Science Does Not Replace Religion

[Michael Chui]

I wrote this elsewhere, but I thought people here would want to read it, too.

But my point is that science alone can’t answer this question. Nothing can.

People constantly compare science to religion, expecting science to somehow take the place of religion. It cannot.

Science never answers questions; it asks them. Sometimes it stumbles across a causative relationship. And sometimes that relationship is so intractably powerful that no experiment can break it. We call that a law, and we build our technologies upon it.

Religion, under my dinky amateur less-than-undergraduate psuedo-anthropology, is formed from two tracks: four things. Track A: Necessity. Track B: Explanations. Track A results from our need for survival. If a dragon told you not to eat that mushroom, then you don't eat the freaking mushroom. If you're supposed to harvest on this day and sow on that one, then the fact that God said so helps. Kosher, anyone? Track B results from our need to learn. Why are there rainbows? Why do we live on islands? Why are there mountains? Perhaps, as in Australia, we climbed on top of each other and reached a tiny hole from the womb of the earth. Why not?

Track A condescends into Law, or morality; Track B condescends into Culture Heroes (or Villains). Track A gives you Muhammed, Jesus, Moses, Abhraham, Buddha, Elijah, Jeremiah: Lawgivers. Track B gives you Gilgamesh, Loki, Hermes, the Trickster Fox, fairies, Isaac Luria, Job: Protagonists.

Religion is what you get when you combine them. Where does science fit?

Science is a different way of answering questions. In a sense, it replaces the stories and narratives built up in cultures, slashing diversity with its imperialist hand. As Daniel Cook describes so succinctly, chemistry came from alchemy, obsessed with the quest for magical formulas, like Viagra. (What do you call it, when a grandfather is ready to roll, except eternal life? Philosopher's stone, indeed.)

And science is rejected precisely because people hunger for more than mere answers. A multiplication table has answers, but it's boring. It has to be framed properly. Stories of pacts between Jehovah and Noah are more exciting than refraction. What did Homer do, but write down the story of a very tedious 10-year war during which a bunch of Greeks raped and pillaged a countryside before getting around to sacking a city? How many tellings and embellishments happened before it got to Homer? How completely were gods and halfgods invented and reinvented by this? We barely have evidence Troy existed.

People want their minds engaged, fully. Good stories do this, because they are larger than we can ever comprehend.

---

Now, feel free to begin guessing which side I'm attacking. I'm sure someone will.

[Trezker]

Science has good stories too. But the bad underfunded teachers don't think they have the time to tell the story of how the structure of DNA was found... They just give a short notice about a single event at the introduction to the course, like an apple falling on a guys head, and they tend to choose a story that I think is the most boring and irrelevant one in their field.

I wish my teacher had told me about the adventures and sacrifices people went through trying to figure out the size of our planet.

[Plato]

I think the reason that some people think science and religion are competing with each other is because every now and then science makes a discovery which answers a question that religion previously assumed to answer. It's a logical fallacy to deduce that science then replaces (or even attempts to replace) religion but it's one that some people make.

[joecooool]

science will eventually replace religion and philosophy

when theres empirical evidence and logic to explain things then religion and philosophies guess work is no longer needed in that area.

and science is growing everyday

prediction: no more guessing needed, no more religion and philosophy

science tells us what we know, religion guesses at what we dont know

science is evidence without certainty, religion is certainty without evidence

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Trezker

Science has good stories too.

That's arguable. It seems akin to saying that mathematics has good stories. The story isn't really about math.

One of my favorite science books is E = mc2: A Biography of the World's Most Famous Equation. It succeeds at being a "story about science" because it's a series of stories, each following the other, and weaving itself together into a complete Story about the equation itself.

One of my other favorites is The Canon: A Whirligig Tour of the Beautiful Basics of Science. Again because it's not really about science, but rather the process of experiencing science.

It's human.

Originally Posted by joecoool

prediction: no more guessing needed, no more religion and philosophy

...

science is evidence without certainty, religion is certainty without evidence

If there is no certainty, then why would no more guessing be needed? If anything, there should be even more guessing. Science is all about guessing. Do you know how to walk through the scientific method? Have you ever designed an experiment?

[Nelson]

Science and Religion are two entirely different things and Science will never replace Religion just like oranges will never replace apples.

They are completely unrelated subjects. God is by definition, untestable. Therefore, he is not within the reaches of science.

Regardless of whether or not God is real, Science is incapable of proving or disproving his existence by default.

Religion is also incapapble of even approaching science. Statistically, prayer gets dominated by modern medicine.

Furthermore, Science appeals to people who want results and Religion appeals to people who want hope.

At a Funeral, Science isn't going to help you at all - Religion/Emotional behavior is the only tool properly suited for a funeral.

At the same time, you can't build a bridge on hope and love. Try using your emathy and idealism to lay railroad tracks an we'll see how far that gets you.

Ideas can only replace each other when they approach they are similar, chemistry can replace alchemy, democracy can replace monarchy etc.

Alchemy cannot replace monarchy. Chemistry cannot replace fashion. They are unrelated ideas.

[Trezker]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

That's arguable. It seems akin to saying that mathematics has good stories. The story isn't really about math.

Mathematics is a special case. It's a science that doesn't observe nature in any way, and when it's applied to natural problems it can only represent perfect cases that in nature is almost non existent. It's useful for a lot of things but you still can't blindy apply math without making adjustments for natural deviations.

Math is a purely abstract science created from some basic rules. It's the only science where anything can be proven. But pure maths don't require any adventures, just a suitable office with a big whiteboard and computer.

I haven't heard any stories about math that's exiting. Math is about developing tools. The guys who develop hammers don't have stories as good as the people building houses.

The good stories doesn't even come from using math. The fact that physicists use math is merely a side note in a story. Saying math is significant is like saying that the fact that scientists are breathing and eating is a significant factor in their success.

[Plato]

Originally Posted by joecooool

science will eventually replace religion and philosophy

when theres empirical evidence and logic to explain things then religion and philosophies guess work is no longer needed in that area.

and science is growing everyday

prediction: no more guessing needed, no more religion and philosophy

science tells us what we know, religion guesses at what we dont know

science is evidence without certainty, religion is certainty without evidence

+

Originally Posted by Plato

I think the reason that some people think science and religion are competing with each other is because every now and then science makes a discovery which answers a question that religion previously assumed to answer. It's a logical fallacy to deduce that science then replaces (or even attempts to replace) religion but it's one that some people make.

Sorry to make an example of what you just said Joe but this is typical from a person who is actually... guessing.

Philosophy and religion cannot be REPLACED by science because they fulfill entirely different, non-interchangeable purposes.

What you just said is like saying that one day socks will replace all other items of clothing.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Trezker

It's a science that doesn't observe nature in any way, and when it's applied to natural problems it can only represent perfect cases that in nature is almost non existent. It's useful for a lot of things but you still can't blindy apply math without making adjustments for natural deviations.

That's not really true. If it were, no one would use mathematics at all, but it's an integral part of just about every science in the book. The "adjustments" you speak of are all, well, mathematically based. Add an unknown constant to this integration, or throw in a margin of error to the poll there, it's still math.

Originally Posted by Trezker

Math is a purely abstract science created from some basic rules. It's the only science where anything can be proven.

"anything can be proven" contradicts with "basic rules". You cannot prove that 0 = 1, for instance. (Though there are some interesting and subtle tricks in just about every branch of mathematics to do it anyways. Almost all of them involve dividing by zero, which is illegal precisely because it proves 0 = 1.)

Originally Posted by Trezker

I haven't heard any stories about math that's exiting. Math is about developing tools. The guys who develop hammers don't have stories as good as the people building houses.

Which is why math scares so many people. It's inhuman. (My current sideline hobby is figuring out a way to fix this.)

[Trezker]

Math scares people? That's new to me, I thought most people think math is boring and useless.

Well I'm a programmer and I still think math, as is "ordinary" math, is boring. But programming is completely based on math. The mathematic notations for logic , algebra and whatever is completely unintelligible to me. But show me any decent source code and I'll understand it pretty quickly.

Anyway, I sidetracked the topic a bit there...

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Trezker

Math scares people? That's new to me, I thought most people think math is boring and useless.

I once tutored a pair of 50-year-old women on fractions. They were dead set on understanding it, and applied themselves industriously, and part of their concentration was based on a pure cussed unwillingness to let their fears get the best of them.

Originally Posted by Trezker

Well I'm a programmer and I still think math, as is "ordinary" math, is boring. But programming is completely based on math. The mathematic notations for logic , algebra and whatever is completely unintelligible to me.

Of course you do. You don't know any math stories. I think math is boring, too, except for the minor detail that I'm not very good at it, that I respect it, and thus it feels like a worthy challenge I'm not quite yet up to.

Mathematics fits well with religion; the Pythagorean cult, numerology, gematria, neo-Platonism, and other quasi-disciplines that fly false flags. I once read an excellent book about a numerologist con artist; it was the compilation of a long-running column in... the L.A. Times, I think. It was amazing. Unfortunately, I can remember nothing useful in finding it again.

You'd be impressed at how many mathematical hoops people jump through when they believe in it. Real astrology is essentially a gigantic trigonometric problem, with a dab of fantasy at the beginning and at the end. A real astrologist is a mathematician. (Not that this legitimizes astrology itself, but I'm just saying. )

This doesn't even bet into the really interesting mathematical topics. Topics that the average programmer doesn't have a chance at even coming close to. Set theory, graph theory, and topology are all fields I want to have a grasp of, some day. And there are just that many more fields you could explore.

Just saying.

[beautyscientist]

Science won't replace religion. It won't replace movies or novels either. Or doughnuts come to that. Its a completely different thing.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by joecooool

science will eventually replace religion and philosophy

when theres empirical evidence and logic to explain things then religion and philosophies guess work is no longer needed in that area.

and science is growing everyday

prediction: no more guessing needed, no more religion and philosophy

science tells us what we know, religion guesses at what we dont know

science is evidence without certainty, religion is certainty without evidence

To expand on that, I think science attempts to explain why things happen. For example, we all know about the law of gravity through experience, without having to understand the scientific law behind it. But, as science looks more into it, more questions arise – the effects from other planets, black holes in space, etc. So, science is continually discovering more unexplainable phenomena and trying to find the answers, i.e. there are lots of things it doesn’t know.

Even if science explained everything and we all lived in material comfort, would we be truly happy inside? I don’t think so.
There would still be a gaping hole inside each of us.
Religion is the external expression and ritual of our deeper spirituality.
Even if science replaced religion, we would still have that deep, unfulfilled desire for spirituality.

A lot of people coming to these forums have no religion or have abandoned it, but they still recognize this inner, spiritual hunger, which science and materialism cannot satisfy. How you respond to that hunger constitutes your own, personal journey in this life.

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

To expand on that, I think science attempts to explain why things happen.

No, it does not.

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

No, it does not.

Granted - it was hardly a Wikipedia/Webster's definition. Yet, I still like to think that Isaac Newton might have once said, "Ouch! Now, why the hell did that apple hit me on the head!"

[Michael Chui]

Originally Posted by Cantando

Granted - it was hardly a Wikipedia/Webster's definition. Yet, I still like to think that Isaac Newton might have once said, "Ouch! Now, why the hell did that apple hit me on the head!"

I'm debating whether to quote the post I wrote at the beginning of this thread, which you don't appear to have read, or to answer that more directly.

(Side Note: I'm amused that you hold Wikipedia and Webster's on the same plane. Amused more because they're completely different authority sources, rather than because Wikipedia remains so derided.)

In any case, the direct response is:

Newton asked a question. He did not attempt to explain why things happen; he attempted to find out. There is a world of difference.

Explanation: "Rainbows appear because..." Period.
Science: "Look, there's a rainbow. How does it come about? Perhaps it comes about in this way: [insert guess here]. Let's create a similar circumstance and see if it produces a rainbow."

Can explanations come from science? Of course. Explanations can come from anything, including Bulverism. But the purpose of science is not to explain; it is to ask.

As for the apple story, well... A little reading:
Isaac Newton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Cantando]

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

But the purpose of science is not to explain; it is to ask.

Are you sure about that?

"It is now generally accepted that the purpose, or at least the central purpose, of science is to explain or perhaps to explain and predict." - Dr Richard Purtill (Philosophy of Science).

[Cantando]

OK. I've re-read your OP.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

People constantly compare science to religion, expecting science to somehow take the place of religion. It cannot.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Science never answers questions; it asks them.

So, who answers them?

Originally Posted by Michael Chui

Science is a different way of answering questions.

Oh dear.