Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious

heywood on 1/2/2012 at 09:58

Quote Posted by DDL

So, other than the big bang, are there any other topics that get regularly brought up as "science has no answer to this, thus: god exists" fuel? I'm curious (and bored, admittedly).

Cosmology has several gods: the inflaton, dark energy, strings, etc.

It's funny how atheists often say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence when discussing Biblical miracles but don't apply the same standard to cosmology. The big bang is an extraordinary claim and relies on a miracle called inflation to reconcile its flaws regarding the homogeneity, isotropy, and flatness of the universe. Inflation is a perfect example of how cosmologists make shit up in order to hold on to mathematically elegant or intellectually pleasing theories in the face of contrary argument. The big bang is widely accepted in part because it nicely explains microwave background radiation but also because people *want* to believe in it for aesthetic and religious compatibility reasons.

Quote Posted by faetal

The problem with all of that is that a god is not necessary to explain it. What that does is reduce god to being a redundancy. "Science describes the natural world exactly as god made it" - then why bother with god? God is only on the table as an option because it was put there a few millennia ago when there were no other explanations. Seem odd that in his own book, the bible, god makes no mention of anything beyond the macroscopic scale, no details of anything which was not apparent to humans at the time. If god created all of this in the same complexity as we know it now, then why was the bible written in a technologically ancient context?

Also, as regards sometimes scientists lose their neutrality - of course they do - they're humans. Humans are deeply flawed. This is another prime example of clutching at straws and picking out exceptions to try to weaken the rule. The fact remains that science is a discipline which has its strength in peer review. If anything can be validly debunked, then over time, it will. It's not a perfect process, but it definitely beats "well, we'd best just keep re-interpreting what's in this here bible then".

Lastly, talking about the science at the frontiers of knowledge throwing up some very strange and as yet mysterious questions, as allowing for the supernatural is, I believe a classic god of the gaps argument. Just going on basic probability alone, it's pretty coincidental that god happens to live just over the hill of the bits we've managed to figure out thus far. Stands to reason that a god just isn't there to find. I'm of the opinion that lacking any evidence *for* god, it is pointless to wonder whether there is one or not, just like it is pointless to wonder if unicorns or trolls exist. The only difference is some traditions which precede. But on that basis, we can also wonder if Zeus or Poseidon exist. Or Ra.

Well sorta, but it seems like you're thinking of religion primarily as a source of knowledge and I don't think that's what it's really for. I think religion exists to provide a sense of purpose to our existence, answer the why? questions, and introduce a higher order beyond what we can deduce from our observations and from which we derive concepts like morality. Humans seem to have an instinctive need for these things, because in the absence of religious beliefs many people appeal to fate, destiny, karma, and natural order.

Conflict between religion and science is not innate and the two can coexist because they serve different human needs. They are not mutually exclusive alternatives for each other. I think people on both sides of the debate get way hung up on literal/historical accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible and miss the point of why it was compiled. It's not God's encyclopedia.

Quote:

I reject religion because it is a practice of condensing grand explanations out of the unknown, which to me is conceited. If something is mysterious to us, then it is just that and saying "yes, that's god" is, to me just attempting a more palatable explanation for what we don't yet know.

And yet cosmologists do the same thing. Does that mean that cosmology is like a modern form of religion where they've cast aside the deities for equations but are basically chasing the same thing and making the same leaps? I'm beginning to think that.

faetal on 1/2/2012 at 10:02

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

God doesn't exist.

I'd say that based on what's empirically available to us, god probably doesn't exist, but as such a thing can not be falsified, particularly when it runs to the nearest gap, that it is not philosophically possible to rule it out 100% Same deal with Russell's teapot, unicorns, The Matrix, all religious notions since the dawn of humanity, etc...

I can't even rule out the notion that I created the Universe as the sole being in existence and everything I experience is only seen as real because I have lost the memories that I created it all.

Teleologically speaking, I can come up with any number of non-falsifiable explanations for how I arrived at this exact state, but for whatever reason, I choose to go with that which requires the fewest pieces of assumed information to explain - the Occam's razor approach.

So yeah, while no one can be 100% sure of anything, if you asked me to stake my life on whether there is a god, I'd have to go with no. Just seems to be the most likely answer, if not the absolute one.

jay pettitt on 1/2/2012 at 10:04

Heywood, Nobody is saying that science isn't people making shit up. To quote the old adage - It's only right until a better explanation comes along.

To which a fair repost would be 'what's it for then' - because it's useful.

Is it better to convict someone on the basis of assuming perfect knowledge or on the basis that the explanation of events you've arrived at is only right until a better explanation comes along?

(and there's a multiplicity of reasons for thinking the big bang is a worthwhile model)

Quote:

I think religion exists to provide a sense of purpose to our existence, answer the why? questions...

Those why questions aren't why questions though are they. What you're talking about is fallacious questions. Statements that 'beg the question'. Science can do why?. Why is the sky blue? Why do you feel hungry? Why do religious people think science can't answer why questions?

You'll find the answers to those with physics, chemistry, biology and psychology.

What you're talking about is questions like 'To what higher purpose are we here for?' - but you've not done the legwork to establish that we might be here for a super natural reason. You might as well ask why the moon is made of cheese. If that's the sort of question you need religion for, you can keep it. Personally I'd not bother unless they found cheese on the moon. Horse before cart.

But lets play fair. If religion is good at why questions - why is there a god?

jay pettitt on 1/2/2012 at 10:07

Quote Posted by faetal

So yeah, while no one can be 100% sure of anything...

And I can't be 100% intellectually honest. Ergo no god ;)

Azaran on 1/2/2012 at 10:18

Quote Posted by faetal

I think the reason why Buddhism etc fare better is because they rely less on supernatural elements - you don't have to believe in extraordinary spooky events in order to follow the philosophy. Still contains a fair amount of woo though, but that kind of thing will always have its followers

Interesting thing about Buddhism is that in its original form it is a purely philosophical system designed to facilitate happiness and fulfillment in this life, practically devoid of supernatural elements. Even the doctrine of reincarnation as explained by Buddha himself consisted of being reborn in another form, not consciously, but naturally, i.e. the decay of our physical body provides food for plants, bugs, animals, etc. and thereby parts of us continue to live in other forms. And as for meditation, as it was taught by the Buddha it simply consists of remaining in the present moment no matter where you are, and being conscious of your actions without thinking of the past or anticipating the future. Most of the more mystical aspects of Buddhism were not original, but were absorbed into it as it spread and came in contact with other religions (e.g. in Tibet, which had a long tradition of Shamanism prior to Buddhism, and when the latter was established it absorbed shamanic practices).

faetal on 1/2/2012 at 10:28

Quote Posted by heywood

Hence why you won't find people with a clue saying that's definitely the answer. It is just the best of what we can currently deduce. Part of science is the humility to identify between what we can be sure of and what we can't, but it's not a binary decision. It's not like if something is still being investigated, that means it is worthless. I am pretty sure that all of the proposed mechanisms being suggested to explain the parts which we are unsure of are still more sensible than "we don't know, therefore God did it".

Quote:

Yes, humans do seem to have need to fill in the unknown with something we can identify with. However, my problem comes from when people start proclaiming absolute truths that their god/religion is the correct one. Or using it as a platform to attempt to undermine other people's way of life or to impinge on people's education. I hate repeating myself, but why do most e.g Christians take for granted that older pantheons are consigned to the rubbish heap while being totally sure that theirs is, and has always been the truth? It's like ignoring an elephant in the room. No one suspects that there is something off about The Truth (tm) being conveyed to some desert scribes some time during the bronze age and that this time, it's definitely the truth, not like all of those other divinely inspired truths which came earlier, or the other contemporary ones used by people from different cultures. Just on a purely philosophical basis, this idea that there are various absolute truths about the origin and fabric of the universe being circulated depending on where you were born, is very, very suspect.

Quote:

Conflict between religion and science is not innate and the two can coexist because they serve different human needs. They are not mutually exclusive alternatives for each other. I think people on both sides of the debate get way hung up on literal/historical accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible and miss the point of why it was compiled. It's not God's encyclopaedia.

They do co-exist. My girlfriend is a doctor of biochemistry and has three other science degrees and is catholic. However, when we discuss my lack of belief, we need to stop after x amount of time because she becomes emotionally irritated because the reasons I state for why I need no additional belief layer rubs against her reasons for wanting one and thus the conversation can not take place on a solely dialectic basis. She needs the religion, I do not, but logic and facts create a tension which we agree is not necessary and so we don't discuss past a certain point. I have no issue with whatever anyone wants to believe, but in discussions like this one, those with beliefs start trying to justify those beliefs on a pseudo-factual (historical accounts = evidence), teleological (science is how it is because God) or incredulous (we don't know how X works, therefore possibly divine?) basis; I feel the need to discuss it further. I don't like how religion is the one which poses itself as an alternative explanation of the universe to science and then ultimately ends up asking why science pits itself against religion, when usually it is just correcting some poor arguments, which stepped this side of the line between the two, if such a thin exists.

Quote:

Does cosmology claim any immutable truths? Is cosmology sacrosanct? Do people's opinions of cosmology remain the same despite evidence? It is science on the frontiers of what we know. It ranges from very solid to very woolly, but that's accepted. We know that it is all very much a "maybe this, but who knows?" science. Religion is a "who knows, so maybe this" thought process, which is less informationally useful.

I see religion as being science's cousin in a weird way. Centuries ago, a large amount of scientific investigation was carried out by religious people - Gregor Mendel is a great example. Because in pre-enlightenment times, it was religious interest in "God's work" which drove a lot of questions about how nature operated. It is only when the knowledge surpassed a point where god made much sense where the two diverged so much. Religion became the domain of supernatural belief and science became the domain of "how does this stuff work"? It's a strange thing. I remember mentioning evolution once at work and my colleague saying "I don't believe in evolution" and me asking what she didn't believe in and she said she didn't know, she just didn't believe in evolution. Now I'm not saying that this typifies a religious person, but certainly religion does offer a panoply of simple folk tales which can fill the questions about life like a 50 piece jigsaw puzzle compared to a 10,000 piece one. This is fine, if people prefer to live like this - there is nothing wrong with deciding not to concern yourself with the details, but it is when one little piece doesn't fit and suddenly we're supposed to accept that the whole thing might be wrong?..

I digress. Apologies for the slightly straw man aspect of the last paragraph. By this point, I am partly responding to the thread and partly just pondering aloud.

DDL on 1/2/2012 at 10:38

Ah, cosmology. Not one of my better subjects. And most of those things (inflation, dark energy, strings etc) relate directly to the big bang again, so still not really what I was hoping for (I prefer biological arguments for god's existence, because it's more comfortable territory for me -my cosmology is pretty rudimentary).

Anyway, is cosmology like a modern form of religion? Well...unlike religion, it's based on observations (and observations happening now, rather than in pre-"reliable documentation" times), which is a huge difference.

The big bang theory is simply the best current explanation of how stuff got where it is: it's messy and confusing and requires inexplicable temporary exponential growth, but it's still the best model to fit the evidence. Inflation is not "a perfect example of how cosmologists make shit up in order to hold on to mathematically elegant or intellectually pleasing theories in the face of contrary argument", it's an ugly fudgefactor that seems necessary to explain observable phenomena in the universe. It doesn't fit equations well, nor is it particularly mathematically elegant: it's...weird. But it does describe the observable universe quite well.

And they had to throw out quite a few theories to make this one work. Because science does that.

The thing I wonder though, is...well: while cosmology has an awful lot of interesting handwavy blackboxes, it's inherently hampered anyway (being limited to n=1 -only one observable universe- does put some constraints on statistics, for instance) so is simply one of the better sources of "science cannot explain X" (suffix being of course: "..yet"), and if we were to posit that the influence of god applies only at the cosmological scale, it slightly detracts from the relative importance of humans in god's grand plan: a single species (of which there are millions) on a tiny rock (of which there are likely to be millions) orbiting an unremarkable star (of which there are millions) in an unremarkable section of an unremarkable galaxy (of which there are millions).

Mind you, the sheer scale of space in itself (when compared to humans on earth) would be a pretty damn good indication that god doesn't exist (or, depending on your view, that he does exist but doesn't give two shits about people, or that he does exist, cares about people, but is possibly the most insane/retarded builder ever).

So yeah...again, other than the big bang (and big bang related issues), are there any other topics that get regularly brought up as "science has no answer to this, thus: god exists" fuel? I'm curious (but less bored, now).

EDIT: Ninja'd by faetal.. :/
(though amusingly there's a suspicion that gregor mendel cheated and fudged his results to match his theory -his stats are just that much better than you'd expect from the number of observations he made. He may have just been lucky, of course (or divinely guided? :devil: ). Mind you, the theory was correct, so in the end it doesn't much matter, but it's funny if true)

faetal on 1/2/2012 at 10:43

n=1 doesn't really apply like that though. I could say that my entire PhD is n=1 on that basis. Yes, I'm seeing a dose-response curve in all patients when the data is pooled, but only in this universe.

You can model parts of your theory and apply it to several independent cosmic events and see if the model holds to increase your sample size, THEN you put together the experiments to give weight to the theory. Sample size doesn't apply to the big picture in that way.

Muzman on 1/2/2012 at 10:44

Quote Posted by heywood

Er, no. Hubble's constant implied the big bang which then predicted a microwave background that was then confirmed. That is not making shit up. Theories of the first few nanoseconds of the universe are necessarily just that, but if you're not going to re-do their numbers then you're the one dis-believing for aesthetic reasons aren't you? No better than Hoyle mocking the big bang because it sounded absurd to him (although that probably wasn't all there was to it).
Likewise Dark Energy is what the numbers predict needs to be there. If it's not found, well there you go. In the mean time we shall have to wait and see.
You're equivocating like crazy on this. The process of evidence in cosmology in no way resembles religion except in the most churlish reading. Yes science is full of wild theories, prejudice and politics. It's still got that process of evidence accumulation where religion does not.

(there's a few people throwing around sting theory in this thread. Yeah, it's surprisingly famous, but it seems it's basically a punch line in cosmological circles now because it produced nothing in 30 years)

faetal on 1/2/2012 at 10:50

Quote Posted by DDL

Mind you, the sheer scale of space in itself (when compared to humans on earth) would be a pretty damn good indication that god doesn't exist (or, depending on your view, that he does exist but doesn't give two shits about people, or that he does exist, cares about people, but is possibly the most insane/retarded builder ever).

This is one of the reasons why I can not find myself willing to put divinity on the table as a valid presence in the universe. It's funny how all of the writing about God creating everything for humans took place before we realised the scale of the place. That's like filling a continent with tool sheds just so you can sit and make bird boxes in one of them.

Quote:

EDIT: Ninja'd by faetal.. :/
(though amusingly there's a suspicion that gregor mendel cheated and fudged his results to match his theory -his stats are just that much better than you'd expect from the number of observations he made. He may have just been lucky, of course (or divinely guided? :evil:). Mind you, the theory was correct, so in the end it doesn't much matter, but it's funny if true)

Could be that Mendel just wasn't too good at what we now recognise as rigorous scientific method. I don't doubt he threw out some unsatisfying experiments, but what he did do was show something that no one had shown before. It's just a great shame that Darwin didn't read his paper - it would have been a brilliant bit of catalysis.