The new priests, popular scientists

[Quantum Windbag]

I put this in the CDZ because I want people to think before they respond.

This is not a gripe about science being a religion, it is about scientists who, instead of teaching science, try to give the impression that science is capable of subsuming the sense of worship that religion creates. We should not be worshiping science, or the people that explain it to us.

Wonders of the Solar System; Wonders of the Universe; and, this year, Wonders of Life. Brian Cox stands misty-eyed on a cliff top everywhere I look. He has a chilled-out air for someone with such a busy filming schedule.

Instructions to appreciate the wonder of science are everywhere. There's the Wonder season organised jointly by the Barbican and the Wellcome Trust which starts tomorrow; the Science Museum's World Wonders Trail; the parliamentary select committee report on introducing wonder to the national curriculum; and the 2011 TED conference titled The Rediscovery of Wonder. But am I alone in finding this cheerleading problematic?

It's ironic that the public engagement with the science crowd is so pro-wonder, because they're so anti-religion. "All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation," writes Richard Dawkins. "And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe – almost worship – this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide."

"I'm an atheist," said maths professor Marcus du Sautoy when he took up the Charles Simonyi chair in the public understanding of science at Oxford. "But for me the important thing is the wonder of science." Advocates for science can't seem to give up on religion's selling points: the awe, transcendence, and worship.

The crucial question, though, is who is doing the worshipping. Cox and co make much of their own humility in the face of natural marvels. They express wonder and we are meant to follow suit.But it's too easy for the meekness we feel in the face of extraordinary facts to blur into deference towards popular scientists themselves, with their public profile and their privileged access to those facts. Like priests, they occupy an elevated position in relation to the phenomena they admire. While putting on a good show of being amazed, they function as powerful gatekeepers to a mystical beyond. Cox may not look like a boffin, but it's telling that he's always called professor.

The rhetoric of wonder is all about encouraging participation. But this infantilising power dynamic is not conducive to confident involvement or critical inquiry. It creates an inaccessible aura around science which has little to do with the everyday practicalities of what goes on in labs. Science is essential to our world, but like looking after children, the nitty-gritty is often prosaic and incremental. In its evangelical, popular guise, science becomes a matter not of reality or scepticism but of anti-intellectual reverence. All we can say in response is, wow.

Prof Brian Cox: physicist or priest? | Eliane Glaser

 

[TheOldSchool]

Some scientists, and Richard Dawkins is a great example, take worship of science to an extreme. Science has brought us wonderful innovations, helped solve a lot of problems, and will continue to help us solve further problems in the future. My profession is all about adhering to evidence and using science rather than belief to find answers.

But there are an infinite number of questions for which science will never answer. And there is as much awe and wonder in that as the scientists in the OP claim are in the sciences they study.

I think for practical purposes science should be given much more weight than religion in many areas, otherwise God would not have allowed for it to exist in the first place. But I also think it would be a sad existence to believe that everything can be explained or that there is no purpose to what we are all here for.

I'm loosely tied to the Christian faith, and while I don't fully practice it I respect it and could see getting more involved in it as the years pass. And anyways that's my take on the matter.

 

[oldernwiser]

So, the question seems to be "Is religion relevant today"?

Personally, I believe that it's only as relevant as you want it to be. There are certainly quite a few scientists that hold to religious views - even Einstein was convinced and tried to verify the existence of a creator.

Religion is about faith, science is about proof. There's no logical way to reconcile one against the other. IMO, there's no room for religion in science.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, the question seems to be "Is religion relevant today"?

Personally, I believe that it's only as relevant as you want it to be. There are certainly quite a few scientists that hold to religious views - even Einstein was convinced and tried to verify the existence of a creator.

Religion is about faith, science is about proof. There's no logical way to reconcile one against the other. IMO, there's no room for religion in science.

That does not seem to be the question at all. There are, quite literally, billions of people on this planet who believe in a religion in one form or another. No one who is capable of thinking would deny that religion, at both its best and its worst, is relevant.

The question is, why do atheist insist on subsuming the role of religion?

By the way, if you think science is not about trust, and that religion is not about evidence, you don't understand either one of them.

 

[oldernwiser]

So, the question seems to be "Is religion relevant today"?

Personally, I believe that it's only as relevant as you want it to be. There are certainly quite a few scientists that hold to religious views - even Einstein was convinced and tried to verify the existence of a creator.

Religion is about faith, science is about proof. There's no logical way to reconcile one against the other. IMO, there's no room for religion in science.

That does not seem to be the question at all. There are, quite literally, billions of people on this planet who believe in a religion in one form or another. No one who is capable of thinking would deny that religion, at both its best and its worst, is relevant.

The question is, why do atheist insist on subsuming the role of religion?

By the way, if you think science is not about trust, and that religion is not about evidence, you don't understand either one of them.

I didn't say that religion doesn't have some form of evidence - I was quite deliberate about that. But science has it's own set of rules which require independent proofs before it becomes accepted. The big bang theory is just one example of that - even though there is a mountain of evidence that suggests creation in a single instant, there is still no proof and still remains just a theory.

On the other hand, people on this planet have held many different spiritual beliefs for longer than there is a recorded history of those beliefs. They tend to change from civilization to civilization, and have ranged from the worship of the planet, stars, multiple deities, single deities, animals, and plants. There was a time when a man was called "god". On the face of that, how can anyone not question the reality or relevance of religion?

To my mind, you can be spiritual and scientific as spirituality requires wonder and awe and the need for better understanding. You can not be "religious" and scientific, because that simply assigns the things you can't understand to some grand creator in conformance with what other people think at that point in our evolution. Many people have believed many different things throughout history - which of them were right? Any?

I consider myself to be spiritual. I also don't happen to ascribe to the notion of an all-powerful creator.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So, the question seems to be "Is religion relevant today"?

Personally, I believe that it's only as relevant as you want it to be. There are certainly quite a few scientists that hold to religious views - even Einstein was convinced and tried to verify the existence of a creator.

Religion is about faith, science is about proof. There's no logical way to reconcile one against the other. IMO, there's no room for religion in science.

That does not seem to be the question at all. There are, quite literally, billions of people on this planet who believe in a religion in one form or another. No one who is capable of thinking would deny that religion, at both its best and its worst, is relevant.

The question is, why do atheist insist on subsuming the role of religion?

By the way, if you think science is not about trust, and that religion is not about evidence, you don't understand either one of them.

I didn't say that religion doesn't have some form of evidence - I was quite deliberate about that. But science has it's own set of rules which require independent proofs before it becomes accepted. The big bang theory is just one example of that - even though there is a mountain of evidence that suggests creation in a single instant, there is still no proof and still remains just a theory.

You were?

I must have missed it when you said science is about proof and religion is about faith, which is why I deliberately used different words in my response.

The thing is, science is never about proof, science is about questions, and trying to find answers to those questions. Science always tests everything, even things that everyone knows is true. Taking your example of the big Bang, the real reason it is still a theory is no one can answer any of the questions they need to to defend it. It might be the best explanation of the evidence we have at the present, but until someone can answer the question about what triggered it it will remain nothing more than a belief system for science to build on.

Strangely enough, religion is also about asking questions and getting answers, they just ask different questions, and are a bit more willing to accept the premise that answers are not always available.

On the other hand, people on this planet have held many different spiritual beliefs for longer than there is a recorded history of those beliefs. They tend to change from civilization to civilization, and have ranged from the worship of the planet, stars, multiple deities, single deities, animals, and plants. There was a time when a man was called "god". On the face of that, how can anyone not question the reality or relevance of religion?

Are you trying to tell me that science has always been just the way it is now? That it hasn't changed over time, and even from culture to culture? I sincerely hope you are not saying that, because it would ruin what promised to be a halfway interesting conversation.

To my mind, you can be spiritual and scientific as spirituality requires wonder and awe and the need for better understanding. You can not be "religious" and scientific, because that simply assigns the things you can't understand to some grand creator in conformance with what other people think at that point in our evolution. Many people have believed many different things throughout history - which of them were right? Any?

Freeman Dyson might disagree with you about not being able to be religious and scientific.

Like I said before, you seem to lack a fundamental understand of both religion and science.

I consider myself to be spiritual. I also don't happen to ascribe to the notion of an all-powerful creator.

Being spiritual, not religious, is a complete cop out, no more legitimate than a person who has a degree and scorns education. It is also a whole different discussion.

 

[newpolitics]

So, the question seems to be "Is religion relevant today"?

Personally, I believe that it's only as relevant as you want it to be. There are certainly quite a few scientists that hold to religious views - even Einstein was convinced and tried to verify the existence of a creator.

Religion is about faith, science is about proof. There's no logical way to reconcile one against the other. IMO, there's no room for religion in science.

Point of clarification: Einstein was a pantheist. He was a believer in Spinoza's god, also known as the 'god of atheism,' called such because pantheism draws a complete equivalency with the natural universe. Ontologically, there is no difference between pantheism and atheism. So, basically, Einstein was an atheist. At the very least, he did not believe in the god of theism or deism.

 

[PaulS1950]

Science is about questions: FACT
Religion is about belief - faith: FACT

There are three religions (at least) that claim to have all the answers in their "holy texts".
The faithful believe this with such strength that they continue to believe it even when presented with over-welming evidence to the contrary. Religion has no room for discovery because the "word of God" is written for people to read.
In science everything is suspect. There are theories that were accepted as fact for decades and then overthrown when new evidence showed they were at least partially wrong. Science is filled with wonder and scientists spend most of their time wondering about the next step. They are not "priests" and they don't want to be viewed as such. They want to share the world - in all it's complexity and all the things that they are unsure of - with the rest of the world because it is remarkable! We have some idea of how stars for, live and die but every once in a while something unexpected happens in the process that causes more wonder.
Science does not, nor do the scientists want it to, compete with religion. Science is about the physical world, while religion is about your spiritual health. Understanding the physical world is not something that religion does - or at least does well.
Keep the two separate and you will be fine. There are many religious scientist, men with great faith. Their work doesn't interfere with that faith anymore than the science explains faith.

 

[oldernwiser]

Science is about questions: FACT
Religion is about belief - faith: FACT

There are three religions (at least) that claim to have all the answers in their "holy texts".
The faithful believe this with such strength that they continue to believe it even when presented with over-welming evidence to the contrary. Religion has no room for discovery because the "word of God" is written for people to read.
In science everything is suspect. There are theories that were accepted as fact for decades and then overthrown when new evidence showed they were at least partially wrong. Science is filled with wonder and scientists spend most of their time wondering about the next step. They are not "priests" and they don't want to be viewed as such. They want to share the world - in all it's complexity and all the things that they are unsure of - with the rest of the world because it is remarkable! We have some idea of how stars for, live and die but every once in a while something unexpected happens in the process that causes more wonder.
Science does not, nor do the scientists want it to, compete with religion. Science is about the physical world, while religion is about your spiritual health. Understanding the physical world is not something that religion does - or at least does well.
Keep the two separate and you will be fine. There are many religious scientist, men with great faith. Their work doesn't interfere with that faith anymore than the science explains faith.

And that just brings me back to the question of relevance again. Religion is NOT relevant in science - it's not even so much of a guiding force as it used to be. On the other hand science IS relevant to religion, since clinging to outmoded ideals tends to depopularize the support base. And, unlike science, religions need to gather popular support in order to carry their message.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is about questions: FACT
Religion is about belief - faith: FACT

There are three religions (at least) that claim to have all the answers in their "holy texts".
The faithful believe this with such strength that they continue to believe it even when presented with over-welming evidence to the contrary. Religion has no room for discovery because the "word of God" is written for people to read.
In science everything is suspect. There are theories that were accepted as fact for decades and then overthrown when new evidence showed they were at least partially wrong. Science is filled with wonder and scientists spend most of their time wondering about the next step. They are not "priests" and they don't want to be viewed as such. They want to share the world - in all it's complexity and all the things that they are unsure of - with the rest of the world because it is remarkable! We have some idea of how stars for, live and die but every once in a while something unexpected happens in the process that causes more wonder.
Science does not, nor do the scientists want it to, compete with religion. Science is about the physical world, while religion is about your spiritual health. Understanding the physical world is not something that religion does - or at least does well.
Keep the two separate and you will be fine. There are many religious scientist, men with great faith. Their work doesn't interfere with that faith anymore than the science explains faith.

If there are religions that were not created by a pulp science fiction author that claim to have all the answers I have never heard of it. Your mistaken understanding of what religions teach based on the fact that people "ignore" what you personally consider to be over whelming evidence has no basis in reality. The fact is that public schools don't teach science because most teachers don't understand it, so, unless someone actually takes the time to learn in their own, they are never presented with that evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is about questions: FACT
Religion is about belief - faith: FACT

There are three religions (at least) that claim to have all the answers in their "holy texts".
The faithful believe this with such strength that they continue to believe it even when presented with over-welming evidence to the contrary. Religion has no room for discovery because the "word of God" is written for people to read.
In science everything is suspect. There are theories that were accepted as fact for decades and then overthrown when new evidence showed they were at least partially wrong. Science is filled with wonder and scientists spend most of their time wondering about the next step. They are not "priests" and they don't want to be viewed as such. They want to share the world - in all it's complexity and all the things that they are unsure of - with the rest of the world because it is remarkable! We have some idea of how stars for, live and die but every once in a while something unexpected happens in the process that causes more wonder.
Science does not, nor do the scientists want it to, compete with religion. Science is about the physical world, while religion is about your spiritual health. Understanding the physical world is not something that religion does - or at least does well.
Keep the two separate and you will be fine. There are many religious scientist, men with great faith. Their work doesn't interfere with that faith anymore than the science explains faith.

And that just brings me back to the question of relevance again. Religion is NOT relevant in science - it's not even so much of a guiding force as it used to be. On the other hand science IS relevant to religion, since clinging to outmoded ideals tends to depopularize the support base. And, unlike science, religions need to gather popular support in order to carry their message.

Everything is relevant to science.

 

[Bill Angel]

I didn't say that religion doesn't have some form of evidence - I was quite deliberate about that. But science has it's own set of rules which require independent proofs before it becomes accepted. The big bang theory is just one example of that - even though there is a mountain of evidence that suggests creation in a single instant, there is still no proof and still remains just a theory.

I'm perplexed by your characterization of the Big Bang as "just a theory".
Theory doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.

 

[PaulS1950]

In order for a "Scientific Theory" to become a fact it has to be proven for all possible situations. The theory of reletivity has been shown to be true in every way it was tested in the real world but it can't deal with the quantum world. It has replaced the Newtonian theory of gravity though which was proven wrong - at least inaccurate in some situations.
Gravity does not exist as a force - reletivity states that it is an effect of curved space-time. Since mass curves space-time the effect we see was at first thought to ba associated with mass and distance but that was shown to leave the mathmeticians with errors when plotting the orbit of Mercury. The numbers reached using the relativity theory made accurate and reliable prediction of the orbit.

The biggest problem with the "Big Bang theory isthat we have no way to see what took place and what existed before to cause it. Even though it is largely accepted as fact - as far as it goes - it will remain a theory - just like reletivity and evolution.

 

[oldernwiser]

I didn't say that religion doesn't have some form of evidence - I was quite deliberate about that. But science has it's own set of rules which require independent proofs before it becomes accepted. The big bang theory is just one example of that - even though there is a mountain of evidence that suggests creation in a single instant, there is still no proof and still remains just a theory.

I'm perplexed by your characterization of the Big Bang as "just a theory".
Theory doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.

It's a model that's being used, yes. Unlike religion, just because a theory is widely accepted doesn't necessarily move it into the realm of fact. It's still a theory because, as yet, no one can offer incontrovertible evidence that that particular event was the moment where our universe began. Even science is unable to prove that the universe has a physical beginning and not a theological one.

The defining term here is "proof".

 

[PaulS1950]

There is a lot of evidence that the "Big Bang" happened. There is no "proof" and likely never will be. Nobody was there filming it for "news at eleven". Even if it was proven that the "Big Bang" started our universe the scientists would still be asking what was its cause - what was before? How did it happen? Does it happen in other places or dimentions?
That is what science is all about - questions of how, when, why and where. Questions that would lable you as a heritic if you asked questions like them in Bible study.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't say that religion doesn't have some form of evidence - I was quite deliberate about that. But science has it's own set of rules which require independent proofs before it becomes accepted. The big bang theory is just one example of that - even though there is a mountain of evidence that suggests creation in a single instant, there is still no proof and still remains just a theory.

I'm perplexed by your characterization of the Big Bang as "just a theory".
Theory doesn’t mean “just someone’s opinion.” Theories can be completely speculative, absolutely well-established, or just plain wrong; the Big Bang model is absolutely well-established.

The Big Bang Theory might be well established, but that is not because there is an abundance of evidence supporting it. It was the default after we discovered cosmic background radiation, but there are a lot of problems with it, and it will probably fall apart if we ever figure out quantum mechanics.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a lot of evidence that the "Big Bang" happened. There is no "proof" and likely never will be. Nobody was there filming it for "news at eleven". Even if it was proven that the "Big Bang" started our universe the scientists would still be asking what was its cause - what was before? How did it happen? Does it happen in other places or dimentions?
That is what science is all about - questions of how, when, why and where. Questions that would lable you as a heritic if you asked questions like them in Bible study.

The biggest problem with the Big Bang Theory is, quite frankly, dark matter. The observable universe does not fit any possible model of the what would happen if the Big Bang is true, so we have been inventing things to make it work. Sooner or later we are going to have to switch to a new model.

 

[oldernwiser]

There is a lot of evidence that the "Big Bang" happened. There is no "proof" and likely never will be. Nobody was there filming it for "news at eleven". Even if it was proven that the "Big Bang" started our universe the scientists would still be asking what was its cause - what was before? How did it happen? Does it happen in other places or dimentions?
That is what science is all about - questions of how, when, why and where. Questions that would lable you as a heritic if you asked questions like them in Bible study.

The biggest problem with the Big Bang Theory is, quite frankly, dark matter. The observable universe does not fit any possible model of the what would happen if the Big Bang is true, so we have been inventing things to make it work. Sooner or later we are going to have to switch to a new model.

Yes Bags... and there's the point of the discussion again. Religion requires unquestioning faith. Science is mutable, and able to sustain a direct hit to popular thinking. Nothing is written on stone tablets.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

There is a lot of evidence that the "Big Bang" happened. There is no "proof" and likely never will be. Nobody was there filming it for "news at eleven". Even if it was proven that the "Big Bang" started our universe the scientists would still be asking what was its cause - what was before? How did it happen? Does it happen in other places or dimentions?
That is what science is all about - questions of how, when, why and where. Questions that would lable you as a heritic if you asked questions like them in Bible study.

The biggest problem with the Big Bang Theory is, quite frankly, dark matter. The observable universe does not fit any possible model of the what would happen if the Big Bang is true, so we have been inventing things to make it work. Sooner or later we are going to have to switch to a new model.

Yes Bags... and there's the point of the discussion again. Religion requires unquestioning faith. Science is mutable, and able to sustain a direct hit to popular thinking. Nothing is written on stone tablets.

Science is so mutable that scientists, when presented with the incontrovertible fact that the Big Bang theory falls apart when we compare it to the actual universe, they invent something that is completely undetectable so that they don't have to come up with a new theory.

 

[oldernwiser]

The biggest problem with the Big Bang Theory is, quite frankly, dark matter. The observable universe does not fit any possible model of the what would happen if the Big Bang is true, so we have been inventing things to make it work. Sooner or later we are going to have to switch to a new model.

Yes Bags... and there's the point of the discussion again. Religion requires unquestioning faith. Science is mutable, and able to sustain a direct hit to popular thinking. Nothing is written on stone tablets.

Science is so mutable that scientists, when presented with the incontrovertible fact that the Big Bang theory falls apart when we compare it to the actual universe, they invent something that is completely undetectable so that they don't have to come up with a new theory.

Really?

Well, I suppose it's a little better than condemning someone to eternal damnation for even posing the question, right?

See there's enforcement behind religion - believe as we believe or suffer excommunication, damnation, or even execution.

If there's disagreement among scientists, they all go off trying to prove their own theories. If the logic and reasoning behind the initial theory is sound, they eventually come back to it after learning more about the subject. No one gets stoned for believing differently than the norm - at least as long as politics is kept out of the process. Both acceptance and non-acceptance of a theory comes with logic and reason which are not absolute and are open for interpretation and even modification. This can't be said for religion.