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

[zeeth_kyrah]

What he's saying is, essentially, the same error every "strong" atheist promulgates: "We can't test it, therefore it doesn't exist, and belief in it should be thoroughly abolished so we can move on to the shining holy light of Scientism." Science as religion, replacing spirituality, because humans are fallible and mathematics (and therefore mathematicians) are not.

Anything which is worshiped as perfect can be easily corrupted over time, because it only takes one mistake to cause schisms and holy war.

[djinni.livejournal.com]

Science isn't a religion. It's a way of testing observations about the physical world. It builds upon past discoveries, where old observations are replaced by new ones as we're able to learn more. A good scientist accepts and even embraces new findings which make old ones incorrect, and uses testing methods that can't be affected by personal bias, like double-blind trials. It's a tool, and like any tool, is equally available to religious and non-religious folks.

I think what hardcore anti-religious folks are trying to address is the fact that a lot of suffering comes out of conflict between differing paradigms, or in attempting to keep folks conforming to the paradigm. I personally disagree that the way out of this mess is to eliminate religion. I think it's symptomatic of the way humans think... so I think it's really good to be able to have a tool we can all use to figure out what is a personal belief or experience, and what is an aspect of physical existence we can all share and replicate regardless of what we believe and experience spiritually.

[zeeth_kyrah]

That's really one of the biggest problems: the arrogance that comes of thinking you've solved all of reality, or have a tool that will do it for you, combined with binary thinking.

[djinni.livejournal.com]

I don't think using science as a tool makes one arrogant or says that someone thinks they have all of reality solved. I think there's a lot we may never be able to know... and I hope so, because then I think people would become static.

I am not sure I'm reading your reply right, but if you're saying that my reply is an example of the problem for being arrogant and having binary thinking, that's not my intention. I really enjoy discussing this stuff, but am also a really nervous person and am always worried about offending.

[zeeth_kyrah]

No, I am not saying that you are an example of wrongness. I am agreeing with you. To clarify, I am saying that the arrogance comes from the presumption and the combination. Despite the intensity of feeling here, I do not believe you are making presumptuous statements or wrongly splitting reality into black-and-white things.

[djinni.livejournal.com]

Thanks very much for clarifying. I've been told to remember to check in when I'm worried about something like that.

Yeah, I definitely agree there.

[zeeth_kyrah]

*hug*