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

[paka.livejournal.com]

Science exists in some but not all human cultures

I'd disagree, since I'd argue that a need to understand the world and why it's come to be, backed up by field observations, as universal. That statement comes uncomfortably close to Eurocentrism, for me. Is your definition the pretty rigorous, repeatable, modern definition? Because then yeah, I'd agree with you.

I don't like the idea of defining any external authority as the be-all and end-all for what I think about spirituality, including an afterlife. I don't really believe in an afterlife - actually, I'm pretty unsure of what I do believe - but I bristle at the idea of blankly accepting what some external authority says because it's "childish" for me to think differently.

Also, from a spiritual standpoint, I think the whole question is academic anyway. We're here, now. The world needs both justice and love, and if someone is just and compassionate because they're looking for some sort of divine pay-back, then at least it gets the job done.

[msstacy13.livejournal.com]

Hmmm...

The question is academic,
and Hawking ~is~ an academic...

What a happy co-incidence!
:)