Does science actually explain away religion?
- Maze Hatter
- Posts: 19
- Joined: October 5th, 2013, 1:00 am
Does science actually explain away religion?
Hope you enjoy.
How the History of Religious Thinking Explains Away the Contemporary Perception of the Superiority of Scientific Thinking
Given two explanations of a phenomenon that have the same explanatory ability, we should choose the one with the fewest necessary assumptions. When that phenomenon is reality itself, it is common for us to be presented with two explanations, one which exists in Nature, and one which exists in God. In such a presentation, the naturalist claims their worldview and the processes that lead to it are fundamentally different from those of the theist. The truth of that claim is examined in this paper from a third perspective, that of the pantheist, which is found to be a more general worldview that explains away a great many of the claims and ideas associated with a scientific culture. This conclusion is reached after showing that the processes and worldview of a naturalist are not conceptually different from a theist's in a fundamental sense, but differ in the cultural labels applied to various parts of the worldviews and also in the available technologies used as metaphors in the explanations.
How ideas change in science versus religion has been stated many ways, the bluntest being "science changes when the evidence changes, and religion is dogmatic." Let's compare that claim to history. We have the benefit of learning about major revolutions in science a hundred years or more after the fact, so it might be tempting to think these things happen quickly. But that's not how it really happens. Quantum mechanics for example, did not win over the world by its opponents being won over with evidence, but, according to Max Planck, "rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." As for religion being static, religion continues to evolve to this day as new generations assimilate the knowledge passed down to them against the backdrop of their contemporary problems, including the influence of other cultures. The empirically accurate model for explaining how scientific and religious thinking changes over time is not that science achieves the ideal of objectivity while religion is confined to stone tablets, but that both follow a single theory known as memetics that views ideas and other units of culture as replicators subjected to selection.
As for the differences in worldviews of the theist and the naturalist, let's compare them side by side. The theist proposes God is the foundation of existence, it has no cause or creator, and everything we observe including ourselves is caused by God. The naturalist proposes Nature to be the foundation of existence, it needs no cause or creator, and everything we observe follows its unbreakable and inescapable laws. The pantheist says God or Nature, it's the same thing, although a naturalist would object to that. A prominent advocate of naturalism, Dr. Sean Carroll often defines naturalism as the worldview of one world that is empirically examined. One world does sound like fewer assumptions than the theists model. But Carroll also says the fundamental level of that world is different than the level of our everyday experience. He admits in many places the need for various levels. In Everett's interpretation of quantum mechanics which Carroll prefers, the underlying wave function is the Multiverse and our empirical reality is a universe of measurements that happen within. Even ignoring the branching of the observer-states that causes many worlds, there are two distinct domains, a Multiverse and a universe, the wave function and an observer's records of measurements made of the wave function from within. The contemporary naturalist may aim to provide a worldview with less assumptions than is required by the theist's model, but the assumption that a new level is provided by an observer cannot be avoided. At no time in history has science ever actually produced or advocated a single level metaphysics that is profoundly different than theism, be it Newton's original absolute and relative natures, Einstein telling Bohr "God does not play dice" and Bohr responding "Don't tell God what to do!", or Everett attempting to derive the relative state of the model by placing modeled observers in it.
Since there are not actually two explanations to choose from, merely different sets of labels that apply to the same general picture, Occam's Razor is not needed to select between the naturalist and the theist. The conviction of advocates of naturalism that their labels are superior and should be used exclusively by all then can be explained away as routine memetic behavior evident in the history of religion instead of introducing special assumptions. Naturalists have not avoided the conflict classically attributed to religions over what the basis of existence is called; they are instead the latest culture in that battle to assert their labels as supreme. The broader conclusions are that whether one prefers to say a model is an approximation of Nature, or God, or Brahman, or Tao is really a connection for the individual to make to their cultural identity. The ultimate social benefits of naturalism and theism will only be achieved if we set a new standard, where we don't expect others to conform to our cultural preferences; where we spend less time debating what to call the fundamental level of reality, and more time collaborating on the well being of the things in it.
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
That seems like a false dichotomy fallacy. Moreover, the 'Naturalist' position you describe is not science, and those seems to be yet another fallacy if it is meant to relate to the titular question.Maze Hatter wrote:Given two explanations of a phenomenon that have the same explanatory ability, we should choose the one with the fewest necessary assumptions. When that phenomenon is reality itself, it is common for us to be presented with two explanations, one which exists in Nature, and one which exists in God. [...] The theist proposes God is the foundation of existence, it has no cause or creator, and everything we observe including ourselves is caused by God. The naturalist proposes Nature to be the foundation of existence, it needs no cause or creator, and everything we observe follows its unbreakable and inescapable laws. The pantheist says God or Nature, it's the same thing, although a naturalist would object to that.
In contrast to the false dichotomy, a different position and one that might most likely be held by those who adhere to the scientific method and Occam's razor would be to conclude that observable parts of nature exist but that one does not know with the same certainty what caused them to exist or whether they have a cause.
That's really the whole point of Occam's razor: to be willing to say "I don't know" about as much as possible and only allow our belief-system and conclusions to assert as little as they need based on the evidence. In other words, if the truth of X vs -X is not indicated either way by the evidence, then Occam's razor says it isn't to be included in our explanation of such evidence if it can be reasonably avoided.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
-
- Posts: 2645
- Joined: December 9th, 2011, 4:45 pm
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
...don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. What scientists / naturalists have, obviously, are facts. What they don't have is opinions.Maze Hatter wrote: The conviction of advocates of naturalism that their labels are superior and should be used exclusively by all then can be explained away as routine memetic behavior evident in the history of religion instead of introducing special assumptions. Naturalists have not avoided the conflict classically attributed to religions over what the basis of existence is called; they are instead the latest culture in that battle to assert their labels as supreme. The broader conclusions are that whether one prefers to say a model is an approximation of Nature, or God, or Brahman, or Tao is really a connection for the individual to make to their cultural identity. The ultimate social benefits of naturalism and theism will only be achieved if we set a new standard, where we don't expect others to conform to our cultural preferences; where we spend less time debating what to call the fundamental level of reality, and more time collaborating on the well being of the things in it.
Naturalists are right to demand that for issues of fact there is only a single correct answer possible, which answer is an exhaustive model of what is evidenced. And generally more or less they have the best answers on issues of fact.
That is entirely different from opinions. With opinions both the answers "the painting is beautiful" and "the painting is ugly" are logically valid. The logical validity of an opinion depends upon that the conclusion is chosen, there must be at least 2 alternatives to choose from in order to form an opinion.
And with horrific ignorance, atheists commonly compete fact against opinion, to the complete destruction of all emotion, enter mr Spock, instead of just accepting both fact and opinion as valid but distinct.
We must just be kind of reasonable which issue is put into the matter of opinion category, and which is put in the matter of fact category. Love, hate, emotions, God, the soul, obviously they all do the job of choosing, and therefore they all belong to the matter of opinion category. Stones, planets, the body and brain, obviously they are all chosen, and therefore belong to the matter of fact category.
Ofcourse we can see that since the universe is created, it could be destroyed and gone too. Then we are left solely with the spiritual domain, the domain that contains all what chooses. No facts whatsoever, only opinion, applies to that scenario. So it is shown that the creation is subservient to the creator.
- Neznac
- Posts: 1652
- Joined: December 4th, 2012, 2:31 pm
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
OK, you seem to be saying that it's all about diffrent narratives, but that no narrative should have a privileged position amongst the alternatives? Have we then learned nothing over the last 300 years? Are we just housing our experiences in different linguistic clothing, but essentially we are just spinning our collective wheels on the hamster-wheel of language?Maze Hatter wrote: The broader conclusions are that whether one prefers to say a model is an approximation of Nature, or God, or Brahman, or Tao is really a connection for the individual to make to their cultural identity. The ultimate social benefits of naturalism and theism will only be achieved if we set a new standard, where we don't expect others to conform to our cultural preferences; where we spend less time debating what to call the fundamental level of reality, and more time collaborating on the well being of the things in it.
It seems to me that technology is the proof of the best narrative structure, although admitting that for all intents and purposes there can exist no truly "objective knowledge." I would have to conclude that on some human accomplishments (not saying whether it is a positive or negative result for the species as such) our ability to fly to the moon would certainly never have happened if we relied solely on our prayers to Jehovah. As a species, we could have collectively prayed for thousands of years and would never have actually gotten off the ground. Now if you wish to recast Newton's discoveries concerning motion as "different types of prayer" and to recast Einstein's physics as "a variety of prayer" - then you are essentially destroying the distinctions between narratives, and spinning your tires on a different hamster-wheel?
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
Science and religion are not two different narratives; they are two different methods of thought; two different ways of apprehending, and relating to, the world.
Science doesn't explain religion. Some sciences shed light on the functioning of the human brain; other sciences describe, quantify and systematize interactions actions of the material universe. No science exists to study religion or any of its realms.
Some religious persons [not religion itself!] have attacked science, considering it an enemy of spirituality or a threat to the power of religious leaders. Their arguments (of which I have read and heard many) tend to be logically unsound and factually incomplete. Some scientists [not science itself!] have taken issue with the power of faith to lead people into irrational, often destructive, activity. Their arguments tend to be closely-reasoned and factual but irrelevant to the stuff of faith. Neither is in any way capable of explaining the other away.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 13822
- Joined: July 10th, 2008, 7:02 pm
- Location: UK
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
-
- Posts: 5161
- Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
A. Science can only explain anything that is empirically possible and within its range & scope of the scientific method & framework. Science will not assure anyone that it can explain away anything but limits its explanatory power to whatever it can observes and tests.
B. The ground of the Abrahamic religions, i.e. god is not observable and testable. Therefore theistic religions are beyond the scope of science. The transcendental idea of 'God' is illusory and thus an impossibility as real knowledge. The most theists can use the idea of God is as an assumption for whatever the purpose.
One will note that it is philosophy-proper that is explaining away Science and Religion by leaving them as inevitably and unavoidably without final answers.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Thus, to sum up our discussion of the value of philosophy; Philosophy is to be studied, not for the sake of any definite answers to its questions since no definite answers can, as a rule, be known to be true, but rather for the sake of the questions themselves; because these questions enlarge our conception of what is possible, enrich our intellectual imagination and diminish the dogmatic assurance which closes the mind against speculation;
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
Some sciences - well, one might question whether some of those mentioned are sciences at all! (I don't see medicine as dealing with religion when it treats particular injuries or symptoms: medicine deals with the effect, not the motivation. Neurological research is coming close now, but still only in locating the portion of the brain responsible for supernatural belief.) Let's say, rather, that soft sciences describe religious practices and belief systems, or measure the impact tat religious practice has on other aspects of society, as a component of human behaviour. None of them is dedicated to the study of religion as a phenomenon, nor to the specific contents of religious beliefs. The hard sciences don't touch religious issues even peripherally.Belinda wrote:"No science exists to study religion or any of its realms" wrote Alias. But social anthropology deals with human religious behaviour including beliefs. Psychology and parapsychology deal with human religious attitudes and any evidence that paranormal experiences are veridical. Medicine deals with the pathological fallout of certain religious or magical practices. Art crlticism deals with depictions of religious sentiments. Economics deals with the costs and benefits of religious provision for populations. History which straddles arts and science deals with man's religious past.
In no case has the study of religious practice explained any of it away, nor diminished it by one jot or tittle.
- LogicReasonEvidence
- Posts: 33
- Joined: November 9th, 2014, 7:07 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Dan Dennett
- Location: Norfolk, UK
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
For example, Christians assert Jesus Christ was the son of their god & is the only means of attaining salvation but Muslims do not believe this & neither do Jews. So who -if anyone, is right? There is absolutely no reliable way to find out while you are alive. Yes there certainly are ways of feeling as if you know the claim is true: by faith for example, but faith in a different religion can & does produce certainty in the minds of Muslims & Jews who also feel sure this is not the case so ultimately nothing better than opinion is generated in diametrically opposing camps, both of whom claim to know the other is wrong.
So does science 'explain away' religion? Well if you expect science to pretend to be all knowing somehow, no it doesn't. It simply deals with areas where it can give demonstrable, testable answers. But religion explains nothing at all, it merely claims to do so without any inclination to feel obliged to offer independently verifiable evidence. As Christopher Hitchens rightly said: "arguments that explain everything...explain nothing."
- Quotidian
- Posts: 2681
- Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
However, naturalism doesn't explain what 'natural laws' are or why they exist. Indeed, it doesn't have to explain them; it assumes them, which is why it is called 'naturalism'.Maze Hatter wrote:The naturalist proposes Nature to be the foundation of existence, it needs no cause or creator, and everything we observe follows its unbreakable and inescapable laws.
And despite the best efforts of naturalism, nature does not seem self-explanatory in any easy or obvious way; that is to say, naturalism hasn't found anything which seems to serve as an explanation for all of the variety of phenomena in the Universe, in a way analogous to the notion of 'God'. At one stage 'the atom' was presumed to be that, but it has to all intents been dissolved. Now in physical cosmology, there is a crisis, or many crises, with some physicists advocating Everett's 'many world's' thesis, or the so-called 'cosmic landscape' which speculates about the existence of 10500 universes which can't even in principle ever be perceived. (Take that, Occam!) You seem to acknowledge these problems only to brush them off.
The problem is that many advocates of naturalism have little insight into what they're criticizing - they understand 'God' as a kind of failed scientific hypothesis, a theory that didn't work out. Maybe there are some religious believers who understand it that way also, but I think they're in a minority. The notion of 'God' is not an explanation at all, in the naturalistic sense; that whole line of thought came about from medieval scientists who tried to relate their discoveries to 'God's handiwork'. In fact, history will show you that Christian philosophy had a seminal role in the development of scientific naturalism; but the notion that nature's laws directly prove or establish God's existence, is a misconception (which is described in detail in Karen Armstrong's 2009 A Case for God, not, incidentally, a book of apologetics.)
And finally your conclusion has no relationship to your premisses.
But, your grammar and syntax are fine.
I'll leave you with another quote from Max Planck:
From Wiki Quotes.Max Planck wrote:As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
- Theophane
- Posts: 2349
- Joined: May 25th, 2013, 9:03 am
- Favorite Philosopher: C.S. Lewis
- Location: Ontario, Canada
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
-- Updated November 15th, 2014, 12:14 pm to add the following --
Yes, but only after becoming what it seeks to explain away. Unless it becomes an irrational, dogmatic worldview in and of itself, science cannot do this completely.
- Wolf-J-kom
- Posts: 44
- Joined: October 19th, 2014, 8:24 pm
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
- Quotidian
- Posts: 2681
- Joined: August 29th, 2012, 7:47 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Nagel
- Location: Sydney
- Contact:
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
-
- Posts: 865
- Joined: September 20th, 2012, 10:22 pm
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
Naturalism is "the philosophical belief that everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted." Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe; that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.
Those we used to call naturalists are now called scientists. The term naturalist now seems to refer to those who study the biological aspects of the world. Yet naturalism, as a philosophy, retains its original meaning. Just a point of interest.
Science is a method of examining the world and attempting to describe it universal terms. It is not a belief system, and is not concerned with religious matters. The idea that scientists have not found God anywhere they have looked, and therefore He does not exist, is a fundamentalist atheist view - and that is a belief system. It should be noted that not all scientists are atheists, but all atheists invoke science as an anti-religious doctrine. I have a book somewhere by David Berlinski called "The Devil's Delusion - Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions". It's an entertaining read.
-
- Posts: 244
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 10:55 am
- Contact:
Re: Does science actually explain away religion?
Religion doesn't understand God (as the interconnected totality of existence). Not personal enough.
Science doesn't recognize God (as the interconnected totality of existence). Not objective enough.
They are both wrong.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023