Jump to content

Religions influence on Science


Recommended Posts

On ‎21‎-‎7‎-‎2017 at 8:19 PM, Handy andy said:

Is blind religious belief holding back Science?

Religion can hold back science but faith based beliefs are necessary for the evolution of science. In every field in science there are many faith based beliefs which can  turn in evidence based beliefs through scientific evidence. Those faith based beliefs are often beliefs based on an interpretation of data.

According to Leonard Susskind, entanglement holds space together. The model concerns holographic entangled space time. Such a model is based on an interpretation of data, this implies the use of logic and mathematics.

When a model in science gets disproven or when they can't find evidence then the model will (sooner or later) disappear out the world of science. This is a how science remains science.

When a 'model' in religion gets disproven or when they can't find evidence  then the model will not necessarily disappear.

This is a big difference between the two. Science concerns mostly evidence based beliefs while religion mostly concerns faith based  beliefs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 83
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The flat earth societies of the world come up with elaborate mathematical models to prove the earth is flat for mischief, pseudoscience or religious reasons.   Is the Big Bang theory based on a math

A word isn't necessarily exactly the same as any of its synonyms: else why would the English language have such a diverse pool of words to choose from. I agree that faith and trust both require u

1 hour ago, Itoero said:

Religion can hold back science but faith based beliefs are necessary for the evolution of science.

Nonsense. (I am being extremely polite and restrained here.)

Quote

 In every field in science there are many faith based beliefs which can  turn in evidence based beliefs through scientific evidence.

Yes, a faith-based belief (or a wild-assed guess) can turn out to be correct if it happens, by chance, to agree with the evidence. But that is not necessary. Not even desirable, as EdEarl says. If people have faith-based beliefs then they are likely to look for evidence to support it, and disregard evidence that doesn't. That is not a constructive approach to science.

Quote

When a 'model' in religion gets disproven or when they can't find evidence  then the model will not necessarily disappear.

Which is why that mindset is not appropriate to science.

Quote

 Science concerns mostly evidence based beliefs

That is a weird use of the word "belief". And it has nothing to do with faith (as the word is normally used). Is the problem that English is not your first language?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 23/07/2017 at 6:19 PM, Evgenia said:

How come a son of humanist could do it?

You seem to think it is because he was an atheist, and therefore amoral. No?

Quote

My point is, it would be much better if we do not let the atheists working in some branches of science. 

Do you think that religious people have never developed weapons? Or that none of the people working on the project were religious? Or that none had doubts and the ethical and moral implications of what they were doing?

Why do you think that the religious, who may have strong preconceived ideas based on their faith, would make better scientists?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, EdEarl said:

No, faith based beliefs are neither necessary nor desirable for the evolution of science. Scientists follow evidence to a rational conclusion.

Then what causes all those interpretations about quantum mechanics? If people only follow evidence then there should be only one model...

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Itoero said:

Then what causes all those interpretations about quantum mechanics? If people only follow evidence then there should be only one model...

I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but my impression is that we don't know everything, kind of like knowing your nephew's birthday is on a Wednesday in July, but you don't know the date. So, you look at the calendar and find out there are several Wednesday's in July, without having additional information you are stuck.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

I'm not an expert in quantum mechanics, but my impression is that we don't know everything, kind of like knowing your nephew's birthday is on a Wednesday in July, but you don't know the date. So, you look at the calendar and find out there are several Wednesday's in July, without having additional information you are stuck.

That seems logic yet to create a new model in physics people use mostly math  and logic...it requires faith to believe a model shows reality before the model is proven. Why would you create a model if you don't have faith it  will 'work'?

When you for example create a therapy to treat a disease then you need to have faith it will work until it's proven to work.

a synonym for faith is trust

Link to post
Share on other sites

So you think someone just ferments an idea from smoke and beer breath, then if they have enough faith or believe hard enough they can force the math to work and their model will match reality? Science is not done that way.

It is more like the following: You are riding in a wagon pulled by an oxen, a horseman passes you at a gallop. You wonder, "How much sooner will that horseman arrive at Ye Olde Inn, ahead?" So, you measure how fast an ox walks, how fast a horse runs, and how far it is to the inn. Then, you try to find an equation that fits your data and is also capable of predicting how much sooner the horse will arrive. Then, you test the equation with various distances and expected arrival times. If your equation works, great; otherwise, try try again. It may be necessary to try, try again hundreds, thousands, millions, or billions of times.

Occasionally, an accident occurs and is seen as new science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Itoero said:

Then what causes all those interpretations about quantum mechanics? If people only follow evidence then there should be only one model...

There IS only one model. 

The different interpretations are just analogies to explain (interpret) that model in human terms. 

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Itoero said:

That seems logic yet to create a new model in physics people use mostly math  and logic...it requires faith to believe a model shows reality before the model is proven. Why would you create a model if you don't have faith it  will 'work'?

When you for example create a therapy to treat a disease then you need to have faith it will work until it's proven to work.

a synonym for faith is trust

That isn't faith. You need to buy a dictionary. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, EdEarl said:

So you think someone just ferments an idea from smoke and beer breath, then if they have enough faith or believe hard enough they can force the math to work and their model will match reality? Science is not done that way.

No.

You use logic and math to create a new model. It requires faith to believe the model will work/show reality. You can't know your model works until it's proven somehow.

Edited by Itoero
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Strange said:

That isn't faith. You need to buy a dictionary. 

 

1 minute ago, Itoero said:

It requires faith to believe the model will work/shows reality.

Once more, that's not faith. That's trust.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Itoero said:

a synonym for faith is trust

You can trust something that has been tested. With religious faith there is no testing of it allowed (probably because it fails so predictably so often).

I wouldn't say it is a synonym. They are similar but not exactly the same. To trust in something you have to believe it first...  to know it has been tried and tested. Maybe in some contexts you can use them synonymously, but not in all cases I don't think.

Edited by DrP
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Itoero said:

a synonym for faith is trust

A word isn't necessarily exactly the same as any of its synonyms: else why would the English language have such a diverse pool of words to choose from.

I agree that faith and trust both require us to believe something. The subtlety here is that faith compels us to believe something regardless of the evidence. Science asks us to believe something so long as it accords with the evidence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rather than argue whether faith and trust are synonyms, lets examine another quality of faith, the difference between blind faith and skeptical faith. When one has blind faith, the possibility of that person changing their mind is nearly nil. On the other hand, when one has skeptical faith (faith with some doubt) one is prepared to change their mind.

Scientists must be willing to change their mind about things; although, they sometimes they are stubborn and wrong, a characteristic of humanity that visits most people at least once in their lifetime. On the other hand, religion is taught as if it were absolute fact, and cannot change...blind faith. A scientist with blind faith will fail to be a scientist if he/she ignores evidence.

Edited by EdEarl
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, even if we use "faith" in the limited (and perverse) meaning of trust, then it is irrelevant because the thread is about the effect of religion on science. No one has said "trust is holding back science" so this entire discussion is a red herring, a strawman and off topic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion has slowed the advance of science, for example when Copernicus waited to publish his ideas about heliocentrism until the year of his death; although, he had developed it several decades before. And there were others.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess a case could be made (for a few specific issues) that religion had a negative effect in the past. 

However the OP's question is specifically framed in the presence tense. 

And, particularly as he can't be bothered to support his position with evidence, the answer still seems to be "of course not". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

China has roughly 4x population of the US; many are well educated, and China is investing heavily in science. They do not have a religious right that opposes science, they will quickly advance in science, which affects their military and economy, which will become the most powerful in the world.

I know, off topic, and may start a new thread if there are replies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Strange said:

I guess a case could be made (for a few specific issues) that religion had a negative effect in the past. 

However the OP's question is specifically framed in the presence tense. 

And, particularly as he can't be bothered to support his position with evidence, the answer still seems to be "of course not". 

Agree. Thank you for your opinion.

Talking about Copernicus, we should also admit the progress in Science in past times was possible with a help of monasteries as they had libraries and were connected so much with universities. 

In the modern times i can also remember some scientific projects which are sponsored by Church.

But still, for me it's not the evidence of anything. To say religious people stop science is equal to say fat people stop science just because some of fat people were against of genetics.

It's better not to continue a battle religion versus science, but to develop the cooperation as there are some very talented priests who can support a lot of scientific iniatives we need to discover. Cyborg human rights, producing of advanced people with bio materials etc. All this topics are needed to be analyzed by them cause they have some abilities and knowledge

Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious opposition to science includes "Creationism," which is well organized and not at all similar to a few fat people against genetics. Creationists occupy positions on School Boards and try to pervert science education in public schools, which eventually leads to court cases that cost taxpayers millions. A better analogy than a fat person is the Quaker community, who oppose modern technology and use older, horse and buggy, technology. Quakers are a minority culture within the world. If Creationists managed to take over a state, the remainder of the world would continue to progress scientifically, and the Creationist culture would be left behind as a minority culture. The progress of science seems to be a powerful movement among humans, and if we develop conscious artificial intelligence, the progress of science seems inevitable.

Edited by EdEarl
Creationists are 21st century Quakers.
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are confusing the Quakers with the Amish. Unless US Quakers are very different from Europe. 

I agree that creationists are, potentially, a danger. But by themselves they have no real power. It is when politicians collude with them that there is a real risk. 

In fact, there are probably as many examples of political interference with science as religious. Lysenkoism, for example. 

Edited by Strange
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.