Why does it matter if religion is anti-scientific?

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

I dont really get this.

I can understand it to some extent in an academic area such as science and thanks for explaining how science research is conducted and peer review.

It doesn't just impact on scientific research, in fact I would say the impact of religion on scientific research is modest and (I hope) lessening all the time. Things like the policies on stem cell research in the US are worrying, but most scientific research does not conflict with religious beliefs so specifically and so is not open to attack in that way. I think that this could well change, but is certainly not the most immediate issue.

No, my main point relates to the effect on the public and how they go about accepting knowledge. Religions tell people that it is okay to believe in things when they cannot be objectively and reproducibly verified. And not just to hold them as hypotheses but to believe them to be irrefutable fact when this cannot actually be established. Religions make a virtue of that habit.

When it comes to your general god of the gaps, there's no problem really, but it always goes further. Religions unavoidably lend credence to a more general culture that accepts some information on the basis of unquestionable or untestable authority. The Scientist quoted in the newspapers is one such authority, and he shouldn't be. He has ironically gained part of his power from our tendency to think in an irrational way. In principle, science has many experts but no authorities. Yet his word on health matters is given great weight, which would be fine if people knew how to appraise that word. But they're in the habit of uncritically accepting knowledge from people who claim to know better, and so that word is given undue credence.

This is what happened with my favourite current example, the MMR scare, and the result of that has been a modest number of deaths that were nonetheless entirely avoidable. It would a be a gross over-simplification to blame that scare on religions of course, and I do not. But there's no denying that the culture that allowed the scare to take hold is in part perpetuated by religions.

CDfm wrote: »

Surely then the only area of concerns would be whether the area being studies and its methods were actually ethical - the stem cell thing is covered elsewhere. But can you expand on how this effects life as you percieve it.

I'm not quite sure I get your point. Nobody is genuinely studying the area of vaccine safety in a faith-based manner. The public are instead accepting the word of charismatic figures who inadvertently tap into a habit of thinking that has permeated society. Certain ideas can gain great ground in that culture without have any factual basis, and can do great harm. The solution would seem to be that we need to undermine that culture. I can't say I really know how that would best be achieved.

CDfm wrote: »

So you know - Ive read up on memetics out of interest rather than to debate - but what would the difference be between cultural beliefs acquired thru memes and religion.

Again, not sure where you're going with memetics. I don't know very much about it, but as I understand the notion all cultural beliefs consist of memes, including the religions and of course the scientific method. That a religion consists of discrete and transmissible packets of idea does not undermine the validity or veracity that religion in itself.

CDfm wrote: »

On ethics -say you have an external source you read in philosophy like Socrates on ethical issues or even Confuscious how does that differ from religious beliefs?

If the are accepted uncritically, without assessment in terms of evidence, then they do not differ at all from religious beliefs except in their specific content. They may well be correct, but the person who has accepted them is now correct by accident and could, for all the knowledge they actually possess, be totally and dangerously wrong.

I'm a little hazy on where we are in the argument, my only real point from the outset was the very first one. I'm not sure of what you're arguing and so we could well be talking at cross purposes.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It doesn't just impact on scientific research, in fact I would say the impact of religion on scientific research is modest and (I hope) lessening all the time. Things like the policies on stem cell research in the US are worrying, but most scientific research does not conflict with religious beliefs so specifically and so is not open to attack in that way. I think that this could well change, but is certainly not the most immediate issue.


This is what happened with my favourite current example, the MMR scare, and the result of that has been a modest number of deaths that were nonetheless entirely avoidable. It would a be a gross over-simplification to blame that scare on religions of course, and I do not. But there's no denying that the culture that allowed the scare to take hold is in part perpetuated by religions.


Again, not sure where you're going with memetics. I don't know very much about it, but as I understand the notion all cultural beliefs consist of memes, including the religions and of course the scientific method. That a religion consists of discrete and transmissible packets of idea does not undermine the validity or veracity that religion in itself.

I'm a little hazy on where we are in the argument, my only real point from the outset was the very first one. I'm not sure of what you're arguing and so we could well be talking at cross purposes.

I am fairly open minded but God is untestable scientifically.The central plank for some atheists is that because of this Christians are gullible for our beliefs. Christians say different and citing Paul in Corinthians the Jews demanded miracles and the Greeks wisdom and these were obstacles to faith - so the argument is not new.

So to get over the Myth's what are the current problems as you percieve them. I can't see how the MMR vaccine issue had anything to do with people being gullible?(as a result of religion)

So Im asking how do people percieve Church beliefs as influencing their lives and is there any merit in this or are the issues simply cultural beliefs or ethical issues anyway?

I don't have the answer and believe in a secular state.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

So to get over the Myth's what are the current problems as you percieve them. I can't see how the MMR vaccine issue had anything to do with people being gullible?(as a result of religion)

It had everything to do with some people who accepted something because a source of authority stated it as fact. What literature research they did in support of this (if any) was permeated with confirmation bias. Evidence generally consisted of anecdotes. Religions help to make that kind of thinking acceptable. Belief based on "common sense" or "gut feeling" is lauded. The subjective is habitually given greater weight than the objectively verifiable. It's not just religions that feed this, but they do their part.

CDfm wrote: »

So Im asking how do people percieve Church beliefs as influencing their lives and is there any merit in this or are the issues simply cultural beliefs or ethical issues anyway?

Beyond the portrayal of faith and subjective evidence as virtuous? Some of the rest of it is less specifically anti-scientific than it is contrary to current scientific evidence. I don't know whether the ethical issues are really what the debate is about. It's more about the core philosophies regarding how we acquire and verify knowledge.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

It had everything to do with some people who accepted something because a source of authority stated it as fact.

But AH you get that everywhere. McGregors Theory X+Y had a bit about that. I started a Thread in the Christian Forum about Labour and Catholic schools and said Catholics should not support Labour and if I had posted it in A+A -well I would expect more robust views.

What literature research they did in support of this (if any) was permeated with confirmation bias. Evidence generally consisted of anecdotes. Religions help to make that kind of thinking acceptable. Belief based on "common sense" or "gut feeling" is lauded. The subjective is habitually given greater weight than the objectively verifiable. It's not just religions that feed this, but they do their part

.

I get your point. I am often fairly taken aback with the drivel people come out with as religion. It crosses lines - I posted on the ladies lounge on a feminist thread which cited Richard Florida's The Creative Classes as economics.

Beyond the portrayal of faith and subjective evidence as virtuous? Some of the rest of it is less specifically anti-scientific than it is contrary to current scientific evidence. I don't know whether the ethical issues are really what the debate is about.

But it is percieved to be that way. I don't know why but I suspect that the rhetoric fuels it and a bit of tribalism. We shouldnt agree on stuff but we do.

It's more about the core philosophies regarding how we acquire and verify knowledge

Factual is good as are ethical values.

AtomicHorror

CDfm wrote: »

But AH you get that everywhere.

When did I suggest this way of thinking was uncommon or unique to religions? If that were the case it wouldn't be such a huge problem. I am saying that it is reinforced by certain social structures. And religion actually makes a virtue of it.

CDfm wrote: »

McGregors Theory X+Y had a bit about that. I started a Thread in the Christian Forum about Labour and Catholic schools and said Catholics should not support Labour and if I had posted it in A+A -well I would expect more robust views.

I don't know what this has to do with my point. How does McGregor's theory deal with the acquisition and verification of knowledge? Or are you talking about the validity of the theory itself in those terms? I'm not getting your point with this.

CDfm wrote: »

I get your point. I am often fairly taken aback with the drivel people come out with as religion. It crosses lines - I posted on the ladies lounge on a feminist thread which cited Richard Florida's The Creative Classes as economics.

This kind of thinking is natural in people. Read Tricks of the Mind or Bad Science for a couple of nice explanations as to why this is so. But we know that we can overcome the shortcomings in our thought processes- using the scientific method. I know you consider me idealistic, but I think it really is a broadly applicable principle. But we're constantly fighting against philosophies which deny the value of that method. Organised religions are a huge part of that.

CDfm wrote: »

But it is percieved to be that way.

From the non-scientist side the ethical debate is most often the focus as it is more immediately tangible. But I think this is a superficial repercussion of the underlying issue which is to do with how we know things. The focus is primarily due to the failure of many to understand what science actually is. Just look at how the average person defines "theory". That misunderstanding isn't the fault of religions of course.

CDfm wrote: »

I don't know why but I suspect that the rhetoric fuels it and a bit of tribalism.

CDfm

AtomicHorror wrote: »

When did I suggest this way of thinking was uncommon or unique to religions? If that were the case it wouldn't be such a huge problem. I am saying that it is reinforced by certain social structures. And religion actually makes a virtue of it.

You didn't. Its not unique to religion.

The philosopy of religion is also much misunderstood.

I don't know what this has to do with my point. How does McGregor's theory deal with the acquisition and verification of knowledge? Or are you talking about the validity of the theory itself in those terms? I'm not getting your point with this

.

He didn't but pointed out that man can be the dupe of the charlatan or demagogue.

This kind of thinking is natural in people. Read Tricks of the Mind or Bad Science for a couple of nice explanations as to why this is so. But we know that we can overcome the shortcomings in our thought processes- using the scientific method. I know you consider me idealistic, but I think it really is a broadly applicable principle. But we're constantly fighting against philosophies which deny the value of that method. Organised religions are a huge part of that.

A bit idealistic and thats not a bad thing either.

From the non-scientist side the ethical debate is most often the focus as it is more immediately tangible. But I think this is a superficial repercussion of the underlying issue which is to do with how we know things. The focus is primarily due to the failure of many to understand what science actually is. Just look at how the average person defines "theory". That misunderstanding isn't the fault of religions of course

I agree - I took my anti-science queue recently from Dawkins - who is a bit OTT.