
Hostility toward spiritual traditions may be hampering empirical inquiry - pseudolus
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/01/opinion/sunday/science-religion.html
======
jmts
The article containing the quote from Richard Dawkins can be found here:

[https://uktech.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/dawkins-on-
theology/](https://uktech.wordpress.com/2006/09/25/dawkins-on-theology/)

To paraphrase, he's arguing that very little beyond the obvious has come from
religious teachings, and much of the rest can be proved false with science.

The article posted suggests that science may have more to learn from religion,
given that science has shown there is some benefit to practices like
meditation and ritual. This reads a little bit like a justification for all of
religion after science was able to pick some of the interesting parts out and
show they have use beyond a religious context. I'm not sure I buy the
argument. A seized engine doesn't become workable simply by showing the bolts
are still in good condition.

~~~
dTal
But would science have ever come up with the concept of meditation in the
first place? How long did it take for it to be accepted in the western
scientific tradition as something possibly worth investigating, something with
value beyond mystical yogi hocus pocus?

Almost any historical practice with social or psychological meaning would have
been understood at least partially within the context of a "spiritual
tradition". If you write off anything that smells of religion you throw away
an awful lot.

~~~
AstralStorm
Yes. The original similar concept is called TENS. Oldest, uses electric
current simulation.

The other concept was using sound interaction with brainwave monitoring -
monaural and binaural beats. There are also light based variants.

Yet other used magnetic fields and another is called tDCS.

There is also hypnosis, pretty old.

These have nothing in common with religion yet are similar to meditation when
measured... not exactly identical of course.

I'm quite sure someone would figure out a link between specific thought
patterns and physiology in a specialized field like neuroscience...

~~~
DanBC
TENS and tDCS are nothing like meditation and have nothing in common.

------
mlthoughts2018
I am an atheist but I believe pursuing religious thought can be a laudable
thing for individuals who do it as a spiritual and self-reflective exercise.

When it becomes an instrument of social control, whether that means using
religion to excuse bigotry or merely using religion as an excuse for
manipulation or control in your own household, then I can no longer agree and
feel it is an intrinsic civic duty of all people to actively discontinue that
portion of religious practice.

Somewhere there is also a gray area related to what I would call “faith-based
reasoning.” In some circumstances it’s fine to make decisions by consulting
some form of faith. But in others, say denying a child’s medical care, it is
clearly indefensible.

On this side of things I subscribe to the idea that was described on LessWrong
in terms of “making beliefs pay rent in the form of anticipated experiences.”
Along the same lines I admire a quote from Robin Hanson: “I wish there was
less of a feeling of entitlement to believe whatever you want, and more of a
sense of social responsibility to believe accurately.”

~~~
agumonkey
I just Ramanujan wikipedia page, his mathematical insights were often inspired
by his faith (as he said, even though it's hard to understand what this
means). It was in complete opposition of his fellows in UK when he went there.
Funny contrast.

Religion also as a different domain of study.. human life. Hard science was
concerned with ideals and material. Few for what your soul~ needs.

------
dr_dshiv
If you'd like to understand the Greek religion and specifically the
intellectual core of it -- which was opposed by Christianity but is
philosophically pro-science and math -- read Plotinus. 700 years after the
Pythagorean beginnings of spiritual-scientific integration, by the time of
Plotinus, there was a core recognition of "The One" or "Oneness" as the origin
and basis of reality -- and goodness. Acheiving this oneness ("henosis") is
possible for anyone through meditation, ritual, psychelics, etc. Plotinus
claimed to have merged with the Oneness of the universe several times. This
oneness is what Alduous Huxley described as the "perennial philosophy" found
in all religious traditions.

This oneness is, also, fully commensurate with science. The notion of
"oneness" sounds like monotheism, but is so dramatically different. It was, in
fact, the reason Christians got so worked up about the Trinity -- and killed
off the Arian heresy (who believed that Jesus was born after god, as an
emanation of the one) -- because otherwise, you fall back into this competing
pagan philosophy that begins with One, and then builds the universe through
"logos".

Few know this, but early christianity was out of the Essenes Jewish sect,
which was described as Pythagorean by the historians of the time, Philo of
Alexandria and Josephus. This creates a possible future for the Catholic
Church to use textual sources to integrate with science and not throw away
everything. Won't be easy, but wtf else will be done with all those churches
and billions of dollars?? Jesus was the voice of the logos, according to early
church father Origen.

In the meantime, atheists/pantheists like myself can read Plato, Plotinus and
Pythagorean texts for inspiration on how a quantitative world gains qualia --
and how harmony serves as a secular (yet spiritual) source of value. Did we
did all come from "the one"? The big bang claims that the universe was fit
into a sphere smaller than a proton-- that's about as close as it gets.

Happy to provide references, but the terms are searchable.

------
ziaddotcom
The "God of the gaps" phenomenon works both ways. I don't think the scientific
method depends upon religion, nor would I want to live in a world without
science. However the idea/phenomenon of once something is in the science
column it is no longer in the religion column doesn't really make any logical
sense to me. If an organized religion funds legitimate science, does it
automatically cease to be somehow related to religion in their eyes? Doubtful,
and this doesn't even take into account that much of the contemporary
university system spun out of religious institutions in the 12th century.

~~~
baddox
> However the idea/phenomenon of once something is in the science column it is
> no longer in the religion column doesn't really make any logical sense to
> me.

It doesn’t mean the phenomenon is so longer relevant to religion, or that
religions can’t offer some insights into how the phenomenon might effect
humans, but it certainly obviated the need for religion to invoke the
supernatural to explain the mechanics of the phenomenon. Which is, after all,
what the “God of the gaps” perspective pertains to.

~~~
ziaddotcom
Right, I just wonder to what extent someone like
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lemaître)
or even Einstein felt the need to distinguish science vs religion as they
pondered scientific concepts. I think the debate or dichotomy makes far more
sense as reason vs xyz rather than science vs religion.

------
maxxxxx
Does this article actually say anything? To me it sounds like a bunch of nice
words without any message.

~~~
cf498
Psychology could learn something from studying some of the tools religions
apply for example to for example influence and guide people.

Which is sure is true, just like you can learn a lot watching a used car
salesmen with the tools he or she uses. Robert Cialdini wrote some great books
about that topic.

The author is how ever mixing up things here on purpose, best seen with the
title.

>What Science Can Learn from Religion

It should read what Psychology can learn by studying religious groups. Those
two are very different things.

~~~
baddox
But that’s just saying that science can learn from _studying religion_ , not
that science can learn by following the teachings of religion. Of course
science can learn from studying religion, just like it can from studying the
rainforest, or stars, or diseases.

~~~
adrusi
It's saying that the bias against religion in the sciencey tribe presents a
barrier to actually studying religions as sources of psychological knowledge
that are better than random speculation (presumably on the grounds that there
was some competition between religions, so that religions that were based on
bad ideas about psychology died out and the ones that remain are based on
better-than-random ideas about psychology)

Sciencey people think religions are wrong, so they are prone to acting like
all ideas to come out of religion are bunk. They shouldn't, so the hostility
of sciencey people toward religion hurts science.

~~~
dTal
A most excellent summary.

It's funny how hardly anyone in this comment thread seems to have taken away
this message. I do however see a whole lot of rather defensive comments about
how religion is useless and bad for this reason or that reason, or attacking
the article (which I thought was very reasonably written) for religious
apology. I think that offers a visible example of the phenomenon under
discussion - any suggestion of positive things flowing from religion is met
with a kind of allergic reaction.

~~~
AstralStorm
The religion as a concept has a use or a few. The allergy cuts both ways, with
religious people not wanting their sociotechnological or psychological
practices broken down and appropriated without core memes.

To do so is considered heresy or worse. More so if done with required
irreverence of science where anything can be shown wrong.

------
willart4food
> Hostility toward spiritual traditions may be hampering empirical inquiry.

The hostility is not towards the tradition, it's towards the selected
individuals who take it upon themselves to aggressively attack all secular
issue, and then shied themselves under the "religious haters" shield when one
defends their invaded territory.

~~~
fdsak
I am surprised we don't hate scientists who developed devastating weapons !
Instead I see otherwise. I think there are also extremists in secular camps by
this definition.

------
vowelless
Why should science learn from religion [0] or religion learn from science?
They serve two different purposes.

"Science" (ultimately the scientific method) concerns itself with empiricism,
and exploration of outcomes without regard to their inherent meanings and
purposes. This is GOOD.

Religion / Ideology (whether with a deity or not) is teleological and imparts
purpose and meaning to empirical observations as well as things that are
beyond empiricism. This is also GOOD.

Both should probably work together. But they should probably remain separate
concepts.

[0] "Religion" in my mind includes all teleological ideologies; things like
'capitalism', 'Marxism', 'Nazism', 'Baathism', 'emacism', etc.

------
Void_
> While fundamentalist faiths cast science as a misguided or even malicious
> source of information

I wonder which faiths they are talking about here.

When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like this
- science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why". So
there's no competition between the two.

For more on the topic: [https://soundcloud.com/bulldogcatholic/122518-but-
why](https://soundcloud.com/bulldogcatholic/122518-but-why) (around 4:00 mark)

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> When it comes to Christianity, well, we love science. We look at it like
> this - science answers "what and how" while religion answers "who and why".
> So there's no competition between the two.

"Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up
"ultimate purpose") or "how" questions in disguise, "who" questions are
presupposing an answer to what are actually "how" questions, in order to
pretend that it's not a scientific question.

~~~
learc83
>"Why" questions are either nonsense (like, questions about some made-up
"ultimate purpose")

In addition to religion, you're outright dismissing entire fields of study,
philosophy, ethics, law etc... that are extremely relevant to all of our
lives. Whether you believe the "why" questions can every be answered is one
thing, but dismissing them as nonsense without even trying to support your
argument is extremely arrogant.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Do you have an example of a "why" question that is not a "how" question in
disguise and that you think is not a nonsense question?

~~~
learc83
Why should I should I try to minimize the suffering of another person if it
has no impact on myself and there is no chance of a reward?

~~~
eipipuz
This seems to me a "how" disguised. Presumably, you WANT the answer to be
conducive to people caring about other people. Or would you accept as answer
"No, there's no reason to care about others in this situation"?

So if you want a particular answer then you are asking "How can I make it so
that people care?"

~~~
learc83
>Or would you accept as answer "No, there's no reason to care about others in
this situation"?

That's an acceptable answer. My next question is: "Why don't you believe it's
wrong not to care about another's suffering?"

And you say: "There is no inherent right or wrong--self interest is the only
arbiter of morality."

And we go back and forth until you get to a level where you've basically made
an arbitrary assumption.

That assumption is an axiom that you base your world view on. The why that
came before that discovery wasn't nonsense

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> That's an acceptable answer. My next question is: "Why don't you believe
> it's wrong not to care about another's suffering?"

First, that's a straw man. It's a straw man because they didn't say they
didn't care about another's suffering, they said there might be no reason to
care in that particular highly unrealistic scenario that you presented that
was intentionally crafted so as to not have a reason to care.

Then, in so far as you refer only to your hypothetical scenario, the answer
has already been given: Because there is no reason, or at least there is no
reason that they are aware of. If you were asking them for justification as to
why they aren't aware of any reasons, that's obviously a nonsensical question
if you don't provide a reason for which they might be able to investigate how
it came that they weren't aware of that reason.

> And we go back and forth until you get to a level where you've basically
> made an arbitrary assumption.

No, that's bullshit, and probably a whole load of equivocation to make the
unreasonable seem equivalent to the reasonable.

~~~
learc83
>Strawman

It's not a strawman, it doesn't matter what the reason the person gave was.
I'm not trying to make my hypothetical person supply the easiest answer to
attack, I'm not even trying to attack their answer.

>No, that's bullshit, and probably a whole load of equivocation to make the
unreasonable seem equivalent to the reasonable.

It's not possible to have beliefs that aren't based on assumptions. I guess
you can think that's bullshit, but your belief doesn't make it so.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> It's not a strawman, it doesn't matter what the reason the person gave was.
> I'm not trying to make my hypothetical person supply the easiest answer to
> attack, I'm not even trying to attack them.

Well, maybe, that depends on which path of the equivocation we follow.

> It's not possible to have beliefs that aren't based on assumptions. I guess
> you can think that's bullshit, but your belief doesn't make it so.

Yeah, that's the equivocation I am talking about. You didn't say "you've made
an assumption", you said "you've basically made an arbitrary assumption".

Let me guess what you are really trying to say:

"It is just an assumption that reality is real, therefore, if you think that
that assumption is acceptable, you should also not have any objection to the
assumption that god exists/gave us morals/some other unjustified supernatural
claim."

Right?

It's not that there isn't an interpretation of what you wrote that is indeed
true (kindof), it's just that that interpretation is irrelevant to the
argument that you are trying to make, which relies on a different
interpretation, which unfortunately is not true.

~~~
learc83
>Yeah, that's the equivocation I am talking about. You didn't say "you've made
an assumption", you said "you've basically made an arbitrary assumption".

Arbitrary isn't the right word. Not self-evident is better.

>Right?

No, I'm not trying to prove to you that God exists.

>the argument that you are trying to make, which relies on a different
interpretation, which unfortunately is not true.

You are having that argument with yourself, not me.

>unfortunately

I don't think I could write a more condescending, disingenuous statement if I
tried.

------
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
That smells of equivocation. There is science, the methodology, and there is
the body of knowledge constructed using that methodology, colloquially also
often just called 'science'.

Yes, obviously one can use scientific methodology to study religion, and given
that religiosity is a very common human behavior, it is hardly surprising that
you can learn something about human psychology this way, thus contributing to
the scientific body of knowledge.

But that does not in any way suggest that the methodology (that is, the
epistemological practice of science) has anything to learn from religion,
which is obviously the claim that Dawkins and Pinker are rejecting, because
that is the claim that religions make when they make assertions about how the
world works, as all religions do.

So, the article at best substantiates the obvious and completely
uncontroversial interpretation of the title that you can make empirical
observations of religious behaviour, while failing to provide any arguments in
favor of the interpretation that at least some people will be prone to read
into the title, that religion somehow has to offer any useful methods for
distintuishing fact from fiction that should be adopted by science.

~~~
mikekchar
I think you are absolutely correct. Many famous scientists were and are deeply
religious. Science as a methodology is antithetical to religious methodology.
The only problem with this is that some people think it's a problem. Science
attempts to make observations, build models and predict things based on those
models. It tries to actively falsify its own models by checking whether new
observations follow the predictions based on the models. Your choice of
whether or not to believe in the reality of the models is still your choice.
While unfair and out of context, I like to quote Einstein here: "God does not
play dice with the universe". He didn't like quantum mechanics because it
didn't sit well with his belief of how the universe worked. Similarly, after
Michelson and Morely won the nobel prize for demonstrating that the speed of
light was a constant, no matter what reference frame you were in, they spent
the rest of their years trying to disprove it! They knew that the consequences
of a constant speed of light was crazy physics as envisioned by Einstein and
they didn't believe in that kind of universe. This happens all the time in
science. We use our scientific models because they are useful, not because we
believe in them as some kind of absolute truth. Granted, some people do
believe that, but that belief is not science. The big takeaway is that it
doesn't matter what you believe if you are using a scientific methodology. It
is irrelevant -- you use what works, not what you believe.

Religion is a methodology of belief. I can't tell you the number of people
I've met in my life who would curl up and shut out the world if they didn't
believe in something more than they could measure or extrapolate form existing
models. This is human nature, for better or for worse. Belief is necessary for
most people -- even scientists (though, as I said, quite a few of them choose
to believe their own models).

Like some people, I have a problem with many organised religions.
Historically, religions have been very adept at using people's belief in order
to liberate them from their money or their freedom (or even their lives!).
However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem. Like I said, people
need to believe something and religions offer that service. It's just that
having inserted themselves into that picture, people have a tendency to abuse
their position (often with a considerable amount of internal justification,
but I think it is abuse none-the-less). On the other hand, I've seen religious
organisations do a world of good as well. This rallying force of belief is
_extremely_ strong. Even when countries have made religion illegal, they
simply insert the state as the object of belief. This is because (IMHO) belief
is necessary to the normal operation of human communities (and sometimes also
because they want to abuse their populations ;-) ).

WRT the idea that traditional ideas may have useful applications for science,
this is undeniable. But many traditional ideas are also just snake oil. The
best methodology for telling the difference that I know of is science.
Starting with the assumption that traditional ideas are likely to be
beneficial, I think is a poor idea. However, so is starting with the
assumption that traditional ideas are necessarily snake oil. If you have a
question, make observations, build a model, make predictions, test those
predictions with new observations. You might be wasting your time, but you
might not. That's science. If you want to believe something and it makes you
feel happy, then go for it. That's religion.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> However, I don't think religion, per se, is the problem.

That I would disagree with. The defining characteristic of religion is faith,
or the acceptance of unsubstantiated claims as factual truth. Faith is the
most dishonest and irresponsible epistemology there is and has an obvious
potential to be used for justifying unlimited badness, as has been
demonstrated over and over. Ideas that have such massive risks I would say are
pretty obviously a problem.

> Like I said, people need to believe something and religions offer that
> service.

That sounds very much like an unsubstantiated claim. The mere fact that it is
common does not imply an innate need, but would be explained just as well by
indoctrination--and the fact that lots of people who once felt just that need
do overcome it using rational thought also suggests that it's at least not as
inherent to humans as you make it out to be.

> Even when countries have made religion illegal, they simply insert the state
> as the object of belief.

I don't think that's a contradiction. Countries that aren't autoritarian just
don't care about (lack of) religiosity of their citizens, but authoritarian
states always demand submission to their doctrine and thus ban all other
belief systems--in the case of theocratic states, they ban all other religions
and sects, in the case of non-theocratic states, they ban all "traditional
religions". None of that is about religion vs. lack of religion, it is only
about banning competition.

> This is because (IMHO) belief is necessary to the normal operation of human
> communities (and sometimes also because they want to abuse their populations
> ;-) ).

I don't see why that should be.

~~~
solidsnack9000
> The defining characteristic of religion is faith...

That's actually not true. One clue here is that many religions do not ask for
faith, which is to say one does not actually observe a demand of faith
universally in religions. Faith _per se_ is not observable, so it would not do
as a defining characteristic of religion.

Frequently, religions only ask for ritual observance. This is the defining
characteristic of religion -- ritual observance that affirms a person's
commitment to a community and its values. Whether people "really believe" or
not has no simple effect on whether the ritual serves to reinforce shared
values or not. Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when
engaging with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when
people go to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens
and head to Star Trek Vegas.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Many people feel bonded to a community and its values even when engaging
> with a mythology that is obviously fictitious, as for example when people go
> to the desert to burn the man every year; or dress up like aliens and head
> to Star Trek Vegas.

Seriously? You are including hobby clubs of sorts into the definition of
religions in order to support your claim that many religions do not ask for
faith?

So, atheist associations with regular meetings are religions, too, then, I
suppose?

~~~
solidsnack9000
It is probably better to think of most religions as very dramatic hobby clubs.

Just having regular meetings is not enough to be "performative" or
"ritualistic". What if the atheist association always began every meeting with
a hymn to Richard Dawkins, and then a ceremonial swim of a little model HMS
Beagle around a miniature island, always widdershins (opposite to the sun)?
This would be the beginnings of religion.

------
stephenr
How to systemically abuse various groups of people for centuries?

How to use people’s fear of the unknown for tax free profit?

How to dress up bigotry so it sounds like something less obviously horrible?

Did I miss anything?

~~~
dang
Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. We're hoping for somewhat higher
quality here.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
stephenr
Then why is the article even allowed?

~~~
dang
Because it makes intellectually interesting points that can be responded to
thoughtfully.

~~~
stephenr
Right. Just don't mention all the abuse and everyone can pretend everything is
fine.

~~~
dang
That's certainly not the intention here! But HN is not a good place to sort of
vent the fumes that have resulted from abuse, in an unprocessed way. The
feelings are legitimate, but if you (or I or anyone) simply blasts them out,
we're not really conversing. We're either venting—not a community activity—or
battling, which is about defeating enemies rather than exchanging information.

This might make more sense if you review
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
about the intended spirit of this site. These other links might also be
helpful:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html)

[http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html)

[http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html)

