

"Sometimes science must give way to religion" - ananyob
http://www.nature.com/news/sometimes-science-must-give-way-to-religion-1.11244

======
super_mario
We can detect Higgs boson in principle (and may have recently). Religion on
the other hand remains ramblings of bronze age goat herders who "knew" the
secrets of the universe because a burning bush revealed it to them. We now
have ample evidence that theistic gods are man made inventions. For those of
us who care about what is true, this is enough to discard religion as a pure
lie, which is not even a force for the good in the world (child raping,
crusades, inquisitions, suicide bombers, jihads, Armageddons and end of times.
These people just can't wait to die or if they can't live forever, kill
everyone else as well with them).

Science on the other hand is not a belief system. Evidence based reasoning
doesn't work that way. It strikes me as odd that someone who is presumably a
trained scientist hasn't even understood that basic charge theists put forward
repeatedly (it boils down to "it takes equal amount of faith not to believe in
god as it does to believe in god" applied to all kinds of things in this case
science based on empirical evidence. As if there is even a trace of credible
evidence for god. In fact when you start poking around various deities it gets
incredibly uncomfortable for the religious because of how little evidence
there is for historicity of say Jesus let alone his presumed divinity.).

Awe and amazement is not exclusive to religion you know. Just like how
religion has hijacked morals and now boldly claims you can't be a moral person
without some kind of delusion in sky god (it doesn't even have to be their
brand of delusion, anything is better than atheism or secularism). These
people fail to understand that morals like language are also products of our
wills and minds and therefore also a technology. We can decide slavery is not
a good idea (despite endorsement from Yahweh). We can decide that fairly
applied laws, rather than nepotistic favoritism, is a good idea. We can outlaw
certain punishments with treaties. We can encourage accountability with the
invention of writing. We can consciously expand our circle of empathy. These
are all inventions, products of our minds, as much as lightbulbs and
telegraphs are. People who insist on absolute biblical morality are really
insisting on using bronze age technology absolutely. Time and time again,
religion is proving itself incapable of catching up with the achievements of
secular society, which is not surprising really, religion is now a branch of
human ignorance. It was our first approximation of science, first explanation
for everything primitive mind feared but could not explain, but it failed to
evolve and improve because of its insistence on supernatural and supernatural
explanations, which simply are not supported by evidence.

And this brings me to a larger point, why do we even have religion today?
Precisely because believing is lot easier than thinking. It takes time and
effort to acquire knowledge but any fool can acquire faith instantly and
effortlessly. If it took any effort most people would not bother with it. And
the biggest problem with all of this is this love affair with ignorance is
made into a virtue by religion.

~~~
think-large
You realize that much of what you have to say in this is based on a leap of
faith. You've limited your view to what you can learn from only your 5 senses
and that nothing else exists.

If anything science DENIES that as a truth with the discovery of the non-
visual light spectrum. Much of science denies exactly what you claim.

Science is a model to explain data and experience, while predicting what can
happen. There are many theories, many of which change. A thesis (or leap of
faith) is examined and DISproven. They are never proven to be 100% true.

Math has proofs, not science.

So please understand that it is important to realize that there is ALWAYS
another explanation for something. You are irrational in your defense of
Science.

I do not know that there is a God. I think people who claim such things are
fools as you said. I have faith that there is one. It is a thesis of mine and
as of right now there is no disproof.

To have doubt is to be logical :-)

~~~
super_mario
You are actually quite confused. Yes, science has theories (which is a highest
pedestal a hypothesis can be placed upon) and only math has theorems (I'm a
mathematician by the way so I know the distinction).

Scientific method is an approximation method. It converges on the "truth" but
may never reach it. This is why Einstein famously said, "No amount of
experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me
wrong." I quoted truth above because there is no such thing as truth really.
We only have models.

And even more there is not such thing as model independent reality. When you
start talking about things (e.g. light) without using a particular model of it
you run into all sorts of problems rather quickly.

You are also working under the assumption that things you can't see directly
can't be considered evidence. This is patently not true. We can never see
electron with our own eyes directly, but we can detect it by other means.

What god do you believe exists? If you are referring to deistic god (the one
that may perhaps have kicked off the universe, but does not interfere in it
any more) then no one can in principle provide a proof it exists nor that it
does not exist. At most we can say is such a hypothesis is no longer needed.
It presupposes a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating
universes who either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to
assume the same thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter). This is
why Occam's razor cuts such hypothesis as superfluous thing, because it does
not explain anything new, but poses more questions.

Theism on the other hand is not simply belief in gods. Theism is belief in
gods that care about human beings, that interfere in their lives, that tell
you what you should do, what you should eat, on what days, who you may sleep
with and in what position, gods who break the known laws of nature for their
people, a god that gives itself body so it can kill it to save the humanity
etc.

This theistic concept of god is quite distinct from a deistic god who may
perhaps have kicked off the universe and set its laws, but who does not
interfere in it any more.

And it is this theistic god that we now know is a man made invention.

~~~
think-large
Wow, very well written. I have a lot of respect for you.

Scientific models are man made abstractions on a reality that we cannot prove.
You obviously put a lot of faith into those man made abstractions.

To say that a theistic god is a man made invention is an assumption on _who_
created it. That would be distinctly eliminating the possibility of alien life
forms.

Also you misuse Occam's Razor. It can't disprove anything without empirical
data.

The bible is a man-made invention. The stories in it are disseminated by men.
That does not disprove that there is a God who can interact with the real
world in some way or other. It just means that as scientific knowledge refines
their theories so must religion.

Also a few points, I'm an Aerospace Engineer. I know that there are tools that
expand what our senses can observe, but they still must display information in
a way that we can observe.

I'm curious though, would you mind clarifying this statement. >>It presupposes
a lot more to assume an intelligent being capable of creating universes who
either spontaneously came into being or always existed than to assume the same
thing about the universe itself (i.e. dumb matter).

What about a hypothesis of a deistic God makes it no longer needed? If you
move away from the physical sciences into those that study the human psyche,
you'll see that much is left unexplained. It could be argued (albeit blindly)
that any such hypothesis is no longer needed.

Natural sciences and behavioral sciences have no business explaining away each
other. Religion is a behavioral science. You may deem behavioral science as
superfluous, but it can't be cut away.

At least not yet.

~~~
super_mario
Occam's razor was never meant to prove anything. It is a principle of economy
of assumptions or hypothesis. In essence it says don't assume more than you
have to explain certain phenomena. This is what I mean. We now have a good
idea how universe itself can come from nothing, we don't need the god
hypothesis to explain that one last ultimate question (why is there something
rather than nothing. There is something because something is more stable than
nothing). Our ancestors certainly didn't have that knowledge and for them god
seemed necessary to "explain" this. Even though such god did not really
explain anything, it just shifted the question further to where did god come
from. Did he spontaneously come from nothing? Did he always exist? And why
can't we just forgo such hypothesis (this is where Occam's economy principle
comes in) and just assume universe itself either always existed or come into
being from nothing (which is what current physical theory suggests). Why posit
an intelligent being capable of creating universes, which raises more
questions about where did this intelligence itself come from, rather than
assume the same thing about the dumb matter (i.e. universe) itself.

I hope this clarifies what I meant above.

This whole argument is shortened into "deistic god can neither be proved nor
disproved, but we no longer need him to kick off the universe for us. We now
know how that too can happen without god".

However, I have nothing against deistic god. People who want to believe in
deistic god will not receive any objection from me. I'm primarily gnostic (I
know there is no theistic god) anti-theist (I don't think religion is a force
for good in the world). Religion is not about deistic god. Religion is about
people who not only know there is a god, with certainty, but they know his
mind, what he wants us to do. It is this argument from certainty (which all
arguments from faith are), that can easily be disproved. Note that I have not
actually offered proof in my posts, the time and space and the forum itself
are not the right places to do this. But I can recommend a lot of literature
on this subject that go into great depth if you care to look at the evidence
we do have.

~~~
think-large
I'd love to get any references you have. I enjoy learning from anyone who can
keep an open mind. I do have to say that your comment about sheep herders,
while funny (and accurate) was a little over the top.

Deistic or Theistic, if someone doesn't suck at religion I think that they
should be left alone. Especially if that leads them to give money to the poor,
teach in developing nations, etc. While it can be argued that those things
have negative effects I've also seen some of the good that comes from it first
hand.

I love this comic. I believe it sums up most of what I think about religion.
The only thing I would change is the one where the father is teaching his
daughter. There does need to be room for a parent to "express" belief to his
children and acceptance when the children differ from the parent.

<http://theoatmeal.com/comics/religion>

Agnostic and atheistic beliefs can be added to the above comic as well. :-)
That being said, if you see someone sucking at their religion please school
them and tell them I'm asking them not to make the rest of us look bad.

~~~
super_mario
Here they are before I forget:

A Devil's Chaplain

Are You Living in a Computer Simulation

Arguing About Gods

Atheism - The Case Against God

Atheist Manifest - In Defense of Atheism

Atheist Universe

Biblical Cosmology

Breaking the Spell - Religion as a Natural Phenomenon

Cognitive and neural foundations of religious belief

Darwin's Dangerous Idea Evolution and the Meanings of Life

Demon Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark

Dossier Of Reason

Evil God Challenge

Forged

God - The Failed Hypothesis

God Is Not Great

Godless

History of God

Jesus Interrupted

Jesus Myth - The Case Against Historical Christ

Letter To A Christian Nation

Logic and Theism

Love Thy Neighbour - Evolution of In-group Morality

Lying

Misquoting Jesus

Superstition In All Ages

The Ascension of Yahweh_ The Origins and Development of Israelite Monotheism

The Christian Delusion

The Dialogues of Plato

The Early History of Heaven

The End of Faith

The Evolution of God

The God Delusion

The God Virus How Religion Infects Our Lives And Culture

The Moral Landscape

Who Wrote the Bible

Why I am not a Christian

These are just some of the books I have read on the subject, but there are
others highly rated and recommended that I still want to go through. However,
these are really good.

If this list seems daunting I would recommend a shorter list:

"Breaking the spell" by Daniel Dennett "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkings
"God is not great" by Christopher Hitchens "End of Faith" by Sam Harris

But books by Steven Hawking "The Grand Design", "Universe from Nothing" by
Lawrence Krauss and "Your Inner Fish - A Journey into the 3.5 billion year
history of the human body" by Neil Shubin, are also great although somewhat
more technical. All other books are softer read.

------
zerostar07
I couldn't find anything to take away from this article (and now this guy can
claim to be publishing in Nature? What a load of BS).

\- Higgs was the _goddamned_ particle, which was censored to 'god'. In any
case it was just a joke

\- In a sense scientists _believe_ in science, because it has never failed
them. As much as most would not admit it, i believe they see _some_
metaphysical meaning in searching for nature's truths. Plus there is some
(neuro-)science that deals with metaphysical/religious feelings itself.

\- Just because certain places, thoughts and readings create certain chemical
reactions in our brains that we perceive as deep mystical emotions doesn't
mean they matter in themselves. I used to have a fear of locusts.

\- _a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the
unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience_ : Isn't it
_weakness_ to stop there and say "OMG"? What causes those feelings, what
purpose do they serve, and why do they happen in that Temple? Why do we even
have the word "unknowable"? I think that's why science is more fun

This guy needs to come out to himself as a theist

~~~
think-large
Science is constantly failing us. I remember when I was taught the basic
structure of an atom and all I needed were protons, neutrons, and electrons.
And while quarks can be chalked up as an expansion pack for an high school
teacher so can many of the changes that religious people make.

How many scientific theories are proven not to be accurate models for the
data? Is that not a failure? No, because it is just a failure on that
particular scientist right? There is a perception that science does not fail.
It does, frequently.

The problem is that science was BUILT to fail. It is BUILT to be expanded
upon. Religion, according to many was not. That is the fundamental failure in
Religion. They want to appear to be constant and unchanging while they are
not.

Religion does adapt, and grow, and find failures. Much like science does. It
takes a certain amount of faith to wake up every day and say that this world
is the real one. It makes logical sense yes, but that doesn't mean it's the
whole picture.

TLDR; To be staunchly of either belief and NOT have any doubt THAT is
illogical.

~~~
zerostar07
The problem with a religion-oriented attitude (no matter how progressive the
religion) is that it acts like a pacifier for the human inquirer.

~~~
think-large
I'd have to say that they are different sorts of food. Science is a food for
your brain. It stimulates you and helps you to doubt everything.

Religion is a food for your "soul" or inner well being. It is meant to make
you into a better person and to help you enjoy this life in a different way.

Our brain needs both types of stimulation. Some of us get stimulation by
proving our theories.

The religous get stimulation by thinking about abstract concepts that have no
solution. You can consider it like a game, the better you play the "happier"
you will be.

I'll admit that religion does not work for everyone. For some it tastes like
garbage and gives no nourishment, I can see why you'd view it as a pacifier in
that way.

To others it helps them to cope with being on a rock, flying through space. It
helps me in that way. In this case I say to each his own, I prefer to separate
science and religion and get my nourishment from them both in equal parts.

~~~
zerostar07
Personally, i take the eliminativist view that soul is your brain. I do see
some value in metaphysical contemplation (as a fun exercise) but I think if
one accepts it seriously, it becomes an escape mechanism.

~~~
think-large
An escape mechanism for what? To escape the fact that you are a package of
meat spinning on a rock, spinning about a ball of burning gas, spinning
about....

It is an escape, a hope a dream that at the end of this day in day out life to
wake up to something different rather than to cease existing. It is the most
arrogant, self sustaining idea out there. That you as a person are important,
that your opinion will matter, and that the concept of who you are will be
carried forward by more than your sperm/eggs.

Faith is the concept of believing in something you can't prove. It is a thesis
that is backed by our need as a species to propagate forward. The proof is in
our minds (or spirits). It gives us something to latch on to. I just don't
understand why it has to be considered a bad thing?

I have to also throw out there that philosophy has a great way of showing that
doubt is at our core. I think some of these arguments are fanciful, but why is
it not possible for there to be something more out there that we can't detect?

~~~
zerostar07
Religion (if that's what you describe) offers coping mechanisms that pacify
the existential stress. While this is rewarding (and psychologically
beneficial to most people) it also acts as an escape from the drive to
discover the true nature of the world. Naturally, we may assume that there may
be many entities outside this universe (but should they necessarily be
undetectable?), as our imagination is boundless. That doesn't mean that these
ideas should necessarily be considered valid by everyone. It's a personal
choice to believe or not. The appeal of science is that it provides a
universally applicable test (empiricism) to determine whether a belief is
false or not.

------
ananyob
So this is causing a bit of a storm. When I read it though, I thought this is
sociology of science 101. To the layman, and to all non-specialists, science
is a belief system. We take certain things on trust - like the discovery of
the Higgs. It doesn't mean that science is not based on empirical evidence.

------
padobson
"But people raised to believe that physicists are more reliable than Hindu
priests will prefer molasses to milk. For those who cannot follow the
mathematics, belief in the Higgs is an act of faith, not of rationality."

This reminds me of the episode of South Park where Cartman travels into the
future to play Nintendo only to find a post-religious world mired in faith-
based fighting.

If your quest for understanding takes you down the path of science or of
religion or both, at some point you are going to have to take _something_ on
faith, and to succeed you will eventually have to defend that faith - usually
against someone else's faith in something else.

We all have our cross to bear.

~~~
tompko
Science doesn't require you to take anything on faith, for every theory and
result it states it gives you the tools and methods to go away and verify it
for yourself. It might be a stretch to expect someone to build another LHC,
but if they don't trust the science coming out of there they could build it
for themselves and see. Faith is the belief in or of something in the absence
of proof, science not only provides the proof it makes it possible to prove
for yourself. Science only requires trust in the scientists who are providing
the results used to prove the theories.

~~~
mindcrime
_Science doesn't require you to take anything on faith_

But it does, in a sense. See, for example, The Problem of Induction[1].

 _for every theory and result it states it gives you the tools and methods to
go away and verify it for yourself._

The scientific method is certainly my preferred choice for developing new
knowledge, and it appears to be better than any other system developed to date
(certainly better than accepting weird folklore from ancient books). But, in a
manner of speaking, there is a certain sort of "faith" involved with science
as well.

[1]: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction>

~~~
DanHulton
Sure, but science says "I learned it like this, you can learn it this way
too."

Religion says "You can't know this. You can't ever know this. You just have to
trust me on this."

~~~
mindcrime
Absolutely. Don't mistake my comments here as any sort of defense of religion.
Just pointing out that science is not, maybe, as absolute as some people would
suggest. "Black Swan" events do happen and previously accepted ideas are
thrown out.

What makes science so much more compelling than religion, in my book, is the
testability. What we think we know about the world, as a result of science,
enables us to do things with tangible benefits... cars, computers, jet
airplanes, Mars probes, mp3 players, etc. I don't see any way to test much of
anything that religion tells us is true. And to the best of my knowledge, when
people have tried to validate religious beliefs (like the power of prayer) the
results have not come down solidly on the side of religious belief.

------
think-large
I applaud this author for having an open mind on this topic.

I think often times in science there is an ego that we can and we will uncover
all the secrets of the universe, but that in an of itself is something taken
on faith.

It is actually something irrationally taken on faith, if experience and data
counts for anything, then the only logical theory to this argument is that we
can't and won't ever find an end to discovery. Why? Because as we uncover the
mysteries of the universe an exponential number of mysteries open up to us.

But then again, I'm taking that all on faith :-)

~~~
icebraining
That some scientists may believe that, it doesn't mean that's inherit to
science.

------
jorangreef
Science is our best effort attempt to describe the world around us. Science
can't go beyond that.

All models are wrong but some models are more useful than others. It is
unlikely that our models fit the data perfectly. Indeed we cannot know if we
even have all the data in the first place. We should not mistake science for
the real world, or the model for the data.

Naturalists would say that there's nothing beyond that, nothing beyond the
world around us as described by science. They have no rational reason to
assert such a position. They have no philosophical or scientific tools to make
such a claim. Indeed the scientific method was never intended to be used
towards that end. Philosophy is similarly ill-suited.

The mistake of naturalists is to conflate science with atheism and to confuse
"faith" (conviction established by reason) with "blind faith" (unfounded
conviction), two separate concepts. For example, "I have a degree of faith in
you based on past performance" vs "I have a degree of faith in you based on
whimsy".

On the other hand, the supernaturalist believes there's something beyond the
world around us. Likewise, the supernaturalist has no tools (philosophy,
science) to assert such a position. Both the naturalist (represented by
atheism) and the supernaturalist (represented by blind faith) are indefensible
positions.

Therefore there is no ground on which to outright reject or accept the
possibility of miracles.

This leaves the middle ground (represented by agnosticism). Here the position
is such that we can't reach out and describe the existence or non-existence of
the supernatural, unless it were to reach out and describe itself to us in a
way that would clearly be supernatural. This would mean that we could only
ever confirm the existence of the supernatural but never deny it. For that
task, we would need to look to history, using the tools of historical inquiry,
if indeed there is anything supernatural yet to be found in history.

The claim of Christ, of the life and death and resurrection of Christ in
history would be one such claim to examine:

"I passed on to you what was most important and what had also been passed on
to me. Christ died for our sins, just as the Scriptures said. He was buried,
and he was raised from the dead on the third day, just as the Scriptures said.
He was seen by Peter and then by the Twelve. After that, he was seen by more
than 500 of his followers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though
some have died. Then he was seen by James and later by all the apostles. Last
of all, as though I had been born at the wrong time, I also saw him. For I am
the least of all the apostles. In fact, I'm not even worthy to be called an
apostle after the way I persecuted God's church." - Paul in his first letter
to the Corinthians

------
tompko
I'm not sure I see the link between simplifying something so that a layman can
understand it and appealing to magic or God to explain something away, or why
having something simplified for you makes your acceptance of that fact an
irrational act.

~~~
think-large
I think that what he is getting at is that you are taking it on faith that the
logic is solid behind the theory. One of the things about science is that it
is an observation about the reality that we can see.

I think religion is about the reality that we can't. It's not about explaining
away something, but trying to put a boundary on what we do and don't
understand. I think the biggest downfall of religion is when we (religious
folks) try to make observations about the world with our feelings. That
doesn't work. I can't feel a desk with my "heart" any more than I can feel
radio waves with my hands.

I think what is irrational is that science feels that it can explain
everything all the way, but I'm of the opinion that the further we dig the
deeper it will go. We used to believe the proton, neutron, and electron were
the smallest form of matter. What will be next? I have "faith" that something
new will be discovered, which is where we step into an irrational realm.

Faith in anything is irrational. Succinctly, To believe in that which is
outside of your own thoughts is irrational, but we do and we must to survive.

~~~
icebraining
_I think that what he is getting at is that you are taking it on faith that
the logic is solid behind the theory._

If we believed that, how come we're constantly throwing away and modifying
theories?

 _I think what is irrational is that science feels that it can explain
everything all the way_

Science is incapable of feeling. That some people believe that is
inconsequential is not a failure of science.

 _We used to believe the proton, neutron, and electron were the smallest form
of matter. What will be next? I have "faith" that something new will be
discovered, which is where we step into an irrational realm._

That's a false equivalence. "Faith" as attributing a high degree of confidence
in a event based on solid logical reasoning is not the same as religious
faith. It's not even in the same ballpark.

------
Toenex
Belief is important in science. In science we only disprove a hypothesis
(falsifiability). If we repeatedly fail to disprove it we begin to believe it
true. Yet we can never rule out that one data the data may exist to disprove
our strongly held hypothesis. We never prove it true we simply believe it true
based on the continual failure of disproof.

------
roop
It appears to me that most commenters missed the point of the article, which
(to me) is more on the lines of Arthur C. Clarke's third law: " Any
sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." (Replace
magic by religion.)

We have all these scientists trying to explain how sub-atomic particles have
mass, and in course of that explanation, talk about the spin of a particle,
color charge, Higgs field, et al. Thing is, I can _really_ understand their
explanation only if I know what these terms mean. And for me to know what
those terms _really_ mean, I might have to spend years (or maybe decades,
depending on my mental capacity) studying theoretical physics. But I believe
them because science if all about repeatable experiments. While I'm ill-
equipped to check the results, I guess other domain-experts can.

Now, let's take a look at Hindu spirituality. A yogi might try to explain,
say, why we exist, and in course of doing that, talk about Brahman, karma,
cosmic cycle, et al. To _really_ understand what he means, I would need to
_really_ understand what the terms mean, and doing that might take years or
decades.

See the parallels? That's what the article is trying to emphasize.

------
laserDinosaur
I think I understand what point he is trying to get at, in a very round-a-
bout, incorrect premise type way (ha, God particle). Do I know we went to the
moon? No, but I can do enough research that shows there is more evidence we
did than didn't. Do I know that the LHC actually works? No, but I _could_ do
the research to find more evidence that they did than they didn't. Do I have
time to do that research? No. Does that mean I've put 'faith' in scientists
that it does exist? _Hell no_ , I've given them the benefit of the doubt. In
my mind that is two WILDLY different statements. 'Faith' that the higgs exists
suggests I've done give up trying to find answers and will simply take the
word of others as fact. Benefit of the doubt means the people in charge have
built up enough credibility that I'm willing to believe them for now, but I'm
never going to stop reading every bit of information on the topic I can until
I can form a proper opinion. Faith in the sun rising tomorrow means I won’t
stick my head out the window and look. Benefit of the doubt means I'll have a
good night’s sleep, but I'll sure as hell be looking out that window in the
morning.

------
drucken
Science != spirituality.

The domain the author speaks of does not fall within the remit of science.
Further, it cannot since spirituality is subjective.

It would be like saying the an accurate and extendible description of a thing
is like actually standing next to the thing. Like reading of the Grand Canyon
is the same as being at the Grand Canyon...

Also, the title of the article is critically misnamed. He is almost entirely
describing spirituality not religious experience.

Non-religious people, including atheists, accept that it is possible to have
spirituality, i.e. to form a deeper connection with others and yourself,
including via science. It is the _means_ by how that is achieved that is the
source of friction _outside of science_.

------
snowwrestler
In the time of Newton, there were numerous smart people trying to explain how
gravity works. Newton's tremendous insight was that if he could develop a
mathematical model that accurately predicted the movement of objects under the
influence of gravity, it would not matter whether he could explain "how"
gravity works. It was the original "shut up and calculate" moment, and the
birth of our modern conception of mathematical physics.

Science describes and predicts. Ultimately it cannot tell us "why"--or
"should". These will always be the realm of philosophy and religion.

Where religious dogma contradicts proven scientific understanding, the
religious dogma must yield. But I worry that in our zeal to resolve that
conflict, scientifically-inclined people also end up attacking the sense of
emotional awe that is at the heart of the religious experience. That's a shame
because it is _also_ at the heart of why many kids decide to go into science
in the first place. Carl Sagan addressed this a bit in his book "Contact", in
which he calls that emotional experience "the numinous".

~~~
zerostar07
I am going to be provocative and say that there are scientists that actively
try to expand into the other realm. After all philosophy and religion are
products of the human brain activity, which is composed of cells, so why can't
these functions be approached in a scientific way? To say that we will have to
stop inquiring about it would be lazy

~~~
lutusp
> philosophy and religion are products of the human brain activity, which is
> composed of cells, so why can't these functions be approached in a
> scientific way?

That's easy to answer -- because they aren't subject to potential
falsification, by way of comparison with reality.

Scientific ideas, to merit the name, must be testable against reality, and if
reality disagrees, the ideas must be discarded.

Philosophy and religion don't have this property -- they (a) don't need to
pass a reality test, and (b) in most cases they cannot pass a reality test.
This is by design, not by accident -- if religion and philosophy had to meet
this standard, their purpose (freedom to speculate about untestable things)
would be undermined.

> there are scientists that actively try to expand into the other realm.

Perhaps, but not as scientists, only as individuals not doing science. And
because science rejects authority, a scientist who philosophizes is just
another philosopher, no better or worse than any other.

~~~
zerostar07
We might, by studying the human brain, figure out that as it functions it
starts philosophizing and asking "why", even generating religious ideas. To me
that would be enough to demystify and explain them away in a scientific (and
falsifiable) way. In this sense, philosophy, religion, and science itself is
subject to empirical examination.

That's also what i meant by "expanding to the other realm", i mean using brain
research to explain the biological basis behind major philosophical concepts
such as free will [1].

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will>

------
pepve
Far more comments than upvotes. An article like this, fervent discussion is to
be expected. Let me join in on the fun!

"Science is supposed to challenge this type of quasi-mystical subjective
experience, to provide an antidote to it."

That is where the author lost me. Science is supposed to challenge beliefs,
not personal experience. It's the difference between "I feel great today" and
"four people complimented my new haircut today". Science still allows you to
revel in beauty when looking at a temple, even while there may be a sound
explanation for why you're having these feelings.

------
calciphus
The author completely lost me at:

"The Higgs, of course, has been labelled the ‘god particle’ because it
accounts for the existence of mass in the Universe."

No, it is called the "God Particle" because Leon Lederman called it the
"Goddamned Particle" since he had so much trouble defining what it was and how
it behaved, and his publisher shortened it to "The God Particle" because it
had a snappier name.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs#Political_and_relig...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Higgs#Political_and_religious_views)

------
retube
is this "nature" as in the scientific journal?

this kind of trolling for pageviews i expect from the dailymail or the
guardian, not from one of the foremost and most respected publishes in
Science.

------
yarrel
"a walk through the magnificent temples of Angkor offers a glimpse of the
unknowable and the inexplicable beyond the world of our experience"

Somebody _really_ needs to drop acid.

~~~
fein
This is one thing I don't understand. Do the modern day followers of various
religions not realize that they were founded by borderline drunks and
psychonauts?

These people don't just "talk to the gods" while completely sober; they're
railed on a whole plethora of wonderful psychotropics. If any single follower
of any religion wants to find out where it came from, eat a handful of
mushrooms.

------
sasoon
Leon Lederman did not want to call it 'The God Particle', just the opposite
'Goddamn Particle'. "the publisher wouldn't let us call it the Goddamn
Particle, though that might be a more appropriate title, given its villainous
nature and the expense it is causing."
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Univer...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Particle:_If_the_Universe_Is_the_Answer,_What_Is_the_Question%3F)

------
WalterSear
It was dubbed the 'god damn' particle, not the god particle.

------
nano_o
Sometimes it may be better not to explain than to resort to cosmic molasses
and moonlight (terms taken from the NYT quote in the article).

Here is, I think, Feynman explaining it:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM>

It seems to also apply to explaining through religion.

------
DaNmarner
Several hundred years ago, nobody understands acceleration. Several decades
ago, nobody understands the theory of relativity. Today, nobody understands
the Standard Model.

And they all submit to religion!

~~~
laserDinosaur
God of the gaps.

------
sodiumphosphate
Fuck religion.

