h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

P-c

I think that depends a bit on the religion (and the believer) but I grant you it was bordering on being insulting. Must remember to apply different tar brushes to different situations ...

Hello Solnushka,

"In the sense of a) providing a sort of first hypothesis to be proved gloriously wrong, b) providing scientists with a burning desire to prove it all wrong and c) providing a body of people who are frequently willing to refuse to believe in the findings of science."

I must admit I hadn't considered that angle. I like that - in the same way that war is a great driver of technological progress you suggest that the conflict pushes the protaganists to develop their case? Pity about point C ...
The argument is slightly weakened by scientists who are also very religious but it makes sense to me.

Nothing wrong with pop science; the description you gave matches what I have heard. The comparison was with the Chinese polytheistic view where inductive science never really caught on.

F

I wasn't as bothered about that: it's just plain wrong when applied to the average believer in the Real World. [As we agree, there *are* those who.... ]

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The scientists who are religious fit into the catagory of those who are inspired to furthur understand the universe we live in by their interest in a religion whose raison d'etre (however that's spelt: I _know_ I pronounce it wrong) is to provide an explaination of the universe we live in. Obviously.

Trouble is, Pattern-chaser, I'm not a believer any more, so can hold whatever views on the subject I like...

Solnushka:
"Trouble is, Pattern-chaser, I'm not a believer any more, so can hold whatever views on the subject I like..."

I would have thought that as a non-believer you would hold whatever views seem to fit the evidence. IMHO it is the believers who hold the views that they LIKE.

F

<...it is the believers who hold the views that they LIKE>

IMO (and I note your smiley, signalling a light-hearted point being made ) we ALL hold the views we like. This was a hard discovery for me. We come up with all kinds of justifications and rationalisations, but the bottom line is that we all hold the views we like. Even the most hard-headed don't-believe-in-anything scientific objectivists.

Just my

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Solnushka,

Reading about your view on scientists and faith, do you think it matters that a scientist believes in God if he's sitting in a lab studying crystal allignments or the speed at which a galaxy moves?

I can understand being hesitant to invite a hard-core "the Earth is 10,000 years old" believer to dig out Olduvai gorge or something along those lines, but I can't think that it should matter SO much what a scientist believes too much of the time?

I don't believe it matters much if a scientist believes in God (or astrology or alien abductions for that matter) in any case.

Scientists do not work in isolation - even those that work alone are part of the 'body of science'. If they make and publish a discovery it does not simply get accepted and written up in the 'Encyclopedia of Science'. All discoveries are tested by other scientists, either literally by other teams repeating the experiments or, where this is hard to do, by comparison with currently accepted theories. If the discovery is a departure from what is already known; if for example it contradicts a known law of physics, it will attract a lot of further investigation. If the result stands up to this investigation it will eventually be accepted into the standard model. If it does not it will be shelved as an anomaly, probably indefinately or until an explanation of how this anomalous result occurred.

Scientists are only human. There is a process within science which aims to reduce the effect of the subjective views of the scientists and leave only the objective results of science. This process is called peer review. A recent example would be that of 'cold fusion'. Pons and Fleischman were so excited by the results of their early experiments (and who wouldn't be) that they published them in the media instead of going through the normal peer review process of publishing in the scientific journals. When other researchers were unable to duplicate their results they were discredited. However, although 'scientific opinion' is that they were mistaken, some work is still being quietly carried out on their palladium elecctrodes.

F

I was thinking more about religion or lack of it as one motivating force (among many) rather than anything else, I think. I'd say that generally I'd agree with Fathom in fact. Even down to the problem of allowing your beliefs/ hopes to predidice your results. As might be the problem with the 'the Earth is 10 000 years old' chappie. If not, though, his drive to disproove accepted science might lead him to see something others haven't, even if it doesn't, in the end, disproove what he wants it to disproove.

Solnushka,

I think you have a point.

Researchers have different reasons for their professional motivation and some of these may not outwardly appear too professional. It could be a desire to emulate Star Trek, to find a cure for some disease they had watched someone close die of, or to disprove some theory which clashed with their religion. Whatever the reason, if it leads to new discoveries and adds to scientific knowledge why should we question the motive? The body of science will (eventually) discredit falsified or subjectively biased results and filter out the genuine discoveries.

The Nobel Prize acceptance speech may be a little strange though ...

F

Yes... In a sense 'science' is not interested in how individuals come up with their ideas, or why they choose to try to corroborate or falsify one hypothesis rather than another. It is interested in evidence that is testable and experiments that are repeatable.

You should not write in a scientific paper: "I am currently experiencing a sense of profound conviction that this hypothesis is true." Such a statement would be laughed at. But that is not to say that it couldn't be a true statement.

Of course one problem is that journalists, civil servants and politicians are interested in the convictions of scientists, as these tend to go further and thus appear more useful than their well-corroborated hypotheses. This explains the poor quality of reporting of science, and of political action "on scientific advice".

Yes, I agree with what's been said. The motive for doing the research really doesn't matter - *unless* that motive is so strong that it would lead a scientist to discard, ignore, or otherwise misinterpret experimental results. This *will* happen, as scientists are humans too , but not very often. I hope....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Einstein was wrong. In his quote the word 'religion' should be replaced with the word 'morality'. And there is some such a thing as Godless Morality. In fact a bishop wrote a book about it.

I've been reading some of Einstein's letters and speeches, and he explained what he meant by that statement. I'll hunt it down and put some of it here later, but he was very clear that by religion he didn't mean any organized religion or God in the sense that most people think of God. He was using the word religion to encompass all those things that science isn't suited for exploring, and morality and ethics are only a part of what he meant by religion.

Then Einstein has my ever-lasting respect.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Huh?

"Science without [all those things science is unsuited to explain] is lame, [all those things science is unsuited to explain] without science is blind."

Given that the set of things science is unsuited to explain is not empty, the set of things science is suited to explain is also not empty and the logical extension that the two sets have no common elements and encompass all there is: the original assertion of Einstein's is little more than a tautology.

Surely there is more to it than that?

F

AIUI, Einstein was pointing out - possibly to those who are so immersed in science that they can see little else? - that science is not a fit tool for the analysis of *all* knowledge. And I think there is also a little more: science needs a 'moral' sense just as religion needs, er, 'technical' input (if you see what I mean?). Hence:

Science without [a tool suitable to address all those things science is unsuited to explain] is lame, [a tool suitable to address all those things science is unsuited to explain] without science is blind.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I think you nutshelled that perfectly, PC.
Here's a motherlode of information. http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/einsci.htm#SCIENCE

From 'The World As I See It'
>>"The most beautiful experience we can have is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of true art and true science. Whoever does not know it and can no longer wonder, no longer marvel, is as good as dead, and his eyes are dimmed. It was the experience of mystery -- even if mixed with fear -- that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, our perceptions of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which only in their most primitive forms are accessible to our minds-- it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute true religiosity; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the kind that we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in nature." <<

From 'Science and Religion'
>>It is true that convictions can best be supported with experience and clear thinking. On this point one must agree unreservedly with the extreme rationalist. The weak point of his conception is, however, this, that those convictions which are necessary and determinant for our conduct and judgments cannot be found solely along this solid scientific way.

For the scientific method can teach us nothing else beyond how facts are related to, and conditioned by, each other. The aspiration toward such objective knowledge belongs to the highest of which man is capabIe, and you will certainly not suspect me of wishing to belittle the achievements and the heroic efforts of man in this sphere. Yet it is equally clear that knowledge of what is does not open the door directly to what should be. One can have the clearest and most complete knowledge of what is, and yet not be able to deduct from that what should be the goal of our human aspirations. Objective knowledge provides us with powerful instruments for the achievements of certain ends, but the ultimate goal itself and the longing to reach it must come from another source. And it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values. The knowledge of truth as such is wonderful, but it is so little capable of acting as a guide that it cannot prove even the justification and the value of the aspiration toward that very knowledge of truth. Here we face, therefore, the limits of the purely rational conception of our existence. <<

P-c,
That certainly makes more sense, which is why I asked the question.

MoG,
Good quotes - they seem to explain both sides of the statement rather well.

As a rationalist/scientist/atheist however I don't support the assertion: "it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values." simply because I don't believe our existence has any meaning.

F

P-c,
That certainly makes more sense, which is why I asked the question.

MoG,
Good quotes - they seem to explain both sides of the statement rather well.

As a rationalist/scientist/atheist however I don't support the assertion: "it is hardly necessary to argue for the view that our existence and our activity acquire meaning only by the setting up of such a goal and of corresponding values." simply because I don't believe our existence has any meaning.

F