Religion, science and personal responsibility.

[AlexCrowley 0]

Ok, first things that this post is not:

It is not about the existence or truth of any god or religion.

It is not about the existence or truth of any branch of science or any concrete fact.

What this post is:

I am interested in peoples opinions about the reason we use various tools of belief. I watched the 'God is dead' threads and see the religious and the scientists argue the same thing from different sides.

My question:

Do we, as humans, have a need to create an overall framework of explanation to the universe around us?

If we do, why do we choose the things we choose?

It is easy for the religious person to discuss faith in God, this allows for that person to have a rigid structure to live within. The rules are defined, right and wrong is understood. society flourishes and we're all happy.

It is easy for the scientific person to discuss faith in numbers and facts and the observable. It has rigid rules that are defined. The question is no longer about a moral right or wrong, only physics - cause and effect.

Once you scratch any religions surface you are able to see the inconsistencies and contradictions. A religious person will argue that (any) God holds all the answers to creation, even in the face of scientific facts that directly contradict this. It requires faith in a god beyond rationality to believe that facts are false and that it all happens exactly as your particular system says so.

Once you scratch away sciences veneer it can only really tell you how something observed happens, and even then that information is only as good as the testtube it was observed in. The scientists will argue this harder than a religious zealot, but science merely opens more doors of inquiry - it provides few revelations about existence, it requires faith in science to assume that it can answer all questions, it requires a quantum leap of faith to assume that science negates the existence of a higher power.

Even nihilism requires a great deal of faith.

The agnostic and the believer both voluntarily* adopt a blueprint of existence which creates a framework in which to function. We know historically that even the earliest man had religious beliefs by anthropomorphising those things it could not understand. We also know that when man rejects those methods of belief he gravitates to other ways to explain the universe around him.

At the root of all fear there is the unknown. Without that mystery there can be no fear. Perhaps we're wired to reject uncertainty and for those questions larger than ourselves we reach out to gods and logic, some ordered system with which to make sense of the dark.

Do you think that we'll move beyond a need for faith in things? (I realize for religious types this is an impossible question to answer)

Do you think that at some point there will be a convergence of the scientific and spiritual? (I realize for the science only people this is an impossible question to answer)

My personal belief is that certainty creates strife. If we were less certain of things we might find areas of inquiry we had never considered and solutions that we'd never have found. Contrary to the tone of the majority of my posts, I try to remain as uncertain of absolutes as humanly possible.

Skydiving embodies this uncertainty to me, for all our science, all our planning, our logic, our preperation, and/or our prayers, we still leap out into the unknown on our first or our ten thousandth jump. Our equipment is the embodiment of science, our willingness to jump the embodiment of our faith of god or faith in science itself to protect us on this one jump.





*to various degrees.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Nightingale 0]

Overall, I think religion has always gone where science hasn't gotten to yet. As we've made more scientific discoveries, religion has become more metaphorical and less literal, and deals more with what happens after death rather than why things happen in life.

Centuries ago, they didn't have much understanding about how the world worked, so they came up with the best explanations they can... example: Volcanoes errupt when someone makes Pele angry, and Maui fished the Hawaiian islands out of the ocean with a big fishing pole. They needed some kind of explanation about why things happened, and how things came to be. Christianity has the whole garden of Eden story. Humanity has always been curious, and it makes people scared and uncertain when they don't have some kind of answer.

Now, I think people are moving more towards an understanding that these stories are mythology, but still have a lot to teach us, so that even if they aren't true in the literal sense, there is a spiritual truth about them.

If you've ever heard George Carlin's take on the ten comandments, what he ends up saying is that what it comes down to is "be honest and faithful" and "try really hard not to kill anyone." I think most religions try to teach something similar.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

The scientists will argue this harder than a religious zealot, but science merely opens more doors of inquiry - it provides few revelations about existence, it requires faith in science to assume that it can answer all questions, it requires a quantum leap of faith to assume that science negates the existence of a higher power.

Science isn't a religion - it's an approach to solving questions. I think you'll look long for someone that believes science can answer all questions, certainly much longer than to find out fellows like Einstein still believed in a god.

[Newbie 0]

Interesting post - my personal opinion and experience leads me to believe that:

1 - a majority of people do need to believe there is something more than scientific reasoning behind this universe of ours.

2 - the main reaon they choose the path (religion) they do is tradition - it's what their parents/ancestory believed in. Sure there are some people who completely reject this tradition and study something else, but i would think they are vastly outnumbered by the numbers born into a particular faith group that stick within that particular faith group.

"Skydiving is a door"
Happythoughts

[AlexCrowley 0]

I understand and agree with your point. But this is like saying 'not all christians are hatemongers'.

There is a significant percentage of people who follow the scientific faith with no more understanding than the worshipers of any faith who have never really examined the 'WHY'.

"Finally, I have to laugh at christians who say I'm "evil," or I'm "miserable and sinful and need god." To this I reply: I don't need any guarantees of everlasting life (who the hell would want to live forever, anyway? Are you nuts?) When I die, I'm decomposing into dust, from which I evolved." - from a previous thread. I dont use this as an example of my above statement, but this attitude requires as much faith as thinking you're going to a heaven of some sort.

Scripture provides the basic building blocks of faith, both science and religion leave us a lot of whys - yet, depending on our natural inclination, we tend to fill in the gaps with absolutes.

The christian will go to heaven.
The scientific believer will turn to dust.

Neither has any doubt in their eventual end. Can both be correct?

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[wmw999 2,589]

Quote

Scripture provides the basic building blocks of faith, both science and religion leave us a lot of whys - yet, depending on our natural inclination, we tend to fill in the gaps with absolutes.

The christian will go to heaven.
The scientific believer will turn to dust.

Neither has any doubt in their eventual end. Can both be correct?

Yeah, people do seem to have varying levels of need for certainty. To me, the only really certain, provable thing is that we don't, and can't, know the answer to the question of what happens after we die.

Personality differences and upbringing go a long way, don't they?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[rasmack 0]

I think this is a very good post constructed with great care not to offend but to facilitate discussion. Kudos to you for that.

My take on it is, that while I certainly do believe that man wants to explain the universe around him, it seems to me that science and religion are two completely different beasts.

Science to me seems to evolve naturally through evolution. Only a curious species would evolve to a level of technical sophistication that reaches past simple tools as hammers or axes. One might say that the need of man to do science could be explained through a sociological version of the weak anthropic principle. In other words, if you are wondering why we wonder, it is precisely because we wonder. If we didn't you also would not.

Religion on the other hand has through history very much served as a system to stabilize power structures in society while providing "explanations" which are today easily falsifiable as factual explanations. We see it in persons, places or objects that are "taboo". We see it in the European kings that were ordained by God (no less).

Where the two things flow together is, where religion has tried to explain things that was not at the time explained in science. A lot of the jewish rules for treating food probably have a simple sanitary explanation, but it was easy for a priest to say "God Wills It" and be done with it. At the same time he could affirm his position of power by simply knowing by experience that this and that treatment of food would get you dead.

Although both science and religion might once have evolved from the same curiousity they now have very little to do with each other. I think a lot of trouble could be avoided if religion would kindly step aside when we are discussing empirical facts, and if scientists would please remember that they are part of a species which for a large part enjoys this little thing called "moral".

I would never disrespect a person who held a sincere belief in a moral given to him/her through religion, although I might of course disagree. If on the other hand you insist that the world is a couple of thousand years old created "as is" in a week, then you are speaking against all empirical evidence and thus not using your (dare I say?) God-given intelligence.

Edit: Typo fixing

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Do we, as humans, have a need to create an overall framework of explanation to the universe around us?

Some do and some (e.g., me) don't. A few times I have had discussions with religious people when the question, "Don't you ever wonder what created all this?", came up.

Actually, I don't. I consider myself mentally lazy so I accept that the following may be merely a symptom of that, but here is my typical response:

No I *don't* wonder about creation. First of all, I don't really care--the question just doesn't ever arise in my mind. Second, even if I did care, I don't think I would be capable of comprehending the answer.

People who have a strong, almost desperate need to have some sort of explanation for (dare I say it) creation, mystify me every bit as much as I mystify them.

I think you have really hit the nail on the head when you bring up the idea that the real motivating factor may be the innate need for some sort of structured framework from which to view the world.

Many people cling to their frameworks dearly, as if something really bad will happen if that framework crumbles. That has always struck me as odd.

Quote

Skydiving embodies this uncertainty to me, for all our science, all our planning, our logic, our preperation, and/or our prayers, we still leap out into the unknown on our first or our ten thousandth jump. Our equipment is the embodiment of science, our willingness to jump the embodiment of our faith of god or faith in science itself to protect us on this one jump.

That's an awesome observation. GREAT post!

Walt

[sfzombie13 324]

it was a rather eloquent way to phrase the idea. i have been thinking a lot recently about string theory and quantum physics. i mean really in my spare time, sitting around wondering. i had a really good debate with a jehovah's witness who came to the door just as i finished getting a buzz, we talked for 45 minutes, and given another 2 hours, i would have convinced her......it was enlightening for me, but if i'm wrong, oh well. religion serves as a wonderful guide to people who need it, my rules make me respect the planet and all other people, so it fits in.
if you ever need an example of the need for seperation of the church and state, watch that history channel show on the inquisition. but that's an extreme example, not the norm. in the big picture, what really matters is the indvidual's commitment to his beliefs.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[AlexCrowley 0]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/

PBS actually has the entire show up in .mov (quicktime streaming) format, and a lot of background info.

String theory is fun to play with.

TV's got them images, TV's got them all, nothing's shocking.

[Everon 0]

Actually, AC, I believe science has dispelled of many a belief in a rapid (comparatively) period of time. Science works, and works well! I've studied enough of it to accept it virtually without question. I understand that any branch of science may be shown to be invalid at any time (including mathematics), but my confidence is overwhelming that science is exactly what we all should be studying to expand our knowledge using reason, not any faith-based belief system. When I mentioned "I will return to dust..." of course I'm not 100% sure of this, but from all the scientific knowledge I've had the opportunity to absorb, I'm confident of this. As far as complete knowledge, this will never happen. Never. My contention is that science towers over all other concepts to explain as much as possible, and it does not require "faith" as religion does. Science is based on the scientific method of discovery, where evidence is required, so faith plays no part. I accept science over mythology, and my point is that I cannot understand how anyone wouldn't.

[SpeedRacer 1]

you seem to be one of those people who think "it's either science or religion." WTF?? why does this keep coming up? Religion and Science are not in conflict because they are used for entirely different things.

And anyway, how do you explain someone like me: a scientist who is also a Christian.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 3,120]

>that science is exactly what we all should be studying to expand
>our knowledge using reason, not any faith-based belief system.

Stephen Jay Gould has a good take on this. He considers religion and science to be non-overlapping magisteria. It's like a kid who reads comic books who thinks he has to make a decision between comic books and vegetables. Why does he have to make such a decision? Reading material and food are just plain different; it doesn't have to be one or the other. They're not mutually exclusive.

Similarly, I think a lot of people see religion as a book of facts, and that a religion's validity is contingent upon all those facts being true. That's not what religion is all about. To me, religion is a way of looking at the world. Science tells you how the world came to be; religion tells you your place in it.

[Botellines 0]

I think that religion is not bad as long as it is seen as a way to reach an end and not the end itself.
I mean, if the goal is: "To-be-a-good-man TM" you can reach that goal by being religious and accepting a behavioural code, by having strong morals without believing in anything superior or just by strictingly obeying the law (often not enough). Either one will make you a good man accepted by society, so you choose whatever works for you. However, the religious option can be (and many times is) used to avoid personal responsability by thinking that God itself is on your side. You cannot do that with the other options.
Regarding science, as Bill said, it is not exclusive with religion, morals, or law, you need both science and one of the others to grow up as a man.
Actually you also need personal responsability, Kudos to whoever combines religion and personal responsability.