15 votes

Why religion is not going away and science will not destroy it

20 comments

  1. [2]
    gpl
    Link
    I thought this was a good article, with the meat of it (in my opinion) being contained in the last 6 paragraphs. An excerpt: The author suggests that the reason the conflict model of religion...

    I thought this was a good article, with the meat of it (in my opinion) being contained in the last 6 paragraphs. An excerpt:

    The conflict model of science and religion offered a mistaken view of the past and, when combined with expectations of secularisation, led to a flawed vision of the future. Secularisation theory failed at both description and prediction. The real question is why we continue to encounter proponents of science-religion conflict. Many are prominent scientists. It would be superfluous to rehearse Richard Dawkins’s musings on this topic, but he is by no means a solitary voice. Stephen Hawking thinks that ‘science will win because it works’; Sam Harris has declared that ‘science must destroy religion’; Stephen Weinberg thinks that science has weakened religious certitude; Colin Blakemore predicts that science will eventually make religion unnecessary. Historical evidence simply does not support such contentions. Indeed, it suggests that they are misguided.

    The author suggests that the reason the conflict model of religion persists (particularly among scientists like the above) is political. I largely agree. I also think a contributing factor is an ignorance of historical context and development of religion. Far too often these prominent figures use American Christianity of the 20th century as a sort of synecdoche for Christianity writ large, completely ignoring both geographically and temporally distinct forms of the religion. These beliefs such as a literal interpretation of the Bible, "gospel of wealth" type beliefs, etc. Not only do not all Christians believe these tenets (in fact, if we are considering the global Christian population it is probably not even the majority), but they are also very recent developments of the last 100 years. As the author correctly point out, science and religion have mutually supported each other as much as they have conflicted.

    Fundamentally, religion addresses a different set of questions than science does and anyone who believes otherwise I think is perhaps misguided. This includes the religious who substitute religious belief for scientific understanding, as well as the secular who view religion as nothing more than an irrational alternative to science. The two aren't in opposition, in my opinion, but travel on completely different trajectories.

    19 votes
    1. Greg
      Link Parent
      This seems overly idealistic to me. Even if the questions can be kept separate (something I tentatively agree with in the abstract, but am much less optimistic than you or the article author about...

      The two aren't in opposition, in my opinion, but travel on completely different trajectories.

      This seems overly idealistic to me. Even if the questions can be kept separate (something I tentatively agree with in the abstract, but am much less optimistic than you or the article author about seeing in practice), the conclusions drawn from those questions necessarily collide.

      • Do we have dominion over the Earth and its resources, supplied in plenty for Humanity's use? Or must we radically alter our lifestyles in order to avert the catastrophe that our mathematical models predict?

      • Do we declare war even knowing that we are living a single short life between periods of infinite nothingness, or do we take account of life as a precursor to something infinitely greater?

      • How do increasingly radical and innovative medical techniques mesh with the concept of a soul?

      • Is an undeniably sapient artificial intelligence one of God's creatures? Are "human" rights the God-given preserve of humanity, or a utilitarian construct applicable to all intelligent beings?

      Views on the moral and the metaphysical necessarily impact our approach to the world we observe and inhabit, and sometimes those views are going to come into direct conflict with the evidence gathered using the scientific method.

      They don't necessarily have to be at odds in the way they so often are now, but they aren't entirely tangential. There's crossover sooner or later, and often it's at the points where the issues are the hardest and most important to deal with.

      18 votes
  2. [6]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [5]
      Micycle_the_Bichael
      Link Parent
      I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here. Would you be able to elaborate?

      I'm not really sure I understand what you're saying here. Would you be able to elaborate?

      4 votes
      1. [4]
        balooga
        Link Parent
        I'm pretty sure it's something along these lines... "There is no god, no purpose to existence, no narrative arc for justice or the redemption of humanity; you are here as the result of random...

        I'm pretty sure it's something along these lines...

        the thing that tells you what you don't want to hear

        "There is no god, no purpose to existence, no narrative arc for justice or the redemption of humanity; you are here as the result of random chance, and this is all there is. Also, the planet is doomed because of humanity's arrogance and greed."

        the thing that tells you what you do want to hear

        "God loves you and has a plan for your life, good will triumph over evil, the meek will inherit the earth and your eternity is secure with the saints and angels, mansions and streets of gold. A new heaven and new earth are coming where the tears will be wiped from every eye."

        10 votes
        1. [2]
          NaraVara
          Link Parent
          Those are both really reductive though. Alternatively, you get one life to enjoy on your own terms and do with as you please. There is nobody to tell you what to do how you can live your life. Or...

          Those are both really reductive though.

          "There is no god, no purpose to existence, no narrative arc for justice or the redemption of humanity; you are here as the result of random chance, and this is all there is. Also, the planet is doomed because of humanity's arrogance and greed."

          Alternatively, you get one life to enjoy on your own terms and do with as you please. There is nobody to tell you what to do how you can live your life.

          "God loves you and has a plan for your life, good will triumph over evil, the meek will inherit the earth and your eternity is secure with the saints and angels, mansions and streets of gold. A new heaven and new earth are coming where the tears will be wiped from every eye."

          Or alternatively: no coffee, no alcohol, no dancing, no sex before marriage, no "deviant" sexuality, get married even if you haven't met anyone you liked, have LOTS of kids regardless of what it means for your personal goals, no arguing with your parents or your priests, wake up early and get dressed every Sunday to go to Church and be bored for several hours, regulate your behavior and emotions, follow these seemingly arbitrary dietary restrictions, adhere to these customs that nobody can explain to you. . .

          11 votes
          1. balooga
            Link Parent
            Indeed, I had a half-baked comment of my own making the same assertion but didn't want to muddy the waters since I was trying to clarify 2942's point.

            Indeed, I had a half-baked comment of my own making the same assertion but didn't want to muddy the waters since I was trying to clarify 2942's point.

            3 votes
        2. Micycle_the_Bichael
          Link Parent
          Not attacking you because I know (1) youre speaking for someone else and these aren't necessarily your views (not attacking you even if they are) and (2) this is a really common view of religion...

          Not attacking you because I know (1) youre speaking for someone else and these aren't necessarily your views (not attacking you even if they are) and (2) this is a really common view of religion in western society, especially among athiests/non-religious folks. But that is such a bananas reduction of abrahamic religions that I don't agree it even accurately represents them, and completely fails as a definition for most non-abrahamic religions (basically any religion that exists outside Europe + USA/Canada that isn't islam, christianity, judiasm, including the religions of native tribes to these regions.)

          6 votes
  3. [4]
    Kuromantis
    (edited )
    Link
    Sure. If science and education is not the answer to religion then what is it? Safety? A sense of community? Total extermination? Is religion even what we should be fighting then and is this a...

    Scientists, intellectuals and social scientists expected that the spread of modern science would drive secularisation – that science would be a secularising force. But that simply hasn’t been the case. If we look at those societies where religion remains vibrant, their key common features are less to do with science, and more to do with feelings of existential security and protection from some of the basic uncertainties of life in the form of public goods. A social safety net might be correlated with scientific advances but only loosely, and again the case of the US is instructive. The US is arguably the most scientifically and technologically advanced society in the world, and yet at the same time the most religious of Western societies. As the British sociologist David Martin concluded in The Future of Christianity (2011): ‘There is no consistent relation between the degree of scientific advance and a reduced profile of religious influence, belief and practice.’

    Sure. If science and education is not the answer to religion then what is it? Safety? A sense of community? Total extermination? Is religion even what we should be fighting then and is this a fight at all?

    So why do they persist? The answers are political. Leaving aside any lingering fondness for quaint 19th-century understandings of history, we must look to the fear of Islamic fundamentalism, exasperation with creationism, an aversion to alliances between the religious Right and climate-change denial, and worries about the erosion of scientific authority. While we might be sympathetic to these concerns, there is no disguising the fact that they arise out of an unhelpful intrusion of normative commitments into the discussion. Wishful thinking – hoping that science will vanquish religion – is no substitute for a sober assessment of present realities. Continuing with this advocacy is likely to have an effect opposite to that intended.

    Religion is not going away any time soon, and science will not destroy it. If anything, it is science that is subject to increasing threats to its authority and social legitimacy. Given this, science needs all the friends it can get. Its advocates would be well advised to stop fabricating an enemy out of religion, or insisting that the only path to a secure future lies in a marriage of science and secularism.

    Isn't this what science has already done? Also the definition of secularism is some form of separation between church and state.

    Indifference to, or rejection or exclusion of, religion and religious considerations (Merriam-Webster)[1]

    The belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country (Cambridge Dictionary)[3]

    The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions (Oxford Dictionaries)[12]

    A system of social organization and education where religion is not allowed to play a part in civil affairs (Collins)[4]

    A theory, belief, ideology, or political modality that demarcates the secular from other phenomena (usually religious) and prioritizes, the secular over the non-secular in some regard.[13]

    5 votes
    1. [2]
      Micycle_the_Bichael
      Link Parent
      I would extend this question to be "Is religion even something we should be fighting?", which is a slightly wider question than what I understand your question to be. Like the article says,...

      Is religion even what we should be fighting?

      I would extend this question to be "Is religion even something we should be fighting?", which is a slightly wider question than what I understand your question to be. Like the article says, science and religion don't have to be mutually exclusive and they don't seem to both be trying to solve the same questions. I don't know, other people are free to their opinions, but I just don't see why it has to be exclusively one or the other and the loser is destined to extinction.

      4 votes
      1. Kuromantis
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        I think its because many religious institutions, especially the for-profit ones often fund candidates who discourage or outright oppose good education and funding for science in favor of...

        I just don't see why it has to be exclusively one or the other and the loser is destined to extinction.

        I think its because many religious institutions, especially the for-profit ones often fund candidates who discourage or outright oppose good education and funding for science in favor of 'traditional religious/cultural values' and many authoritarian governments used and use religion to gain legitimacy so religion definitely seems to be one of the main enemies of secularism and freedom. The only exception to this is authoritarian states with communist origins like Russia and China where atheism was used for ideological purposes and separated from secularism,science and truth. Perhaps maybe the real problem can be traced to big money in politics and religion being used as a tool to distract and mislead voters of populist right-wing ideologues yet again?

        2 votes
    2. moocow1452
      Link Parent
      There's a culture around science, similar to the culture around religion, similar to the culture around anything that's a big enough hobby that can be used to influence and exert control over...

      There's a culture around science, similar to the culture around religion, similar to the culture around anything that's a big enough hobby that can be used to influence and exert control over people. Tribalism of that nature is a hard thing to fight but I think if we can better learn to love people as they are, and leave them be if they aren't hurting anyone, we'll be in a better place for it.

      4 votes
  4. [2]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. Micycle_the_Bichael
      Link Parent
      If you have a chance, I would suggest looking at another topic I posted the other day which gets into this topic slightly. I think the question of “do aliens exist” and how religions would react...

      If you have a chance, I would suggest looking at another topic I posted the other day which gets into this topic slightly. I think the question of “do aliens exist” and how religions would react digs into the ideas you’re talking about.

      2 votes
  5. Micycle_the_Bichael
    Link
    I thought this article was incredibly interesting. The first half of the article is about the marriage of science and secularism, and the second half being about the "historical warring" of...

    I thought this article was incredibly interesting. The first half of the article is about the marriage of science and secularism, and the second half being about the "historical warring" of science and religion. This article, for me, was a summary and reinforcement of a lot of thoughts I have been having lately about science, religion, and society. It isn't too long of a read and I thought it was very interesting and spurred me to dust off some text books and do some independent reading on my own.

    2 votes
  6. [7]
    post_below
    Link
    I thought the author made some interesting points but the core argument seems to be against a statement that almost no one is making. Namely that "religion will go away in X amount of time because...

    I thought the author made some interesting points but the core argument seems to be against a statement that almost no one is making. Namely that "religion will go away in X amount of time because science".

    I mean sure, you can always find people who've said pretty much any silly thing. But how many rational people actually think religion is just going to go away?

    That extreme characterization allows the glossing over of a simple fact: In the western world religion is on the decline and has been for some time.

    Of course it has, and of course science plays a part in that. As we understand the universe better, we have less need of mythology to fill in the scary dark spaces in our understanding.

    We no longer need supernatural explanations for weather and fertility and disease, so we don't have them anymore. And we look at those archaic mythologies as quaint.

    The religions that remain focus on mythologies that address more difficult to address concerns like fundamental meaning and mortality. As a result they'll be around for a long time to come.

    Eventually, though, we'll look back on them as quaint and archaic too. History makes that inevitability pretty clear. At which point we'll have upgraded or replaced them to be more suited to the times.

    But the the fact that religion will be around for a long time in some form doesn't change the fact that it's decline will continue.

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      Algernon_Asimov
      Link Parent
      He cites quite a few people who do make this statement (or variations thereof): It has been, and still is, a popular opinion. Lots of people believe that a broadening familiarity with science will...

      the core argument seems to be against a statement that almost no one is making. Namely that "religion will go away in X amount of time because science".

      He cites quite a few people who do make this statement (or variations thereof):

      the view that history can be understood in terms of a ‘conflict between two epochs in the evolution of human thought – the theological and the scientific’. This description comes from Andrew Dickson White’s influential A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896),

      Nehru was confident that Hindu visions of a Vedic past and Muslim dreams of an Islamic theocracy would both succumb to the inexorable historical march of secularisation. ‘There is only one-way traffic in Time,’ he declared.

      It would be superfluous to rehearse Richard Dawkins’s musings on this topic, but he is by no means a solitary voice. Stephen Hawking thinks that ‘science will win because it works’; Sam Harris has declared that ‘science must destroy religion’; Stephen Weinberg thinks that science has weakened religious certitude; Colin Blakemore predicts that science will eventually make religion unnecessary.

      It has been, and still is, a popular opinion. Lots of people believe that a broadening familiarity with science will reduce, or even eliminate, religion.

      3 votes
      1. post_below
        Link Parent
        When Sam Harris said "science must destroy religion", that was clickbait. The subtitle was "what is your dangerous idea?". He goes on to talk about the need for science to start trying to address...

        When Sam Harris said "science must destroy religion", that was clickbait. The subtitle was "what is your dangerous idea?".

        He goes on to talk about the need for science to start trying to address issues that were previously the realm of religion.

        He does talk about the common sense ways that science and religion are at odds, which, without some significant changes in the most popular religion (Christianity) is of course true.

        Stephen Hawking is saying that when it comes to solving practical problems, science actually works. Religion isn't well suited to solving practical problems, faith leaves too much room for bias.

        Stephen Weinburg is of course right, science absolutely has reduced religious certitude.

        None of this is the same as saying that religion is going to go away in some specific amount of time. That's not a stance a thinking person can hold for more than a few minutes.

        However, again, by framing the argument that way, and throwing in the characterization that scientists have some desire to destroy religion, the author is able to sidestep the fact that mythology has been declining for a long time and will almost definitely continue to.

        As a side note, some scientists would of course like to see religion go away, but by and large religion is irrelevant to science. It doesn't play a part in answering the sorts of questions that people get into science to answer.

    2. [4]
      Micycle_the_Bichael
      Link Parent
      A lot. Almost every athiest I know in real life or knew in college thought that the end of religion at the hands of science was both inevitable and necessary. While this is true in the west, at...

      I mean sure, you can always find people who've said pretty much any silly thing. But how many rational people actually think religion is just going to go away?

      A lot. Almost every athiest I know in real life or knew in college thought that the end of religion at the hands of science was both inevitable and necessary.

      That extreme characterization allows the glossing over of a simple fact: In the western world religion is on the decline and has been for some time.

      While this is true in the west, at least in the last pew research I can find, the percentage of the population that is not religious is projected to remain the same. From the study:

      "Similarly, the religiously unaffiliated population is projected to shrink as a percentage of the global population, even though it will increase in absolute number. In 2010, censuses and surveys indicate, there were about 1.1 billion atheists, agnostics and people who do not identify with any particular religion.5 By 2050, the unaffiliated population is expected to exceed 1.2 billion. But, as a share of all the people in the world, those with no religious affiliation are projected to decline from 16% in 2010 to 13% by the middle of this century. At the same time, however, the unaffiliated are expected to continue to increase as a share of the population in much of Europe and North America. In the United States, for example, the unaffiliated are projected to grow from an estimated 16% of the total population (including children) in 2010 to 26% in 2050. As the example of the unaffiliated shows, there will be vivid geographic differences in patterns of religious growth in the coming decades."

      1 vote
      1. [3]
        post_below
        Link Parent
        Of course some college students have absolutist views... those are still forming perspectives. They aren't exactly wrong though, it's just going to take a long time. Regarding the decline of...

        Of course some college students have absolutist views... those are still forming perspectives. They aren't exactly wrong though, it's just going to take a long time.

        Regarding the decline of religion in the west... why are you responding with international numbers?

        The numbers you're looking at are worldwide, they include Africa and Asia where population growth dwarfs that of the west.

        Birth rate, incidentally, has an inverse correlation to education level. Much like religion. Something the projection doesn't take into account is the rapidly increasing education levels in places like India, which will presumably start to impact religious affiliation in the same way they have in the west (and elsewhere). It will definitely impact population growth at some point, which in turn will change the projected outcome.

        But back to the west... There is no doubt religion is on the decline:
        https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/

        https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decline_of_Christianity

        Also interesting:
        https://www.pewforum.org/2018/06/13/young-adults-around-the-world-are-less-religious-by-several-measures/

        1 vote
        1. [2]
          Micycle_the_Bichael
          Link Parent
          I’m talking about internationally because the article is about global religion and because there is no reason that the question of “will science replace religion” needs to be limited to the West

          I’m talking about internationally because the article is about global religion and because there is no reason that the question of “will science replace religion” needs to be limited to the West

          1. post_below
            Link Parent
            Of course there is... Religion has declined alongside increased education for 100's of years. In the west the average education level is higher, which serves as a reasonable template for what will...

            Of course there is... Religion has declined alongside increased education for 100's of years. In the west the average education level is higher, which serves as a reasonable template for what will likely happen in developing countries.

            1 vote