Jump to content
Science Forums

Two Truths Or One Truth With Two Faces


kowalskil

Recommended Posts

In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why". Neither has, nor will probably ever, have a complete answer. ... " Replying to this I wrote: " Unfortunately, the words "why" and "how" are in our languages. They are used by all people, including deists and scientists. The "why do we have solar eclipses?" is a scientific question, according to most people. The same is true for the "how do we cure malaria?," "how to build an atom bomb,? etc. Deistic questions can also be asked by using the "why" and "how" words. Do we need a language police? "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a recent conversation someone said " ... Science and religion are two sides of the same coin in regards to truth; science is attempting to answer "how" and religion is attempting to answer "why". Neither has, nor will probably ever, have a complete answer. ... " Replying to this I wrote: " Unfortunately, the words "why" and "how" are in our languages. They are used by all people, including deists and scientists. The "why do we have solar eclipses?" is a scientific question, according to most people. The same is true for the "how do we cure malaria?," "how to build an atom bomb,? etc. Deistic questions can also be asked by using the "why" and "how" words. Do we need a language police? "

 

 

Perhaps we just need language education, or sophistication?

 

The difference between Science and Religion, in my opinion, does not lie in the form that questions take, but rather in what suffices as an answer.

 

I think that your reply points the way towards understanding a linguistic issue. The issue lies in the differences in denotative and connotative definitions of the words "why" and "how". Denotatively, the word "why" asks about the beginning of the subject under study. It includes asking what are the precedent conditions that need to be met for this event to occur, and precisely why did the event occur here and now rather than there and sometime else. Connotatively, it suggests that there is some reason for the event to occur tied to the particular class of events it occurs within.

 

The "how" question denotes an issue of process not origin. It asks what conditions are necessary for the event to continue and under what "rules" will it continue. The connotation is that something is actually going on and the process by which it proceeds is unknown or only partially known.

 

As I see it, the distinguishing difference between Science and Religion lies in the nature of acceptable answers. In Science the answer must be couched in terms that are clearly empirical and materialistic. A fact in Science is an observation that can be made by more than one person, is repeatable, and is measurable. In Religion a fact is that which is believed, whether by one or many, need not be repeatable (miracle), and is not bound to human measurement.

 

But even so, questions in Religion can ask "why", i.e,. can ask about origins of the event or can ask "how" some event proceeds, or has relevance, or is applied in different circumstances. The denotative value of "why" and "how" transcend the gap between Science and Religion; the connotative values are different between the two means of inquiry.

 

Within Science the "why" refers to other observable, measurable facts. The "how" refers to a mechanistic form description. Within Religion the "why" refers to issues that require no material basis (why don't I see those angels waltzing on the head of a pin) and "how" part is always answered the same way -- How "it" occurs is a mystery to man and can only be answered in more or stronger belief (whether god allows you to see the angels is his choice, you only need believe in him/her).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

There are plenty of people who don't "believe" in or understand many aspects of science. They don't believe in a diety either, not really. Well... maybe when chased by a lion. But don't we all then?

 

Believing that one can understand somthing, simple though it may be, limited though ones capacity to understand may be, is a human need served by many faiths.

 

This is what science and religeon have in common, the belief that understanding is possible. Science is more rigorous in accepting conclusions brought by those who faithfully persue understanding. As such is more demanding on the capacities of those persuing understanding. It's not really available to those without the capacity.

 

Faithfully persuing understanding without knowing that understanding is or is not to be had on a particular course.

 

I postulate that the conflict between science and religeon stems from a conflict over power. Science confers on a limited number of people the powers nature has to offer to those who understand it. Religeon confers on a limited number of people power over large numbers of people who can be convinced that it is their salvation as a forum of organization against those who otherwise could, and many times do, use the powers of nature against them. Sometimes intentionaly sometimes as inevitable consequence of natuaral power. Putting people out of a job by making a better...whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I will believe in the "Two Sides of a Coin" theory when I see scientists storming and burning temples.

 

That's not what true theologians do, they actually study "the great mystery" the un-understandable. Fools rush into temples to destroy and crush what they think isn't them. Luckily science derives from philosophy and does not allow so much room for stupidity and ignorance. It is the study of what is (that which is inside our ability to comprehend e.g. the lunar cycle, the mating rituals of tigers and lions and bears, physical things that can be measured and seen), rather than what isn't (which is only one thing; the void, it is beyond conception and understanding because it violates "reality").

 

The truly great men of G-d study the questions, whereas science finds the answers. These are two parts of the equation. The question is the void, or nothing, and science is the valid/real, or something. My only realm of support comes from the hidden alms of religion, which are not revealed to people who couldn't comprehend it. Try telling a fundamentalist that G-d cannot be described in terms that fit into our understanding of the universe and you will hit a wall. This is just because they are uneducated in the higher realms of theology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Each of us lives in two worlds, material and spiritual, or physical and metaphysical, if you prefer.

 

God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only. Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Just imagine how much would be accomplished If all theists and atheists could agree on this.

 

Ludwik Kowalski (see Wikipedia)

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of us lives in two worlds, material and spiritual, or physical and metaphysical, if you prefer.

 

God is a spiritual entity existing in our spiritual world only.

This is a statement of religious belief, not a scientific claim or philosophical proposition.

 

Scientifically, it’s nonsensical, because that which is measurable is by definition physical, which is synonymous with the term “material” in the context Ludwik just used it. A supernatural, synonymous in this context with “spiritual”, phenomenon that is in any way physically detectable is physical, implying that the material and spiritual/supernatural are both physical/natural, a contradiction assuming the usual meanings of “natural” and “supernatural”. Put more succinctly, scientifically, there’s no such thing as the supernatural.

 

Philosophically (specifically, ontologically), the idea of a sharp demarcation between a material and a spiritual/immaterial world that can interact are generally termed “dualistic”. Most dualistic ontologies assert a one-way hierarchy between the immaterial and material worlds, where the material world is a reflection of the immaterial. Greek formalism and Gnosticism are examples of dualistic worldviews in which the immaterial is considered “more real” than the material. Philosophies that invert this hierarchy include quantum mystical ones like Omega Point/Friends of Wigner theories that theorize that the spiritual world is created by material phenomena that give rises to consciousness. I personally believe that these theories are discredited by experiment conducted in the past 15 years or so, most compellingly in the field of quantum computing. Dualism, IMHO, is an obsolete philosophical dead end, and a false starting point for scientific theories.

 

Some materialistic, potentially scientific explanation of belief in the spiritual world assert that it’s a consequence of the anatomy and physiology of the human brain – that is, that we are “wired” to be predisposed to accept as physically real ideas that are actually metaphorical. According to this theory, the idea of God and other spiritual entities are useful metaphors, primarily to reduce psychological stress and encourage beneficial social behavior. Examples of these theories are the “4th Generation Cognitive Science” promoted by interdisciplinarians such as George Lakoff. What I’ve read of these seem disorderly and poorly defined to me when compared to hard scientific theories

 

Trying to justify/deny God's existence by performing laboratory experiments is as inappropriate as trying to justify/deny the age of our planet by quoting from a holy book. Just imagine how much would be accomplished If all theists and atheists could agree on this.

I agree that agreement on this position, a fairly well-known and accepted one, perhaps best expression in Stephen J Gould’s 1997 short (about 5,000 word) essay Nonoverlapping Magisteria, would be a very good thing, allowing theist to study science without the confusion that believing that doing so is religiously immoral can cause, and atheist to understand that theism, though scientifically non-physical (a synonym for “not real”), is not necessarily an ignorant, insane, or immoral belief.

 

Unfortunately, though the NOMA principle, as Gould named it, is well-known among people who know who Stephen J Gould was, it’s not among most people. Though I believe Gould was correct in his assessment that people like “Jesuit Priests who were also professional scientists” believed “no doctrinal conflict exists between evolution and Catholic faith, and the evidence for evolution seems both entirely satisfactory and utterly overwhelming”, I don’t think he is in his assertion that the belief that science and religion are in inexorably conflict is confined to a “fundamentalist fringe”, a “local and parochial movement, powerful only in the United States among Western nations”. Acceptance of NOMA is, and I suspect will remains as long as most people are not much better educated in the subject, limited to a small population, with the majority of people accepting mild forms of religious myth as literal history, and a substantial majority of people rejecting religion in reaction to this falsehood.

 

The increasing legitimacy of more severe, “militant” versions of this religious belief – young-Earth creationism, fundamentalist literalism, etc. – is due mostly, I think, to the success of the promotion of it as a social identifier by candidates for public office. This success is, I think, largely due to the increased effectiveness of communication, primarily via television, but increasingly also via the WWW and similar computer network-based systems. My greatest fear is that the US’s system of representational democracy is not viable in the presence of these technologies, and cannot be modified to be so. If this is so, the US and other presently secular governments may become theocracy, and science and religion may again conflict in the way they did in the time of Galileo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...