Science and Religion

[romansh]

Here is the third letter of the planned six.

I am not sure what Jerry Coyne can add from a scientific point of view. Andrew Gopnik did not really give him a lot to discuss or rebut in Andrew's first letter.

I suppose it could be argued that spirituality is not the same as art and literature. But then spirituality seems to be something that is purely in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it is something that goes beyond human experience a term for me which is close to beyond comprehension and is a little bit like arm waving.

[romansh]

On 2/28/2021 at 9:51 AM, romansh said:

Here is the third letter of the planned six.

I am not sure what Jerry Coyne can add from a scientific point of view. Andrew Gopnik did not really give him a lot to discuss or rebut in Andrew's first letter.

I suppose it could be argued that spirituality is not the same as art and literature. But then spirituality seems to be something that is purely in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it is something that goes beyond human experience a term for me which is close to beyond comprehension and is a little bit like arm waving.

Adam Gopnik  ... posted his second letter in the series of six. I found he misrepresents science. I get where he is coming from but he very carefully skirts around the issue.

Edited March 11, 2021 by romansh

[John Hunt]

Great letters.

I'm not sure I've got the hang of the site yet (incompetent in all this stuff). Is there a way of getting an email when a reply has been made to a topic you've logged into?

Out of interest - anyone come across the Essentia Foundation? I think it's just been set up. Seem to be some serious people there, talking not from a religious perspective, but a "mind before matter" one.

[romansh]

On 3/13/2021 at 11:25 AM, John Hunt said:

I'm not sure I've got the hang of the site yet (incompetent in all this stuff). Is there a way of getting an email when a reply has been made to a topic you've logged into?

Click on yourself top right hand corner
Account settings
Notification settings
Mentions and My Content
Highlight email

That should do it

 

[romansh]

On 2/28/2021 at 9:51 AM, romansh said:

Here is the third letter of the planned six.

I am not sure what Jerry Coyne can add from a scientific point of view. Andrew Gopnik did not really give him a lot to discuss or rebut in Andrew's first letter.

I suppose it could be argued that spirituality is not the same as art and literature. But then spirituality seems to be something that is purely in the eye of the beholder. Apparently it is something that goes beyond human experience a term for me which is close to beyond comprehension and is a little bit like arm waving.

The fifth letter has been posted, Jerry's rebuttal of Adam's fourth (second) ....  I must admit Jerry dismantles Adam's points nicely -  at least for me.

Elsewhere Jerry suggests the series number may increase by two to eight letters.

Edited March 18, 2021 by romansh

[romansh]

The sixth and seventh letters have been published ... debating whether there is "new" knowledge in art and literature. I wonder if art and literature can be thought of as a proxy for religion?

Are The Methods Used By Science The Only Ways Of Knowing? (letter.wiki)

[murmsk]

I am late to this discussion but would like to chime in.

First...On the discussion of science and medicine. Physicians are not scientists and seldom produce science. We live in the world of anecdote... we are practitioners , we try and use the science of others to provide the best outcomes for our patients but don't confuse that with science. As a general rule medical science is done in the schools and research centers.

Second.... Science is not a way of knowing its a way of finding things out. Religion is not a way of knowing its a way of living.

Knowing is an abstract sense that combines science, anecdote, belief into a workable pathway of relative truth.

 

steve

 

[romansh]

3 hours ago, murmsk said:

This book might be of some interest 

Why Science Does Not Disprove God

https://www.amazon.com/Why-Science-Does-Not-Disprove/dp/B00IA68UCG/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=science+disprove+religion&qid=1620313638&sr=8-1

 

steve

Well ... if we define God in some substantial way or with properties we can interact with, then we could argue we can disprove the well defined God. For example the "God is Love" brigade, would seem to imply God is fairly limited, unless we delve into some heavy semantic shell game.

Now of course some people will point out quite accurately (I think) science is not in the proof business. But disproof, is slightly different. Take the Morley Michelson experiment for luminiferous ether  or do we still need to consider the concept of phlogiston as a viable prospect. I think when "metals" get heavier when they burn, is sufficient evidence that the concept of phlogiston is on the wrong garden path.

 

Edited May 6, 2021 by romansh

[murmsk]

"science is not in the proof business." this is exactly right but is is in the knowledge business. This is a book my Phd Chemist mostly atheist father read and recommends . It mostly views  religion from social science standpoint.

 

steve

 

[romansh]

On 5/10/2021 at 8:01 AM, murmsk said:

"science is not in the proof business." this is exactly right but is is in the knowledge business. This is a book my Phd Chemist mostly atheist father read and recommends . It mostly views  religion from social science standpoint.

Fair enough Steve. But my point remains the more well defined Gods like those of the Norse, Greek, Roman and Abrahamic versions, or at least the literal interpretations of them can be discarded. I suspect we hang on (as progressives) to the various labels for a variety of reasons.

We take the stories and interpret them as metaphor and debate which interpretation is better. 

With the science being in the "knowledge business", the knowledge is always provisional and in fact could be seen as fundamentally as agnostic to the understanding it produces. 

 

And the eighth and final letter has been issued. Have not read it yet ... but we can find some commentary here.

Edited May 14, 2021 by romansh

[romansh]

This is ten years old now ... interesting

Quote

 

Harlow should know: Calvin College investigated him after he wrote an article questioning the historical Adam. His colleague and fellow theologian, John Schneider, wrote a similar article and was pressured to resign after 25 years at the college. Schneider is now beginning a research fellowship at Notre Dame.

Several other well known theologians at Christian universities have been forced out; some see a parallel to a previous time when science conflicted with religious doctrine.

 

So it would, at least at times, seem science and religion are in conflict.

[romansh]

 

[Kellerman]

On 7/5/2021 at 2:04 PM, romansh said:

This is ten years old now ... interesting

So it would, at least at times, seem science and religion are in conflict.

Well yeah, some churches claim absolutely insane things. I don't think anyone would ever claim that science is never in conflict with churches. 

 

 

 

[romansh]

16 hours ago, Kellerman said:

Well yeah, some churches claim absolutely insane things. I don't think anyone would ever claim that science is never in conflict with churches. 

Islam and Christianity on the whole claim that an angel came to Miriam (likely Gabriel) foretold of some kind of Divine birth. Thirty odd years later one of the religions claims that the product of this divine birth was crucified and rose from the dead. The other religion claims the crucifixion/death was a bit of the hoax.

Now perhaps more enlightened interpretations of these religions might take all this as an allegory or something. And then try an imbue meaning into the allegory. 

Personally, I prefer to imbue meaning into the world around me ... have to admit I am struggling a bit.

[Kellerman]

8 hours ago, romansh said:

Islam and Christianity on the whole claim that an angel came to Miriam (likely Gabriel) foretold of some kind of Divine birth. Thirty odd years later one of the religions claims that the product of this divine birth was crucified and rose from the dead. The other religion claims the crucifixion/death was a bit of the hoax.

Now perhaps more enlightened interpretations of these religions might take all this as an allegory or something. And then try an imbue meaning into the allegory. 

Personally, I prefer to imbue meaning into the world around me ... have to admit I am struggling a bit.

My personal interpretation of all of it is kind of: *shrug* who knows???

I only became open to spirituality when I fully embraced not needing to imbue things with meaning. 

I was listening to Eckhart Tolle talk about meaning and he basically said "who cares?" And I was like "right...who cares?"

[JosephM]

10 hours ago, Kellerman said:

My personal interpretation of all of it is kind of: *shrug* who knows???

I only became open to spirituality when I fully embraced not needing to imbue things with meaning. 

I was listening to Eckhart Tolle talk about meaning and he basically said "who cares?" And I was like "right...who cares?"

Yes, You can search for "the meaning of life" for a lifetime or you can come to the realization that life itself is its own meaning.

[romansh]

1 hour ago, JosephM said:

... life itself is its own meaning.

Whatever that means?

[romansh]

12 hours ago, Kellerman said:

My personal interpretation of all of it is kind of: *shrug* who knows???
I only became open to spirituality when I fully embraced not needing to imbue things with meaning.
I was listening to Eckhart Tolle talk about meaning and he basically said "who cares?" And I was like "right...who cares?"

If one does not know, then and agnostic label may well be apt. Having said that we by and large are still forced to take action. Our confabulations help us explain our actions to ourselves and perhaps others should we care.

For me spirituality is likely some chemical cocktail released by the body, would not be surprised if it involved an indole ethylamine derivative or two. Whether that has meaning or not I agree is moot.

Who cares? Oh I think you may do.

[JosephM]

5 hours ago, JosephM said:

Yes, You can search for "the meaning of life" for a lifetime or you can come to the realization that life itself is its own meaning.

 

3 hours ago, romansh said:

Whatever that means?

Life can be likened to a complex Computer Program with a multitude of individual subroutines that interact with each other. While each subroutine performs its own actions modified by its code, variables and the inputs and outputs of other subroutines or groups of subroutines and meaning might be supposed by a limited interaction and view,  the real meaning of the Program is not in the subroutine but rather the whole of the Program. Program meaning cannot be ascertained as long as the subroutine is limited by ones own code even with the limited interactional view with other subroutines. 

 

[romansh]

I suspect we are finding meaning where there is none. Similar to beauty and horror, good and evil.

I feel a Tim Minchin youtube coming on if we are in need of some eloquent persuasion.

[Kellerman]

9 hours ago, romansh said:

If one does not know, then and agnostic label may well be apt. Having said that we by and large are still forced to take action. Our confabulations help us explain our actions to ourselves and perhaps others should we care.

For me spirituality is likely some chemical cocktail released by the body, would not be surprised if it involved an indole ethylamine derivative or two. Whether that has meaning or not I agree is moot.

Who cares? Oh I think you may do.

I have exactly zero idea what point you are trying to make. 

If you want to call me agnostic, go ahead. 

[romansh]

6 minutes ago, Kellerman said:

I have exactly zero idea what point you are trying to make. 

My apologies, again I am assuming things about you that I should not.

[Kellerman]

11 hours ago, romansh said:

My apologies, again I am assuming things about you that I should not.

Lol, people seem to do that about me

[romansh]

On 7/14/2021 at 9:21 AM, Kellerman said:

Lol, as a former scientist, we never traded in facts, we only hypothesized things. It's kind of fundamental to science that you never actually claim anything as fact, you only claim to not reasonably be able to claim something not a fact.

Well as a partially retired scientist ... this would depend a lot on what we mean by fact.

If for example the precipitation of a metal increases with pH then this in a very broad sense is a fact.  You could repeat it the experiment in your laboratory. Generally this type of experiment can be repeated with such precision we can generate tables of solubility products. This appears to be a fact. Now of course apply the solubility products outside of their intended systems can be problematic and we find solubilities may deviate. This is where we might start to hypothesize.

[Kellerman]

21 minutes ago, romansh said:

Well as a partially retired scientist ... this would depend a lot on what we mean by fact.

If for example the precipitation of a metal increases with pH then this in a very broad sense is a fact.  You could repeat it the experiment in your laboratory. Generally this type of experiment can be repeated with such precision we can generate tables of solubility products. This appears to be a fact. Now of course apply the solubility products outside of their intended systems can be problematic and we find solubilities may deviate. This is where we might start to hypothesize.

Sure, we functionally engage with information as factual, but there's a reason there are so few laws in science, and a ton of theories. 

Now, I'm not saying that in the pop culture sense of "oh it's just a theory". Obviously you and I both know the burden of evidence necessary for something to become a theory. 

However, that doesn't take away from the philosophical basis of science being the exploration of the unknown, not the dictation of the known. 

Technically, none of us ever run an experiment to prove a fact. We try to best understand unknowns as far as we're able to observe them, but if for any reason the observations consistently went against what we colloquially work with as "facts", we would immediately reformulate the theories to incorporate the new observations. 

This happens in medical science all the time. We "know" something to be fact for decades, but then new information comes along that allows us to know new "facts". Same with physics, biology, anything. 

It's not a fact if new information could change it. Hence, we don't actually deal in very many facts. We certainly as individual scientist shouldn't have the obscene hubris to think that our personal research has ever generated a single "fact". Can you even imagine the level of arrogance it would take to believe that as a scientist???