9 ms·

For many of these people, science and religion simply deal with different realms. Science deals with natural causes for natural phenomena, while religion deals

• ahoy 13y ago
  I don't know the answer to this either, but I've seen this kind of compartmentalization in lots of very smart folks. I know a guy who's a brilliant optics engineer and has had success both in business and academia. He's not sold on climate change as a fact.
  • conanbatt 13y ago
    The fact that you used the word "sold" already implies to me its a matter of faith. Climate change is a highly politicized and potentially corrupt push of an agenda. As Im not working on climate change or related sciences, all I can do is believe on what an alleged aggregate of scientist tell me, its pure faith. Scientists and engineers are the new priests.
• aray 13y ago
  I knew a few semi-religious scientists in the past. They were all in line with what we'd probably accept as scientific reasoning behind natural phenomena, but deferred to religion on more philosophical (and not physical) questions: "Why are we here?" "What's the meaning of life?" "Why should I be good towards other people?" (I know part of these are at least touched on by some of the humanities sciences - moral philosophy and psychology, but the scientists I've experience with were biologists & chemists and not as well versed in those fields as their own)
  • tetrep 13y ago
    if they're willing to ignore huge swaths of divine text what makes the existential statements special? if someone made a list of statements, most of which were false but some of which were unverifiable why would anyone accept, as truth, the unverified claims? if anything accept part of the Bible, cherry picking, is worse (logically) than accepting all of it.
    • aray 13y ago
      As I understood it, they were asking about religious scientists. Religious != take-given-entire-scripture-literally. It just means they believe in the existence of a higher power (if you can forgive my paraphrasing). If they did mean scientists who take all of scripture literally, then no I don't actually know any of those.
    • mathattack 13y ago
      if anything accept part of the Bible, cherry picking, is worse (logically) than accepting all of it. I'm not sure I follow this... Why is this so bad. Let's say that my view of the bible is a set of self-replicating instructions that were carried through time as culture. Today I deem some ideas helpful parts of my culture, and some not to so helpful. I choose to follow the former. Is this logically inconsistent?
    • CodeMage 13y ago
      Ask yourself a few analogous questions: - How can you vote for or otherwise support a politician if you don't agree 100% on everything with that politician? - If your friend enjoys the same music that you do, but not the same food, would that necessarily make you not go to a concert with that friend? - How can you enjoy a book written by an author if you strongly disagree with that author's personal beliefs? Do those beliefs necessarily invalidate anything and everything that this hypothetical author writes? As a real life example, take Orson Scott Card: do his personal views about homosexuality make his Ender books any worse?
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > if they're willing to ignore huge swaths of divine text what makes the existential statements special? The idea that divine texts are a particularly privileged source of factual information is not universal among religions (or even among religions which have divine texts, or even among major branches of, e.g., Christianity.)
• Udo 13y ago
  > how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another It's even worse than that. For religious scientists, often belief is directly contradicted by the evidence at hand. The reason this still somewhat works is because humans can exist (and sometimes thrive) in a state of profound cognitive dissonance. I don't remember right now who said this first, but the phrase "religion poisons everything" comes to mind. Like a trojan on a computer, religion fortifies the brain against external influence. Most insidiously, religion poisons the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally. If there is such a thing as a poisonous meme, this is it. To use a biochemical phrase, religion has evolved to competitively inhibit the brain's logical and moral facilities, and in doing that it has developed heavily optimized strategies for maximizing infectiousness and resilience.
  • johnchristopher 13y ago
    I don't like this outlook because it's too close to "ignorance is bliss" theme.
    • Udo 13y ago
      Pardon me for not getting this, but how can what I wrote be interpreted as "ignorance is bliss"? Shouldn't the conclusion be the opposite of that?
      • johnchristopher 13y ago
        I may very well be the one not getting it (english is not my first language and I am sleepy at the moment). Allow me to try to rephrase your explanation: it states that religion act as a kind of shield for the brain[1] (this is bliss) while at the same time blinding him to hard facts[2] (this is ignorance). Did I read too much in your explanation or summarized too much ? [1] external influences [2] the ability to freely reason about data specifically and the environment generally
        • Udo 13y ago
• adsr 13y ago
  Of course claims about an after life are based on faith, that's true regardless if the claim is that there is or is not an after life.
  • maaku 13y ago
    Not necessarily. If we can adequately explain not just life but the sensation of consciousness - that personal identity which is said to persist into the afterlife - in terms of physical interactions which terminate and decompose when the body dies, then strictly speaking it requires additional unwarranted suppositions to assume that this explainable and now terminated physical phenomenon persisted and continued to operate in some hidden spiritual world. It requires implicit rejection of Occamian world view.
    • kansface 13y ago
      No, it would not. Anything that exists outside the universe and time is not subject to conjecture of any sort. Applying logic to such a thing is meaningless; there is no reason for logic to exist outside of the universe. In other words, absolutely nothing meaningful can be claimed about an afterlife (unless such a thing exists within this universe which seems doubtful).
      • maaku 13y ago
        What you are arguing is called mind dualism. It is subject to very many difficulties, and does nothing to resolve pesky issues like neurologically damaged and split brain individuals (what happens in their afterlife?) or explain why there is this magical correspondence between the spiritual realm and physical reality, without any causal connection (see my point about Occam priors).
        • kansface 13y ago
          Certainly any afterlife would necessarily be non physical, no? Alternatively, I would be delighted if you gave proof otherwise. At any rate, I'm not arguing for mind dualism nor will I attempt to answer any of the questions you posed. I argue that it is completely pointless to speculate in any way about something which exists outside of the bounds of knowledge (science). I was merely agreeing with the assertion of the OP: > [faith is required] if the claim is that there is or is not an after life An afterlife can not be shown to NOT exist even if consciousness if fully explainable by science. There is no special knowledge to be found in logic/philosophy that exist outside of science. Therefore, we only have faith in either case.
• mcknz 13y ago
  The realms have different rules. An argument within/for/against a particular religious belief, such as a gut feeling or reference to a religious text, doesn't work in science. In a similar way, it doesn't make sense to use the rules of science to support/refute religion. To assert that there is no evidence for a religious belief is essentially a religious argument, not a scientific one.
  • Perseids 13y ago
    Even if there are different realms, I don't see how I (personally) can use different ways of reasoning in these realms. I'm quite certain that believing in some afterlife (as opposed to total oblivion after death) would make me much happier. But I cannot choose to believe something that is wrong or at the very least totally arbitrary according to my usual logic. It feels no different to me than wanting to believe that there is no massive government surveillance, even though I have followed the news for the past few months.
• roarroar 13y ago
  Reason rests on fictions, too. For example objects/things don't exist. But without believing in them it's impossible to function. Religion also has to be evaluated functionally.
• eeperson 13y ago
  It sounds like you feel there is an inherent conflict between science and religion (or am I misreading). I see no reason why this needs to be the case. Once you move beyond explanations for things that can make testable predictions, then you are out outside of science you have moved in to philosophy. At that point all explanations that don't contradict what is observed become equally valid/invalid. Take for example the question more general question of whether or not there is a creator behind the universe. There is no real way to prove, or at least no one has come up with a way to do so, whether or not this is the case. As a result, either answer is equally valid/invalid.
  • deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  • akiselev 13y ago
    Science is far more than "testable predictions" and covers an entire method that we have found to be the best and only way to understand reality with timid certainty. Science itself is basically a subfield of epistemology and it ties together both WHAT we know and WHY we actually know it instead of simply believe it. Science is dedicated to finding out what reality is (as best as mathematics or other abstract structures can describe it at least) and that sets up a class of rigor for certainty which religion can simply not touch. Also, built into science is a feedback loop that constantly reevaluates what it means to be certain and tries to tie that certainty to the real world through engineering, which, again, religion cannot even begin to attempt. What we call science today is a formalization of what humans have been doing for tens of thousands of years: looking for patterns and relationships in cause and effect. The very act of making the first wheel, paper out of papyrus thousands of years before the lumber industry, or a calendar by looking at the stars is an act of scientific exploration that probes not just the natural world, but how we discover what the natural world really is. Over time that methodology has included into our cultural knowledge things like gravity and horticulture while excluding things like rain dances and homeopathic medicine. In the end, you either accept the rigor and structure on knowledge and certainty developed by science and the scientific method (which, by the way, created modern civilization as you see it today) or you don't. If you accept it, religion by its very definition (supernatural and all that) conflicts with science. If you don't, then there is a basic difference in core assumptions and there really is no argument.
• benched 13y ago
  As I see it, the basic flaw in the materialist worldview is this: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/perception-episprob/ It is also what leaves the door open for more transcendent views. Eastern religions, in particular, are founded on the basic idea that your everyday experience is illusory. You dismiss religious beliefs as based on "essentially nothing". In fact, the basis of religious belief in the most general sense is conscious experience. The kinds of conscious experience that you would probably call hallucinations. But, referring again to the link above, you are probably disposed to call shared perceptions "real", and non-shared perceptions hallucinatory. Religiously, metaphysically, or even philosophically minded people might call that arbitrary. Chauvinistic even. We act like consensual reality is real because it's convenient, intuitive, and seems to get us good results in consensual reality. You say "zero credible evidence of an afterlife." That's true, if you restrict yourself to what's usually considered "evidence" in science. Evidence that more than one person can perceive at the same time. But individuals can go further if they really want to see whether there's anything to see. Are you willing to dedicate yourself to a meditation practice for a long time? Psychedelic drugs? Flatliners (the 1990 movie)? I'm not recommending that anyone do anything dangerous. Just pointing out that there are things you can observe first-hand, that aren't likely to be replicated in a study.
  • Udo 13y ago
    > That's true, if you restrict yourself to what's usually considered "evidence" in science. It's true that if you don't restrict yourself to the world of facts, you can do pretty much anything. And there are lots of contexts where I'm doing things decidedly not rooted in facts, such as enjoying and producing works of fiction for entertainment. However, if we're going to talk about the nature of the world, adhering to facts becomes mandatory. Otherwise, there is not a lot of meaningful exchange to have at all. Of course it's fun to kick hypotheses around - but a supernatural world view is usually not a mere hypothesis, it's a postulate made in conscious and willful contradiction to evidence. For instance, I like Lord of the Rings, but the moment I insist people should take seriously my belief that orcs are under my bed, I have crossed the river into the land of delusion. Of course I'm free to entertain that belief, but people publicly calling it out as bullshit is not Chauvinism, it's an honest and rational response.
• dazbradbury 13y ago
  how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? Scientists regularly believe in a theory, or concept, that is not yet proven. Many scientists spend their entire lives proving something. Hence, I wouldn't suggest belief in science has historically relied on evidence or proof. Now onto the main point, the difference lies with what is provable and what isn't. Many religions believe in a being that is not provable. Or believe in teachings for the betterment of society. These aren't provable or disprovable theories (whether you believe that is their nature or they are intentionally designed that way!) There are religions where one of the central tenets is that science and reason must be in agreement with the religion itself. Personally I think the two can be seperated, and the problem only comes when religious leaders preach science. Religion, for me, covers a set of unprovable concepts. I also wouldn't say people are too quick to diffuse the science vs. religion argument, I think pg has a few comments on what causes flame wars! (And a rather excellent essay relating to labels / identity [1]). [1] - http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
  • Houshalter 13y ago
    I think most of these arguments would go away if people understood some probability theory. "It's just a theory", "It hasn't been/can't be proven/disproven.", etc. The point is do you think it has a greater than 0.00001% of being true? How can you possibly justify such a high probability estimate? In the space of millions of possible hypothesises, the probability of any one being correct is incredibly small. Especially with Occam's Razor, simple explanations are far more likely to be true. And religion is a very over-complicated explanation. We use evidence to rule out explanations which can't be true, or more accurately lower their probability (the evidence could just be a coincidence or a fluke, for example.) To raise the probability of a specific religion being true, you would need a lot of evidence. Which simply doesn't exist and in fact we have lots of counter-evidence (things that religion say that turned out to be false for example.) Scientists do spend their lives looking at things that haven't been proven, but they have to have to think they have a greater than, say, 10% chance of being true to be worth their time.
• archagon 13y ago
  It's pretty darn easy to hold two seemingly-contradictory beliefs. The trick is to stifle the urge to resolve them.
• kansface 13y ago
  >Focus on the here and now, it's all we get. What proof do you offer?
• smrtinsert 13y ago
  That's your opinion. There are plenty of people who feel that the concept of an afterlife is a very comforting one and would prefer to have it. Unless you can prove that humanity is better off with statistical significance, please shut up about religion on hacker news! :)
  • Perseids 13y ago
    See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6524430 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6524430 . What I would be interested in is to have a religious scientist explain how he can choose to believe (for example in an afterlife) against statistical significance. I for one can't shut down my way of reasoning when it comes to religion, no matter how much I would like to.
  • Udo 13y ago
    The concept of an afterlife is appealing to me as an atheist, but that doesn't make it true. And that's really the core problem of religious arguments: wishing very hard for the laws of the universe to change doesn't make it so. Ever the technocrat, I would take that innate wish for an afterlife as an unconscious manifestation of the desire for humans to transcend their biological existence and move on to something better. And that's certainly something worth pursuing. But just sitting on a rug and insisting it's already an option, provided you adhere to certain mystical rules of course, now that's just unproductive nonsense.
• dragonwriter 13y ago
  > how do you reconcile the use of evidence for establishing belief in one domain, and then not require this in another? Religious belief is quite frequently based on evidence; it often isn't empirical evidence that is verifiable independently because it is grounded in personal internal experience, so it isn't the kind of evidence on which science works, but there is nothing inconsistent about: 1) recognizing empirical/scientifically-based beliefs and other beliefs as separate kinds of belief, and 2) preferring the empirical evidence in the domains for which it is relevant and available, but still 3) accepting other experience as the basis for non-empirical beliefs in areas where empirical evidence is not available (or even relevant.) > Pick your religion, what method do you use to evalute it's 'factualness' vs some other religion? Not everyone who has a religion is concerned with evaluating it against other religions in terms of "factualness".