The CyberPhilosopher

I sometimes hear people talk about science being someones religion; a point which I generally am quick to disagree with and pounce on, but I recently decided to give it further consideration.

First, we must determine what we mean by science and what we mean by religion. In both definitions, we will no doubt find much disagreement and, in the end, any conclusions will only be as valuable as our understanding and agreement to the propositions taken as truth (of course, this is no different than any other topic under discussion).

A complete definition of science and religion can take up chapters in books and still not be complete, so I’ll assume some high level idea for now. First, Religion is a system of belief which provides a foundation of morality and value judgments. Religion also must contain a supernatural component, or not be Naturalistic (empirical) in its doctrine. Science, is a system of understand which limits itself to natural phenomena, and imposes the conditions that any theory must be both testable and falsifiable. Religion does not require that all the beliefs be falsifiable as science does.

So, who cares? Well, I’ll come back to that.

I will admit that there are individuals, certain scientists, that make a religion out of a scientific belief. This occurs not when they say that they believe in a theory, but when evidence continues to mount that the theory is incorrect and they refuse to acknowledge it. I want to stress here that at this point, a scientist is NOT PRACISING SCIENCE! They have, instead, grasped onto a ontological belief system that has shown itself, based on all evidence, to not exist in the naturalistic system, despite their insistence that it does.

But why accept a naturalistic belief system to begin with? I mean, I love evolution, I agree with it, evidence from everything I have read and studied supports it completely. I know that there is actually not a single hole in the theory. But, why should I, or anyone else care? That is the question that I think is far more important then trying to convince someone that the world is more than 6000 years old.

Lets take as fact, for only a second if you are of a different opinion than myself, that Evolution is correct, and that live has been evolving for as far back as live has been. Why doesn’t everyone accept it and move on? I think the answer can be found the philosophical idea of evolution itself.

True, our primate brain is not designed to understand certain grand ideas and themes, but this isn’t a failing, its just that there has not been a real need to understand it. In fact, for the vast majority of people on this planet there is still no need to understand it. As amazed as I am when I read some strange thing about Quantum Physics or a wacky implication of Special Relativity, I tell these things to members of my family and get strange looks. That knowledge, for most people, means nothing.

Now, Physics has had positive effects on society, and there are tools that we have that we could not have without the understanding now have if these disciplines didn’t exist. But Evolution gives us nothing but a factual understanding about our past, at least at first glance.

If I learn something, and it gives me joy, than that is a good thing. But if it doesn’t help me to do better in life and spread my genes, or my families (extended families meaning Human count here) then they are of interest, but no impact. Physics may destroy us, but also may save us. Biology and Medicine are similar. Evolutionary Biology is mind candy.

I know people that point to Evolution and Science as their new narrative, or replacement for religion. I think that this is both foolish and inaccurate (unsurprisingly they have not really changed their morals or values or even actions from what they had when they were theists). Its inaccurate because science is descriptive, not proscriptive. Science describes the facts of the universe and how it is, not how things aught to be. They are living the Is-Aught fallacy.

Now, our values may be a product of evolution, but evolution only describes how they got here, not where they, or we should go. There may be a framework that is in our psyche which evolutionary changes shaped, and in fact provided us with a better chance of surviving, but that framework is here now and understanding where it came from 100,000 years ago and beyond does not help us address the individual questions of life.

Lets take an example. Game Theory shows that a strategy of cooperation with individuals leads to a better chance of winning than a selfish strategy. Furthermore, when rules of who the cooperation should be with (people that have not screwed you over in the past verses people who have) we find the apparent best consistent strategy that one can follow. Well, this is just plain common sense. I wonder if anyone has ever heard this and went, “Oh, really? Wow.. I would have thought that being a jerk all the time and looking out for number 1 would have worked better in a society where people talk”. My point is that is is clear why we have this mentality, it works. But we can understand what to do without going so far as to look at evolution principles.

But there is a very good reason to look at science, and things like Evolutionary Theory (theory in the scientific sense, not the popular sense). It is to filter out bad ideas.

5000 years ago, thinking that a God would be angry with you if you ate of the rotting flesh that had been out in the open for 5 days because that is for the Insects to eat would be a good survival instinct. It provides a rule for you to live by and provides a way of informing others in your group of the things not to do (we tend to want to hear a reason to the question why before we will take heed). But when factual evidence presents itself, in contradiction to a belief system, that new information describes better the world we live in. It may do nothing to indicate how we should act, but it can give better ideas of how we should not act. The theory of Evolution allows us to filter out false beliefs and challenges us to come up with new ones.

I don’t believe in a God, but I see no issue at all with people that do. There is nothing in science that makes a god an impossibility, so if someone feels the belief gives their life meaning, not only do I think its fine, it may be fulfilling some purpose which is why we have evolved into creatures that do have such beliefs.

But if your beliefs are in contradiction to the facts, then they are potentially dangerous as they are not based in reality. And believing in just facts can be potentially dangerous as well!. I’ll write about that later.