Should Science be Secular?

[pioneer]

I tend to think atheists have blinders on that only allow then to see the mythology of religion. They erroneously assume mythology is the extent of all religious writings. There is also wisdom that cuts to the heart of human nature. Manmade global warming was an example of human nature getting the best science. The consensus of brilliant minds bought swamp land, because they lacked wisdom and/or character. Science has the knowledge to see reality, but not the wisdom to avoid this human drama. I doubt if this is the first time, nor will it be the last.

 

One thing that may contribute is connected to computers. With a computer game we can play, within an alternate reality, with simulations getting better and better. Scientific computer simulations may allow the same thing, but unlike games, where we know this a fantasy world, computer simulation can create fantasy that appears real. We have this really good global warming computer game. It looks impressive, but did not reflect reality.

 

Anyone who watches the weather knows how hard it is to be 100% accurate, with weathermen making mistakes all the time. Common sense would say to me, if small local weather is hard to perfect, with all that advanced technology, then world wide predictions can never be a sure thing. However, we can not market the game using the logic of this simple common sense. The computer game had to be pitched as perfect, since it can create all the scenarios we feared in the advance.

 

Electronic oracles are new, but other forms of oracles have been used by religions for centuries. They remove logic and common sense and let the oracle decide. Science is heading this way.

 

Let us go back many centuries and use a different oracle to help us make a prediction. Our oracle is a goat and depending on what he eats, of the many items we place in front of him, will decide the path of our future. Over the centuries, these choice food items and their placement has been perfected, so the goat oracles does about as well as the weatherman. We can also stack the deck, since we know what the goat likes.

 

We let the goat out, he looks around, sniffs and then finally decides to eat the turnip. This means this is not a good time to plant. The oracle has spoken and we must act on his advice, or lose all our seed potato. The consensus then does not plant.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love science, but science is not always in calibration due to our human nature. How could the consensus screw up. These are smart men and women. In the world of specialization, one is detached from the bigger pictures. Wisdom deals better with the big picture when there is human nature trying to pull the strings.

[john5746]

Going with the tool analogy, I would compare religion to a pet rock and science to a tool maker. As science makes more and better tools, the usage of the pet rock should be more evident. Don't try to use it as a hammer or a saw or a telescope. Just leave it on the shelf and maybe touch it once in awhile to get a warm fuzzy feeling. And please don't go knocking on people's doors in the morning and hit them with it.

 

Edit: And if you get a warm fuzzy from that telescope, you have issues!

Edited March 15, 2010 by john5746
more comedy

[StrontiDog]

. . .But if you can scientifically explain why mommy died 'saving me' , , ,

 

I submit that it is literally impossible to answer that question using any science. I am prepared to be wrong, of course.

 

Perhaps some of the social sciences may offer some suggestions, but plenty of 'mommies' just grab for the nearest tree branch and do not do this, so the question is why did 'my' mommy do this.

 

Please just tell me how--what branch of science, what possible research or experimental data could possibly answer this question. I'm not interested in the answer, I want to know how it could be done.

 

I'm really interested. Science does not provide us a means answer to all questions. Some are very simply beyond the perview of scientific inquiry.

 

(Trust me on this, I'm a scientist.)

 

Bill Wolfe

[toastywombel]

I submit that it is literally impossible to answer that question using any science. I am prepared to be wrong, of course.

 

Perhaps some of the social sciences may offer some suggestions, but plenty of 'mommies' just grab for the nearest tree branch and do not do this, so the question is why did 'my' mommy do this.

 

Please just tell me how--what branch of science, what possible research or experimental data could possibly answer this question. I'm not interested in the answer, I want to know how it could be done.

 

I'm really interested. Science does not provide us a means answer to all questions. Some are very simply beyond the perview of scientific inquiry.

 

(Trust me on this, I'm a scientist.)

 

Bill Wolfe

 

Well now it seems your question is, "Why did mommy choose to die to save me?" Now that may be impossible to answer scientifically because it is a question about motive, but I was referring to your last post when you asked, "Why did mommy die while saving me?" that is a different question.

 

The second could be answered given enough data about the situation, but not the first.

[ecoli]

Well now it seems your question is, "Why did mommy choose to die to save me?" Now that may be impossible to answer scientifically because it is a question about motive, but I was referring to your last post when you asked, "Why did mommy die while saving me?" that is a different question.

 

The second could be answered given enough data about the situation, but not the first.

There could be evolutionary answers, psychological, social, game theoretic, blah blah blah.

 

It's difficult, but science is starting to address the topic of human motivation.

[StrontiDog]

Well now it seems your question is, "Why did mommy choose to die to save me?" Now that may be impossible to answer scientifically because it is a question about motive, but I was referring to your last post when you asked, "Why did mommy die while saving me?" that is a different question.

 

There could be evolutionary answers, psychological, social, game theoretic, blah blah blah.

 

It's difficult, but science is starting to address the topic of human motivation.

 

Gee Whiz, Sammy, your mommy died saving you because when somebody's lungs fill with water, there isn't enough oxygen in it for hemoglobin molecules to become tetraoxygenated before they are swept away by the last of her heartbeats. So her brain is under oxygenated, and it shuts down.

 

Or how about:

 

Well Sammy, progeny are more important than the parents, because they haven't yet had children of their own and your genes, combined with somebody else's, might be the big next step in evolution.

 

As true as these are, they don't answer the question. The first is a pretty good answer to 'how', and the second--I would bet--was not on mommy's mind when she was willing to sacrifice her own life to try and save her child.

 

And game theory, really?, for a kid who has just lost his/her mother? Religion may be able to supply an answer, but I still say that science can't. Because there may be no answer.

 

Science can answer a lot of questions, but--in general--it's lousy at 'why' questions. You can ask why the sky is blue, and science can help someone supply an answer about 'how' light is diffracted, therefore the wavelengths that we call 'blue' are dominant, but that isn't really the question, now is it? The question was 'why.' And in all honesty, how isn't the same as why. Not usually, anyway.

 

Science is good for how, what, when, where, how much, and very often--nope.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love science, but it doesn't asnwer all the questions that people ask, and it isn't supposed to.

 

I still haven't seen an answer to:

 

Please just tell me how--what branch of science, what possible research or experimental data could possibly answer this question. I'm not interested in the answer, I want to know how it could be done.

 

And I doubt I will.

 

It's not a hard question to answer, but science just ain't up to the task. Even a comforting lie (ie: God wanted her in Heaven.) is better than nothing.

 

Bill Wolfe

[Dudde]

It's not a hard question to answer, but science just ain't up to the task. Even a comforting lie (ie: God wanted her in Heaven.) is better than nothing.

 

There are plenty of reasons you could give, this last statement makes me believe you're not prepared to accept anything other than what you've given though.

 

why did she die saving you? The current overpowered her when she was trying to swim to safety with you, so she did what she could to at least save her baby, most likely - I know several mothers who would risk their own life to save their child, emotions can play a deep and important role in daily decisions, but that doesn't mean you have to attribute them to religion, even while not attaching them to science.

 

I, for one, would never tell a child that their mommy died because some all-powerful entity in heaven wanted her to die, why turn him bitter against God that may or may not exist, when you can make sure he understands how important his life is so he can make something of himself and carry his mothers memory through legacy?

 

You can ask why the sky is blue, and science can help someone supply an answer about 'how' light is diffracted, therefore the wavelengths that we call 'blue' are dominant, but that isn't really the question, now is it? The question was 'why.'

 

the question 'why' is answered in the how, 'because the light being diffracted by the molecules etc. etc.' If the question was 'why did somebody want the sky to be blue', you stop asking scientific questions and start looking for a divine answer

[Mr Skeptic]

'Why did mommy die saving me?'

 

I'm going to go with "her estimated risk of dying times the value she places on her life was less than her estimated chance of saving you times the value she places on your life", or perhaps "she instinctively tried to save you without worrying about the risks involved". I'm sure science could put some reasons to explain why the above may have been true.

 

From a religious perspective, just because someone thinks you'd go to heaven if they just let you drown, for some reason they don't just stand there praising god that you're going to heaven and instead usually try to help you out.

[StrontiDog]

 

I, for one, would never tell a child that their mommy died because some all-powerful entity in heaven wanted her to die, why turn him bitter against God that may or may not exist,?. . .

 

I probably would (and this is the Philosophy Forum). Because I don't belive in God. These kids should have a little doubt. . .but that's just personal preference.

 

the question 'why' is answered in the how, 'because the light being diffracted by the molecules etc. etc.' If the question was 'why did somebody want the sky to be blue', you stop asking scientific questions and start looking for a divine answer

 

In so many words. . .no. I can see a real difference between 'how' and 'why.' Maybe it's just me.

 

It's a little off subject, but I really believe that spiritualism--even if I don't buy into it--has value.

 

And if we, as scientists, forget that people are looking for answers to important questions. . . that may not actually have answers, we will loose this fight.

 

I guess my whole point is that science can only answer questions that have actual answers. We need religion, faith, spiritualism, to answer the rest. These answers don't have to be true, they just have to suffice.

 

Because if there are no answers, there are no wrong answers.

 

And the questions will be asked.

 

It's just human nature.

 

If, as a scientist, you don't have an answer. . .don't try to supply one. Let the fuzzy folks do it. That's what they're best at.

 

We--by definition--are not up to the task.

 

Agree, disagree? New thread?

 

Bill Wolfe

[Dudde]

I probably would (and this is the Philosophy Forum). Because I don't belive in God.

~~~~~

We--by definition--are not up to the task.

 

Agree, disagree? New thread?

 

Bill Wolfe

 

On the contrary, I think this is part of the question "Should science be secular" -

 

to be honest, science isn't really around to provide everyone the soft squishy answers they're looking for, we use science to provide evidence or come up with raw data - I think the kind of questions you're talking about are simply people wanting to lie to themselves to feel better.

 

Do I condemn their decision? Of course not, but nor do I openly invite them to ruin solid information with emotional qualms. There's a time and place for everything, lying to yourself is a place for the home, something that affects only you - scientific data, decisions and progress that affect us all should remain secular in order to better progress humanity, as opposed to riding the agenda-train of any particular religion

 

EDIT:

No offense intended by the 'those who want to lie to themselves' bit for anyone who may have taken so

[toastywombel]

On the contrary, I think this is part of the question "Should science be secular" -

 

to be honest, science isn't really around to provide everyone the soft squishy answers they're looking for, we use science to provide evidence or come up with raw data - I think the kind of questions you're talking about are simply people wanting to lie to themselves to feel better.

 

Do I condemn their decision? Of course not, but nor do I openly invite them to ruin solid information with emotional qualms. There's a time and place for everything, lying to yourself is a place for the home, something that affects only you - scientific data, decisions and progress that affect us all should remain secular in order to better progress humanity, as opposed to riding the agenda-train of any particular religion

 

EDIT:

No offense intended by the 'those who want to lie to themselves' bit for anyone who may have taken so

 

Very good points. Even though religious answers to such events can be comforting, they do not allow you to really devise ways to predict such events and then prevent it.

 

Of course a little kid wouldn't understand a scientifically explained reason for their mother's death, like said above, there's a time and a place for everything.

[john5746]

I don't know, there is something to be said for morale. Science can help us understand the nature/nurture reasons for great mothers, but it doesn't give you the uplifting experience of a mother's love or poetry about it.

 

We are not Vulcans and I don't want to be. I don't think you need to lie to answer the question in different ways, but I think they both have their place and time.

[CharonY]

There may be areas addressing this (e.g. neuroscience). However, why do you think that understanding why things work does take the significance out of it? Nature is becomes more and more fascinating the more you learn about it.

What is true, however is that due to the complexity of all of it it is unlikely that science will come to the point that it is able to explain everything (or even the majority of everything). Nonetheless, when did religion explain anything (disregarding making up explanations).

These two different approaches to question show that they are best kept separate, though.

[bascule]

Science studies the physical world. Deities are supernatural. Therefore, they lie outside the reach of science. The only exception would be if you worship a physical entity, in which case then science can step beyond the bounds of secularity and study your physical God. For example if your God is a hamster then a biologist could study her and determine the course that food will take through her digestive tract. That's right, Gods poo too.

 

Including a supernatural entity in a scientific theory simply doesn't work, because such an entity is so absurdly unparsimonious. One might suggest that we do not need dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe, that God is simply influencing the physical universe in the exact manner that might otherwise be attributed to dark energy. No scientist could take such a theory seriously, because it relies on an extremely complex entity which, by definition, lies outside of the physical universe. When "outside the physical universe" comes into play, falsifiability kinda goes out the window.

[Severian]

One might suggest that we do not need dark energy to explain the expansion of the universe, that God is simply influencing the physical universe in the exact manner that might otherwise be attributed to dark energy. No scientist could take such a theory seriously, because it relies on an extremely complex entity which, by definition, lies outside of the physical universe. When "outside the physical universe" comes into play, falsifiability kinda goes out the window.

 

I don't think the objection would be complexity (in fact, I think God-did-it is probably considerably simpler than many of our theories). The reason we wouldn't consider it as a candidate theory is that it is not predictive.

[pioneer]

I think science should be even more separated. Science should be separated from some secular interests. Secular interests include political and private influences, which are driven by power and money and not always by the truth. These can lead science around by its "willie".

 

For example, the political ideal of "green", led science around by its willie. If the goal had been the truth in nature, everyone would have left the options open. But since power and money was leading, science needed to provide the image of a done deal before these secular interests could move ahead with construction. If religion came in to fight against power and money, it is only because science became a puppet, with the hand of power and money up its butt.

 

Consider what would happen, if science was chartered to be detached from both religious and secular interests, sort of like the separation of science, religion and secular. Science would lose funding from power and money and need to depend more on donations. The influential groups would fund their own secular version of science to compete.

 

This version of secular science, to be cost effective, needs to have a goal in mind, which that science needs to prove or create. The new version of "pure" science, lets the data accumulate, before settling on reality. It is not goal orientated but truth orientated. The first version would need to prove global warming, before part 2 or scale up could begin. The second would continue to collect data to see where the truth moves.

[padren]

I think science should be even more separated. Science should be separated from some secular interests. Secular interests include political and private influences, which are driven by power and money and not always by the truth. These can lead science around by its "willie"...

 

Firstly, nothing can be separated from political or private influences - not science, secular philosophy, or religion. Science is a methodology to identify, catalog, verify measurable information and create predictive theories how one set of measurements can allow us to extrapolate what we find in another set of measurements.

 

We can take a set of measurements of where Venus is in the sky now and was at other points in the past, and use that in combination with a theory to extrapolate a prediction on where it will be tomorrow. It is not designed to tell us about where we came from, why we are here, give our lives any special kind of meaning or provide comfort. Science has been able to come up with some very interesting pieces of information that do affect what people feel about their place in the universe, shed light on billions of years of natural history and the mechanics of our coming to be but how people feel about those facts are entirely up to them and have nothing to do with science.

 

 

Science also doesn't make moral judgments - it just helps us understand likely consequences of certain actions that gives us more information to help us make our own moral judgments. It's not surprising that lots of scientists feel very strongly about the ethical and moral implications of their research and also act as activists for their beliefs like anyone else (by beliefs, I mean moral beliefs religious or otherwise) since we naturally can be very empathic/sympathetic creatures. Science cannot take us down "the wrong road" morally because it does not "take us" anywhere - we can only use science to illuminate possible paths and we then decide based on our own moral views what roads we want to go down.

 

 

 

Lastly to be clear: Sometimes I get the feeling that people think of science and religion as two aspects of life, and when someone is not religious they rely on science to fill the "gap" that is left. Speaking for myself, one does not fall back to science in the absence of religion: reason, empathy, sympathy, logic - perhaps (and more) but that is not science. The only role science may have in helping a child through the "why your mother died" scenario is in acquiring facts the child may find comforting but honestly any person would go with their sense of humanity in comforting the kid, independent of scientific or religious backgrounds.

 

To me, my exploration of science helps me understand facts about the world and how it may unfold, my exploration of my sense of humanity helps me determine what I want to do with that knowledge. Religion exists as an interesting side-note in my exploration of humanity, but it's prevalence or lack thereof has more to do with my exploration of humanity than science in any way.

[pioneer]

Don't get me wrong. When science seeks the truth of reality, such as the distance to the moon, it is being pure. There is ideal science trying to solve the mysteries of nature. The result is what it is.

 

But one can also have science, motivated by secular interests. One may need to call upon science to help with insect pests. Science reacts to the need, sometimes free market motivation, and comes up with DDT. This science is not looking long term to the final truth, but short term for the quickie free market need.

 

Later more science is needed to mop up, after that science. This mop science may then swing to far to the other side, motivated by irrational political interests. In poor countries millions are allowed to die from mosquitos, since the political task master says there is a risk in DDT, even if the risk, under some circumstances, would create less death. Science doesn't have the stones for this reality, being beholden.

 

The cigarette companies used science like a mercenary to help promote their cause. Empirical science is very useful for this, since it leaves reality open to interpretation. One only has to plan in a clever way. This is the weak link of science, where it can be lead around by special interests.

[padren]

Don't get me wrong. When science seeks the truth of reality, such as the distance to the moon, it is being pure. There is ideal science trying to solve the mysteries of nature. The result is what it is.

I understand where you are coming from there.

But one can also have science, motivated by secular interests. One may need to call upon science to help with insect pests. Science reacts to the need, sometimes free market motivation, and comes up with DDT. This science is not looking long term to the final truth, but short term for the quickie free market need.

We have always behaved this way, whether we used a methodology such as science, or superstition and anecdotal trial and error. Some New Age spiritualist will come up with a way to get rid of pests, explain it as something to do with "aura vibrations" and it will turn out to be just as deadly as DDT.

Later more science is needed to mop up, after that science. This mop science may then swing to far to the other side, motivated by irrational political interests. In poor countries millions are allowed to die from mosquitos, since the political task master says there is a risk in DDT, even if the risk, under some circumstances, would create less death. Science doesn't have the stones for this reality, being beholden.

Humanity doesn't have the stones for this reality. Science is a very useful tool that allows humans to create larger messes than could be achieved by other means, but science itself is entirely neutral in the situation.

The cigarette companies used science like a mercenary to help promote their cause. Empirical science is very useful for this, since it leaves reality open to interpretation. One only has to plan in a clever way. This is the weak link of science, where it can be lead around by special interests.

 

The real fault is people have trouble telling pseudoscience from the real thing and that is primarily a lack of time spent learning the fundamentals (not the facts, the process) and anywhere you find science misused, you also find appeals to authority, to popularity, and every other non-scientific argument misused.

 

Not only is science not the problem (although, misuse of science is a symptom, displaying along side misuse of everything else) it has proven to be a mitigating factor to lessen these abuses.

If we used DDT because "hey, we tried something random and it works" or explained it's effects through some metaphysical explanation, it would have been much harder to come to the realization that we had a mess that needed to be cleaned up - science makes the "abusers" work a lot harder to carry their biased claims. While they have to work harder it usually still pays off for them for a time, but it is a lot more work for them under the guise of science than any other socially influential format.

 

Science also helped us clean up a lot of messes that have always been around such as diseases we now vaccinate against. Without science we'd be using very crude methods to try and create vaccines and ascribing their effectiveness to whatever idea the most charismatic or influential advocate has to offer, increasing risk and lessening effectiveness.

 

Science only measures objective things, and then people decide both what to measure and how heavily those measurements are scrutinized. Luckily science requires a basic amount of scrutiny or it's not considered science at all, but it is true that science can be "led around" in the sense that people decide what to measure and how hard to scrutinize those measurements in hopes of creating a biased outcome they are already predisposed to - just less so than any other discipline.

 

 

I guess that's a lot of words to say "Science actually helps mitigate the negative aspects of human nature better than any other discipline, but not enough to fully mitigate them entirely."

[dirtyamerica]

I haven't read all the way through this thread so forgive me if I'm posting something that's already been said!

 

Science should always be approached in a skeptical perspective, but at the same time, maintaining a "hopeful" one. Nothing in science is a given unless it's a law, up until it's proven...anything is possible.

 

My philosophy on religion and science is that you cannot use either of these to argue, say for example, "how we got here". That's an argument using apples and oranges. They are two totally different trains of thought. So a theologist debating existence (for example) with a scientist is a waste of time because neither persons' ideas can absolutely, without a doubt, be proven.

 

My answer to your question: NO. Whether you're a religious person or not, as a scientist, you shouldn't discount all that is possible.

 

Flat-out believing in everything that was written in the Bible (example) and trusting those who authored it, is the same scenario as being a scientist who is an atheist.

 

Personally, I think that science is a way of proving how God works (via laws, theories and facts), which supports some of what was written in the Good Book (discounting what was surely written out of current societal norms and other cultural "spiciness").

 

I'm thankful that God has given me the patience and intellect through what we call science to learn about the wonderful gift of this universe and the life He gave us.

[ponderer]

It was suggested that this be put into a new post, so that is what I did.

 

Science is based in philosophy. It is an extension of philosophy into the realm of predicting outcomes, through understanding initial conditions and underlying principles.

 

Science has proven so good at this, that any potential God would have to co-exist with scientific understanding.

 

Any concept of God must encompass the manifold of the universe and it's scientific principles as a subset, and be founded in sound philosophical and scientific reasoning.

 

Such an understanding of God cannot be achieved unless God is considered within a scientific context. It seems that religion cannot remain isolated, and survive, so religion must turn to philosophy and science to validate itself to the rational mind. Those who dismiss the emotional appeals, and act on reason alone, will not be swayed without scientific clarity.

 

Pathetic attempts at creationist intelligent design are not going to cut it. The answers need to be rooted in physics.

 

The most logical outcome of any such approach appears to be a cosmic consiousness, where the universe itself is a sort of hologrpahic mind of God, much like our minds are based on holographic memory, the universe holds God's holographic memory. Everything in the universe feels emotion, is self aware, and has will, since everything is a part of God's mind. Each thing is limited in its awareness and expression of its will by the confines of its existence. However they sum up to a higher consciousness.

Edited May 14, 2010 by ponderer

[universaltheory]

Skepticism leads to inquisitivity and curiosity and experimentation and implementations- the foundation of scientific civilisation if not the general evolutionary civilisation! This is a direct opposite of religion which "seems" to be based on unquestional or unchallengeable submissiveness and conformity.when u start questioning and challenging religious views: that is skepticism; and it makes you fall under philosophy or theosophy or something else like science . 

Science does not ask question or answer any; but reality does! And given an answer; scientific tools can verify if it is true or false.and given this feasible verification; science can conclue on what where why when how this answer is consistently true but not otherwise(complete)

Take for example a question like why do we believe or why do we "have to "believe afterall regardless of the truth or falsely of our beliefs?

This question though its concerns are religious; it is not a religious question at all! But a philosophical question concerning the nature of our reality through which religion and science can cross validate each other decidably. Reality does not depend on science or religion; but science and religion depend on reality. What matters setiently is the body of scientific or religious study through which this reality can be  construed or maintained or analysed or formulated or implemented 

Edited June 23, 2018 by universaltheory