Aug 30 2012: I try to stay away from intellectual sovereignty as much as possible -- that way lies madness. To me it makes more sense to focus on utility. (I can get away with this, because science lays no claim to the "Truth", only to models of the world that make accurate predictions.)
Nonetheless we legitimately get into questions like those you pose because uncovering internal contradictions and fundamental disagreements with observations are some of the primary ways we find out that we need better models. (Disagreement with scripture, however, does not count against an otherwise useful theory.)
Its a bit easier on the imagination to run evolution backwards to the first biochemical reactions than it is to get one's mind around "what happened before time began?" That very questions occupies the best minds in Cosmology and remains a subject of intense debate. My limited understanding of the current trend is that our notion of time is mostly an illusion. There was no beginning, nor will there be an end, and so there is no way to ask the question "what was there before time began?"
Aug 29 2012: @Justin -- I'm responding to your post below (Ted.com limits reply levels). I suspect my reply will not surprise you: Activating dogma eliminates the possibility of reasonable discourse. Now, it is certainly possible to have reasonable discourse with a Yankees fan, just not about the Yankees.
If find it ironic/tragic when science-minded folks act like Yankees fans in a debate like this one. Furthermore, do so isn't going to help alleviate religious-minded anxieties about scientific progress, nor science-minded anxieties about religious influence on public policy.
I liked your term "empathetic view" -- participating with empathy is the only way to learn something, especially about what that crazy person across the table might be trying to say. Dogma has to be at least temporarily set aside in order to achieve that kind of empathy.
Aug 29 2012: @Peter The mechanics of evolution are not hard to understand, but getting one's mind around the idea that the relatively simple rules of evolution could have produced the life we see around us is daunting. Nonetheless, if you're being honest, you can't say its impossible. You might say its overwhelmingly unlikely -- even miraculous -- that such a mindless process should work out just the right way for us to become what we are, and I would agree. The expanse of time, the numberless generations, the infinitely intertwined patterns stretch the imagination to the breaking point. But it could have happened.
In fact, the only way you can say that its impossible is by saying "I don't believe that. I believe God did it."
btw-- Einstein did not say time is affected by mass (it depends only relative motion) so he can't back up your idea that the massless would be timeless and therefore eternal. The Bible is many things, I think we now have to say that a reliable source on Cosmology isn't one of them.
Aug 29 2012: @Brett You posed a number of questions, I'd like to offer my responses:
>> What possible purpose would there be for science to even dabble in any religion?
None, in the conduct of science. But I believe that anyone who enters this debate on the side of science ought to have an objective understanding of both sides, and be able to -- not just refute -- but illuminate, persuade, and inform decisions based on the ensuing discussion. No one can blame professionals who want to just keep their heads down and do their work in peace. But you spoke up, and so here we are.
>> Do you purport that religion has something to teach science that science is unable to discover without the help of a Rabbi, or the bible?
No. Where did you get that idea?
>> It's also not Buddists who run for political office, at least not on the continent on which I live.
Religious freedom will become ever more difficult to preserve if we allow ourselves to succumb to the idea that Religion == Christianity, even in the US. It doesn't. Not even here. Even if there's only 1 Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu kid in the whole school, that's enough to say "there are two religions represented here."
>> (I believe that is what you are attempting to promote here)
Not even remotely.
>> Why should a researcher have to in anyway cowtow to a religious person? Because their research might anger someone's god, or stop someone from believing, or it's an affront to god?
Of course not.
>> If a religious person wants to have influence over science, then I suggest they get an education, do some research and get in the field, otherwise stick to Hail Mary's.
They show up at city hall and vote, and none of your recommendations is a requirement.
I'll make an analogy to illustrate why I think this is important: Cancer treatment is more or less effective depending on how precisely you're able to target the cancerous cells, without disturbing the surrounding tissue. I'm out of space...
Aug 29 2012: The science-minded all too often fall into the same sort of dogmatic, idealogical positions that they argue against. When that happens, Reason is kidnapped and replaced with its evil twin, Rationalization.
Maybe human nature demands that we align with sides and present opposition. Maybe its simply because you posed this question in the "Debate" section of the site.
In any case, It is certainly ironic, if not downright tragic, to see people who claim to uphold the highest qualities of science -- skepticism, objectivity, reason, willingness to go where the evidence leads -- crippled by dogma. We need to do better.
Aug 26 2012: Historically, all religions have served four main functions:
1. Present a model of how the world works, including a creation story
2. Help individuals confront universal human challenges (why am i here? what will happen when I die?)
3. Help people live together in communities
4. Keep people in touch with the notion that there is "something more", transcendant, mysterious, beautiful...
The first of these has been utterly taken over by modern Cosmology, Physics, Biology, Medicine, etc. These have proven to be better sources, so we don't need to consult the clergy about this anymore.
The second is being taken over by modern Psychology, Psychiatry, therapy, anti-depressants, and self-help books, though the battle is still being waged.
The third is now the domain of Sociology, Political Science, Law, governments, law enforcement, and so on. The clergy weighs in to try to keep the faithful from running afoul. But the law is the final arbiter (at least in this life).
The last is, in my opinion, in a state of crisis, although Ted.com offers a glimmer of hope.
Aug 26 2012: Petrol engines don't live. Evolution isn't so hard to understand, once you get your mind around the staggering expanse of time over which it operates.
Aug 26 2012: Nicely done. Except that I might cast logic in a different role: logic is one of the tools we use in order to know god's thoughts.
Theistic religions hold that god(s) with freedom of action and sometimes prickly personalities are the reason things happen (Apollo makes the Sun rise, etc.) Science dispels such mysteries, often revealing others. And the search goes on...
What differentiates science from theistic religions is, in my opinion, progress.
Aug 26 2012: @Brett "Religion wants lunacy like intelligent design to be treated as real science. "
That statement right there is the problem. Is not all religion, it is evangelical Christian conservatives who want this. By using the term "religion" the way you do, you paint far, far too many people with the transgressions of a select few.
"but they do often live by rigid rules, engage in rituals and at least attempt to live by the tenants laid out for them?"
Thats a method, a systematic approach to life, a practice, just as science has a method. No predefined outcomes, no dogma, no deities, no intelligent design, no idealogical position on education, gun control, the death penalty, abortion, marriage, ...
And that's just one example. The scientific community needs to broaden its notion of what constitutes a religion, and sharpen its attacks (or defenses, if you prefer) more precisely on those things that are actually objectionable.
By failing to do so, you look just as ill informed, dogmatic and ideologically motivated as the people your argue against.
TEDCred score: +1.70 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
Nonetheless we legitimately get into questions like those you pose because uncovering internal contradictions and fundamental disagreements with observations are some of the primary ways we find out that we need better models. (Disagreement with scripture, however, does not count against an otherwise useful theory.)
Its a bit easier on the imagination to run evolution backwards to the first biochemical reactions than it is to get one's mind around "what happened before time began?" That very questions occupies the best minds in Cosmology and remains a subject of intense debate. My limited understanding of the current trend is that our notion of time is mostly an illusion. There was no beginning, nor will there be an end, and so there is no way to ask the question "what was there before time began?"
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
If find it ironic/tragic when science-minded folks act like Yankees fans in a debate like this one. Furthermore, do so isn't going to help alleviate religious-minded anxieties about scientific progress, nor science-minded anxieties about religious influence on public policy.
I liked your term "empathetic view" -- participating with empathy is the only way to learn something, especially about what that crazy person across the table might be trying to say. Dogma has to be at least temporarily set aside in order to achieve that kind of empathy.
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
In fact, the only way you can say that its impossible is by saying "I don't believe that. I believe God did it."
btw-- Einstein did not say time is affected by mass (it depends only relative motion) so he can't back up your idea that the massless would be timeless and therefore eternal. The Bible is many things, I think we now have to say that a reliable source on Cosmology isn't one of them.
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
>> What possible purpose would there be for science to even dabble in any religion?
None, in the conduct of science. But I believe that anyone who enters this debate on the side of science ought to have an objective understanding of both sides, and be able to -- not just refute -- but illuminate, persuade, and inform decisions based on the ensuing discussion. No one can blame professionals who want to just keep their heads down and do their work in peace. But you spoke up, and so here we are.
>> Do you purport that religion has something to teach science that science is unable to discover without the help of a Rabbi, or the bible?
No. Where did you get that idea?
>> It's also not Buddists who run for political office, at least not on the continent on which I live.
Religious freedom will become ever more difficult to preserve if we allow ourselves to succumb to the idea that Religion == Christianity, even in the US. It doesn't. Not even here. Even if there's only 1 Jewish, or Muslim, or Buddhist, or Hindu kid in the whole school, that's enough to say "there are two religions represented here."
>> (I believe that is what you are attempting to promote here)
Not even remotely.
>> Why should a researcher have to in anyway cowtow to a religious person? Because their research might anger someone's god, or stop someone from believing, or it's an affront to god?
Of course not.
>> If a religious person wants to have influence over science, then I suggest they get an education, do some research and get in the field, otherwise stick to Hail Mary's.
They show up at city hall and vote, and none of your recommendations is a requirement.
I'll make an analogy to illustrate why I think this is important: Cancer treatment is more or less effective depending on how precisely you're able to target the cancerous cells, without disturbing the surrounding tissue. I'm out of space...
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
Maybe human nature demands that we align with sides and present opposition. Maybe its simply because you posed this question in the "Debate" section of the site.
In any case, It is certainly ironic, if not downright tragic, to see people who claim to uphold the highest qualities of science -- skepticism, objectivity, reason, willingness to go where the evidence leads -- crippled by dogma. We need to do better.
A comment on Conversation: What is the true purpose of religion?
1. Present a model of how the world works, including a creation story
2. Help individuals confront universal human challenges (why am i here? what will happen when I die?)
3. Help people live together in communities
4. Keep people in touch with the notion that there is "something more", transcendant, mysterious, beautiful...
The first of these has been utterly taken over by modern Cosmology, Physics, Biology, Medicine, etc. These have proven to be better sources, so we don't need to consult the clergy about this anymore.
The second is being taken over by modern Psychology, Psychiatry, therapy, anti-depressants, and self-help books, though the battle is still being waged.
The third is now the domain of Sociology, Political Science, Law, governments, law enforcement, and so on. The clergy weighs in to try to keep the faithful from running afoul. But the law is the final arbiter (at least in this life).
The last is, in my opinion, in a state of crisis, although Ted.com offers a glimmer of hope.
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
Theistic religions hold that god(s) with freedom of action and sometimes prickly personalities are the reason things happen (Apollo makes the Sun rise, etc.) Science dispels such mysteries, often revealing others. And the search goes on...
What differentiates science from theistic religions is, in my opinion, progress.
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
A reply on Conversation: Should Science be Considered a Religion?
That statement right there is the problem. Is not all religion, it is evangelical Christian conservatives who want this. By using the term "religion" the way you do, you paint far, far too many people with the transgressions of a select few.
"but they do often live by rigid rules, engage in rituals and at least attempt to live by the tenants laid out for them?"
Thats a method, a systematic approach to life, a practice, just as science has a method. No predefined outcomes, no dogma, no deities, no intelligent design, no idealogical position on education, gun control, the death penalty, abortion, marriage, ...
And that's just one example. The scientific community needs to broaden its notion of what constitutes a religion, and sharpen its attacks (or defenses, if you prefer) more precisely on those things that are actually objectionable.
By failing to do so, you look just as ill informed, dogmatic and ideologically motivated as the people your argue against.