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

The thing about religion - as I keep saying - is that it holds that 'The-thing-responsible-for-creation-of-the-material-world' and 'The-thing-which-determines-what-is-right-and-wrong-and-shows-us-how-to-live-our-lives' are one and the same.

Now we lot, as (broadly speaking) scientists obviously have the upper hand when talking about how the material world works. But most people don't aren't interested in that and, beyond a few basics, have no reason to be. It's the second aspect that's relevant to most people's daily lives.

And science doesn't say anything about these questions. Does it? So why should the religious care what science has to say about creation?

>> why should the religious care what science has to say about creation? <<

I care ! I'm very interested in both.

I agree with Einstein about:
F19585?thread=6216891?thread=&latest=1#p74210489

>>I care ! I'm very interested in both.

And so am I. But my point is that religion has nothing to say about creation and science has nothing to say about how we should lead our lives. I understand that the religious regard these issues as one and the same. (True?). But I can understand that the creation part isn't at the forefront of most people's lives from day to day and so knocking down religion on creation (as we do here) doesn't impinge on wider religious beliefs.

I should add, though, that scientific knowledge *does*, in my opinion, dictate the philosophy that there are no 'natural moral laws'.

>science has nothing to say about how we should lead our lives. <

Yep that is true in terms of the dynamics of say of personal relationships. That's where Art such as eg film, novels has relevance for me in terms of expressing the complexities and conflicts of the emotional life. I certainly feel that has much more to say to me *personally* on such subjects, than the fictional ramblings of tens of centuries' old mythological, sexist, homophobic old male duffers.

Science can't even answer a simple question like 'What should I have for lunch?'

But then - the best that religions can offer is 'Not bacon'.

Of course, Einstein did not believe in an actual literal god.

What on earth does it matter what Einstein/Darwin etc did or did not believe? THe *only* reason they are important is for the discovery of scientific ideas that were subsequently proved to have validity within the *system of science* by many other people.

This cult of personality that the religious appear to hold significant is clearly of importance to them, much as they hold dear the authority of scriptural sayings of their prophets and man/gods etc.

Hi Ed,

>science has nothing to say about how we should lead our lives [...] scientific knowledge *does*, in my opinion, dictate the philosophy that there are no 'natural moral laws'.

But surely science can then at least say that attempting to lead our lives according to natural moral laws is futile? Science puts constraints on what philosophies are tenable, and therefore does influence morality (though of course it doesn't give a complete system of morality, or anything close).

Perhaps what I'm trying to say is that science can *inform* our moral choices, even if it can't make them for us? Indeed, I would go further and say that for many moral choices, a good decision cannot be made without an understanding of the science involved.

Gif

>science has nothing to say about how we should lead our lives [...] scientific knowledge *does*, in my opinion, dictate the philosophy that there are no 'natural moral laws'.<

Well, science can make one understand why people do things. It can also be used understand the outcomes of peoples actions much better than people sitting around trying to work out 'what god would say'.

:
Yeah - I that's pretty much what I'm trying to say. Science shows us that it's an impersonal universe and that humans are merely a happenstance outcome of evolution. So we have to look to something other than 'The Natural Order'. (even though science is the only game in town for telling us what the natural order is.)

Dottie:
Think about the easy example of 'What should I have for lunch?' first. Science - or at least, the scientific, empirical approach - can narrow down the sensible options by making predictions about the subsets of things that I am most likely, biologically and culturally, to enjoy. And maybe it can tell me what will make me least fat. But that's all, surely? Can it tell me whether soup or sandwiches are *better*?

And can science tell us whether - eg - a sexually repressed society in which many people are miserable is *worse* than the alternative? What's even the question here?

Note that I'm far from saying that religion has any answers on these topics. Other than 'Not a bacon sandwich, whether you'd like one or not.'

Hi Ed,

Well, surely science could answer questions like 'should I have genetically modified ham in my sandwich'.

Or at least, it could answer 'will it be dangerous / harmful to me / others / the world to have genetically modified ham.' Obviously it doesn't explain why doing something harmful is bad.

Gif

Calling me Dottie? You sound like Della! Who has reappeared on the iPM TfTD blog..first line of her post...a direct insult at me...nothing changes...anyway



Well, yes science probably could tell you the answer. When I say science I include carrying out statistical studies hence pull together a representative group of people from various societies and ask them elevant questions about how they feel that could have a bearing from sex etc.

The results could then be used, if statistically significantly different to give an idea of whether sexual repression is a good or bad thing.

Science is a tool to break down and examine things pyschology I would say uses scientific methods to find the general trends of how things affect what people do.

It doesn't have all the answers because like a computer it can only tell you an answer based on what you put into it.

But at least it has some basis...but isn't that how most conclusions are got...by analysis of evidence...unless it's religious conclusions when it is being straight from what a 2000+year old book says?

Apologies for the any insult. 'Dottie' was meant affectionately.

OK - but what about questions of selection between alternatives. Let's assume, for example, that the a sexually repressed society might make people frustrated in various ways but had the benefit of reinforcing stable family lives and hence providing people with strong support networks?

I'm not saying it *would* work that way - but that sort of argument is sometimes advanced. Leaving aside the issue of whether we could even test it scientifically...what does science offer to the choice between:
- Lots of fun when you're young
vs
- Someone to look after you in your old age?

Is that even remotely a scientific question?

>>Or at least, it could answer 'will it be dangerous / harmful to me / others / the world to have genetically modified ham.'

OK...but what if the negative consequence was (say) creation of a GM superbug that killed off all the world's pandas and the positive consequence was being able to feed a few more people?

Is 'No pandas' vs 'Fewer hungry people' a scientific question?

>>...what does science offer to the choice between:
- Lots of fun when you're young
vs
- Someone to look after you in your old age?

Is that even remotely a scientific question?<<

Sociology puts forward theories and analyses data about family units, different social systems, etc. The Stat. Analysis part of that could be called scientific and (although it is extremely difficult because of the size of the groups needed) the theories can be tested and technically reproduced, so there is probably an answer to your question out there somewhere..l.

I may have missed a bit in the thread (appols if so) but

"...what does science offer to the choice between:
- Lots of fun when you're young
vs
- Someone to look after you in your old age?

Is that even remotely a scientific question?"

is not a fully formed question. We could ask what demographic prefers which choice. And then use that information to inform our decisions. Or we could look at the effects of each on society and use that to inform us.

The question though is whether sociology is a real science. The problem being is that it deals with subjective data and rerunning the exact same experiment/trial may deliver different results.

Can the scientific method be used with subjective data? Yes, and that's why you have the statistical analysis and have to have good experiment design. But there are many out there that would argue it isn't.

Edward the Bonobo


From you I am sure it is…just makes me shiver!




Science is about answering questions in a structured way…the final outcome may well be and usual is a human decision but it allows all the variables to be pulled together and examined.

Even putting the pros and down on a piece of paper is scientific.

It removes as much as possible ‘gut reaction’…and as we know some gut reactions just throw up putrid rubbish.

I agree that science (including Sociology) can *inform* the answer - eg...'Does increased sexual licence reduce family cohesion?'

But what I'm saying is that the *question* - which boils down to which choice will deliver greater net happiness - isn't scientific. It's a complicated, messy matter of human preference.

When I shared a house with a seminarian - ooh, mumblemumble years ago - he was being lectured on 'The Dangers of Scientism' - which W***pedia handily defines for us:
'The term scientism is used to describe the view that natural science has authority over all other interpretations of life, such as philosophical, religious, mythical, spiritual, or humanistic explanations'

Now obviously he was being taught this with the agenda that religion - specifically the Catholic religion - has something to add. But leaving religion aside - as I'm more than happy to do - I lioke that 'humanistic' at the end.

I'd say that some questions aren't tractable to science. They're a matter of individual and collective human preference.

What can science tell me about whether I'd prefer soup or a sandwich for lunch?

>They're a matter of individual and collective human preference.
And what informs that? Either it is the human brain in all its complexity in which case the scientific method can be used to investigate these questions OR we get into some sort of dualism and 'other ways of knowing' type stuff.

>What can science tell me about whether I'd prefer soup or a sandwich
>for lunch?
At the moment? Just a relative prediction based on past choices and statistical probability. One day? It could tell you because your preference comes from your brain and that it seems is amenable to investigation by the scientific method.

You preference does not come out of nowhere. Certain pathways and chemicals have been used in coming to that decision. If we know those pathways we can model and predict your choices.