Greetings Friends.
I am currently alone in the office, and it is 12:12 at night. As you might know, England is my home for the next month and a half, and I am already in over my head. I'm working with a public policy research group based at the UK Defence Academy (I know, defense is spelled wrong over here), and I'm pretty much learning an entire new field as I work. However, when I can sneak a look, it's fun to read the blog between long articles on energy security. I figured I should contribute something and at the same time put some thoughts I've been thinking down on paper. This is just the first part of my manifesto, and I hope that you can find the time to sift it through your brain after reading each installment. Following the illustrious repotoire of thought-provoking essays on the last blog (aliens, dating, Bergstrand's true sexuality), consider this the first of many deep discussions on the new blog...
What is science? It can be reasonably asserted that science is the study of the physical universe using systematic observation and experiment. It is how we humans use our sense, reason, and intellect to understand the world in which we live. By methodical study, observation, and experimentation, Albert Einstein discovered a relationship between mass and energy. Future scientists would confirm this relationship by repeating his experiments, and e=mc^2 became a law. Later, this law became integral to theories about black holes, warp speed, and other universal phenomenon. Here is a general explanation I found concerning the difference between a scientific law and a scientific theory:
Laws are generalizations about what has happened, from which we can generalize about what we expect to happen. They pertain to observational data. The ability of the ancients to predict eclipses had nothing to do with whether they knew just how they happened; they had a law but not a theory.
Theories are explanations of observations (or of laws). The fact that we have a pretty good understanding of how stars explode doesn't necessarily mean we could predict the next supernova; we have a theory but not a law.
For a theory to exist, the observations (laws) must be correct.
Next question: What is religion? Religion is a set of beliefs and/or practices relating to the divine. Religion cannot be proven through scientific means, because it relies primarily on the faith of the individual. For instance, although Jews believe that Moses spoke to God in person, they cannot support it with evidence because no Jew besides Moses had direct evidence of the encounter. Some religious followers (such as Deists, who simply believe that there is a God who directs a sort of cosmic, eternal symphony of solos) don't have to exercise much faith, while others (such as Scientologists, who believe that human stress is caused by wandering alien ghosts doomed to wander the Earth after being executed by a galactic tyrant) follow a plethora of assumptions.
Faith is essentially an assumption (although the religious are quick to assert that that assumption is strengthened by personal experience). Science and religion are separated by these assumptions. Once a theory relies primarily upon evidence that cannot be proven, and must be accepted through faith, it loses credence as a theory. Theories that rely upon assumptions are, in essence, religions.
So, my question to the Friend Group is this: "When does belief in a scientific theory become a religion?"
I already have my answer crafted, and it will come in Part II of my manifesto, to be written at a later date. Also, if you know where I am going with all of this, please don't discuss it in the comments; just answer debate the question positted above. Your assumption will most likely be proven correct with part duece and the bigger debate will begin.
With all that said, goodnight, and take care.
Roderick, out.
4 comments:
I think a religion is a set of beliefs. To believe in one thing, such as a deity, doesn't really make a religion. It is the specifics. So with science: I think the belief only in things that can be proven is a religion (agnosticism), but a belief in a specific theory or in several theories would never constitute a religion to me. Though, I'm not confident in my answer. I want to hear from Braxton, Derrick and Kyle.
This is how dictionary.com defines "religion"...
re·li·gion – noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
I realize that anyone could go look this up, but I felt that it might be useful to have the definition of "religion" right here for the purpose of this discussion.
I think that I agree with what Berg has said. Religion is a set of beliefs that quite often are based around a "higher power" or "creator", but not necessarily based around these things. But I think to understand whether or not science is a religion, you must first consider the role of both in the lives of all people in the world...
I think it is fair to say that MOST (educated) people in the world believe in science as well as having some kind of religious belief. Their belief in a god, which is faith-based, doesn't hinder their ability to understand and believe in the law of gravity or the water cycle. People seem to make an exception for religion when it comes to the process of science. Why though? I can't tell you.
Another decent sized portion of the world's population don't have religious beliefs. They believe strictly in the rules of science. They need experimentation and proof to believe almost all things that occur in the universe. To them, the phrase "I'll believe it when I see it" is probably often used.
And then another group of people in the world believe only in religion. Their "God" or "Higher Power" wills everything that happens in the universe. Everything from the continued burning of the sun to the pencil falling off their desk. Everything is done by the supernatural force of "God". (Something about what I've written reminds me of Mel Gibson's speech to Joaquin Phoenix in Signs.)
And then there are Nihilists. And they "believe in NOTHING LEBOWSKI, NOTHING!"
My general feeling is that science is extrapolation based on empirical observation and religion is the search for metaphysical truth, whether through empirical or rational means. I think science becomes a religion only insofar as it comes to stress a dependence on belief rather than empiricism.
A case like this can be found in the story of a young Earth creationist who recently earned a Ph.D. in Evolutionary Biology - he's apparently done some very good work in the field, but some scientists don't want him to be hired because his religious beliefs directly contradict the very research he's done. Obviously, if he were applying for a job teaching at a religious seminary, he could be screened based on his personal creed and its accordance to the beliefs of that institution. However, if science is purely based on an empirical paradigm, does it matter what he actually believes so long as his scientific output is legitimate?
I agree with Braxton. I think science turns into religion when its basis is more in belief than empirical evidence. Also, very good point, Braxton, about that doctor. I agree with your argument that his work should not be questioned. It does bring a very interesting view into play, though, when his countering religious beliefs get mixed in. I'd be interested to compare them in more depth.
Post a Comment