Science v. Religion Pt. 574
Via Andrew Sullivan, The Economist has a fascinating post on the growing parallels between religion and theoretical physics.
It’s not that the physicists aren’t right. It’s just that, compared to the 19th century, more of the propositions that physicists are asking non-scientists to entertain are not vastly more elegant or evidence-based than those of religion. This may largely be an artifact of science journalism, with its focus on the weird and the unknown, rather than of science itself, most of which tends to be a lot more grounded and prosaic.
I think the author is on to something here. Religion’s goal, it seems to me and I think to many other non-believers, is to explain the world in a way that makes sense to them. Physics does the same thing — in the last several centuries, in ways that could be proven, but in the last 50 years in ways that are increasingly theoretical.
It goes to the point that debating The Existence Of God is pretty mundane and unnecessary for non-believers. The more interesting questions revolve around how beneficial or harmful religion and certain religions are. Physics too, since it’s not clear now how a better understanding of dimensions we cannot access will help us pass health care reform etc. When there is no way of proving a proposition, the better way to think about things is to understand what impact belief in that proposition will have.
-John
Related posts:
- Is social conservatism a new religion?
- God, science and morality walk into a bar . . .
- The recession will not lead to better political science
- Sam Harris – Can science address morality?
- Is political science relevant?
ShareComments
One Response to “Science v. Religion Pt. 574”
Leave a Reply
This sounds to me like an echo of William James’ Pragmatism in which an idea’s “truth” is only a reflection of its usefulness when people act as if it were true under certain conditions.
While perhaps appealing, this approach presents its own problems. First, if “truth” becomes what is deemed as useful, instead of empiric verification, its “truth” is based on the assumption that current conditions will continue, ie. belief in x is true because it makes me feel better and helps me through the day (right now). However, if x is false, then my continued belief in it may prove detrimental in the future if things change.
Additionally, the pragmatic approach really relegates the role of “truth” to a tool, and in doing so, changes the nature of belief from adherence out of conviction of verisimilitude to adherence out of a decision of convenience. It brings up the question if belief is a function of choice or simply of an involuntary internal calculation that renders someone more inclined to one stance than another.
-Michael