Wow.I had no idea of the discussion that would ensue. Mostly from people not reading my post, or putting words in my mouth. 22 comments, and possibly more physics content than the rest of my blogs posts thanks to a Mr. James Redford. That went way out of hand, and off topic, but I think the discussion has finally been brought to an end.
So instead of the part two I was originally planning, I'd prefer to summarize the previous (long!) post, and listen to what you guys have to say. So here goes.
My intention was not at all to bash religion. I thought I made that clear, but evidentally it wasn't clear enough. Let me make it clear. This post is not about whether or not religion is correct, necessary, a waste of time, or the most fruitful pursuit. This post is about how science and religion should remain separate entities. My reasoning for this is as follows. Religion is based upon faith in the unobserved (directly observed and quantifiable). Science requires quantifiable observations to make conclusions; otherwise it's just speculation. A scientific theory must be testable - religion is not. There's no way to disprove the existence of God or Gods (and arguably no way to prove them either.). Thus religion is not science. That's my point, and details are detailed in my previous post.
Regarding another topic. This was flushed out in the discussion, but I want to mention this once more here. A question was asked, (and I'm paraphrasing) if religion isn't science, where does that leave string theory? Regarding string theory as a theory. In my definition (the commonly accepted definition) of a scientific theory, string theory simply isn't one. It doesn't make any new predictions that can falsify it in the near future. It can be lumped into two categories.
1. A developing theory. This means it has potential to eventually become a true theory, but currently isn't one. This doesn't mean that it can't be applied to science or that work in the theory is pointless. Indeed string theory has been successful in a few areas of physics. Physicists are using string theory as a tool to learn more about quantum theory through something known as the AdS/CFT correspondence. I might discuss this at a later point, but it's an advanced topic - yes, it puts the subject of my this blog to shame as far as difficulty. String theories been used in other useful areas, but that's a whole other topic.
2. Philosophy. This means it could very well be true, but we can't prove it right or wrong right now. What does it mean for everything to be made of strings? Are there really 11 dimensions? What does this mean for the world? We can discuss implications as long as we understand these questions are philosophy - not science.
That concludes my posting about religion on this blog. Though I attempted to handle in an unbiased way, it still got slightly out of hand (yet yielded some interesting discussion!). I would really like to continue this discussion, but if I do, it'll be in the comments on this post, not in a future blog post (unless something changes and I'm compelled to do so for some reason...)
Excellent summary, from the perspective of a planetary scientist in the making we get this a lot as well especially when it comes to cosmic objects such as dark matter and black holes.
ReplyDelete"....humanity took a good idea and, like always, built a belief structure on it."
ReplyDelete"Having beliefs isn't good?"
"I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea, changing a belief is trickier. Life should be malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant."
-Dogma (Kevin Smith)
Part of the problem is that people are approaching religion from the wrong perspective. Religion is a crutch. It is the thing that supports people so that they may function when they may otherwise be crippled. It my be emotionally. It my support them when times are tough. It may be a way for them to feel stronger with the belief that there is somebody or something out there wanting them to keep pushing on, keep doing better. It may be intellectual. For many people, it is good enough that the world is flat and it is gods will that ships vanish over the horizon. It helps them come to terms with a world bigger than themselves, a world more complicated than any one person is fully able to comprehend.
Any attempt to use religion in serious in depth communication in regards to the structure of our universe should be shunned at least. If you try to use religion to hold up half the foundation of a house, do not dare be shocked when it comes falling down on your head.
I like your clarification here, and am also in favor of rational discussions about these topics. I take issue not so much with you as with Benno's comment, which makes religion sound like opiate for the masses. It may function this way, but it may not. There have been plenty of brilliant, inspired people who have written on behalf of faith. I'm reminded, for example, of the classic Holocaust text, Frankl's Man's Search for Meaning. We could argue that science, in the form of medical research, was alive and well in the holocaust (although it was the worst perversion of science). Frankl suggests that it is faith and our search for meaning that allows us to survive such horrible circumstances.
ReplyDeleteI probably just opened up my own can of worms by referencing the holocaust. I just want to suggest that a strict division between the worlds of science and faith is not always possible, and maybe not even always desirable.