Can science REALLY explain Reality?

[AlanFromWichita]

I can think of no better response than the following quotation from Sam Harris:

Harris is not an good example to use as an expert at science. His atheism is just as much of a religion as any religion, because it is based on his faith that the conclusions he cannot ever obtain experimentally are still, in fact, absolutely true. That is not a “critical” thinker. That is a person whose life is totally invested in a construct he must uphold even if given solid evidence he is wrong. This is the kind of science where you first draw the curve, THEN you plot the points.

I actually agree with him on a couple things he says, but the quote you cited is highly problematic and contains evidence of narrow vision and bias.

Hope is easy; knowledge is hard.

BZZZZZT! First off, this guy seems to have no real clue about life. If he’s ever felt despair then he’s denying it. I was near despair and my master’s degree in engineering didn’t do diddly squat to help. The medicines didn’t make a measurable difference. “Hope is easy.” What a joke.

Knowledge is hard? Maybe for him. Gaining knowledge has always been the “easy way out” for me. If he were a real scientist he wouldn’t whine or play the martyr like this – “oh boo hoo, what I do is HARD, you people.” Honest scientists don’t have a need for people to admire them; if they do, they might turn into this guy.

Science is the one domain in which we human beings make a truly heroic effort to counter our innate biases and wishful thinking.

… said the spider to the fly.

Science is the one endeavour in which we have devolped a refined methodology for separating what a person hopes is true from what he has good reason to believe. The methodology isn’t perfect, and the history of science is riddled with abject failures of scientific objectivity. But that is just the point - these have been failures of science, discovered and corrected by – what, religion? No, by good science.

SMH. If these words are from someone who knows “good science” then such a thing doesn’t exist. This guy uses the label of scientist to promote HIS religion, which he says has no tolerance for other points of view. Surely it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Einstein said “Science without religion is lame.” Why don’t we rally around our undisputed leaders in the science? Would you rather believe Einstein, or someone who crows, “Knowledge is Ha-aard!” (Rhetorical question.)

Alan

 

[Sair]

But that is just a point as well - there have been failures of Christianity (religion), corrected by – what, anti-Christianity (anti-religion) claiming science for themselves? No, by good Christianity (religion), enriched by new insights from science.

A telling concession, to claim that religion is “enriched” by science. It generally does seem that philosophical or religious claims that actually run counter to the findings of rigorous scientific research - such as young-earth creationism, to name only the most obvious - tend to become objects of ridicule for ignoring demonstrable reality.

There are religious as well as irreligious scientists and philosophers, some of them better experts on what e.g. physics - trying to understand the structure of (material) reality - is all about than Harris.

Yet for all intents and purposes, seriously religious scientists tend to adhere to the notion of “non-overlapping magisteria” - that is, the claim that religion and science necessarily deal with separate and non-compatible aspects of reality. This approach seems to be necessary if one wants to maintain both pursuits.

However, if you like to quote, here is A.N. Whitehead, at least as much a philosophical authority as Samuel Harris:

“Faith in the possibility of science, generated antecedently to the development of modern scientific theory, is an unconscious derivative from medieval theology.” (Science and the Modern World).

I generally prefer to make my own points, where I can, but it just so happened that I was reading through some of Sam Harris’s writing at the time I saw the post to which I quoted him in reply. Be that as it may, it has to be said that “faith” in science is largely derived from demonstrable effects upon our experience and understanding of reality. Religious faith is, in general, derived either from (abject) adherence to authority or from the desire to believe that what we wish was the case actually is so.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

A telling concession, to claim that religion is “enriched” by science.

Sure is.

I look at science and religion like my left and right eye. For those who don’t know how stereo sound or 3-D movies work, this is it.

If I look through the left eye it looks like one thing. If I look through the right eye I see another.

Open both eyes, and I can “see” a whole new dimension – depth – that is impossible for either eye to see, or even both eyes working independently.

I can feed everything I see in one eye to theologians and the other to science, and never see what one balanced person sees all the time.

Alan

 

[Sair]

Sure is.

I look at science and religion like my left and right eye. For those who don’t know how stereo sound or 3-D movies work, this is it.

If I look through the left eye it looks like one thing. If I look through the right eye I see another.

Open both eyes, and I can “see” a whole new dimension – depth – that is impossible for either eye to see, or even both eyes working independently.

I can feed everything I see in one eye to theologians and the other to science, and never see what one balanced person sees all the time.

Alan

What exactly does supernaturalist religion bring to one’s perspective, considering how it has been continually giving ground to scientific discovery? Or at least, this is true for those who don’t simply deny the reality that science has demonstrated. In what respect does theology complement philosophy and science (natural philosophy) and thus generate a better understanding of the world and our place in it - and how would we know?

 

[Solus_vistor]

A telling concession, to claim that religion is “enriched” by science.

I did not say “enriched by science” but “enriched by new insights from science”. This subtle difference I usually express as my “creed”:

It is not true that religion and science are on a collision course.
It is not true that religion and science are mutually irrelevant.
It is true that some interpretations of religion and some interpretations of science are on a collision course.
It is true that “uninterpreted” religion and “uninterpreted” science are mutually irrelevant.

It generally does seem that philosophical or religious claims that actually run counter to the findings of rigorous scientific research - such as young-earth creationism, to name only the most obvious - tend to become objects of ridicule for ignoring demonstrable reality.

In debates like this one should be careful with uncalled for sweeping generalisation. It goes both ways. At school - in Stalinist East/central Europe - I learned that life can arise spontaneously, yeast being an example of that. Later I learned that one should not ascribe ridiculous opinions like this to ALL atheists, pantheists etc.

seriously religious scientists tend to adhere to the notion of “non-overlapping magisteria” … This approach seems to be necessary if one wants to maintain both pursuits.

Stephen Jay Gould’s NOMA approach to the science-religion relation is one of many possible. AlanFromWichita seems to subscribe to it (apologies if I am wrong), others find it too simplistic, downplaying philosophy that overarches both science and metaphysics/theology. My own approach is expressed in my “creed” above.

it has to be said that “faith” in science is largely derived from demonstrable effects upon our experience and understanding of reality.

You seem to be confusing what Whitehead means by faith (meaning just trust) in this quote, and religious faith that is a general personal attitude to the human experience, of which particular beliefs - tenets, creeds or world-view presupposition be they of methaphysical or other nature - are only a part.

Religious faith is, in general, derived either from (abject) adherence to authority or from the desire to believe that what we wish was the case actually is so.

I am a regular participant on another online discussions forum, frequented mostly by atheists. They rightfully complain when some regligious zealots redefine atheism to suit their own preconceived ideas. I think the same is true when one makes derrogatory statements about religion, Christianity etc. I would not have objected had you prefixed your statement with “In my opinion”, since it conveys an information mainly about you. Religion,however you define it, is more complicated than what could be fitted into one sweeping sentence.

 

[Sair]

Harris is not an good example to use as an expert at science. His atheism is just as much of a religion as any religion, because it is based on his faith that the conclusions he cannot ever obtain experimentally are still, in fact, absolutely true. That is not a “critical” thinker. That is a person whose life is totally invested in a construct he must uphold even if given solid evidence he is wrong. This is the kind of science where you first draw the curve, THEN you plot the points.

I actually agree with him on a couple things he says, but the quote you cited is highly problematic and contains evidence of narrow vision and bias.

BZZZZZT! First off, this guy seems to have no real clue about life. If he’s ever felt despair then he’s denying it. I was near despair and my master’s degree in engineering didn’t do diddly squat to help. The medicines didn’t make a measurable difference. “Hope is easy.” What a joke.

Knowledge is hard? Maybe for him. Gaining knowledge has always been the “easy way out” for me. If he were a real scientist he wouldn’t whine or play the martyr like this – “oh boo hoo, what I do is HARD, you people.” Honest scientists don’t have a need for people to admire them; if they do, they might turn into this guy.

… said the spider to the fly.

SMH. If these words are from someone who knows “good science” then such a thing doesn’t exist. This guy uses the label of scientist to promote HIS religion, which he says has no tolerance for other points of view. Surely it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Einstein said “Science without religion is lame.” Why don’t we rally around our undisputed leaders in the science? Would you rather believe Einstein, or someone who crows, “Knowledge is Ha-aard!” (Rhetorical question.)

Alan

This sounds like the standard pro-religionist rhetoric levelled at anyone who dares to call out religious claims to respect and reverence and “knowledge” through revelation. What, after all, are the claims of the world’s major religions, such that they could not have been invented by parochial, tribal people who lacked scientific knowledge of the world?

There’s a big difference between saying, “I know, on the basis of my religious revelation, that the nature of reality is what this revelation says, and no possible evidence can contradict this revelation,” and on the other hand, saying, “Empirical investigations have shown that the nature of reality is probably like so, but further evidence may demonstrate otherwise, or uncover more detail to enrich our understanding of the world; but in the meantime, we’ll proceed on the basis of our best estimate.” You are surely not really claiming that the invention of theology is as rigorous as the methodology of science. Hope may not, indeed, be as easy as Harris intimates here, but finding it in reality is surely better than any false consolation offered by mythology.

I am, and you are, and Harris is, perfectly free to accept or reject (even provisionally) the findings of science - no inquisitor is going to come knocking on your door in the night to haul you off for interrogation if you make it known that you reject quantum theory, for example. The point is to examine the claims and the evidence and draw one’s own conclusions - that’s what free thinkers do. Harris is not, here, making any claims that are not accessible on the basis of simple common sense, nor indeed obvious to anyone who examines religious claims from the outside. It’s an old, but in this case apt, saying - “Atheism is to religion as baldness is to hair colour.”

 

[AlanFromWichita]

What exactly does supernaturalist religion bring to one’s perspective, considering how it has been continually giving ground to scientific discovery? Or at least, this is true for those who don’t simply deny the reality that science has demonstrated. In what respect does theology complement philosophy and science (natural philosophy) and thus generate a better understanding of the world and our place in it - and how would we know?

Fair question. It isn’t even a question for me, because faith and medicine have worked together in me toward my healing. And I know just how, but don’t know how to put it into words.

There are many ways I can answer this, and I can tell some of them will not be adequate. I shall consider this a while with the intent of coming back – because I think I should be in just the right mood to come up with an angle that will be meaningful to those on “both sides.” Not trying to dodge the question, just put it off a bit. Maybe others have examples.

That said, I agree that philosophy, religion, and science, are three different approaches to the same reality, and I think none of them fail to address any particular aspect of reality – though they use different approaches and see things differently.

One quick thought, though, that my engineering-self is screaming. “Fourier Transforms.” One can look at frequency domain plots all day, and deduce useful information about the response of a system. One can look at at time domain plot and see that it is nothing like the frequency plot. The untrained observer might say we measured the wrong equipment, while the engineer knows they are two ways of looking at the same thing. We have more than one way of seeing things, because when we simplify the world enough to get it into bite-size chunks, and look at measurements which are but a shadow of the real, we lose information. It’s like a hologram with the left half missing. Through the right side it looks the same, but there are points of view in the left side that are missing.

Thus are science and religion. Two aspects of philosophy which give us a different viewpoint toward the same reality. Happy are those who find reconciliation between them. I know because I am one of them. Interestingly enough, when I did, my mental illness was cured – not managed, cured. After 11 years of asking me how I’m doing, for the last few months my psychiatrist hasn’t – because he doesn’t need to any more; he says my mind is calm and clear. That’s because of 11 years of intense work, they are now working together to serve me, rather than haunting me and giving me anxiety that makes me want to cling to one side or another – knowing no side is in itself sufficient.

Here’s what it’s like for many scientists I’ve worked with, and for religious leaders I’ve heard. And as a senior engineer for Bell Labs, I got to rub elbows with some of the top designers and technical people – good news is, not all scientists are like this, nor all religious leaders:



Once again: “Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind.”

Alan

 

[Sair]

Fair question. It isn’t even a question for me, because faith and medicine have worked together in me toward my healing. And I know just how, but don’t know how to put it into words.

The really interesting thing is that my experience seems to have been - if not the opposite, exactly - then certainly at a very different point on the spectrum to yours. Embracing belief - and, yes, I am not hesitant to call it a belief, because I don’t claim (nor suppose I could ever claim) anything like absolute knowledge - in a godless universe has turned my life around to an extent I would never have imagined when I was a convinced Catholic. I am a more balanced, compassionate and mature person, I have learned to manage severe recurrent depression and I have made my peace with death - my own, when it eventuates, and that of others close to me who have died. It would take far more space than I have here to elucidate how and why this has been the case, but the (very) short version is that life just makes more sense to me this way.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

The really interesting thing is that my experience seems to have been - if not the opposite, exactly - then certainly at a very different point on the spectrum to yours. Embracing belief - and, yes, I am not hesitant to call it a belief, because I don’t claim (nor suppose I could ever claim) anything like absolute knowledge - in a godless universe has turned my life around to an extent I would never have imagined when I was a convinced Catholic. I am a more balanced, compassionate and mature person, I have learned to manage severe recurrent depression and I have made my peace with death - my own, when it eventuates, and that of others close to me who have died. It would take far more space than I have here to elucidate how and why this has been the case, but the (very) short version is that life just makes more sense to me this way.

I see you are self-describing as a pantheist. I keep changing what I describe myself as, because I like to “morph” my mindset as much as possible to the point of view of other people to try to see it their way, so it compliments my own view rather than fights it. (That said, I’m a practicing RCC member.)

There is an ex-poster from here I chat with now and then, who calls herself pantheist. She used to be Catholic, and knows more about Catholic teaching than most Catholics I know. I have found many of her ideas to be insightful, and even found that some of what she said that used to get her into arguments over here are not really different from what some of the great mystics have said. And her insight and ability to match spiritualism with any given application is almost amazing. So that gives me a positive outlook toward pantheism.

Alan

 

[Solus_vistor]

Alan,

A funny coincidence that you would publish that picture of the elephant. In the “atheist” forum I mention above, I once wrote:

Without attempting to define religion - it somehow encompasses both belief and faith - I see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but are confused about what is its cause and purpose or why it is there at all.

Taking the philosopher‘s point of view (but always aware of the six others) there are in principle only two presuppositions: Either - as Carl Sagan put it - the physical universe is all there is, without cause and without purpose, or that there must be Something (different religions model it differently) not reducible to the physical universe, that is the cause and purpose of the physical universe, which itself has no cause and no purpose.

There is no rational way to decide a priori in favour of the one or the other presupposition. There are only arguments, including rational ones, that can support one’s preconceived preference. One of them might be the Occam‘s razor principle that would favour Sagan. For a believer this preference comes from aspects of religion that belong to the realms of the other six “blind men”.<<

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Alan,

A funny coincidence that you would publish that picture of the elephant. In the “atheist” forum I mention above, I once wrote:

Without attempting to define religion - it somehow encompasses both belief and faith - I see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but are confused about what is its cause and purpose or why it is there at all.

 

[tonyrey]

Alan,

A funny coincidence that you would publish that picture of the elephant. In the “atheist” forum I mention above, I once wrote:

Without attempting to define religion - it somehow encompasses both belief and faith - I see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but are confused about what is its cause and purpose or why it is there at all.

Irrefutable with irrepressible humour!

 

[InJesusItrust]

To really annoy a science enthusiast simply ask if the physical laws and constants are uniform. Almost everything we have deduced about the universe hinges on this assumption.

 

[atheistgirl]

To really annoy a science enthusiast simply ask if the physical laws and constants are uniform. Almost everything we have deduced about the universe hinges on this assumption.

I don’t know if you know any scientists personally, but they don’t tend to get annoyed. They constantly strive to understand, and if that means turning over previously dearly held ideas, that actually excites them, not annoy them.

Sarah x

 

[inocente]

Without attempting to define religion - it somehow encompasses both belief and faith - I see it as the “elephant” studied by the “six blind men“: a psychologist, an anthropologist, a sociologist, an evolutionist (of the Dawkins or D. S. Wilson kind), a philosopher, an ethicist, a historian (sorry, that makes seven). They all can agree that there indeed is a phenomenon called religion but are confused about what is its cause and purpose or why it is there at all.

Why would they be confused, surely religion is easy to study? I mean, think of some of the questions: are religious people more or less likely to be charitable, commit crimes, be healthier, wealthier, vote Republican, etc. Are there variances across religions. Is there a correlation between belief and intelligence/level of education. What are the first signs of religion in history, did it bring a survival advantage or was it a by-product of something else. What parts of the brain light up in a religious experience. And so on.

Doesn’t seem too difficult compared with brain surgery or rocket science.

Taking the philosopher‘s point of view (but always aware of the six others) there are in principle only two presuppositions: Either - as Carl Sagan put it - the physical universe is all there is, without cause and without purpose, or that there must be Something (different religions model it differently) not reducible to the physical universe, that is the cause and purpose of the physical universe, which itself has no cause and no purpose.

You didn’t mention a third philosophical point of view, which is to refuse to entertain either proposition, since neither can be proved nor disproved and so choosing is a subjective value judgment, a mere opinion.

Also, I’d have thought most people don’t approach religion as a philosophical quest, they simply either believe or don’t.

 

[inocente]

To really annoy a science enthusiast simply ask if the physical laws and constants are uniform. Almost everything we have deduced about the universe hinges on this assumption.

If the universe isn’t really orderly, if orderliness is just an illusion, then God has no control and is merely a god of chaos. I guess that would be annoying.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I don’t know if you know any scientists personally, but they don’t tend to get annoyed. They constantly strive to understand, and if that means turning over previously dearly held ideas, that actually excites them, not annoy them.

Sarah x

I have been off this thread for a while because my computer is being repaired and I’ve had limited access to the internet since then, but I have to repsond to this-----------

SOME scientists DO act in this way (and properly so)--------

But why do you not tell the scientists and professors at various universities around the country to behave like that when one has the GALL to question the standard model for evolution (i.e., Darwinian evolution) and suggest and alternate model, like, let’s say, “intelligent design?”

Thetre are many cases of priofessors and students who have had their careers ruined and thri reputations destroyed becauser they DARED to question certain aspects of evolution and instead posited whether ID was not a more credible alternative.

Watch the EXPELLED doumentary by Ben Stein as an example.

Scientists DO get excited-----------too often, though, they get excited about ideas that only tend to uphold the staus quo in scientific circles and agree with their version of what the “evidence” is.

So yes, not EVERYBODY in the scientific community is as open-minded as you just described.

 

[atheistgirl]

Watch the EXPELLED doumentary by Ben Stein as an example.

I have.

It was embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

As for having careers destroyed, on the contrary, there’s a Nobel Prize and a place in history guaranteed to the person who overturns the standard evolutionary model.

It wont happen though.

And with that Im not saying another word about evolution, as it is a banned subject here.

Sarah x

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I have.

It was embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

As for having careers destroyed, on the contrary, there’s a Nobel Prize and a place in history guaranteed to the person who overturns the standard evolutionary model.

It wont happen though.

And with that Im not saying another word about evolution, as it is a banned subject here.

Sarah x

It was embarrassing and cringe-worthy.

I admit certain parts of it WERE “unfair,” but the point remains that anybody who questions the standard eviolutionary line has had their careers destroyed.

You didn’t acknowledge that, by the way.

And the idea that a Nobel Prize awaits anybody who disproves the current explanation for evolution IS basically true--------

The idea that “it won’t happen,” though, seems to confer upon you a certainty that only prophets have.

Do you know something about the future the rest of us don’t, Atheistgirl?

If so, would you mind sharing it with us, if it is not too much of a problem? LOL.

(Kidding, BTW).

 

[atheistgirl]

Do you know something about the future the rest of us don’t, Atheistgirl?

If so, would you mind sharing it with us, if it is not too much of a problem? LOL.

Verily I say onto thee …



Sarah x