied to all kinds of things in this case science based on empirical evidence. As if there is even a trace of credible evidence for god. In fact when you start poking around various deities it gets incredibly uncomfortable for the religious because of how little evidence there is for historicity of say Jesus let alone his presumed divinity.). Awe and amazement is not exclusive to religion you know. Just like how religion has hijacked morals and now boldly claims you can't be a moral person without some kind of delusion in sky god (it doesn't even have to be their brand of delusion, anything is better than atheism or secularism). These people fail to understand that morals like language are also products of our wills and minds and therefore also a technology. We can decide slavery is not a good idea (despite endorsement from Yahweh). We can decide that fairly applied laws, rather than nepotistic favoritism, is a good idea. We can outlaw certain punishments with treaties. We can encourage accountability with the invention of writing. We can consciously expand our circle of empathy. These are all inventions, products of our minds, as much as lightbulbs and telegraphs are. People who insist on absolute biblical morality are really insisting on using bronze age technology absolutely. Time and time again, religion is proving itself incapable of catching up with the achievements of secular society, which is not surprising really, religion is now a branch of human ignorance. It was our first approximation of science, first explanation for everything primitive mind feared but could not explain, but it failed to evolve and improve because of its insistence on supernatural and supernatural explanations, which simply are not supported by evidence. And this brings me to a larger point, why do we even have religion today? Precisely because believing is lot easier than thinking. It takes time and effort to acquire knowledge but any fool can acquire faith instantly and effortlessly. If it took any effort most people would not bother with it. And the biggest problem with all of this is this love affair with ignorance is made into a virtue by religion.

jorangreef 14y ago

Science is our best effort attempt to describe the world around us. Science can't go beyond that. All models are wrong but some models are more useful than others. It is unlikely that our models fit the data perfectly. Indeed we cannot know if we even have all the data in the first place. We should not mistake science for the real world, or the model for the data. Naturalists would say that there's nothing beyond that, nothing beyond the world around us as described by science. They have no rational reason to assert such a position. They have no philosophical or scientific tools to make such a claim. Indeed the scientific method was never intended to be used towards that end. Philosophy is similarly ill-suited. The mistake of naturalists is to conflate science with atheism and to confuse "faith" (conviction established by reason) with "blind faith" (unfounded conviction), two separate concepts. For example, "I have a degree of faith in you based on past performance" vs "I have a degree of faith in you based on whimsy". On the other hand, the supernaturalist believes there's something beyond the world around us. Likewise, the supernaturalist has no tools (philosophy, science) to assert such a position. Both the naturalist (represented by atheism) and the supernaturalist (represented by blind faith) are indefensible positions. Therefore there is no ground on which to outright reject or accept the possibility of miracles. This leaves the middle ground (represented by agnosticism). Here the position is such that we can't reach out and describe the existence or non-existence of the supernatural, unless it were to reach out and describe itself to us in a way that would clearly be supernatural. This would mean that we could only ever confirm the existence of the supernatural but never deny it. For that task, we would need to look to history, using the tools of historical inquiry, if indeed there is anything supernatural yet to be found in history. The claim of Christ, of the life and death and resurrection of Christ in history would be one such claim to examine: "I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried, and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said. He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an apostle after the way I persecuted God's church." - Paul in his first letter to the Corinthians

laserDinosaur 14y ago

I think I understand what point he is trying to get at, in a very round-a-bout, incorrect premise type way (ha, God particle). Do I know we went to the moon? No, but I can do enough research that shows there is more evidence we did than didn't. Do I know that the LHC actually works? No, but I could do the research to find more evidence that they did than they didn't. Do I have time to do that research? No. Does that mean I've put 'faith' in scientists that it does exist? Hell no, I've given them the benefit of the doubt. In my mind that is two WILDLY different statements. 'Faith' that the higgs exists suggests I've done give up trying to find answers and will simply take the word of others as fact. Benefit of the doubt means the people in charge have built up enough credibility that I'm willing to believe them for now, but I'm never going to stop reading every bit of information on the topic I can until I can form a proper opinion. Faith in the sun rising tomorrow means I won’t stick my head out the window and look. Benefit of the doubt means I'll have a good night’s sleep, but I'll sure as hell be looking out that window in the morning.

sasoon 14y ago

Leon Lederman did not want to call it 'The God Particle', just the opposite 'Goddamn Particle'. "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous nature and the expense it is causing." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Univer...

sodiumphosphate 14y ago

Fuck religion.

pepve 14y ago

Far more comments than upvotes. An article like this, fervent discussion is to be expected. Let me join in on the fun! "Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective experience, to provide an antidote to it." That is where the author lost me. Science is supposed to challenge beliefs, not personal experience. It's the difference between "I feel great today" and "four people complimented my new haircut today". Science still allows you to revel in beauty when looking at a temple, even while there may be a sound explanation for why you're having these feelings.

calciphus 14y ago

The author completely lost me at: "The Higgs, of course, has been labelled the ‘god particle’ because it accounts for the existence of mass in the Universe." No, it is called the "God Particle" because Leon Lederman called it the "Goddamned Particle" since he had so much trouble defining what it was and how it behaved, and his publisher shortened it to "The God Particle" because it had a snappier name. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs#Political_and_religious_views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs#Political_and_relig...

nano_o 14y ago

Sometimes it may be better not to explain than to resort to cosmic molasses and moonlight (terms taken from the NYT quote in the article). Here is, I think, Feynman explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM It seems to also apply to explaining through religion.

roop 14y ago

It appears to me that most commenters missed the point of the article, which (to me) is more on the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's third law: " Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Replace magic by religion.) We have all these scientists trying to explain how sub-atomic particles have mass, and in course of that explanation, talk about the spin of a particle, color charge, Higgs field, et al. Thing is, I can really understand their explanation only if I know what these terms mean. And for me to know what those terms really mean, I might have to spend years (or maybe decades, depending on my mental capacity) studying theoretical physics. But I believe them because science if all about repeatable experiments. While I'm ill-equipped to check the results, I guess other domain-experts can. Now, let's take a look at Hindu spirituality. A yogi might try to explain, say, why we exist, and in course of doing that, talk about Brahman, karma, cosmic cycle, et al. To really understand what he means, I would need to really understand what the terms mean, and doing that might take years or decades. See the parallels? That's what the article is trying to emphasize.

drucken 14y ago

Science != spirituality. The domain the author speaks of does not fall within the remit of science. Further, it cannot since spirituality is subjective. It would be like saying the an accurate and extendible description of a thing is like actually standing next to the thing. Like reading of the Grand Canyon is the same as being at the Grand Canyon... Also, the title of the article is critically misnamed. He is almost entirely describing spirituality not religious experience. Non-religious people, including atheists, accept that it is possible to have spirituality, i.e. to form a deeper connection with others and yourself, including via science. It is the means by how that is achieved that is the source of friction outside of science.