It's fairly well established that one of the main differences between science and religion, and indeed most woo, is that science asks question while religion gives answers. Most of us agree that religion is fundamentally flawed because of this, since there is no actual evidence for their answers and they could be (and probably are) just made up on the spot. However, it occurred to me recently that this is not actually the main problem with religion, the problem actually lies in what questions they attempt to answer.
Religion and philosophy have been trying for millennia to answer questions such as "Why are we here?", while science generally avoids these areas. The reason for this is simple, but for some reason is very rarely acknowledged. The question simply does not make sense. According to all the evidence we have there is no meaning of life, it simply happened as a consequence of the laws of the universe, and there is therefore no point asking "Why?" because there is no answer. Religion does not fail simply because the evidence does not support it's answer, it fails because it answers a question that does not actually exist. The correct question to ask is "Is there a meaning?", to which the answer is currently "Probably not.".
A similar question is "What happened before the big bang?". Most scientists stay away from this question as well, because this is no different from asking "What is north of the North Pole?". Since time only exists after the big bang, it simply makes no sense to ask what was before it. I have actually had some success explaining this to people. It is hard to say what the correct question to ask here is, or even if it is possible to ask any meaningful ones. What is important is the difference in attitude between the religious and the scientific. Religion jumps straight in and gives an answer, when the correct approach is to ask what it actually means to ask the question and to ask if it actually makes sense to expect an answer.
I think this is the most important difference between science and religion. It is not the method of obtaining answers or the different standards of evidence, it is simply that science does not only questions the answers, it questions the questions themselves. Religion can argue about the answers until the cows come home, but until it questions the validity of the questions it is asking it will never know if the answers actually exist, let alone know if they are correct.
Anyone else have any thoughts on this?
Hello,
Long time - no post. I agree with everything you've written. Asking, "Why are we here?" is begging the question. Your question, "Is there a meaning?" is far better since no assumptions are being made.
I started thinking in this way when Richard Dawkins (peace be upon him) spoke of 'Why' questions as being mis-leading in that in some circumstances they could imply a deep reason where there probably is none.
Dad, why do we eat meat? Well son, our bodies are adapted to do this. Our appendix is poorly developed, our dental records show our propensity for an omnivorous diet, like chimpanzees…
Dad, why do chimpanzees eat meat? Well son, it is thought that periodically they need to supplement their diet with class A protein and….
Dad, why do we need protein? Well son, protein is important for growth and repair of the bodies tissues…
Dad, why do we need to grow? Oh FFS son! God made us, he makes us grow and then when we die, we all clasp hands, go to heaven and sing a celestial equivalent to ‘There’s no-one quite like Grandma’ (for grandma substitute Yahweh)
Case solved
It's sooo much easier 8)
It takes a while to get through these but there's some really good talks on science vs religion here: http://beyondbelief2006.org/Watch/
.
I don't think you have bought Philosophy enough into your argument here. In my opinion, Philosophy is the bridging gap between Science and Religion and does pose those questions like 'why are we here' and 'how should we live' (as you say). I do not think it genuinely tries to answer them though, unlike Religion perhaps through whatever means.
Religion, in all it's grotesque forms merely seeks to control by arrogantly claiming it has the answers to those questions. Islam, Christianity or whatever is all guilty of such claims and rigourously defend their respective protocols (though transparent and ultimately flawed today).
Science in all it's glory, wouldn't attempt an answer that cannot be met through classical, reductionist terms (why should it). It's like trying to quantify the metaphysics of the soul etc - would you really want to!?? The realm of quantum mechanics though.......well, in a thousand years the answers to your questions may well be very different
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks