Religion is ubiquitous, rational, adaptive and wrong.
It is not inherently in opposition to science in general, but it often is.
Science needs to figure out how to deal with this, because most religions will not.
Most all human societies are religious, in the sense that there is a general semi-coherent consensus view on some creation myth, the existence of deities with supernatural powers, and ability and motive to intervene in human affairs.
One can infer that religion is adaptive - the details do not matter, the ubiquity of religion suggests strongly that it provides significant fitness to societies that come up with some coherent religious concepts - likely religion provides social cohesiveness, tabu's provide enforcement of adaptive cultural practises and social structures, and religion can provide individual and group motivation when times are hard.
Religion is also in general rational, that is to say it seeks to explain life, nature and often to provide purpose (or rationalise capriciousness). Religions evolve conceptually, they take on and adapt external concepts - the most successful religions often do so very efficiently, christianity probably being the best example of ruthless prolonged assimilation of surrounding religious memes.
Religion is generally inherited with high efficiency, children tend to adopt the religion of their parents, but also spread by conversion.
An inherent flaw to metareligious structure is that the adaptiveness is local: social tabu's that work in sub-tropical regions may lead to negative fitness in the arctic! Religion is also notoriously temporally local, it has a hard time adapting to significant social change driven by technology or major external impact factors.
Religion is inherently not scientific. Most surviving religions are not falsifiable, and therefore untestable scientifically. Those religions bold enough to make concrete predictions have uniformly failed.
Interestingly, most religions are provable - that is it is straightforward to come up with affirmative tests which would prove the religions true - but there is no consensus that any such proof has ever been provided. ie there are no verified miracles.
There are a lot of religions, they are essentially all mutually contradictory (we'll exempt unitarians and one or two others, maybe). Therefore most, if not all, must be incorrect.
As Dawkins most recently pointed out, the parsimonious hypothesis is therefore to conclude they are all wrong, until and unless there is positive evidence for some religion.
In contrast, there is atheism, which is not the same as science.
Atheism rejects any concept of deities (but not necessarily supernatural forces, which rather confounds things and makes it eminently possible to have non-scientific atheists).
Similarly scientists may be atheists, but a lot of scientists are deists, they either harbour contradictions, or more generally implictly assume that their god is non-interventionist and that within their domain of research natural explanations suffice. So miracles are rare or unique in this model.
An essential difference between science and religion is that religion in general has explicit and inviolable axioms, with any theological consequences following by decree or implication.
To the extent that religion is introspective is when it tests its assumptions for consistency, and when it explores systematically the consequences of the axiomatic structure. One of the two great leaps in science methodology was the post-plague enlightenment period in Europe when christian axioms were severly tested. The other occasion was republican Greece where the pantheon was so chaotic and inconsistent that looking outside deism for reason seemed prudent.
By the way, it would be interesting to formally analyse some religion to see if the axioms are consistent and strong. To the extent that they are amenable to logical analysis, any religion with consistent axioms presumably has an axiom set too weak to derive integer arithmetic...
Science, in contrast, never accepts inviolable axioms. All hypotheses, including the underlying axiomatic ones, are assumed to be falsifiable and are continually examined with the goal of proving them wrong and replacing them with new axioms. This is in fundamental contradiction to the practise of most all religions.
From the perspective of science, religion is mostly irrelevant, at most it may discourage some scientists from questioning some axioms that need testing, for fear of clashing with religious axioms, but as long as science is heterogenous this matters not in the long run. Religion is then mostly an anthropological curiousity and source of individual cultural assimilation - scientists are people too and may want to assimilate and participate in communal rituals.
Religion clashes with science on three fronts, from the perspective of religion: first of all, science is seen as a channel for atheism or secular humanism, ie it promotes conversion away from a particular religion (not to science, which is not a religion, but to heterodox systems of belief in violation of some particular religions) - most religions which persist take a dim view of apostasy; secondly, science may, accidentally, destroy religious axioms thereby undermining severly the grounds for the continuing practise of religion - this is a frequent cause of clashes, rigid religions lose such clashes, adaptive religons fall back on allegory and carry on regardless; finally, science may clash with the inferences drawn from some religious axioms, which is a frequent source of current clashes, this is where religion can push back on science - even win local battles. The last is a problem for individual branches of science and individial scientists, it is rare that science methodology as a whole is at stake.
The clash tends to occur between science and orthodox branches of religions, which are not ubiquitous, but often influential out of proportion.
Science has a problem here, at some deep level the religious issues are irrelevant to science, but at a practical level they must be dealt with, and carefully to avoid counterproductive social clashes on fringe issues which could lead to challenges to methology as opposed to particular applications.
It is important to remember that at their core most religions are rational, they merely have adopted some weak or contradictory axioms that are not scientific and testable.
Some religious people are fundamentally irrational, they have superstitious attachment to their axioms, but most are actually rational.
In this sense science is hyperrational, in that not only are the inferences of existing axioms explored, but the axioms are also explored and tested.
Note that science is strictly hyperrational in that the scientific method enables analysis of the adaptive structure of particular religions and the assimilation of useful social concepts (like morality, co-operation etc) without the superstition and tabus, a lot of the time nothing more than iterated game theory and understanding of microeconomics (beyond econ 101 level) and population health issues is required. Since science also continuously tests axioms, it ought to outperform religion in adapting social structure to rapid temporal or spatial changes, or external factors.
It is best for science, as a meta culture, to ignore religion as much as possible - this is the "distinct domain" or magisteria philosophy of the science/religion clash - which, to be fair works pretty well, and would work completely if the religious would just ignore the implications of scientific results.
Which doesn't work, particularly since science has a distinct evangelical streak - we publish and we preach, "look, we discovered this, it is amazing, really neat, and this is what it implies...".
And, no, scientists are not going to walk away from the metaphysics, even if most philosophers have abandoned physics.
So... what to do. Well, in the long run, if "we win", it doesn't matter, because science is self-correcting and testable, and religon is not. On the key issues, of life, death, resurrection and the ability to smite enemies, scientific methods work, religious methods do not. For now, though, to motivate and mobilize, religious methods are at least as strong as science and arguable stronger. Good amateur psychologists those theomechanics.
When dealing with heterodox religions, those open to dialogue and allegorical reinterpretation, the best way is reason. Religion is fundamentally rational, it can be reasoned with, as long as you remember the underlying axioms are different. Inconsistencies can be probed, contradiction with natural findings can be demonstrated (and the theologians left to settle the implications, don't push it), and when necessary axioms can be challenged.
Such a method has the advantage of incrementally shaping rational religon without destructive confrontation - the core deism can be left untouched, and the possibility of a future miracle left unchallenged. I mean, who cares? If it doesn't happen it doesn't matter, and if it does happen we will measure it.
The remaining issue then is the axiomatic clash with orthodox religions. These are rare, but nasty, and so far have been uniformly won by science - which makes the next round of clashes much higher stake. Religious people are rational, they know the stakes, in some cases it is their cultural identity and complete social structure and hierarchy that is being undermined irresistably and irrevocably.
Anyone know what to do there? Other than copious smiting of enemies, which is messy, unpleasant and diverts valuable resources from interesting science? "Kill them all and let god sort his out" is such an orthodox religious approach, for all that it worked that time.
Conversion works, but that is the root cause of the clash.
Best bet would be to see the orthodox religious structures reformed to heterodox religions capable of reinterpretation of their axiomatic foundations, but that requires internal action which science may not be able to effect.
Tricky problem that. As is most social engineering.
- Log in to post comments
That seems a rather unconventional definition of "rational."
religion is not a set of axioms. theology is. there is a difference.
Yeah, it is an unconventional definition of rational, the point I was trying to make is that from the perspective of science, religion often appears irrational, but when the different underlying assumptions are allowed for, much of religion is in fact rational, in that what it purports follows reasonably from the assumptions
religion as instantiated for an individual person is not a set of axioms; a particular religion as an institutional structure is rooted in a finite set of assumptions, which are functionally the axiomatic structure of the religion, and the reasoned inferences that follow from those assumptions. As with all axiomatic structures, religions often find it necessary to add new axioms when dealing with something that is beyond the bounds of the pre-existing axiomatic structure
think of it as a theoretical model for what a religion is as analysed from the outside
a particular religion as an institutional structure is rooted in a finite set of assumptions, which are functionally the axiomatic structure of the religion, and the reasoned inferences that follow from those assumptions.
no, the inferences aren't reasoned, they're socially mediated and agreed upon via consensus. religionists can never agree upon the propositions entailed upon their axioms unless they communicate and check notes. there is psychological literature in in gods we trust by scott atran which reports this. the chinese muslims who were cut off from islam on the outside world have had this problem as they are having to rejigger their islami to fit with the outside world since their chain of propositions resulted in a randomwalk into another behavior/belief space.
the axioms of religions are not clear & distinct to begin with. they do not entail necessary propositions.
Either that, or holders of one view are labeled 'heretic' and stoned to death.
Axioms by definition are not necessary propositions, they are the arbitary propositions that you take as the starting point.
Presumably, the Chinese Muslims, for example, retained the Quran as axiomatic to their religion and the inferences drifted.
Religion is messy, the axioms are often not clear, especially if not written down, and they are adaptable, by argument.
A coherent religion, arguably, is precisely one in which coreligionists have communicated and agreed on the root axioms and primary inferences.
Religion is not mathematics, the inferences are not tautologies, but they are no ad hoc either, they follow from the axioms, whether implicit or explicit (if they do not then they are additional axioms).
From a hyperrational perspective then, of course most religions are contradictory, they must be.
Or to put it another way, I am arguing that consensual inferences that are socially meditated are reasoned, and that in dealing with religion this must be kept in mind. The inferences are not arbitary or unreasoned, they are based on other premises.
Too bad no one is trying to answer the question Steinn is posing--how do you solve the clashes with those who push back the hardest? I think the short answer is sort of what has been going on--science provides material benefits that are really insidious. How many fundamentalist creationist Christians do you know that eschew their SUVs? As long as scientists remain vigorously connected to their societies and continue to provide relevant benefiits, the slow march of rationality will continue to win many converts who pass the knowledge on.
As long as the scientists can consistently provide enough smiting and creature comforts, the societies on the whole will continue to defend and protect the scientific methodologies because it makes them fitter than those societies that choose irrationality. It's not very satisfying, but in general science has made good progress over the last few centuries. What we see today are probably the last violent throes of those alienated both from globalization and rationality. There isn't much left of the world that science and rationality hasn't insinuated itself into.
Various points:
1) Theology is not a set of axioms, at least not as I've seen it practices. Theology is the study of religion and religious philosophy. Any particular religion will have its own set of axioms (so to speak).
2) Axioms are not "arbitrary". At least not in nature. Their point in the discourse may be considered to be "arbitary", but I think the word "arbitrary" is deceptive, as it implies a lack of importance as to what the particular axioms are. Not all axioms are equally valid, useful, or adaptive.
3) I would not say that religion is "rational". In many ways religions tend to be anti-rational. I don't mean "irrational" in the sense of "emotionally driven". But most religions set up intellectual barriers to provide a sense of order and purpose, and are extremely hostile to any rational inquiry about the validity and/or foundation of said barriers.
From my standpoint the difference between religion and science comes down to this: religion accepts some axioms, let's call it the dogma, on faith, while science says that any axiom (belief, theory) is falsifiable. Here "faith" is taken to be stronger than mere "belief", which is an emotional state shared by religion and science. "Faith" is the insistence of adhering to a belief system in spite of evidence to the contrary. The most widespread faith is the belief in afterlife, which flies in the face of all evidence ever gathered on that particular question.
Why does faith exist? Faith in humans has a selective advantage when compared to the random wanderings of the untethered mind. The dogma that has persisted of the centuries usually has some evolutionary fitness. The most obvious example that comes to mind here is the command to multiply and have children. (The Shakers, after all, a notably chaste religion has also become notable for dying out.)
Why does science fail to reach the religious masses? To a great extent it's because science does not always address the questions that people want answered. I don't really see a way around that. Also, it's because given a choice between a cherished belief and a mere absence of said belief, people tend to stick with the belief, even at the cost of any serious examination of the belief's validity. I also think we're stuck with that phenomenon.
RickD, I'm curious, what is the evidence _against_ an afterlife? I think trying to prove that there is or isn't one is hard to show in a rigorous scientific fashion. And that is precisely one of the roles of religion, to answer those questions that are unanswerable. The problem is that set of questions continually shrinks as science progresses, though I highly doubt science can solve everything to infinite precision. Ultimately, there are some religious people who are threatened by that progress and that shrinking.
I would also like to point out that most people here are holding the _ideal_ of science up against the _reality_ of religion, and that's quite the straw man. How much of science is guided by personalities and faith? A fair bit in my experience, though the whole of science over a long time approaches the ideal (I sincerely hope). I daresay theology and science conferences are probably not so different in some regards :)
And to further stir the pot, many people seem to assume that miracles cannot happen. I would say the only way to completely falsify this is to perfectly measure _every event_ with the laws of nature to perfect precision. God, if you believe (s)he exists in some form, has the entire set of natural laws both known and unknown to humans at its disposal. Go out and throw a ball and predict where it lands with physics and tell me how it goes, because in reality one of the fundamental assumptions of science is that the laws are testable no matter the time or the place, but it is an assumption and hard to falsify. Certainly, every time we look, we see consistent laws and it's an assumption that is rational and practical. But even in our everyday life, reality is infinitely more complex than our simple experiments and there is still a lot of room for an unfalsifiable entity, which goes back to what RickD was saying...
Exhibit A that religion is not rational, but pseudo-rational: JohnD.
Perhaps better communication and some collaboration between specialists would make for a more science-friendly theological environment. If scientifically illiterate religious people were to learn about scientific theories with a touch of their own ideology, then they won't feel the need to attack science. For example, "the latest in science is... and as members of religious group ABC, we can interpret this as meaning that Deity XYZ thinks we're pretty special."
Ok, no personal comments or I start banning commenters.
Attack the argument, not the person.
I want to move this to a new thread, since my statement that religion is axiomatic is tripping people up.
"Religion is ubiquitous, rational, adaptive and wrong."
I agree. But I'm a Christian: "ruthless"; "nasty"; and right.
Since the delusion of atheism is difficult to maintain, it is not surprising to find some atheists involved in a religious "jaw." Atheists are like the local biker gang: if you don't get in a fight once in awhile, your gang will drift apart.
Best Regards,
Frank Hatch
FrankHatchiii.com
THE LOST:
"Hear and hear,
but do not understand;
see and see,
but do not perceive." Isaiah 6.9
To break the restriction of a linear time sequence, the Lost need empirical data - uncorrupted, honest data. However, the Lost have filtered all their data with a scientific-religious presumption: a finite universe with a finite number of dimensions.
The Lost do not understand, nor do they perceive their conflict with the Infinite Universe and the Infinite number of dimensions...
"...nothing can be added to it,
nor anything taken from it..." Ecclesiastes 3:14
Best Regards,
Frank Hatch
Initial Mass Displacements