Religion and Science

The basic premise I will attempt to express in this post is that science's positives are obvious, while its negatives are shrouded and that religions positives are shrouded, while its negatives are obvious. To begin it is necessary to give some sort of definition of what science and religion do. Science is the study of what happens in the material universe by dissecting it and probing it. Religion seeks answers to truths hidden by the obscurity of existence. In their very nature they display the qualities of what they seek and do. This is not to discuss scientists like Einstein and Darwin, but typical scientists, those whose names don't line history books or only do so for people who study a particular field. The former are more of mathematical and logical philosophers than scientists from this author's point of view. Scientists are the ones who send a rocket to the moon, who trace the path of the Higgs boson, who invent complicated MRI machines. They discover what the universe consists of and how we can harness its energy and structure to our advantage (or perceived advantage). These advantages of science are right in front of us, we drive cars, run A/Cs, and store food in refrigerators. But, what about the use of resources on Earth, what about the standard of living that knows no bounds, what about the unimaginable carnage of war. There is something that drives human beings, science can attempt to address such a complex issue, but inevitably fails because of the mindset behind science. The mindset is we can create enough tools to eventually conquer nature herself (think about the desire for immortality through medicine--to fight disease until it is eradicated, predators until they are gone, illnesses until they can be cured, old age until we live longer and longer). The problem with religion is obvious, it can blind people to not see other's points of view, to separate humanity from the animals and other humans, and fool people into false (and potentially harmful) beliefs. But it also has the potential to answer the question of what drives humanity. It can lead us to appreciate what we have and not want more, to believe in other people, and to live in harmony. Science is a powerful tool and religion a powerful drug--if we make the drug so that we increase our happiness and use the tool to enhance that happiness, science and religion can work together to create a more unified and holistic world. That we have power over the world comes not just from our minds and bodies, but from our hearts and souls. Thus, religion is just as important, if not more than science, for we can take all of the coal from this Earth, but eventually it will run out. Only the unseen energy of our life force, where our being comes from, is destined to last.

Reason and Faith

When should one use Reason and when should one use Faith? Are they mutually exclusive? Contradictorily, can one exist without the other?

Reason is using one belief to justify another, while Faith is believing in something without proper justification. In this fashion if one is to believe the Moon is made of cheese, they can do so based on Faith or Reason. If they do so based on Faith, it is because they are seeking to base their system of knowledge on something. If they do so based on reason, it is because they believe in something that causes them to believe in something else. But, when do we know when to use Faith and when to use Reason? Consider the Moon example--it might be wrong to use Faith in this example, for the very reason it would be of no use because Reason dictates that it is probably not so. However, as a scientist, having Faith the Moon is made of the same stuff of Earth is a proper use of Faith, even if it is not conclusive. Once the matter has been resolved, it is based on Reason--this belief of a material Moon goes off of the evidence (other held beliefs), such as the interpretation of its appearance through a telescope. Now I would like to point to a common misperception about Faith in this regard, what the scientist believes in the first case (Faith in a material Moon) is the same as the Christian doctrine of Faith. That a scientist believes the world to be of a certain manner, namely regular, is to have this sort of Faith. A Christian's Faith can cause belief in things that are not rational, even highly unlikely in some cases, but it is of the same order. The second type, and this may even be trivial at some point is the belief that one can understand the world through their senses. This is a lower order of Faith because it requires no leap, there is only what considers natural. The question is how do Reason and the higher order of Faith correlate? To begin with one needs Faith in some system, whether it be morality, rationality, mysticism, personality, or any other sort of mode of believing. Once that is established you can use that system to derive other truths using Reason (the interplay of those Reasons developed from Faith and Reason). Faith is absolute (until Reason disrupts it) and Reason refines it to the situation. However this is not fair to still a higher order of Faith, different from belief in the world or how it works. This is Faith in people, and is often stated as Christian Faith--the belief that scientists are doing their job or the Pope is looking out for our best interest. While this may be helpful, I'm not very certain on it, but what makes it higher order than the first, that the world is such and second that it can be understood as such, is that it suggests we can influence how it is understood as such. Faith is the engine and Reason the wheel, brake, and gas pedal.

The Truth of a Falsity

The debate of realism and anti-realism is that between a system of directly observable truth and that of truth that is either beyond our grasp to understand or beyond our ability to describe and comprehend. To try to get a handle on this debate A.F. Chalmers invites us to consider a card--on one side it says 'the sentence on the other side of this card is true' and on the other it says 'the sentence on the other side of this card is false' - according to Chalmer's book What is this thing called Science pg. 211. What is the nature of this card, it is both false and true. It is false in the sense that what it utters is not consistent with our use of language when viewed on both sides. However it is true in the sense that it exists. A card exists that when read on both sides leads one to realize something paradoxical. What this shows about language is that language has limits in its correspondence to reality. Its limits are reached by the very fact that it is representational. When a person says, "I am hungry," they either do not understand their own appetite or they are hungry. However when a person is feeling hunger there is no truth or falsity in that feeling. They either do feel it or they don't. In the same way a person either feels like saying they're hungry or they do not feel like saying it. Truth value comes by how closely their language correspondence comes to the actual feeling of hunger. Thus there is a gap between truth and reality that would not be apparent in the eyes of realists. This gap is that there is the labeling of a particular concept (in this case feeling) with its linguistic counterpart, how well the description fits depends on several things, including the broadness and accuracy of the language and the capability of the speaker to utilize that language. To extend this to science, we cannot see those things which leave their signature marks of what we call, for instance, atoms and molecules. Thus we must make representations of them, much like that of language, which can either be accurate or inaccurate. If we use Einstein's equations sending a rover to Mars, then we can say his equations are accurate, if we send one to Alpha Centari--even more so. Likewise if they miss their target, they are inaccurate. But, even if we grant they are accurate, the reasons why they are accurate are not necessarily the reasons for them being accurate, but only a good justification. No matter how close science gets to perfect prediction, scientists will always flounder that their knowledge is based on some sort of representation of reality and not reality itself. Reality, like the card, is neither true nor false. It is only representations of reality that can either be true or false.

Neutrality and Justice--Taking Sides

Can a person be truly neutral? Would a person want to be neutral if they could? What is neutrality and why would one want to break from impartiality?

Neutrality seems to be the ability to look at a situation and judge the appropriateness of action based on who is in the right and not who you would like to be in the right. To be neutral on what is right and what is wrong is to be neutral on the conceptions of right and wrong, that is it is not because it is Christian, secular, philosophic, cultural, or individual--but because you have used your judgment to determine its validity. Being neutral requires putting yourself aside even if the situation you are judging puts you in an unfavorable light. One has to have no bias whatsoever. So even on reason itself one would have to be unbiased. If there is no reason, no morals, no sides--whatsoever, then there is obviously something wrong. With this, it seems pretty clear one would not want to be completely neutral. But, then what would one want to be? One would want to be just, that is to render the same judgement for one's brother as for a stranger. But then is that just? No, one would be compelled to treat one's brother with more consideration than a stranger. The reasons are many for the reader to consider and that I will not go into them. Can a person be truly neutral, probably not, would they want to--almost certainly not. A person would want to be neutral insofar as the actions one takes correspond to values that are not person specific. If it is the charge to not harm your enemy, then you will not harm any enemy. If it is the charge to be productive, then all should be productive. This seems to be what the impartiality part of justice is, to apply rules equally, so we shall take sides based on what we deem best and not on any other judgment. If you like this post take it with you, if you don't throw it away, it's just one man's opinion, inform yourself with good ones.