BothAndBlog Forum

Will Science Eventually Replace Religion?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/803929

It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.

Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory. — Art48

Science-based explanations might gradually become simple & common enough to replace ancient bed-time stories, of how the world works, for the average Joe. But, as you implied, the material success of Science has been largely due to its focus on "how" facts, instead of "why" questions. Those perpetual philosophical issues are perspectival & interpretational, hence resistant to impersonal pragmatic nailed-down fixed facts.

Fortunately, some of us can make room in the same mind for both Hard Facts and Flexible Feelings. Perhaps though, as humans evolve into trans-human cyborgs, those animal emotions may gradually come under the rule of mathematical Logic*1. The ethical implications & evaluations of such an evolutionary leap have been explored in both academic philosophical tomes, and in popular entertainment forms. For example, uber-logical Mr. Spock & Commander Data, still seem to benefit from association with their more emotional & humane Captains. As long as world events are complex enough to hide their mathematical foundation, some problems may be better addressed with get-er-done motivation than with abstract structural analysis.

Since the un-amicable divorce of Pragmatic Science from Aspirational Religion, both seem to be gradually moving toward a fragile reconciliation. What form that accommodation will take remains to be seen, perhaps in the not-too-distant future.


*1. A TREATISE OF HUMAN NATURE :
Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them. ___David Hume

For sure. Scientism is definitely a thing. Now, there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology. But I think there is also a good argument to be made that this is a No True Scottman fallacy given some of the world's most famous scientists write best sellers in the science category that are substantially or even mostly about ontology, the origins and nature of the world, or make explicit claims about morality and moral realism. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Yes, Scientism seems to be a vague-but-firm belief system based on modern "real-world" revelations instead of ancient ideal-world myths (handed-down from primitive priests). On this forum, true-believers in Scientism act just like religious faithful when their core beliefs are challenged. For example, instead of philosophical arguments, they may give you book, chapter & verse of a technical tome to serve as the authority for a specific belief, or they may just tell you to read some abstruse text by a presumed expert (secular priest), leaving you educate yourself in The Truth, and out of the vale of willful Ignorance. Does that sound like a bible-thumper to you?

In the 20th century, Quantum physics undermined some of the basic assumptions of Classical Physics, by discovering that Nature does not present absolute Truth, but statistical Uncertainty. So, those of us not specially-trained must accept, on faith, the "facts" of those arcane experts. Yet, there is no profane pope to serve as the judge of last resort for contentious questions*1. So Scientism faithful are left to their own devices to determine Ethical & Ontological answers to philosophical questions, that are irrelevant to physical & mechanical Science. Maybe that's why they post on a Philosophy Forum instead of Science Site.

Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. Hence, their doctrine is simply classical Newtonian mechanics,with Random Chance in place of Newton's clockwork designer. If that works for ya, you may not need philosophical reasoning to fill-in the blanks of scientific & religious faith. The rest of us must keep an open mind, while searching for the elusive butterfly of truth.


*1. And their hypothetical Bible is referred to as "Settled Science". Is there any such thing as a final fact in science?

This is ambiguous. Who was it took the Catholic bible literally - the anti-catholic fundamentalist? How perverse of them. Or did the anti-catholic fundamentalist think that Catholics think that Catholics do not need a priestly cast to interpret the Bible correctly? Again, how odd.
In any case, when will you be dropping that fundamentalists buttressing so evident in your thinking? — Banno

Yes. In retrospect, the irony of my fundamentalist Christian upbringing, is that it rejected the authority of Church & Pope, but accepted the authority of a book compiled & edited by that same organization. Indeed "how odd". For the record, Gnomon does not place credence in the "holy" book of both creeds.

Regarding the necessity for a "priestly caste", I'll simply refer you to a fundamental concept of Protestantism : the priesthood of all believers*1. If you don't come from a Fundamentalist background, a lot of these doctrinal paradoxes will seem "odd".

I assume the "who was it?" question was rhetorical, so I won't go into a history lesson. But if you interpret my comments, on this thread and others, as "fundamentalist buttressing", you have completely missed the point . . . nay, reversed it. Perhaps you are confusing Gnomon with someone else.

If the "Catholic Bible" comment was "ambiguous", that may be because I was making an analogy to a science-based, instead of bible-based, alt-religion*2. The Fundamentalists, and indeed most Protestants, accepted the "faith only" Pauline version*3 of Christianity, while officially rejecting the "idol (icon) worship" and "salvific works" that emerged within the Imperial Church of Rome. To be clear, the "who?" is Christian Fundamentalists on one hand, and Atheist adherents of Scientism on the other. Both seeking higher authority for their favorite beliefs.

Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? I don't stand on either side.


*1. Priesthood of all believers :
The doctrine asserts that all humans have access to God through Christ, the true high priest, and thus do not need a priestly mediator. This introduced a democratic element in the functioning of the church that meant all Christians were equal.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/priest ... -believers

*2. Modern Alternative to Religion :
Ironically, in my personal experience with an anti-catholic fundamentalist religion, the Catholic Bible was taken on faith as an accurate record of "God's Word". For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. So, they may only agree on one Fact : "god" has nothing to do with it. ___Gnomon, from this thread

*3. Not by faith only :
James 2:24 : You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone.
Note -- A direct contradiction of Paul's doctrine. Just one of many discrepancies in the "Catholic" Bible.

For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Not sure this is right. Scientism says only physics can answer all questions and that the scientific method is a pathway to truth and understanding how the world works.
Science, on the other hand would say we can make reliable models of the world based on the best information we have available at a given time. But these models are tentative and change as we learn more. There is no scientific method as such, just reliable or unreliable methods of rational or evidential enquiry. — Tom Storm

I was merely pointing-out that there is no authorized compendium of "settled science" to serve as the Bible of Scientism. As you implied, Science, as a dynamic body of knowledge, is not static, but constantly evolving. That's why classical Newtonian Mechanics is no longer The Ultimate Authority on Physics. As soon as a fact reaches consensus, a new fact emerges to cast doubt on it. Ironically, even the Bible of Abrahamic traditions has evolved, both in fact and philosophy over the ages. That's why complex re-interpretations are necessary to harmonize the discordant notes.

Adherents of Scientism on this forum make very confident assertions about how the world works, despite the commonly accepted opinion that, although Quantum Math is more accurate than Newtonian Math, it is ultimately grounded in Randomness & Uncertainty. So an open & flexible mind is necessary for navigating the "pathways to truth". Einstein seemed to have such an adaptive mind, so if he was around today, I think he would grudging admit that "god does play dice with the universe", but he still wouldn't like it.



Has Newtonian physics been disproven? :
It was published in 1687 in the book Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica written by Sir Isaac Newton. Newton's “Law of Gravity” has been declared wrong; however, scientists prefer to continue with Einstein's theory of “General Relativity” still showing suspicion in his theory too.
https://happenings.lpu.in/newtons-law-o ... ven-wrong/

Classical vs Quantum Physics :
Newton's laws are used to explain our daily life while at the atomic level, they fail to explain the motion and nature of atoms and that is where quantum mechanics come in.
https://sherpa-online.com/forum/thread/ ... -mechanics

Did Einstein oppose quantum mechanics?
Closer examination, though, reveals that Einstein did not reject quantum mechanics or its indeterminism, although he did think—for solid scientific reasons—that the randomness could not be a fundamental feature of nature.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... mechanics/

I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction. — Tom Storm

Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction.

Actually your account of scientism here seems erroneous:
For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism. — Tom Storm

I agree that your "single source" is stipulated in the definition of Scientism. But "Science" is not an actual thing, not a centralized institution, or a book of wisdom. Instead, it's an ideal that scientists are supposed to aspire to. Likewise "settled science" assumes a unified consensus. Yet consensus in science remains an unattainable state of perfect agreement among independent thinkers. There is no central authority to settle all disagreements.

For centuries the Classical Mechanics of Newton was as close to a scientific Bible as we've ever had. But the advent of non-mechanical Quantum Mechanics turned a lot of that "settled science" upside down. Consequently, scientists argued among themselves about how to interpret their empirical findings. And even Einstein couldn't depend on his aura of authority to overrule the Copenhagen Consensus.

So, my comment was not belittling the ideals of Empirical Truth in Science, but merely referring to the absence of an actual central authority for Truth : an Imperial Church, or absolute Pope, or authorized Bible. Do you agree that there is nothing in Science or Scientism corresponding to those centralized Authorities? The bottom line here is that if Science had a Bible or Central Authority -- to whom all must bow -- it would soon become a fossilized belief system : a religion.


Authority in Science :
The demotion of authority in science has many roots:
The fact that results are not taken seriously until they have been replicated in independent experiments by people one may assume will not collude in covering up sloppy or fraudulent results.
The vital connection between theory and results. Shaping theories generalizes specific results and allows experiments using different methods to test the same claim, liberates the outcome from the biases of any individual, and ultimately creates a basis for distinct scientific fields (biology and chemistry are different fields not because of different names but because of different theories).
Statistical and mathematical analyses that are verifiable in their own right and that estimate the probability that a result arose by chance.
The innate skepticism and high standards of the scientists who read the result, e.g. the default assumption that an idea is false until and unless there is evidence to support it.
https://arachnoid.com/reader_exchanges/ ... ience.html

A crisis of authority in scientific discourse :
Scientific discourse has typically been considered what philosopher of language Mikhail Bakhtin, Holquist and Emerson (1981, p. 343) termed an “authoritative discourse,”—a discourse that “binds us, quite independent of any power it might have to persuade us internally,” whose hegemony is traditionally a priori, unquestioned. However, within the public realm, that authority is in crisis.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 20-09989-1

there is no single source of authority on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
Given what you say here, can you demonstrate the single source of authority on The Truth? I suspect a Noble Price might be waiting if you can do this. — Tom Storm

You've got my "no authority" assertion turned around backward. I said "there is no single authority in Science". Nor should there be. So how could you challenge me to demonstrate the existence of what I just denied?

Do, you really want to turn this thread into a doctrinal debate between Scientism & Christianism? — Gnomon
Why not.
But my point was missed, so I'll put it again, more directly. There are those who leave one fundamentalism only to find another, who putting down one bible, choose another. Such folk might miss the distinction ↪Tom Storm makes. — Banno

"There are those" seems to be covertly pointing at yours truly. Likewise, the poster-who-shall-not-be-named falsely accuses Gnomon of substituting New Ageism for Scientism. But he's dead wrong, and so are you, if you interpret a> my defense of metaphysical Philosophy*1, as a rejection of physical Science, and b> my references to Holism as a sign of New Age beliefs. Holism*2 is actually a modern scientific concept that was adopted by New Agers, and by Quantum Physics pioneers.

In some circles --- believers in the inerrancy of Empirical Science --- Gnomon has gained a rep for Science -bashing. They equate my criticism of their alt-religion belief system as directed toward the institution of Science itself. That's like a Catholic, who interprets any Protestant pope-criticism as God-bashing. The problem is not with the scientific evidences, but with mis-placed faith in the ancient philosophy of Materialism*3.

For the record, Gnomon is not bashing Empirical Science in this thread. And is not advocating for replacing one fundamentalism with another. That is the exact opposite of my intention. Instead, I was accusing Scientism of claiming to have a source of authoritative Truth in "settled science"*3.

*1. In modern philosophical terminology, metaphysics refers to the studies of what cannot be reached through objective studies of material reality.
https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/geng ... -body.html

*2. Quantum Holism :
A composite quantum system has properties that are incompatible with every property of its parts. The existence of such global properties incompatible with all local properties constitutes what I call "mereological holism"--the distinctive holism of Quantum Theory.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2102.01438

*3. Is Scientific Materialism "Almost Certainly False"?
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... nly-false/


FWIW, ↪Tom Storm
's "distinction" mis-interpreted the intent of my assertion. I actually agree with his appraisal of Scientism*4. But the "source" I was referring to is an official biblical compendium of "settled science". One poster in particular has made repeated references to "settled science" as-if it was a real thing*5.

*4. For adherents of Scientism though, there is no single source of authority [settled science] on The Truth of how & why the world works as it does. — Gnomon
"I understand scientism as the opposite of this. It is an unassailable certainty that science is right and not tentative. In other words, the single source of authority about how the world works is science - hence scientism." ___Tom Storm

*5. "I was merely pointing out the difference between scientism and science. An important distinction." — Tom Storm
Yes. I only use the derogatory term "scientism" in order to make that same distinction. Science is supposed to be a Fact system, not a Faith system. Science is always tentative, and seldom settled. Hence not an authoritative Bible for Materialists to thump.


The OP seems to be asking if Secular Science has the "right stuff" to replace religion*6. Then ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
noted that due to the "-ism" (belief system) in the name, Scientism might be construed as a religious belief system*7. But he clarified that Science (without the -ism) does not have the metaphysical (values ; ethics) credentials to qualify as a religion. He seemed to be defending non-ism- Science from being confused with Scientism as a pseudo-religious belief system. I do think the belief system of Scientism is a corruption of the original ideals of Empirical Science --- to let the "book" of Nature be the final authority.

I agreed with Tim's distinction. Then I made a few remarks about Final Authority in religion, which Scientism claims to have in "Settled Science". I noted that neither Scientism nor non-ism-Science has the kind of biblical or papal authority characteristic of Christianity. That was intended to be a positive aspect of Empirical Science, avoiding inclinations to fundamentalist Faith. But some, such as Tom apparently construed that assertion as denigration of Empirical Science. Hence, we got off on a side-track, that some interpreted as Empirical Science bashing.

*6. "It seems that science is in need of religions’ values, ethics, and morals. Might science absorb values, ethics, and morals from religions? From purified religions, of course.
Or might science somehow evolve to address the concerns and questions traditionally addressed by religion? That seems to be on science’s trajectory." ___↪Art48

Note -- Would empirical Science be able to objectify morality, as in Utilitarianism?

*7. Scientism :
"there is a good argument to be made that scientism isn't science, and that science doesn't deal with key aspects religion does, e.g. ontology". ___ ↪Count Timothy von Icarus
5 days ago

The most I have "accused" (your word) you of is not being able to either follow or present a clear argument.

Despite the faux footnotes. — Banno

Speaking of "faux footnotes", can you "present a clear argument" to show why any of my footnotes is "faux". That would be instructive, and help me to communicate in your language.

No. — Banno

OK. I was just trying to be accommodating to your & my limitations.

Perhaps my complex arguments have too many elements for your open/shut bear-trap mind*1. "Hard" problems are indeed difficult to follow, with all the twist & turns, and varying perspectives. Perhaps an "argument map" would help*2. But I'll save that for someone who is really interested in the OP question.


*1. Compared to my more excursive mind.

*2. Argument Map :
A complex argument is a set of arguments with either overlapping premises or conclusions (or both). Complex arguments are very common because many issues and debates are complicated and involve extended reasoning. To understand complex arguments, we need to analyze the logical structure of the reasoning involved.
https://philosophy.hku.hk/think/arg/complex.php