4 ms·

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies o

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. Science isn't trying to figure god out any more than it's trying to figure fairies out. Science focuses its efforts on understanding reality.

Rexxar 12y ago
Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.
- shasta 12y ago
  The big question of science is "Why...?" The big question of religion is "Who...?"
  - Rexxar 12y ago
    I disagree here. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics explain how our world behave but we have no idea why these theories are true or even why can the universe be described with mathematical equations ?
    - zornthewise 12y ago
      What kind of answer would satisfy your questions of why these theories are true anyway. I am not sure I can even imagine an ideal answer and this might be a clue that we are asking the completely wrong question.
      - Rexxar 12y ago
        I don't have answer on the "Why". I think that this question is not a scientific question because the answer could no be proved/invalidated by experiments. It's a philosophical question and some people find the answer in religion or philosophy, some just admit they don't know and others just don't care.
    - Retra 12y ago
      I suppose religion will tell you why those things are true?
      - Rexxar 12y ago
        Personally, religion didn't tell me anything. But they are giving an explanation to non-scientific question to a lot of people.
        Retra 12y ago
        In my experience, religion is usually answering scientific questions, not non-scientific ones. And the explanations they give hardly explain anything at all.
  - Dewie3 12y ago
    I don't know. Some religions don't seem so hung up on prime movers and anthropomorphizing any "higher being(s)". Buddhism, for instance (just my impression).
- Retra 12y ago
  There are not two different problems. And more importantly, religion has never actually answered a "why" question in a reasonable manner. So it is objectively useless. It is not how you answer "why" questions. Assuming your distinction is actually meaningful, here's a question for you: "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"
  - Rexxar 12y ago
    "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?" Maybe the answer is that there is no scientific answer to a "why" question ? The question has no scientific answer. In maths, some equations have no solution, some proposition are not provable with common axioms. The "why questions" are just question without scientific answer.
    - Retra 12y ago
      Every question you ask is going to be manifest in relationships between subsets of observable states of reality. Even if you ask a nonsensical question, it is possible to determine that the question is nonsense by observing the context of the question. There is nothing here that prevents science from working to answer the question. If you have a question with no possible scientific answer, then it has no answer at all. You do not get better results by refusing to use the best tools.
  - dang 12y ago
    > [Religion] is objectively useless. Religious flamewars aren't ok on HN. Please don't do this here.
dropit_sphere 12y ago
That's not the important distinction. Religion is also trying to figure out reality. If science thought it could detect fairies, then science would study fairies. The distinction is rather in method; science uses (hopefully) well-designed experiments and peer review; religion uses...other methods.
- janvidar 12y ago
  Well, religion tells you the answer, so there is no point in looking.
- louthy 12y ago
  This is an important point which I think many miss. I'm not remotely religious, and I see the errors in the so called truths of each religion. I used to consider people of faith to be either stupid or brainwashed, but then I watched The Day The Universe Changed[1], a beautifully written BBC documentary by James Burke from 1985. It's much easier to watch it[2] than me try to replicate everything said on there. But the essence is the point that dropit_sphere made, and that is both religion and science are trying to figure out the truth. But use different methods to acquire it. The difference is that the scientific truth is always changing. The scientific truth today is different from the truth 300 years ago. And will be different again in 300 years time. So how true is that 'truth'? If the things we believe to be true today are untrue tomorrow, then how can people of science be so hostile to the 'truths' of religion? And what's the end-game? When will we finally know the truth? People of faith get their absolute unchanging truths from their religion, not that the religions themselves are truth seeking in the same way as science. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch and very thought provoking. He also predicts the potential totalitarian use of the internet, along with the ideas of global communities sharing knowledge and ultimately each person's own truths. I have since stopped being quite so brutal in my opinions about people of faith. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Universe_Changed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Universe_Changed [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QgNpYg0IOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QgNpYg0IOU
Red_Tarsius 12y ago
Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. The first religions bundled model and meaning out of necessity. However, post-Roman Christians were keen logicians and experimenters who laid the foundation of the modern sciences. They would be ashamed of creationists' shallowness.
- Retric 12y ago
  Religions evolve to self propagate, that's about all they have in common. Ex: The shakers died out for fairly obvious reasons. Ps: The have been a lot of tiny or dead religions some of which where vary odd by modern standards. But, if you limit yourself to religions with say 20,000,000+ followers today then clearly there going to need to be able to spread.
- javert 12y ago
  > Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. That's not right. It's language is... well, language. Including, but not limited to, mathematics. > Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. I don't think this is really being fair to philosophy. I do view religion as a kind of proto-philosophy. Philosophy is what religion should have been.
  - Red_Tarsius 12y ago
    Sorry for the late reply. I like your choice of words, proto-philosophy. I think of religions of the past as proto-philosophy and proto-science (the world is flat and at the center of the universe, Heaven is structured so and so, ...). But you're right, my framework does not fully reflect the complexity of modern faith. Unlike trained priests, the overwhelming majority of believers don't learn philosophy to challenge their own beliefs. imho too many people consume religion like painkillers for the big questions. Without a critical eye, faith becomes anti-philosophy.
- Retra 12y ago
  The problem with religion is that it describes facets of human mental, cultural, and emotional processes (as all fictions do,) but attributes them to non-human parts of reality. Thus it is, in any rational sense, a terrible model of anything. Your mistake is in claiming that religion is about 'meaning' where science and mathematics aren't. Anywhere you use language, you study meaning. Meaning is a feature of language, and religion tends to use the least reliable and most inconsistent language of any of those subjects. If religion is a search for meaning, it is an incredibly stupid way of doing so. So the one thing you've claimed it is useful for is something that it is demonstrably bad at.

Rexxar 12y ago

Just because science has not figured God out, does not deny His existence. The big question of science is "How ... ?" The big question of religion is "Why ... ?" The two solve different problems and could coexist without so many animosity on each side.

shasta 12y ago
The big question of science is "Why...?" The big question of religion is "Who...?"
- Rexxar 12y ago
  I disagree here. For example, relativity and quantum mechanics explain how our world behave but we have no idea why these theories are true or even why can the universe be described with mathematical equations ?
  - zornthewise 12y ago
    What kind of answer would satisfy your questions of why these theories are true anyway. I am not sure I can even imagine an ideal answer and this might be a clue that we are asking the completely wrong question.
    - Rexxar 12y ago
      I don't have answer on the "Why". I think that this question is not a scientific question because the answer could no be proved/invalidated by experiments. It's a philosophical question and some people find the answer in religion or philosophy, some just admit they don't know and others just don't care.
  - Retra 12y ago
    I suppose religion will tell you why those things are true?
    - Rexxar 12y ago
      Personally, religion didn't tell me anything. But they are giving an explanation to non-scientific question to a lot of people.
      - Retra 12y ago
        In my experience, religion is usually answering scientific questions, not non-scientific ones. And the explanations they give hardly explain anything at all.
- Dewie3 12y ago
  I don't know. Some religions don't seem so hung up on prime movers and anthropomorphizing any "higher being(s)". Buddhism, for instance (just my impression).
Retra 12y ago
There are not two different problems. And more importantly, religion has never actually answered a "why" question in a reasonable manner. So it is objectively useless. It is not how you answer "why" questions. Assuming your distinction is actually meaningful, here's a question for you: "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?"
- Rexxar 12y ago
  "How do you properly answer 'why' questions?" Maybe the answer is that there is no scientific answer to a "why" question ? The question has no scientific answer. In maths, some equations have no solution, some proposition are not provable with common axioms. The "why questions" are just question without scientific answer.
  - Retra 12y ago
    Every question you ask is going to be manifest in relationships between subsets of observable states of reality. Even if you ask a nonsensical question, it is possible to determine that the question is nonsense by observing the context of the question. There is nothing here that prevents science from working to answer the question. If you have a question with no possible scientific answer, then it has no answer at all. You do not get better results by refusing to use the best tools.
- dang 12y ago
  > [Religion] is objectively useless. Religious flamewars aren't ok on HN. Please don't do this here.

dropit_sphere 12y ago

That's not the important distinction. Religion is also trying to figure out reality. If science thought it could detect fairies, then science would study fairies. The distinction is rather in method; science uses (hopefully) well-designed experiments and peer review; religion uses...other methods.

janvidar 12y ago
Well, religion tells you the answer, so there is no point in looking.
louthy 12y ago
This is an important point which I think many miss. I'm not remotely religious, and I see the errors in the so called truths of each religion. I used to consider people of faith to be either stupid or brainwashed, but then I watched The Day The Universe Changed[1], a beautifully written BBC documentary by James Burke from 1985. It's much easier to watch it[2] than me try to replicate everything said on there. But the essence is the point that dropit_sphere made, and that is both religion and science are trying to figure out the truth. But use different methods to acquire it. The difference is that the scientific truth is always changing. The scientific truth today is different from the truth 300 years ago. And will be different again in 300 years time. So how true is that 'truth'? If the things we believe to be true today are untrue tomorrow, then how can people of science be so hostile to the 'truths' of religion? And what's the end-game? When will we finally know the truth? People of faith get their absolute unchanging truths from their religion, not that the religions themselves are truth seeking in the same way as science. Anyway, it's definitely worth a watch and very thought provoking. He also predicts the potential totalitarian use of the internet, along with the ideas of global communities sharing knowledge and ultimately each person's own truths. I have since stopped being quite so brutal in my opinions about people of faith. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Universe_Changed http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Day_the_Universe_Changed [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QgNpYg0IOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6QgNpYg0IOU

Red_Tarsius 12y ago

Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. The first religions bundled model and meaning out of necessity. However, post-Roman Christians were keen logicians and experimenters who laid the foundation of the modern sciences. They would be ashamed of creationists' shallowness.

Retric 12y ago
Religions evolve to self propagate, that's about all they have in common. Ex: The shakers died out for fairly obvious reasons. Ps: The have been a lot of tiny or dead religions some of which where vary odd by modern standards. But, if you limit yourself to religions with say 20,000,000+ followers today then clearly there going to need to be able to spread.
javert 12y ago
> Science describes reliable models of reality. Its language is mathematics. That's not right. It's language is... well, language. Including, but not limited to, mathematics. > Religion wonders about the ultimate meaning of such models. Its language is philosophy. I don't think this is really being fair to philosophy. I do view religion as a kind of proto-philosophy. Philosophy is what religion should have been.
- Red_Tarsius 12y ago
  Sorry for the late reply. I like your choice of words, proto-philosophy. I think of religions of the past as proto-philosophy and proto-science (the world is flat and at the center of the universe, Heaven is structured so and so, ...). But you're right, my framework does not fully reflect the complexity of modern faith. Unlike trained priests, the overwhelming majority of believers don't learn philosophy to challenge their own beliefs. imho too many people consume religion like painkillers for the big questions. Without a critical eye, faith becomes anti-philosophy.
Retra 12y ago
The problem with religion is that it describes facets of human mental, cultural, and emotional processes (as all fictions do,) but attributes them to non-human parts of reality. Thus it is, in any rational sense, a terrible model of anything. Your mistake is in claiming that religion is about 'meaning' where science and mathematics aren't. Anywhere you use language, you study meaning. Meaning is a feature of language, and religion tends to use the least reliable and most inconsistent language of any of those subjects. If religion is a search for meaning, it is an incredibly stupid way of doing so. So the one thing you've claimed it is useful for is something that it is demonstrably bad at.