The Future of Religion

[Reenk Roink]

In the beginning, mankind believed that the sun and the moon were gods, and they believed that doing certain things would make it rain, and that their leaders were gods...

The notion of a sun god is prevalent in near eastern cultures, and certainly it may be more widespread than that (any anthropologists here?) but I take issue with a couple of things. That the sun was itself worshiped is true about some societies, but for example, if you take a look at the Sumerian/Akkadian pantheon, it's kind of hard to definitively state that the conception those people had about their sun god was just that bright thing in the sky itself. There were anthropomorphic depictions and personifications of the sun god. It is certainly reasonable (and speculative - but given the evidence of anthropomorphizing the gods the other position is much more so) to assume that the sun god was not just the sun in the sky or more than that.

On the infallible leaders being worshiped front, this is more the exception than the rule. I can only think of Egypt as an example of an ancient civilization deifying its rulers commonly. In Sumerian civilization for example, the leaders of the city states were never considered to be anything but mortals, despite the fact that they were also believed to be the actual spouse of the patron god of that city. I believe Naram-sin was the first Sumerian/Akkadian king to declare himself a god, and he was remembered quite negatively for it.

However more importantly, the sentiment you have about the reason for these kind of beliefs. You say it "is because they lacked a scientific knowledge of the world" and this strikes me as way off base.

I would state that the reason religious beliefs shifted was (and still is) due to other societal factors. The Egyptians and Babylonians had quite remarkable knowledge of astronomy, yet their religion did not fade until radically different religions began influencing it (basically Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Islam). Kings were not worshiped in Akkad until great conquerors forged vast empires. Belief that the sun was divine died out in most areas long before people had ever started saying it was a giant ball of hydrogen and helium.

3. We may never fully understand the smallest of the small, the quantum universe. It's so bizarre that quantum physicists have difficulty explaining to me, a reasonably adequate mind, why it isn't a bunch of baloney built on assumptions which are based on very complicated math. To me, some of their theories smell of nothing more than wholly fabricated nonsense. Sure, 1 plus 1 equals 2, but does that necessarily mean there are unlimited parallel universes connected by membranes? You can't prove that using math. Prove it with a dimensional gateway or something. Until then, you also have to deal with the problem of people being unsure if there are ten dimensions or twenty six or umpteen million, and whether or not the infinite parallel reality theory meshes with the limitless universe theory meshes with the everything that could ever possibly happen does happen theory, and other such koo-koo bananas theories which have as much weight as the big crunch and the big rip and the heat death theories about the universe ending, in that they can't all be true, at least in regards to this universe. Finally, if there are other universes.... but they are connected to this one... then they aren't really other universes, are they, Einstein? Same reality, same universe. That's why they call it a universe. Separating one parallel reality from this one if it is possible to share matter or energy between them means that the division of realities is as arbitrary as a political border on a map; the boundary only really exists because we say it does. What prevents me from saying the sun is in a different reality from mine, except for the light I perceive of course? Now, let's define our terms...

I don't understand this paragraph. It seems somewhat of a flippant rejection of theories about the universe. Fair enough I guess, those are highly speculative (though you might want to look at some other scientific theories that are more commonly held as strong as there isn't TOO much of a difference (gravity for example)). What I don't understand is the comment about QM early on and how exactly you relate it to the speculative theories about the universe that you mention later on? I will note (don't know if this will apply to you) QM seems odd because it goes against the commonly held paradigm in scientific enterprise that the universe is ordered, rational, and accessible. It isn't intuitive (it might not be exactly logical ). Funny enough this entire paradigm of the rational universe came from the scientific revolution and the religious sentiments at the time... I never liked it though.

The big answers to the big questions will always be "I don't know"

Not at all. One could easily say the big answers are already known! And then go on and say your problem comes because you are fixed on a concept on knowledge based exclusively on science (I assume this by your later statement in which you state: "And opinion is another thing, there will be political and philosophical differences always, regardless of scientific or mathematical or historical data which suggests some ways of living are more harmonious and efficient than others" from which I gauge that you hold that science, mathematics (probably can extend this to logic?), and history are objective sources of knowledge and not classified as 'opinion'?).

And yet in our modern age, some people believe that shattering a mirror is bad luck, when any amount of testing would show the only way it is bad luck is if you injure yourself on the broken mirror.

Not at all, it would be very difficult to demonstrate that shattering a mirror does not bring you bad luck, simply because "bad luck" is so broadly defined. Perhaps if someone believed that shattering a mirror would conjure a demon visible to human eyes within 5 minutes, you could actually test that.

One begins with the premise that we do not know and must discover, the other begins with the premise that we do know and must reject other theories. They are totally incompatible.

Your characterization of 'religion' is much more workable and accurate than your characterization of 'science'... This naive-inductivist view of scientific enterprise has been pretty roughly beat down as not only NOT being the way scientific discovery works, but also being theoretically problematic.

Science is falsifiable.

Religion is non-falsifiable.

Well, these two assertions mean very little as both nouns in both sentences are vague predicates...

The point that needs to be made (I spent quite some time trying to point this out in an earlier thread), is the metaphysical bases that science rests on are empirically unfalsifiable themselves. This is probably not news to you at all, and it wouldn't even merit pointing out, if people (not you - but I've seen this done way too many times) love to point out in the creationism/intelligent design debates that the existence of a transcendent creator figure who is not material is unfalsifiable... Essentially, they go after a metaphysical base and try to apply an empirical falsification criterion to it which is very wtf-ish.

When I think of applying the falsification criterion to something, I think it is reasonable to assume we are applying it to some empirical claim instead. For example, certain young earth creationists assert that the Earth is 10000 years old or younger. This is obviously an empirically falsifiable claim (some would say it has been already falsified...)

Another topic which may be outside the scope of the topic is the value of falsifiability as a demarcation criterion. For example continuing the above mentioned example, I notice a general trend that tends to criticize those who try to respond to attacks against the assertion that the Earth is 10000 years old or younger by attacking say, carbon dating, or stating that older dated rocks do not imply that the earth itself is such an age, and so on. This is criticized as being "cheap" among other things and I can see why. Yet this stuff happens all the time in the scientific community as well. I point to the Quine-Duhem thesis about the practical impossibility of any kind of falsification criterion...

It's a matter of personal preference whether you decide those assumptions reflect some deeper physical reality or are simply a useful calculating tool.

Great line from a great post! Do I sense another fellow instrumentalist?

Science...denies spiritual truth

I don't see how this is so at all. "Spiritual truth" is way too vague by the way, but if it is what I think it is then my position is no, not at all. "Science" cannot even itself be said to actually deny the supernatural, if we assume that the 'method(s) of science' apply a methodological naturalism rather than an actual epistemic commitment to naturalism (and that is probably a fair assumption).

[The Stranger]

I don't see how this is so at all. "Spiritual truth" is way too vague by the way, but if it is what I think it is then my position is no, not at all. "Science" cannot even itself be said to actually deny the supernatural, if we assume that the 'method(s) of science' apply a methodological naturalism rather than an actual epistemic commitment to naturalism (and that is probably a fair assumption).

By claiming objective truth to be the only truth you deny the existence of the subjective truth of which our existence is made of... and so you deny spiritual truth, which is a very subjective truth.

and ofcourse you are right, science itself claims nothing, in the same way that the bible on itself doesnt claim much. its the people behind the books that claim a whole lot (and its usually based on thin air)

[PBI]

Great line from a great post!

Thanks! Nice to know someone read it, I do tend to worry I'm talking to myself when I post a massive wall of text on some obscure technical point of physics.

Do I sense another fellow instrumentalist?

Alas, I'm afraid I'm a scientific realist (mostly). I am aware however that that is simply my personal preference.

I guess I would say I believe there is such a thing as objective reality; however I would concede that we can never really be sure whether any given theory reflects what is actually going on or if it is simply a convenient method for making correct calculations.

Hence why I draw a distinction between the rigorous mathematical core of quantum mechanics and the interpretations which try to explain what it all means physically. If all you are interested in doing is calculating atomic decay rates, it doesn't matter especially whether the theory is real or not; I guess I would contend that all the worrying about interpretations is "just for fun", although I think it can have instructive value in extending or refining the theory.

[to ATPG's criticism of QM] I don't understand this paragraph. It seems somewhat of a flippant rejection of theories about the universe. Fair enough I guess, those are highly speculative (though you might want to look at some other scientific theories that are more commonly held as strong as there isn't TOO much of a difference (gravity for example)). What I don't understand is the comment about QM early on and how exactly you relate it to the speculative theories about the universe that you mention later on? I will note (don't know if this will apply to you) QM seems odd because it goes against the commonly held paradigm in scientific enterprise that the universe is ordered, rational, and accessible. It isn't intuitive (it might not be exactly logical ). Funny enough this entire paradigm of the rational universe came from the scientific revolution and the religious sentiments at the time... I never liked it though.

I'm not quite sure I would agree that QM is not rational, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this; as I have mentioned, the mathematical structure is no less rigorous than any other theory. I would agree it is unintuitive; I would argue it describes the universe as being innately probabilistic rather than deterministic. I'm not sure that means it is not rational.

For me this is key; as science progresses, it can largely replace the need for religion to explain the world around us, but this was only ever one of the jobs of religion.

I don't think I agree with this. For example, science offers explanations of the natural world in terms of the common sense view of cause and effect, but that explanation is only really satisfying if you already hold to the view of natural cause and effect.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say science provides an alternative explanation, for people who do hold to the principle of causality. I was referring to the so called "god of the gaps", the idea that the purpose of religion is to explain the phenomena in our natural world which have no apparent cause; and that science, by attributing phenomena to mundane causes, is effectively removing the need for religion and rendering it obsolete. I would simply contend that explaining why rainbows and earthquakes and the like happen is only one of the purposes of religion, and that therefore religion is always likely to exist no matter how complete a picture of the natural world science can present. I simply don't see why a moral code must always be attached to a cosmology, and vice versa.

Of course if you take the view that everything is directly caused by god (not that I'm saying you do) then any scientific explanation is meaningless so the discussion is irrelevant. Is this a common view in religious circles? My understanding is that most Christians at least lean more towards the "cosmic watchmaker" view, that of a god who created the universe but then largely leaves it to run its own course according to the laws he set for it without much further intervention, but since most of the Christians I know are also physicists, I may have a somewhat biased sample of this.

I think the point that the "science is a religion" people are trying to make is the simple one that science, like religion, results on its own set of metaphysical assumptions. Now unlike "science" the metaphysical assumptions of "religion" are criticized frequently*, hence the comments that religion has no 'evidence' while science does. That really depends on what you are talking about now...

I agree. I think people are getting confused between a given scientific theory, which is falsifiable, and the idea of science itself as a means of enquiring about nature, which is not; one must simply take the fundamental assumptions on faith (though I prefer the word "confidence") and hope that they will allow you to give a better prediction for the mass of an electron, or more accurately determine the trajectory of an artillery shell, or build a more efficient nuclear reactor. Ultimately it is the success of science in achieving these material objectives which is its main selling point in my opinion, not some innate philosophical superiority over other means of intellectual endeavor.

I would be interested to hear what you think the fundamental assumptions of science are, but it is perhaps a subject for another thread. The point is that having fundamental assumptions in and of itself is not enough for science to be accurately described as a religion.

[The Stranger]

cause and effect i believe is one of the most fundamental assumptions of science... but i'm not very knowledgable at that point, although I'd like to hear more about it...

Some good things are said by Reenk and PBI :)

[Reenk Roink]

I'm not quite sure I would agree that QM is not rational, I'm not quite sure what you mean by this; as I have mentioned, the mathematical structure is no less rigorous than any other theory. I would agree it is unintuitive; I would argue it describes the universe as being innately probabilistic rather than deterministic. I'm not sure that means it is not rational.

Sorry, I probably phrased that poorly.

I was confused by Askthepizzaguy's mentioning QM alongside the speculative 'theories of everything' as somehow being "wholly fabricated nonsense" and trying to say while the latter may certainly be wildly speculative, the former is not in that sense, regardless of it's lack of intuitiveness.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say science provides an alternative explanation, for people who do hold to the principle of causality. I was referring to the so called "god of the gaps", the idea that the purpose of religion is to explain the phenomena in our natural world which have no apparent cause; and that science, by attributing phenomena to mundane causes, is effectively removing the need for religion and rendering it obsolete. I would simply contend that explaining why rainbows and earthquakes and the like happen is only one of the purposes of religion, and that therefore religion is always likely to exist no matter how complete a picture of the natural world science can present. I simply don't see why a moral code must always be attached to a cosmology, and vice versa.

Of course, and I definitely hold to an interpretation, as you also seem to, that the major religions are not really majorly concerned with explaining in detail the natural world anyway. It seems to be quite a minor topic, as religion as a whole seems to concern itself with other things more, as you pointed out.

Of course if you take the view that everything is directly caused by god (not that I'm saying you do) then any scientific explanation is meaningless so the discussion is irrelevant. Is this a common view in religious circles? My understanding is that most Christians at least lean more towards the "cosmic watchmaker" view, that of a god who created the universe but then largely leaves it to run its own course according to the laws he set for it without much further intervention, but since most of the Christians I know are also physicists, I may have a somewhat biased sample of this.

Occasionalism isn't really prevalent in Christianity. There have been notable figures who held this view, but for the most part, is never caught on in Christian thought (Aquinas famously argued against it).

In Islam however, I believe the dominant theological schools adhere to such occasionalism, at least the Sunni branch.

I would be interested to hear what you think the fundamental assumptions of science are, but it is perhaps a subject for another thread.

The bare minimum I would say would be the acceptance of some kind of theory of natural causality (and again, it may be different from the common sense as at least at the quantum level) as well as a methodological though not actually epistemic commitment to naturalism. Of course, you can go farther than that, if you wish to speak of actual objects than commitment to realism is required.

I agree. I think people are getting confused between a given scientific theory, which is falsifiable, and the idea of science itself as a means of enquiring about nature, which is not; one must simply take the fundamental assumptions on faith (though I prefer the word "confidence") and hope that they will allow you to give a better prediction for the mass of an electron, or more accurately determine the trajectory of an artillery shell, or build a more efficient nuclear reactor. Ultimately it is the success of science in achieving these material objectives which is its main selling point in my opinion, not some innate philosophical superiority over other means of intellectual endeavor.

Well stated. The fact is, much of creationisms claims are actually (at least naively) falsifiable (age of the earth, pre flood vapor canopies, and so on).

I never understand why so little emphasis is placed on that, and yet so much is placed on stating that metaphysical foundations such as a creator are unfalsifiable. Well, of course they are, but that's not the point when we talk about something being falsifiable...

The point is that having fundamental assumptions in and of itself is not enough for science to be accurately described as a religion.

Exactly, as you pointed out, both should be classified into something more broad-based, philosophies, if you will. As it is, there is too much separating the enterprise of science, and the enterprise of religion. They have different methods, goals, and scopes.

[PBI]

Of course, and I definitely hold to an interpretation, as you also seem to, that the major religions are not really majorly concerned with explaining in detail the natural world anyway. It seems to be quite a minor topic, as religion as a whole seems to concern itself with other things more, as you pointed out.

I would certainly contend that this is how it should be, that science and religion fulfill distinct, separate roles and it is best for everyone if they stick to them. The problem is that historically religion certainly was expected to explain the natural world, and these old explanations are not always compatible with the scientific ones.

I feel it would be better all around if these obsolete explanations could be quietly discarded, and the major religions move to a position of deliberate ambivalence on scientific matters. Whether this is likely or even possible within our lifetime I have no idea. I am convinced, however, that free scientific enquiry provides such great material benefits to modern society that allowing it to be distorted by religious doctrine could be disastrous.

The bare minimum I would say would be the acceptance of some kind of theory of natural causality (and again, it may be different from the common sense as at least at the quantum level) as well as a methodological though not actually epistemic commitment to naturalism. Of course, you can go farther than that, if you wish to speak of actual objects than commitment to realism is required.

I essentially agree (although I should admit I had to look up several of those terms in the dictionary). In addition my understanding is that science requires the assumption that inductive logic is valid, something I am told is very problematic from a purely philosophical perspective.

Certainly realism is not required. I hold to a scientific realist view, but largely I suppose on a gut feeling rather than any particularly good logical argument; working in science has left me with the impression that it is extraordinarily difficult to systematically apply the wrong method to a problem but still get the right answer.

Well stated. The fact is, much of creationisms claims are actually (at least naively) falsifiable (age of the earth, pre flood vapor canopies, and so on).

I never understand why so little emphasis is placed on that, and yet so much is placed on stating that metaphysical foundations such as a creator are unfalsifiable. Well, of course they are, but that's not the point when we talk about something being falsifiable...

Pretty much. If creationism makes concrete predictions about biology, geology, astrophysics etc, it is falsifiable and should be challenged on those predictions. If it doesn't, then it doesn't matter. I don't particularly have a problem with people viewing the Big Bang as the moment of creation, for example, although I would argue that since a naturalistic explanation may provide material benefits it is always worth looking to see if there is one to be found. I take a similar view of gauge theory/gravity unification; I don't see any problem with concluding that gravity occurs due to masses distorting space time and the other fundamental forces occur due to virtual boson exchange, but it's probably worth having a look to see if there is some single theory which explains both.

In 1992 John Paul II spoke against how Galileo was treated and how he was, in fact, correct, condemning the body which tried him for the errors it made. On the other hand, Galileo was quietly quasi-accepted by the Church in the mid-1700s, and by 1835 it was no longer in any kind of opposition to him or his theories.

What many people don't know is that the Catholic Church accepted Darwinian ideas as being compatible or potentially compatible with Christianity long before many other people and organizations did.

Sometimes the Church gets it right (I understand the Vatican was an early advocate of the Big Bang theory as well), sometimes it doesn't, but wouldn't it be better for all concerned if the Church simply refrained from taking a scientific position? It would make it easier for the scientific community to discard the theory if it is later shown to be deficient, and it would save the Church from having to make another embarrassing volte-face.

[a completely inoffensive name]

It will very slowly die out until it is dead or becomes a small minority barely able to claim a percentage point of the total population. I don't know if I want to say why I think this way because I really don't want to deal with a ********* of a conversation right before a major test I have to take this week.