[Spartacus]

It is a long good read. I had to re-read the first few paragraphs just to get my mental juices flowing.

http://www.science20.com/florilegium/sci...t_research

Some quotes to summarize for the TLR-ers.

"Decisions taken about the truth of statements seem mediated by emotional responses, with truth and falsehood eliciting respective feelings of pleasure and pain. This appears to be independent of the content of the statements and applies equally to natural and supernatural claims. This is an important step forward in understanding the neurology of belief. It also suggests that our lexical distinction between knowledge and belief may be much finer than we expected.

To the believer, the belief is knowledge, and the brain reinforces this through its pleasure circuits. The mutual incomprehension between religious believers and non-believers starts to make sense. But it also means that an individual's supposed rational internal dialogue is also subject to the same processes. A person's mental map of the universe may thus be deeply flawed and yet trying to change it is a painful process that few are willing to undergo – in some ways we are all addicted to our prejudices."

"These two research papers, however, suggest that both science and religion are mediated by beliefs that are reinforced by emotional circuitry. Essentially, both atheists and Christians believe they are right because it makes them feel good. But these experiments were conducted on discrete propositions – there is still a difference between their default states. "

[pTK]

I think you forget a key point. 

Millions upon millions of scientific evidence  vs hundreds of anomolies that can't be explained there for are divine.

Although this has no real effect on Science vs religion it does make a very strong statement in a social manner.  The crucial statement I believe is that humans are so fragile we need to believe in something. Even Athiests, need to believe in science which sort of constitutes as their religion. Not saying science is a religion but the question offered to us is wether or not it acts as a religion. 

I believe that it depends on the person. For some people it does and for others it doesn't.  It all depends on the person.  There are those who blindly believe science without understanding it. People like that, use science as their religion because claiming to know something without actually have any idea if it's true or not is exactly what religion is.

Very interesting and fun read spartacus. Thx

well, even tho, personally, i dont thoroughly understand all science, that doesnt make me a blind believer. science transcends language and culture, and its validity is verifiable by anyone able and willing to recreate the variables.

nobody knows what is true, whether it be religion or science. all scientific laws are theories: they get added, deleted and morphed as our knowledge expands. to me religion is truly blind faith, with all scriptures undergoing a myriad of interpretations as each individual sees fit, and still, in the end, each religious individual lay claim that their own interpretation irrevocably true.

i do agree that i put my faith in science because it conforts me. but its not that simple. i believe in science because my brain is wired in a way that i am not able to kid myself so-to-speak. also, i dont HAVE to believe in science, as if it is a religion, i just do. religious folks NEED religion, and they fall into religion for many different reasons... all seem to stem from either a molded upbringing, a driving fear of the "or else youll go to hell" complex (i just made that up btw ), or their personal experiences that they cannot explain, so they turn to religion for answers and get drawn in by the rhetoric.

i am content and very understanding of the fact that science cannot answer all my questions, and never will. this is unsettling to many who need, and strive to know the truth RIGHT NOW.

also, i disagree whole heartedly with this statement:

"in some ways we are all addicted to our prejudices."

if it was somehow made clear that everything in the bible was absolute truth, then i would be the first person to flip flop and i am confident that most scientists would be right by my side. but if somehow you made religionists aware than everything we know about science is completely accurate, you would not have such a turnover.

based off the reasons i delineated, to me, science could not be further removed from religion. furthermore, i feel that as a species, we are naturally predisposed to religion (science is much too cerebral). since the dawn of our species we have believed in the supernatural because there were many things we didnt understand, and many variables in our environment that we sought to control (but powerless to do so ourselves; weather, food sources, safety) because our very existence relied heavily on those variables. we're talking tens of thousands of years ago. the only thing that has changed is the direction of our prayers.

No, it isn't.  Science is about evidence.  Reproducible results.
We observe natural phenomena, theorize, attempt to prove it.
The primary component of any religion is faith.  Which means, belief that is not based on proof.
Religion is just stories people base their behavior on; fear of 'hell', promise of 'heaven'.  These sorts of beliefs about afterlife basically make all religious people selfish;  they behave decently because they expect a ticket to paradise in return... or if they do break their commandments/rules, then they're just hypocrites.
Religion holds back science.  During the dark ages, 'the church' withheld previously developed scientific knowledge, 'the church' also discouraged inquiry as to why death occurs, preventing medicine from developing.
Imagine no religion.

[naive]

Yes, it is all about faith in logic and in observation. Both can be wrong. You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion, although I would say it is much more useful. I would say that religion could also be described as science. Both are attempts at achieving greater understanding of 'truth', and require faith of accepted evidence. Scientists accept reproducible experiments, religeous folk accept ancestral stories. It's the same fucking thing with different sources.

Yes, it is all about faith in logic and in observation. Both can be wrong. You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion, although I would say it is much more useful. I would say that religion could also be described as science. Both are attempts at achieving greater understanding of 'truth', and require faith of accepted evidence. Scientists accept reproducible experiments, religeous folk accept ancestral stories. It's the same fucking thing with different sources.

Sorry, you don't believe in science?  Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion just gibberish?  The four laws of thermodynamics are just guesses?  Is Avogadro's number arbitrary and meaningless?  Is that stuff wrong?  What about 2+2=4?  What do you consider true?  What counts as proof for you?

When you say "You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion", do you mean that you think a guy walking on water, turning water into wine, spontaneously coming back to life 2 days after his death... is as true/provable as the gravitational attraction between two bodies being dependent on their masses, and the distance between them squared?

[pTK]

Naive. Stop trolling.  That was such an ignorant statement that It made me want to shoot myself.

Definitions:
1. Empiricism: A pursuit of knowledge based purely upon sensory experience, especially by means of observation and experimentation.

2. Fallibilism: The philosophical notion that scientific theories cannot be absolutely proven, but can only be disproven. However, they can still be well supported by evidence.

3. Dogma: The established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted, or diverged from.

3. Logic: The systematic use of reasoning and mathematical techniques to determine the validity and/or soundness of an argument/claim.

4. Faith: Is the confident belief in something of which there is no evidence of/proof for.


Types of evidence:
1. Empirical evidence: Evidence that can be observed through the senses, it can be seen, touched, heard, smelled, tasted and, to some extent, measured.

2. Evidence based upon logic/mathematics.
An example of logic:
Premise 1 - Socrates is a man
Premise 2 - All men are mortal
Conclusion - Therefore Socrates is mortal

3. Testimonial evidence: Evidence gained from testimonies from "witnesses" of apparent occurrences.


Some differences between science and religion:
1. Accepted scientific theories are empirically (and usually logically) evidenced, whereas religious claims rely upon testimonial evidence (hearsay) and faith.
2. Scientific theories are testable and hence can be experimentally supported or falsified (disproven), whereas most religious claims are not testable and cannot be verified. 
3. Scientific theories are often improved upon or discarded in the face of new evidence and facts, whereas religious claims are usually static and unchanging even in spite of contrary evidence.
4. Scientific theories are skeptically critiqued and peer-reviewed by many other scientists, whereas most religious claims are dogmatic, set in stone, and unquestionable.

The huge problem with testimonial evidence:
1. Anyone could claim to be a witness of anything. For example: they could claim to have gone back in time and played baseball with the dinosaurs.
2. People's subjective experiences can sometimes be distorted/false, and we can even have crazy hallucinations/delusions which do not actually reflect objective reality. Haven't you ever gone for a walk in the street (or somewhere else) and been sure that you've seen a friend/family member, only to eventually realize that they are actually a complete stranger, and that you were completely mistaken?

Conclusion:
On one hand, scientific theories are testable and empirically evidenced by verified experiments, are reviewed by many scientists, and are able to be improved upon (or even discarded) in the face of new evidence.

On the other, there is no compelling rational reason for an individual to place their belief in an unevidenced and untestable religious claim. Moreover, one could simply put forward a similarly unknowable assertion (e.g. that invisible dragons and sentient tophats coexist in an alternate dimension), so how is a religious contention any more likely?

Objective truth is irrespective of goodness or badness; the goodness or badness of a statement is not relevant to the actual truth of it.

[naive]

Sorry, you don't believe in science?  Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion just gibberish?  The four laws of thermodynamics are just guesses?  Is Avogadro's number arbitrary and meaningless?  Is that stuff wrong?  What about 2+2=4?  What do you consider true?  What counts as proof for you?

When you say "You can no more prove that science is 'truth' than religion", do you mean that you think a guy walking on water, turning water into wine, spontaneously coming back to life 2 days after his death... is as true/provable as the gravitational attraction between two bodies being dependent on their masses, and the distance between them squared?

It is one thing to accept knowledge as useful and to use it to your own benefit, it is another to believe in absolute truths. Most great scientific discoveries come from the fringe of science that challenges the very nature of our understandings of existence.  Is it hard for you to accept that you require just as much faith to believe in science as a a southern baptist requires faith to believe in god?

Conclusion:
On one hand, scientific theories are testable and empirically evidenced by verified experiments, are reviewed by many scientists, and are able to be improved upon (or even discarded) in the face of new evidence.

On the other, there is no compelling rational reason for an individual to place their belief in an unevidenced and untestable religious claim. Moreover, one could simply put forward a similarly unknowable assertion (e.g. that invisible dragons and sentient tophats coexist in an alternate dimension), so how is a religious contention any more likely?

Objective truth is irrespective of goodness or badness; the goodness or badness of a statement is not relevant to the actual truth of it.

Science can be tested, and once faith is strong enough in those results it is accepted. All I am saying is that it's a shared system of faith. Unlike science, religion does not have the luxury of being easily tested, but it is very compelling (possibly rational) to believe that for thousands of years your ancestors have been telling the same stories for perhaps some truthful purpose seeing as there is no testable theories available to disprove this hypothesis.

There are potentially many compelling reasons for individuals to believe in things without enough evidence to prove their truth. Most good theoretical research scientists would fit into this description Science and religion are very very linked by the shared systems of faith and are most definitely not mutually exclusive concepts.

Goodness and badness have nothing to do with objective truth, but neither does out ability to observe it.

Is there a scientific stigma against faith that I am misunderstanding or something?

Science can be tested, and once faith is strong enough in those results it is accepted. All I am saying is that it's a shared system of faith.

That's true, but pedantic and technical, as the same could be said of virtually anything that occurs in one's life. Most people share the belief that doctors can identify and treat illnesses. Most people hold the belief that their birthday is actually on the day specified in their birth certificate. Most people share the belief that the sun provides warmth and light. Most people share the belief that we cannot fly. etc. Would you deem it necessary to call these things shared belief systems of faith, and liken them to religions?

Unlike science, religion does not have the luxury of being easily tested

That's the problem of religion, not the luxury of science. It just makes it harder for religions to possess credibility when their claims are not testable.

but it is very compelling (possibly rational) to believe that for thousands of years your ancestors have been telling the same stories for perhaps some truthful purpose seeing as there is no testable theories available to disprove this hypothesis.

Imagine the members of this site created a book with Gandhi as supernatural saviour of the world (who flew around in the sky and converted sand into food) and copied real historical events into it as well as Aesop's fables. Then just imagine a couple of thousand years into the future: it becomes a widely accepted religion with thousands of believers writing books about it. Does this prove that Gandhi was really anything more than a mortal man? If you were one of these believers, you might believe with every ounce of your body that the depictions of Gandhi are real, and believe that there is proof everywhere, but your "proof" of supergandhi is based on embellishments and fantasies written in books.

Religion might be emotionally compelling, but it is not rationally compelling. It relies on faith, not rationality.

There are potentially many compelling reasons for individuals to believe in things without enough evidence to prove their truth. Most good theoretical research scientists would fit into this description Science and religion are very very linked by the shared systems of faith and are most definitely not mutually exclusive concepts.

It specifically depends on which scientific theory & religion you are talking about. For instance: Evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible's Genesis.

Goodness and badness have nothing to do with objective truth, but neither does out ability to observe it.

In science, most experimental data is objective.

Is there a scientific stigma against faith that I am misunderstanding or something?

Many people who appreciate science, also appreciate rationality/reason, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.