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

[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.

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.

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.

[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.