Monday, April 10, 2006
Religious Belief
Submitted by Tara
Religion and science are two very different arenas of thought. The ways that conclusions are reached in each area are incredibly different, so much so that it is often hard to compare the two. Science is often seen as cold and mechanical and religion as something more emotional and otherworldly. I don't know how accurate these depictions are of them, but they truly do highlight the different perceptions of both ways of thinking about the world. However, even though they may be perceived as being incredibly different from one another, the focus of each is not truly all that different. Both are working towards a common goal, that is to develop theories about reality that are logical, believable, and hopefully true.
In science, one builds an argument based on personal observations. Then, after observing the results of an experiment, the scientist attempts to analyze the data based on other theories which have become widely accepted. Scientific theories go through stringent tests before they become accepted. They have to coincide logically with other beliefs that are widely held unless they present overwhelming and valid evidence that would discount such previously held beliefs. If they do not mesh with the ideas currently held by the scientists and by society, they are not likely to be held as true.
I don't think that anyone would argue with me over my definition of the way science works. It follows the scientific method that is taught in schools. However, what is surprising at first is that such an example of science really isn't limited only to science. In fact, I think everything I just said about science can also be attached to religion. Religious arguments are built on personal observations, those of the disciples who knew Jesus, for example, or the readings of texts that are supposed to be inspired by or written by or dictated by God or some other divine or transcendent being. Then, the religious person attempt to analyze the data the best they can based on what they already know about the world, in a way that would not conflict with their current beliefs. Religious theories also would not be accepted on a whim if they are in opposition with other widely held beliefs. New religious ideas must be in harmony with existing religious ideas in order to be taken seriously unless they have extraordinary amounts of evidence to the contrary of the existing theories on the topic.
It becomes clear, then, that religion and science have many commonalities in the way they approach the search for the truth about reality. It seems that both earnestly want to find answers to questions that have been nagging the human conscious for thousands of years. They even go about it in similar ways. Each are seeking to find a way to explain the questions without completing upsetting or destroying the basic picture of the world that we have now. No one seems quite willing (or even able) to rewrite all of the ideas that humans hold about the world as we think it is today. Neither camp really seems to keen on the idea of throwing out old ideas that seem to be true and seem to make sense in exchange for answers to other questions. In this way, they seem very similar.
The similarities I have presented here may not be so strange as what they seem at first. Both fields religion and science appeal to the logic of humans. Human beings find both sets of explanations for the world to be attractive and sensible. There is something uniquely rational about the way science and religion approach the explanations of the world. What human would find it rational to throw out old, seemingly realistic ideas about the world in favor of new, untested, untried ones? I don't think any sane person would find this to be the way to approach finding new conclusions. Human beings have the need to preserve as much of their own beliefs as possible at any given time. While we are occasionally willing to give up minor aspects of their web of beliefs (that is, the network of interlocking beliefs that they hold pertaining to everything they know and think), we rarely like to give up the larger pieces of our web without substantial reason. This is the way the human brain works which is in turn the way it reacts to both scientific and religious explanations. This explanation of why we approach conclusions the same way whether they are based in religion or science takes away much of the shock value of the similarities between religion and science that exists upon first glance. Still, though, it is obvious that religion and science cannot be one and the same. If they were, there wouldn't be so much controversy or arguments about which one is to be held in higher regard.
I hold that the idea that science is testable is the one main difference between religion and science. Scientific proofs are based on logical steps that follow one after another. It is easy to trace the connecting points from one idea to another in order to see the progression of thought. One can (nearly always) repeat an experiment that a scientist does and get the same, or very similar, results in order to come to the same conclusion. In religion, one is often observing facts of reality and then interpreting them in a transcendent way, that is, in a way that goes beyond reality. A religious person is bound to attach religious meaning to a possibly ordinary experience, and thus bias the results. Now, this is not to say that science is without bias. It's not. However, in science, many different scientists can view the same data and independently come to the same conclusions. Also, scientists frequently take much care to prevent bias to the best degree they possibly can.
When a religious person tries to take empirical data and give it a religious meaning, I think that they are often making a fatal mistake. One cannot approach religious theory using the scientific method, no matter how striking the similarities may seem at first. Religious belief requires the willingness of a person to accept that a transcendent realm exists, even though there seems to be no clear evidence that this is true. I say that there is no clear evidence of it because anything that I can think of that might imply the existence of a transcendent realm has a corresponding scientific explanation.
It is impossible to test whether or not a transcendent realm truly exists. For example, say a religiously-inclined person claims that such and such will happen if the transcendent truly exists. Then, it happens. Does this really prove that the transcendent exists? No, because it could very easily be a coincidence. Or, it could be something that the person knew was going to happen through other means. But likewise, it is impossible to prove that it does not exist, because in the same manner, if it does not happen, can you actually say that proves that it does not exist? No, of course not, because what if the transcendent being does not want to be discovered, or does not wish to comply to your test?
At the same time, however, I do not think this lack of scientific testability really can be equated to meaninglessness. Science is not the be all and end all of our society. In fact, life has functioned for hundreds of thousands of years (according to science) without any real form of science at all. There is not only one way to test theories. I would equate trying to test religious theories according to scientific rules to trying to score an ACT by the SAT standards. There is on true way to compare them. Sure, you can see if the results are similar and in what ways they are different, but you can't score one according to the standards of another.
To take the analogy one step further, it is not necessary to believe that either the ACT or the SAT is valid. One can accept the validity of both at the same time, even though they may yield different results. The same is true of religion and science. Religion and science do not always produce the same theories, but this does not mean that you have to value one over the other. It is possible to test each against their own standards and decide which of the two conclusions is more valuable for you. Conflicts between the two does not imply that one must be right all the time, and the other wrong all the time. For if this were true, science itself could not possibly be true because it has conflicts within its own field. Really, religion frequently has the same problem. Sometimes theories within the same religion seem to contradict themselves to the point where the religious believer must work to interpret and analyze the data to make a judgment of what is right for them.
As a result, I think that both religion and science can have substantial meaning, but that it is up to the individual to interpret the data presented to them in order to decide which explanation of the world they count to be true for them. It is not required that a person choose one over the other and it is quite possible to simultaneously accept both views as logical and legitimate. The debate of science versus religion does not have to end in an either/or choice. A person does, however, need to realize that you cannot hold religion to scientific standards and neither can you hold science to religious standards. They are ideologies that are working from very different view points and measuring different data. One must examine the world from within their current set of beliefs and see which explanations make the most logical sense to them.
Religion and science are two very different arenas of thought. The ways that conclusions are reached in each area are incredibly different, so much so that it is often hard to compare the two. Science is often seen as cold and mechanical and religion as something more emotional and otherworldly. I don't know how accurate these depictions are of them, but they truly do highlight the different perceptions of both ways of thinking about the world. However, even though they may be perceived as being incredibly different from one another, the focus of each is not truly all that different. Both are working towards a common goal, that is to develop theories about reality that are logical, believable, and hopefully true.
In science, one builds an argument based on personal observations. Then, after observing the results of an experiment, the scientist attempts to analyze the data based on other theories which have become widely accepted. Scientific theories go through stringent tests before they become accepted. They have to coincide logically with other beliefs that are widely held unless they present overwhelming and valid evidence that would discount such previously held beliefs. If they do not mesh with the ideas currently held by the scientists and by society, they are not likely to be held as true.
I don't think that anyone would argue with me over my definition of the way science works. It follows the scientific method that is taught in schools. However, what is surprising at first is that such an example of science really isn't limited only to science. In fact, I think everything I just said about science can also be attached to religion. Religious arguments are built on personal observations, those of the disciples who knew Jesus, for example, or the readings of texts that are supposed to be inspired by or written by or dictated by God or some other divine or transcendent being. Then, the religious person attempt to analyze the data the best they can based on what they already know about the world, in a way that would not conflict with their current beliefs. Religious theories also would not be accepted on a whim if they are in opposition with other widely held beliefs. New religious ideas must be in harmony with existing religious ideas in order to be taken seriously unless they have extraordinary amounts of evidence to the contrary of the existing theories on the topic.
It becomes clear, then, that religion and science have many commonalities in the way they approach the search for the truth about reality. It seems that both earnestly want to find answers to questions that have been nagging the human conscious for thousands of years. They even go about it in similar ways. Each are seeking to find a way to explain the questions without completing upsetting or destroying the basic picture of the world that we have now. No one seems quite willing (or even able) to rewrite all of the ideas that humans hold about the world as we think it is today. Neither camp really seems to keen on the idea of throwing out old ideas that seem to be true and seem to make sense in exchange for answers to other questions. In this way, they seem very similar.
The similarities I have presented here may not be so strange as what they seem at first. Both fields religion and science appeal to the logic of humans. Human beings find both sets of explanations for the world to be attractive and sensible. There is something uniquely rational about the way science and religion approach the explanations of the world. What human would find it rational to throw out old, seemingly realistic ideas about the world in favor of new, untested, untried ones? I don't think any sane person would find this to be the way to approach finding new conclusions. Human beings have the need to preserve as much of their own beliefs as possible at any given time. While we are occasionally willing to give up minor aspects of their web of beliefs (that is, the network of interlocking beliefs that they hold pertaining to everything they know and think), we rarely like to give up the larger pieces of our web without substantial reason. This is the way the human brain works which is in turn the way it reacts to both scientific and religious explanations. This explanation of why we approach conclusions the same way whether they are based in religion or science takes away much of the shock value of the similarities between religion and science that exists upon first glance. Still, though, it is obvious that religion and science cannot be one and the same. If they were, there wouldn't be so much controversy or arguments about which one is to be held in higher regard.
I hold that the idea that science is testable is the one main difference between religion and science. Scientific proofs are based on logical steps that follow one after another. It is easy to trace the connecting points from one idea to another in order to see the progression of thought. One can (nearly always) repeat an experiment that a scientist does and get the same, or very similar, results in order to come to the same conclusion. In religion, one is often observing facts of reality and then interpreting them in a transcendent way, that is, in a way that goes beyond reality. A religious person is bound to attach religious meaning to a possibly ordinary experience, and thus bias the results. Now, this is not to say that science is without bias. It's not. However, in science, many different scientists can view the same data and independently come to the same conclusions. Also, scientists frequently take much care to prevent bias to the best degree they possibly can.
When a religious person tries to take empirical data and give it a religious meaning, I think that they are often making a fatal mistake. One cannot approach religious theory using the scientific method, no matter how striking the similarities may seem at first. Religious belief requires the willingness of a person to accept that a transcendent realm exists, even though there seems to be no clear evidence that this is true. I say that there is no clear evidence of it because anything that I can think of that might imply the existence of a transcendent realm has a corresponding scientific explanation.
It is impossible to test whether or not a transcendent realm truly exists. For example, say a religiously-inclined person claims that such and such will happen if the transcendent truly exists. Then, it happens. Does this really prove that the transcendent exists? No, because it could very easily be a coincidence. Or, it could be something that the person knew was going to happen through other means. But likewise, it is impossible to prove that it does not exist, because in the same manner, if it does not happen, can you actually say that proves that it does not exist? No, of course not, because what if the transcendent being does not want to be discovered, or does not wish to comply to your test?
At the same time, however, I do not think this lack of scientific testability really can be equated to meaninglessness. Science is not the be all and end all of our society. In fact, life has functioned for hundreds of thousands of years (according to science) without any real form of science at all. There is not only one way to test theories. I would equate trying to test religious theories according to scientific rules to trying to score an ACT by the SAT standards. There is on true way to compare them. Sure, you can see if the results are similar and in what ways they are different, but you can't score one according to the standards of another.
To take the analogy one step further, it is not necessary to believe that either the ACT or the SAT is valid. One can accept the validity of both at the same time, even though they may yield different results. The same is true of religion and science. Religion and science do not always produce the same theories, but this does not mean that you have to value one over the other. It is possible to test each against their own standards and decide which of the two conclusions is more valuable for you. Conflicts between the two does not imply that one must be right all the time, and the other wrong all the time. For if this were true, science itself could not possibly be true because it has conflicts within its own field. Really, religion frequently has the same problem. Sometimes theories within the same religion seem to contradict themselves to the point where the religious believer must work to interpret and analyze the data to make a judgment of what is right for them.
As a result, I think that both religion and science can have substantial meaning, but that it is up to the individual to interpret the data presented to them in order to decide which explanation of the world they count to be true for them. It is not required that a person choose one over the other and it is quite possible to simultaneously accept both views as logical and legitimate. The debate of science versus religion does not have to end in an either/or choice. A person does, however, need to realize that you cannot hold religion to scientific standards and neither can you hold science to religious standards. They are ideologies that are working from very different view points and measuring different data. One must examine the world from within their current set of beliefs and see which explanations make the most logical sense to them.
Comments:
<< Home
That was an awesome comparison of science and religion. I had never seen such an anaytical approach in defining each one. And I liked how you said just because you can't "prove" or "disprove" certain events happened when talking about religion. Of course, with me, you could give me all the scientific reasoning in the world, but "religion" or my beliefs are created by FAITH.
Post a Comment
<< Home
