Are science and religion converging?

Forums: Science And Math
Email this Topic • Print this Page

An interesting article by Richard Dawkins makes some good points: http://www.forbes.com/asap/1999/1004/235.html

First of all, No, Religion and Science are not merging, unless you count the increasingly loose definitions for God and aspects of metaphysical philosophy as convergence.

Dawkins: [If you count Einstein and Hawking as religious, if you allow the cosmic awe of Goodenough, Davies, Sagan, and me as true religion, then religion and science have indeed merged, especially when you factor in such atheistic priests as Don Cupitt and many university chaplains. But if the term religion is allowed such a flabbily elastic definition, what word is left for conventional religion, religion as the ordinary person in the pew or on the prayer mat understands it today--indeed, as any intellectual would have understood it in previous centuries, when intellectuals were religious like everybody else?

If God is a synonym for the deepest principles of physics, what word is left for a hypothetical being who answers prayers, intervenes to save cancer patients or helps evolution over difficult jumps, forgives sins or dies for them? If we are allowed to re-label scientific awe as a religious impulse, the case goes through on the nod. You have redefined science as religion, so it's hardly surprising if they turn out to "converge."

Another kind of marriage has been alleged between modern physics and Eastern mysticism. The argument goes as follows: Quantum mechanics, that brilliantly successful flagship theory of modern science, is deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Eastern mystics have always been deeply mysterious and hard to understand. Therefore, Eastern mystics must have been talking about quantum theory all along]

I think the article makes some good points.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 2 • Views: 3,757 • Replies: 39

No top replies

I don't think science and religion will ever merge -- and I pray they don't!

(JUST IN CASE: That last part was part joke; part irony; and part substantiation of the point Richard Dawkins was trying to make with regard to conversational conventions!)

0 Replies

Hi Frank,

What did you think about the Teapot orbiting Pluto example used to argue that Agnosticism should lean toward the athiestic viewpoint?

Dawkins: [Agnostic conciliation, which is the decent liberal bending over backward to concede as much as possible to anybody who shouts loud enough, reaches ludicrous lengths in the following common piece of sloppy thinking. It goes roughly like this: You can't prove a negative (so far so good). Science has no way to disprove the existence of a supreme being (this is strictly true). Therefore, belief or disbelief in a supreme being is a matter of pure, individual inclination, and both are therefore equally deserving of respectful attention! When you say it like that, the fallacy is almost self-evident; we hardly need spell out the reductio ad absurdum. As my colleague, the physical chemist Peter Atkins, puts it, we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there is a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there isn't.

Now, if it be retorted that there actually are reasons X, Y, and Z for finding a supreme being more plausible than a teapot, then X, Y, and Z should be spelled out--because, if legitimate, they are proper scientific arguments that should be evaluated. Don't protect them from scrutiny behind a screen of agnostic tolerance. If religious arguments are actually better than Atkins' teapot theory, let us hear the case. Otherwise, let those who call themselves agnostic with respect to religion add that they are equally agnostic about orbiting teapots. At the same time, modern theists might acknowledge that, when it comes to Baal and the golden calf, Thor and Wotan, Poseidon and Apollo, Mithras and Ammon Ra, they are actually atheists. We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.]

0 Replies

I think Dawkins is way overstating the case for the similarity between arguing against atheism and arguing against a teapot in orbit around Pluto.

Fact is, his argument actually contains the logic to defend agnosticism.

The problem is not that we cannot prove there is no teapot in orbit around Pluto; the problem lies with making definitive statements about unknowns that cannot be proved.

It would be illogical to aver that there is a teapot in orbit around Pluto -- and the fact that we cannot prove there is no teapot in orbit around Pluto is a red herring. That kind of argument, by the way, is a standard in the atheistic arsenal -- and corresponds to the theistic argument that their knowledge is transcendent.

It is equally illogical to aver that there are no gods.

.In any case, I have two other disagreements with Dawkins.

1) It is not a negative that we are asking atheists to substantiate. It is a positive statement which happens to contain a negating word. They are making a positive statement to the effect: There are no gods.

But if they allege that it is impossible to prove that -- how can they allege it? At best, it is an estimate -- although more correctly, it is a guess based on damn near nothing. Its counterpart in the theistic community is also, at best, an estimate -- but more likely just a guess.

2) It is not impossible to prove a negative. It is often a bit harder to do so, but not impossible.

Richard Carrier has an excellent article on this issue. I recommend it.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html

0 Replies

Acceptance without proof, the hallmark of modern religion

Rejection without proof, the hallmark of modern science
Dancing Wu Li MAsters

0 Replies

I must admit I rather like Sherlock Holmes approach to deduction provided for him via Conan Doyle:

Eliminate all factors for which there is absolutely no evidence, and what you are left with is the truth, however unlikely.

0 Replies

Hi Frank,

I don't think that Dawkins disagrees with your assertions on agnosticism in its general form (nor do I). His point is that just because we realize that we can not prove/know certain things (the nature of agnosticism), we cannot extend this generic understanding into a blanket which obscures probabilities, and prevents us from making logical assumptions.

As noted by his friend Peter Atkins, "we must be equally agnostic about the theory that there is a teapot in orbit around the planet Pluto. We can't disprove it. But that doesn't mean the theory that there *is* a teapot is on level terms with the theory that there *isn't*." And he's quite correct. Within the scientific framework, these two assertions are not balanced.

Once we acknowledge the basic truth of agnosticism (which we agree on), can't we still acknowledge, even within this framework, that the idea that there *is* a god, is not on par with the idea that there *isn't* a God?

I would also note that the reason the two possibilities are not balanced is that I work within the framework of science. I accept observational and logically deduced evidence as valid. But science is still the framework I *choose* to work within. It's not the only framework which can be chosen, and many do not. This doesn't invalidate different ideas, it simply makes them apples and oranges; inherently incomparable.

Hi Farmerman,

I usually like the Dancing Wu Li Masters viewpoint, but I think it missed the mark on this one. I prefer the following quote for accuracy...

"Religion has certainty without proof.
Science has proof without certainty."

Best regards,

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Once we acknowledge the basic truth of agnosticism (which we agree on), can't we still acknowledge, even within this framework, that the idea that there *is* a god, is not on par with the idea that there *isn't* a God?

Hi Rosborne

Could not possibly disagree more. And the "proof" of the pudding is that theists state with as much certainty as you do that "...within this framework, that the idea that there *isn't* a god, is not on par with the idea that there *is* a God.

Frankly, I see no unambiguous evidence in either direction -- and I think the belief system (theistic beliefs or atheistic beliefs) are the only reason you see it the way you do -- and the theists see it the way they do.

Quote:

I would also note that the reason the two possibilities are not balanced is that I work within the framework of science. I accept observational and logically deduced evidence as valid. But science is still the framework I *choose* to work within. It's not the only framework which can be chosen, and many do not. This doesn't invalidate different ideas, it simply makes them apples and oranges; inherently incomparable.

Good for you! Now what in the scientific framework establishes that there are no gods -- or that the probability that there are no gods is high.

It seems to me that science is fairly agnostic on those questions -- but I'd like to hear what you have to offer.

0 Replies

Hi Frank,

Your first challenge is addressed by my second quote (which you embedded), so I'll move on to your final questions...

To answer your last question, we would need to start by narrowing the definition of God(s). As Dawkins article points out, a sufficiently flabby definition only serves to merge science and religion through symantic ambiguity.

If we defined God as some type of background spirituality which embues the cosmos, then I would say that science offers no comment on probability.

However, if we choose the narrow definition of the Christian, "Living God", then I would point out that our understanding of the Universe shows great depth of self sufficiency and complete lack of supernatural effects within the time shell of the Big Bang. There simply isn't a shred of evidence for a "living God" anywhere to be seen. And to the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence for a system which does not require intervention in order to function (remember that I'm saying this within the framework of the scientific process).

Beyond this, we also know that the idea of a "Living God" is exactly what we would expect to develop from standard human psychology given the lack of scientific information available in earlier times, and from normal human needs (anthropomorphic). So we should be suspicious of it because of its simplicity and its coincidental fit with emotional "needs".

Also, we would expect the Religion Meme to propogate and endure due to its threat of eternal damnation for disbelief, and its offer of blissful reward for acceptance. This combined with the young age of most people when first exposed to the idea means that it is likely to set into early consciousness before skeptical observation and logic are learned. There should be no surprise that this idea endures, both for its threats of reprisal and its offer of reward.

I could go on and on, but these things alone should suggest an imbalance in probability. At least within the limits of these particular chosen measurement systems.

Regards,

0 Replies

Rosborne

If you are saying that the god of the Bible seem more likely to be creation of fiction than any kind of reality -- we have absolutely no disagreement. And there is very little reason to bring modern science into the discussion, because the god of the Bible is absurd on its face.

But there is a huge difference between "The god of the bible seems improbable" and "the idea that there *is* a god, is not on par with the idea that there *isn't* a God?"

If you meant the former, you really should have worded your thoughts more carefully. If you meant the former, we are shoulder to shoulder.

If you meant the latter -- you are not being logical.

I hope you meant the former.

0 Replies

Frank,

Yes, I meant the former.

I should have clarified my working definiton of *God* earlier.

After your last post, it was clear to me that the ambiguity in our definitions was our sticking point. This is why I clarified the definitions in my reply.

Can you please clarify the type of *God* you are referring to in your posts. I would like to re-read them with the new definition in mind to see if the meaning changes for me.

Regards,

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Can you please clarify the type of *God* you are referring to in your posts. I would like to re-read them with the new definition in mind to see if the meaning changes for me.

Let me see if I can do justice to that request, Rosborne.

But before I do, I simply have to restate my position:

I am an agnostic.

With regard to questions like "Is there a God?" my response is: I do not know -- and I do not see enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

When I use the term "God" in that message -- I mean any kind of God that can be imagined.

As I said before, I consider the god of the Bible to be a cartoon god -- but that does not mean that it cannot exist. (Whew, if it does, I am in for a very unpleasant eternity!)

In the case of the god of the Bible, I would use the words of the Bible and logic to show that it is more likely that the god does not exist than that it exists. I do not think I have to resort to science; the case is made within the book to anyone reading it with an open mind and a lack of terror.

But suppose a GOD with time on its hands who starts a project (creates a universe using a Big Bang) and then tires of the experiment and just leaves it to play itself out. No contacts; no rules; no "thou shalt nots"; no revelations; no evidence of existence; no evidence of a larger universe; no nothing.

How does science show that it is more likely that such a God does not exist -- than that it exists?

0 Replies

Frank;
within that Oort cloud of confuscation from which you judge the huge lack of evidence, you have made a little "Freudian slip";
your comment " (Whew, if it does, I am in for a very unpleasant eternity!)"would lead one to believe that, deep down inside that mantle of agnosticism, lies a timid little "oh I do believe, I do, I do, I do", version of your more "presentable" self.
Offered, of course, with absolute (close to absolution, ain't it?) respect for your possition.
In my case I would unequivocally state "if there is a god of any kind, would it please strike me dead upon the spot right now, because I do not wish to live in such a farce of a world that its existence would imply!!"

0 Replies

BoGoWo wrote:

Frank;
within that Oort cloud of confuscation from which you judge the huge lack of evidence, you have made a little "Freudian slip";
your comment " (Whew, if it does, I am in for a very unpleasant eternity!)"would lead one to believe that, deep down inside that mantle of agnosticism, lies a timid little "oh I do believe, I do, I do, I do", version of your more "presentable" self.
Offered, of course, with absolute (close to absolution, ain't it?) respect for your possition.
In my case I would unequivocally state "if there is a god of any kind, would it please strike me dead upon the spot right now, because I do not wish to live in such a farce of a world that its existence would imply!!"

Bo, look up the word "joke" in a dictionary. Then look up the word "irony." I have used that bit on several occasions. If you think that it indicates some hidden little belief -- what can I tell ya. It most assuredly was not a Freudian slip.

In the meantime, I can assure you that I am totally confident that I do not know -- and have no unambiguous evidence upon which to make a guess.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

(Whew, if it does, I am in for a very unpleasant eternity!)

Agnosticism, if sincere, might be better than piety reduced to hypocrisy.
("Watch with care lest all thy piety hypocrisy be." .. cantata 179, Bach,J.S.)

For the theme of this thread:
After all, a human provided with scientific knowledge cannot evade religious thinking unless one is stiff-minded.

0 Replies

Frank; gotta give you points for perserverence, and to satt, if there is anything even approximating a deity, it is most definitely Bach!!
I was listening to "our redeemer lives" this morning, and it occurred to me that no matter what gibberish what was being sung, the sound was of another realm!

But, since I'm still here, I rest my case.

0 Replies

Hi Frank,

Quote:

But suppose a GOD with time on its hands who starts a project (creates a universe using a Big Bang) and then tires of the experiment and just leaves it to play itself out. No contacts; no rules; no "thou shalt nots"; no revelations; no evidence of existence; no evidence of a larger universe; no nothing.

How does science show that it is more likely that such a God does not exist -- than that it exists?

Given the definition you offer, science can say nothing about the probability of such a being/entity existing.

As I've noted many times before, and as I'm sure you already know, science itself is grounded in the assumption that the supernatural does not exist (the philosophy of naturalism). Science can not address a generic concept as broad as the one you describe since it exceeds naturalistic boundaries.

The reason science can say something about *probabilities* surrounding the Christian "Living God" is because that particular concept of God is associated with certain physical manifestations and behaviors which relate to the natural world and to human psychology. This is not the case with the broader concept.

This is a little off track for this thread, but let me ask a few other questions:

Does anyone think that a person can have a concept of *God* which is not awe inspiring and impressive to them? In other words, can someone ever have a concept of God which doesn't impress them?

Depending on the answer to this question, can it be said that a common thread in everyone's definition of God is that it must be a concept which is awe inspiring and impressive to them?

Does this lead to a conclusion... that anyone who is not impressed with a particular "God" concept, therefor can not believe in *that* God?

Regards,

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

This is a little off track for this thread, but let me ask a few other questions:

Does anyone think that a person can have a concept of *God* which is not awe inspiring and impressive to them? In other words, can someone ever have a concept of God which doesn't impress them?

Depending on the answer to this question, can it be said that a common thread in everyone's definition of God is that it must be a concept which is awe inspiring and impressive to them?

Does this lead to a conclusion... that anyone who is not impressed with a particular "God" concept, therefor can not believe in *that* God?

Regards,

If the Godness preceeded the physical world -- and if the physical world came into existence at the instigation of the God IN SOME WAY -- it would be pretty difficult not to be "awe inspired."

HOWEVER, I can certainly conceive of a God that would not be concerned in any way with what goes on here in the physical world -- and which has absolutely not expectations of the inhabitants of the physical world -- and which is not offended by anything anyone or anything in the physical world does, has done, or will do.

We can all agree that Hitler was not an especially nice pesron. But I can conceive of a God that would not think or react differently to what Hitler did -- as compared with what Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer did.

I could easily conceive of a God who would allow an individual somewhere to set into motion a series of events that ends up with an explosion that essentially obliterates all life in a particular GALAXY.

So if "awe inspiring" was short-hand for "due respect" or "to be feared" -- well yes, I can conceive of such a God.

And all that being the case, the answer to your last question for me is: NO.

(All this said without discussing the concept "believe" which really should be done.)

0 Replies

Hey you guys; in a previous post (8 May), I rested my case, and now, no matter where I look, I can't find it.
Anybody seen it?
I believe there were 24 bottles in it, but I'm not sure. Shocked

0 Replies

If the bottles were beer, I (hic) have no goldanged idea, and (hic) I conforter it very rude of you to (hic) ash.

0 Replies

Are science and religion converging?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know