Religion Works Too

[ysabetwordsmith]

I read this article in which Stephen Hawking argues against the afterlife.  Okay, he's a smart guy.  I admire him greatly.  But he's a smart science  guy; he doesn't have nearly the same credentials in terms of researching religion.  (Consider that it's a poor idea to take the Pope's advice on science.  I'm not sure it's a better idea to take Hawking's advice on religion, for similar reasons.  It's not his field.)  He argues that science will win against religion "because it works."

Science is a relatively recent human discovery.  Religion seems to go back to the origin of human artifacts that we can interpret, and possibly farther.  Science exists in some but not all human cultures.  Religion exists in all known human cultures, and when people try to stamp it out, it regenerates.  When it comes to decision-making, if there is an apparent conflict between science and religion, considerably more people will decide based on religion even if the practical effects of doing that are negative.  I like science a lot.  But I don't think it's fair to imply that science works and religion doesn't.  Certainly it's possible for religion to malfunction, as anything can in a flawed universe.  But when something has been around for 50,000+ years throughout an entire species, that pretty much has to fit some  definition of "it works."

You can have the most awesome metric toolkit in the world, but it's not going to be a lot of use on standard machinery.  Some tools generalize well across disciplines; others don't.  This is not to say that the tools of science are never useful in religion, or vice verse; but it does mean you need to know your tools and both fields before understanding what will swap and what won't.

Comments

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

>> My take on all this, and one shared by many of the religious, including the Vatican, is that science is NOT incompatible with spirituality. <<

I do agree with this. One simply has to be careful with crossing between those two fields, because they work in extremely different ways.

>> Science describes how everything works; religion describes what everything means. <<

I really like this idea.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

"...and organized science has already behaved,
in some instances, much the same way organized religion behaves..."

Yep, I've had more than my fair share of run-ins with 'evangelical atheists'. It sometimes really irks me to see some atheists belittling religion, as if religiosity can only come of fearful ignorance and social control, and making blanket statements about religion being the root of many of the world's evils.

Truth be told, from my personal interactions with many of differing ideologies, I catch more flack from atheists than I do, as a pagan and witch, from Christians.

[djinni.livejournal.com]

Yes, of course. I think atheists are in the minority, though.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

Be it from a minority or a majority, I disagree with intolerance.

[djinni.livejournal.com]

Being an atheist and being anti-religious or intolerant are not the same thing.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

I do not recall stating that they were.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

well, that's one. doesn't seem to apply for all the ones who are making inroads at formalizing creationism's space in american public schools, though.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

it doesn't imply *much* survival value on the evolutionary scale at 50k years. as evolution goes, that's an eyeblink.

also, evolutionary theory does not posit that there is a reason for any particular feature. all it says is that what exists at some time is not quite maladaptive enough for it to have become extinct.

plenty of species that survived for far, far longer than H.s.s. (so far) have gone extinct.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

Meanwhile,
someone on FB went ballistic over my saying this.

If you don't mind my asking,
is there any reason someone who doesn't believe this rapture thing
will ever happen,
let alone happen in a few days,
would care what I intend to do after it happens?

I mean, if I thought I was the Emperor Napoleon,
and promised to give everyone a Faberge Egg after I conquer Russia,
why would anyone in their right mind get upset with me?

Wouldn't a sane person would say,
as you did,
"I'm sure that's very kind of you."?

:)

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

I suspect the religious impulse has been around a lot longer that the 50k years of current human history. I also suspect, subscribing to the concepts provided by structural functionalism, that the religious impulse has more survival benefit than you wish to credit it for.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

It appears to me that the current drive to push Creationism in American schools (and, to my knowledge, this is currently only an American phenomena) is, in part, a reaction to social stresses as the differences in social classes become more painfully apparent. There are other factors, to be sure, but this appears, to me anyhow, to be a cultural 'push back' against perceived marginalization by what perhaps they perceive to be 'educational elitists' who they may see as instrumental in their diminishing quality of life and self perception. This, of course, is just my opinion.

Well...

[ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com]

We can prove at least 50,000 years of history, presence in every society, and near-total saturation of individuals. The longer a feature lasts, the more likely it is to have evolutionary value, although age isn't a guarantee of such value. Likewise, the more widespread a feature is, the more likely it is to have evolutionary value. That's because features that improve the chance of survival and reproduction tend to last and tend to spread, whereas things that don't convey such improvements are more inclined to die out or be rare and scattered.

It isn't always obvious why something is an advantage, although sometimes examples may emerge. Frex, in cases where individuals have survived extreme stress (lost at sea for months, caught in an avalanche, concentration camps, etc.) religion is frequently cited as something that gave them motivation to continue. Doesn't matter whether it's "real" or not: its effect in that scenario is positive and replicable. Another example is that historians studying plagues in ancient Europe found a higher survival rate among Christians because they were -- by religious rule -- caring for sick members of their culture more than did people of surrounding cultures. In Ancient Greece, people refrained from cutting Olive groves sacred to Athena, lest she blight their crops ... and those groves were on hilltops, so protected the sloping fields beneath them. This particular example has been cited by Pagan scholars and by scientists studying the Gaia hypothesis.

Different religions come up with different ideas. Some are brilliant. Some are imbecilic. But there seems to be an endemic trait throughout the human race that inclines most people most of the time to behave as if there is some spiritual force in this universe and to seek contact with it. That is too much data to handwave away with "it's not real." If you want to claim something is wrong, by the rules of science, you have to prove that it IS wrong -- not just that it could be wrong, or doesn't have to be right, or you think it's wrong. That's not proof. And ignoring material you find to be inconvenient is data cropping, another no-no in science.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

please forgive an overbroad statement,
but facebook seems to be full of teh crazy.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i don't wish to discredit or credit it -- i could honestly argue either way. i just want to point out that the evolutionary evidence isn't itself conclusive at this point.

if we all go up in nuclear jihad, i think that, for example, would be conclusive evidence. but it hasn't happened yet, so it's not actually data, so no reason to believe in it one way or the other.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i agree that that's true. but it's still an indication of a powerful religious factor with strong objections to evolution.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i think if dr hawking encounters an afterlife, he would be the first to revise his ideas.

of course, the comparable individual we'd really like to hear about this from now is dr feynmann, but he hasn't contributed any opinions ;)

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

Would they have as strong of objections towards evolution if it wasn't such a recognizable symbol of the ideological oppression they may be perceiving?

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

how on earth would i know that?

my impression is that in general, the emotional purpose of anti-evolutionary ideas is to separate humanity as "special", between god and the animals, rather than firmly among the critters. but i haven't really seen any proper data, only read publications.

but given that that's my impression, no, i think it's more about the place of humanity on earth than it is about perceived oppression by other ideological factors.

Re: Well...

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

i doubt any scientists disbelieve in religion as a biological process, any more than they'd disbelieve in syntax as a biological process. but few people claim that there's a big old english dictionary up in the sky that holds the truth about language, and the question about religion is similarly whether it says much about anything besides the processes within persons.

Re: Well...

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

I completely agree. From a structural functionalist perspective, I see religion as the 'endocrine system' of the cultural 'body', psychologically bolstering a population in times of crime, providing comfort in times of loss, enriching culture through celebration and bringing a sense of of connection through continuity of tradition. And, yes, on the individual level, the spiritual experience provides a mechanism for hope. In a utopia, where everybody is happy and everyone's needs are met, perhaps there may not be need for spirituality, but, in this imperfect world, where whole population suffer serious tribulations on an ongoing basis, the hope that religion offers is often the only thing that gets them through the day, that keeps them from surrendering to despair.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

"...but given that that's my impression, no, i think it's more about the place of humanity on earth than it is about perceived oppression by other ideological factors."

Then why is this happening now, in just the US?

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

huh? it's been happening constantly since darwin, in many countries. i think it gets the most press in the usa because of our way of electing school boards, but that might be that i read mostly us educational press -- i have no idea how the matter is handled in, say, the middle east.

[the-vulture.livejournal.com]

It's an issue that's been long settled in Western culture for quite some time. In fact, neither the Vatican or, to my knowledge, the Anglican Church ever formally objected to the theory of evolution, though there may have been some grumblings amongst a few individuals.

Are you seeing a serious attack on evolution in Canada? No.
Are you seeing a serious attack on evolution in the UK? No.
Are you seeing a serious attack on evolution in Australia?
Are you seeing a serious attack on evolution anywhere in Western Europe. No.

These are the countries and cultures that share the most in terms of values and ideologies, including religious, yet only in the US, and recently, has there been a concerted effort to push Creationism as a scientific theory. To me, that says it's less about religion vs science, and FAR more about local cultural conflict.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

to me it says a lot about the way school curricula are constructed. your interpretive mileage may vary.

[lyonesse.livejournal.com]

er. besides which, a quick google shows that your claims are wrong. stick in creationism schools canada or creationism schools uk, and read up on it.