Monday, June 17, 2013
Billions and Billions of Links
Science and religion are often seen as at odds with one another, even as mutual threats. Not so, says Carl Sagan. This week, please read the article, found on the amazing Brain Pickings (newly added to the links at right), and consider the overlapping ways of knowing implied by Sagan's proposed symbiosis. As you read, follow at least two of the embedded links and read what you find there. For your post, please share your thoughts on what you've read: what new ideas did you encounter? With what questions are you left? With what do you disagree and why? How might your responses be shaped by your perspective and in what significant ways is it different from Sagan's? Let the cherry on your post be a knowledge question encompassing two ways of knowing. Your post is due by noon (in your local time zone) on Saturday, June 22. Welcome to summer.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
ReplyDeleteHi all. Hope everyone is having a great summer so far. England says hi. Today is Friday, June 21 at 11:30. The place I am staying has no wifi because someone in the town cut the wires.
I don't know how this formatting will work because I am typing it all on my phone.
From reading Modern Art Desserts I have learned how science and religion overlap somewhat. When I think of art I often think of famous painting which connects with art. On this link, Freeman, a pastry chef likes to take modern art and transform it into edible masterpieces. The cooking is the science aspect because whenever you cook, you are conducting an experiment to see if you work will turn out the way you want it to. This woman is making food into art. -it looks delicious a d just like the originals just in food form. I am left with no questions but how is this done no want to do this :)
The next one I looked at was Carl Sagan on Science and Spirituality. Sagan says that there is no way back to anything and that right now we are stuck with science. In this case he does not believe that there is any connection between science and religion because religion is maybe only valuable lessons. He finds that they are totally opposite. He says that science has for the most part foretell the furtive whole religions only has prophecies. Science is really bringing us all forward and almost perfect accuracy. I agree with Sagan here because I am not a religious person. This is shaping my perspective because I do not have any religious background to argue with what I know about science.
Another link was Cosmic Apprentice: Dorion Sagan on Why Science and Philosophy Need Each Other. This looks at how they depend on one another. This makes sense because I think they are so opposite they can balance each other out. The quote "a good scientific theory shines its light, revealing the world's fearful symmetry. And its failure is also a success, as it shows us where to look next." I interpreted this as if a science experiment fails, then religion can give us hope and guide us in the right direction.
Both of the articles I read support what I believe about science and religion. The religion aspect to me is not very important but j can definitely see the connection between the two because I can understand where other people may be coming from. I agree that science is more accurate and "overpowering" than religion due to the fact that Sagan said it is more accurate than prophecies.
Before I read any if the links I knew that science would always be stronger than religion for me. I am confident is what I believe in, but again I was not brought up with a very religious background. I do understand religion to an extent but I stumble to understand how people can trust religion more than science.
Science and religions can work together as long as one is not overpowering another. They need to work symbiotically and have people understanding if both. This is very challenging and I think the reason why science is becoming the overpowering factor in the world today.
The knowledge question I have gathered is: to what extent does your childhood environment (upbringing- religion, experiences, education) influence the way you view the world as an adult and be viewed as an adult?
While here the British television is interesting. Many similar shows as the US. I saw one about these troubles teens who were sent to America to live in a "strict" parents home. The family was four children who were all homeschooled and were not allowed to watch tv or wear any clothing that was "inappropriate." This made me question how the children would live in the real world outside of their parents bubble. Would the outside world judge them or would they change they lifestyle as soon as they left? How influential are their parents? Hmmm...
Tina writes: First, I clicked on the link of “some valuable lessons for secular thoughts”. The last sentence of this article really impressed me. “A sermon wants to change your life, and a lecture wants to give you a bit of information. And I think we need to get back to that sermon tradition.” The most important aspect of a religion is the significance behind it. Its sermon in many cases is more powerful than a lecture in shaping a person’s mind, and its influence is very lasting. Also, from this article, I get that a religion can be a beautiful dream for many people because of the two central needs it offers that do not exist in reality. A religion gives hope to many people, and lets them keep their faith in this world with war and pain. However, I also know that people go to church and ask for forgiveness from the god due to the inappropriate action they did. Since they knew it is inappropriate, why did they still do it and then ask for forgiveness? A question then rises in my mind: Is religion a product of guilt or an indirect cause of violence? My perspective is different from that of Sagan. In my response, I talk about people before religion, but in Sagan’s article, religion seems to come first. I also talk about how people can possibly change the meaning of the religion, but Sagan believes how people rely on religion and its prophecies.
ReplyDeleteThen, I followed the link called “the importance of evidence”. It is a letter from Richard Dawkins to his 10-year-old daughter. In this letter, Dawkins tells his daughter to use evidence as a way of believing something. Evidence can be a direct observation or an indirect observation, but in either way, it is important to have the evidence. He also talks about the process of getting a piece of evidence - hypothesis, prediction, and conclusion. Indeed, he is strongly opposed to the idea of using tradition, authority, and revelation as evidence because of their lack of evidence.
This article makes me think about the ideas of tradition, authority, and revelation. In many cases, these three terms are often used as evidence. For instance, in the Lunar calendar, there are certain days that are considered to be “luckier”. People like to have weddings and other events on these “luckier” days. From this, I start to think about the difference between tradition and superstition. Is tradition a kind of superstition? However, I believe that there is a reason for a tradition to become a tradition. Although sometimes we cannot find a valid evidence to support the tradition, it does not necessary mean that it is wrong. It also works for religion. I often think of church as a type of authority, a representative of god. Although some of the religious beliefs are not supported by valid scientific evidence, it does not mean that they are wrong. It depends on who you are, and what you believe. Different from Sagan’s belief, I think that not everything from a religion can be considered as a matter. For example, I do not believe that a non-existing thing is a matter such as a soul (but I do not have evidence to support my point). In this case, even though science and religion do not have to be opposite, I think that they are different or contradictory in most cases.
From reading these two articles, I extracted a knowledge question: To what extent can a person change his/her view of religion by using sense perception and emotion?
In his article, Sagan makes a correlation between faith (if we consider it a way of knowing), sense perception, and logic. In his last few paragraphs, he considers and compares both religion’s and science’s different methods of predicting the future. It can be seen that science’s methods for predicting the future are more reliable and accurate than superstitious or religious methods. Therefore, he implies that one can have faith in scientific theories; because scientific theories have been tested repeatedly for accuracy, we can believe that the theory holds true for almost every situation in which it is applicable. In fact that really is what we do. We, as individual human beings, have not tested out every single scientific theory in the world. However, we still accept them as truths because we understand the logic behind the theory. Therefore, accepting something as truth, without actually amassing the evidence ourselves, can be considered faith. However, this faith cannot be achieved without some semblance of sense perception and logic, which brings me to the overlap in the ways of knowing. When we are presented with a piece of information, we do not immediately accept it as fact. However, when we are then presented with evidence as to why this piece of information is true, we use logic and sense perception to come to the conclusion that it is, in fact, reliable. We are not truly able to accept without understanding, and one cannot truly have faith unless there has been some sort of evidence or precognition that supports our faith. However, faith is a somewhat relative term. Since I have qualms accepting it as a genuine way of knowing, I have somewhat manipulated the term so that it includes a little nudge (being logic) in the right (or wrong) direction.
ReplyDeleteI appreciate Sagan’s distinction between spirituality and religion. Feeling beauty, awe, and reverence may be spiritual to a certain extent, but that may not necessarily be a religious experience. I agree that science may be spiritual at times, but do not see how this argument necessarily translates to religion being compatible with science. In fact, I cannot really pinpoint a single moment in the article where Sagan makes a convincing case of why science and religion are essential to one another. From what I can see, one of his main arguments as to why science and religion (not spirituality) are essential to one another, is that both attempt to predict the future through theory and prophecy. By showing that scientific methods are far more accurate than religious methods, Sagan implies that it would be useful for those who are religious to turn to science when attempting to divine the future. However, this serves to create an even wider gap between science and religion, because it’s showing that religion isn’t accurate, yet science is. Wouldn’t that be implying that science is, in fact, superior to religion? I feel as though Sagan does more to drive apart religion and science than bring them together.
For the two embedded links, I thought it would be interesting to choose two that expressed opposing viewpoints. One was “some valuable lessons for secular thought” and the other was “the magic of reality” by Richard Dawkins. The first deals with the uses of religion, even to atheists, and the second deals with replacing myth with science. These two do not necessarily express opposing viewpoints. In fact, both seem to be written from a secular point of view, yet the first article more objectively evaluates religion while the second seems to take a firm stand against it.
In the first article, one particular line stayed with me. It is, “it must be possible to balance a rejection of religious faith with a selective reverence for religious rituals and concepts.” which brings up an interesting question. Is there a give and take with religion? Can we choose what aspects of what religions to believe and amalgamate them so we come up with an entirely new faith? Of course, it is possible, but wouldn’t a religious person then be violating some sort of religious law? Who is it that determines what Christianity is? What Islam is? What Buddhism is? That we’re sinning or that that what we say is blasphemous? Is there religious law? So many religions preach that faith in God is always most important and that everything else is secondary, yet don’t their actions counteract their teaching?
ReplyDeleteThis article also reminded me that religion does have its uses in our world, even if we are not necessarily religious people. Every day I listen to music that has been inspired by religion; look at priceless paintings inspired by religion. To put it succinctly, religion inspires beauty.
A very interesting statement made by Alain de Botton (author) is, “It is when we stop believing that religions have been handed down from above or else that they are entirely daft that matters become more interesting. We can then recognize that we invented religions to serve two central needs.” I found it amusing that Alain can admit that humans were the ones who invented religion, yet still continue to reap its benefits even though I fine myself agreeing with him. How is religion any different from all the other things we invent? Didn’t we invent computers and use them? Didn’t we invent school education and benefit from it? Why is this idea greeted with such protest? However, this raises another question. How can we believe in something that we have invented? Religion isn’t tangible like a computer. If we have invented it, then it is in our heads. Do we really have the power to fool ourselves into believing something we made up in the first place? Despite all of these questions, I feel as though this article has reminded me that it’s not always a wise decision to take such a firm stance against religion. I feel as though this article makes a more convincing case than Sagan’s of why religion and science are important to one another.
The second article is about Richard Dawkin’s children book which examines a myth, then proceeds to disprove it with science, or explains the phenomena that has occurred.
This article served to remind me why science and religion were at odds to begin with. Rather than considering technology to be satanic, isn’t the reason religion and science are so opposed to one another that science disproves certain biblical (or other holy books) stories? Science introduced dinosaurs and atomic structure which clashed with stories of Adam and Eve and the transformation of water into wine. Isn’t it also for that reason that agnosticism was born; allowing us to maintain our faith in both without having them coincide? This article did lead me to develop a new idea. Isn’t it still considered indoctrination if a child has been raised to deny the existence of God? I know Richard Dawkins to be a very firm and outspoken scientist. Even though I agree with many of his ideas, I think his stance is a bit too severe and unrelenting. If this could be picked up on in a children’s book, I’m not sure it would be beneficial in encouraging an inquisitive mind.
This article is different than Sagan’s in that it does not even consider a possible link between science and religion. It just focuses on science as “true knowledge”.
ReplyDeleteAfter rereading my post and the articles, I have come up with the knowledge question:
How can a way of knowing be considered stronger or more effective than another? This deals with not only two or three different ways of knowing, but forces us to examine all of the ways of knowing and they way we rank them from most to least important. Or if they can be ranked. Or if they can be separated at all.
I have never thought of religion as a starting step towards science. There may be a superstition in on a religion that is similar in many others. With this belief science is able to take it the next step and figure out what it actually is. With the curiosity of the religious to make up a reason for the way things are motivates science to figure out what it actually is.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading “Richard Dawkins on Evidence in Science, Life and Love: A Letter to His 10 Year-Old Daughter,” I agree with his method of finding the evidence to justify everything. By seeing, hearing, and feeling something, that is how you know what you know and how you know that it is true. I also think that his comment on how people believe certain things only because of where they come from instead of asking for evidence.
Throughout these readings I was thinking why and how did the first person start to question religion. Why didn’t they just accept the reason for matter as it was taught to them, instead of trying to find something better. What lead us to a time where people are less willing to fully accept the answers of religion and seek out their own answers.
"Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
I do not completely agree with this statement. I agree that science is compatible with spirituality but I do not agree that it is a profound source of spirituality. The way I see it is that spirituality is based on someones beliefs and science is based on facts and evidence. If science were a source of spirituality then wouldn’t then spirituality and all its components would mostly be based on components of science, and that is not the way I believe that most people define spirituality.
I do not fully understand the ways of religion or the reason for scientific inquiry on certain topics. I do understand the curiosity of a scientist, I can see the curiosity of discovering what is beyond the moon and what the stars actually are. The ways in which it is different from Sagan’s is that his ideas are more direct and focused and my perspective on things can be easily swayed if there is a good case backed by evidence. In the Science vs. Scripture and the Difference Between Curiosity and Wonder, the opinion of wonder triumphs that of curiosity. The Greeks did not understand curiosity but they wondered about the reasons for natural occurrences. Thus created Gods to understand why natural occurrences happen.
How can faith and emotion be interchangeable is justifying how we know what we know?
To what extent is curiosity fueled by imagination and intuition?
Caroline writes: This article addresses something I have subconsciously wondered about for quite a while now. The compatibility of science and religion is still a source of conflict and it was interesting to me how Sagan saw science as "a profound source of spirituality." This was a new idea which I hadn't considered. Science, based on logic and evidence, seems to directly contradict with the definition of faith. One of the embedded links I read was "Carl Sagan in mastering the Vital Balance of Skepticism and Openness". This was a very concise article which very well summarised the necessity for scrutiny and acceptance. While it seems like common sense, it again was not something I had ever given a great deal of thought to. It seems clear now that we must exercise control over the way we learn and approach new ideas so as to be able to glean the most accurate, precise, and useful information from any given source and using any way of knowing. The second embedded link was a letter from Richard Dawkins to his ten-year-old daughter. Dawkins asserts that observation is not the only way to learn something, but that one can also piece together evidence to gain a full picture of something which they themselves had not experienced. He also goes into three bad reasons to believe something. Let's call them the "anti-ways of knowing". They are: tradition, authority, and revelation, especially as they apply to religion. These three articles left me with some questions and some bones to pick. First, in Sagan's commentary on religion and science, I strongly disagreed with the way he tried to make the argument that faith and science are not opposites because science, once fully understood, can become it's own faith. This is a weak argument because it disregards other, already well-established religions which, in fact, conflict with science. A good example of this would be the Scopes Monkey Trial which addressed the teaching of evolution in schools, and clearly showed that when it comes to science and religion, there are places where two simply must be seen as opposites. Sagan also goes on to discuss the accuracy of science as opposed to the illegitimate prophecy of religion, further disqualifying religion as a partner to science. While perhaps not opposites, this article clearly elevates science and dismisses religion. My KQ: how can science, with at least circumstantial evidence to support all claims, be considered, in Sagan's words, a faith, which by nature is believing something without having hard facts to prove it?
ReplyDeleteSagan’s thoughts on the relationship between science and spirituality are some that I have never considered before. He speaks of how science “invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe”, so science is understanding the universe and we do this with reason. By using reason we can rationally question or judge our claims of knowledge. As a result, this knew understanding of the universe gives us a “sense” of excitement and feeling that we have obtained knowledge that is outside of our comfortable realm of understanding. The spiritually that Sagan speaks of is a result of science, we sense this spirituality through emotion, our senses and sometimes through faith.
ReplyDeleteThe two links I followed support Sagan’s belief that science is a source for spirituality. Ptolemy’s timeless awe at the cosmos , or his appreciation of science and how it leads him to spiritually, is very similar to Sagan.
“I know that I am mortal by nature and ephemeral, but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies, I no longer touch earth with my feet. I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia”
When using science to justify the unknown (or the actions that have been previously accredited to the gods), the sense of spirituality that follows these understandings seems to Ptolemy a feeling of godly ability.
What Richard Dawkins has called the magic of reality is very close to how Sagan views science. Dawkins believes that the spirituality, or magic, comes from science and our understanding of it.
Sagan goes on to encourage the use of science over religion, to be skeptic of things that claim to hold the answers to the future, and instead look to science to find our answers and let spiritually follow.
For me I have never consciously accepted the idea or ideas of a religion, but I do believe that there are some things that we know without explanation (or through faith). So under that notion, I believe that spirituality does not only come from science, but it can come from other sources as well. A question this leaves me with is, would Sagan accept spirituality if it did not come from science, if it is knowledge that science cannot explain but we understand as true? I do agree that with better understanding the followed excitement and wonder propel us into a search for more knowledge.
KQ-
To what extent can knowledge basis define the knowledge itself? Specifically if the knowledge is based on faith or if the knowledge is based on reason, how would this change the nature of the knowledge? Why?
It's quite obvious that faith is the major overlapping way of knowing. Faith requires the same thing from everyone who has it: trust-- trust that science or religion has all the answers and the faithful's existence will somehow be solidified and assured through his or her faith. Now, as an agnostic, I am very wary of my own existence and my relevance in the universe and everything that does, or seems to exist. I also consider myself infinitely incognizant. Sagan articulated it perfectly for us: "that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual." Though I am infinitely ignorant, I like to pursue knowledge lead by logic, whether it proves to be true or not. It seems as though the more I discover, the tinier I become. It seems as though whenever I meet new people, I know less than I thought I did about humanity. It was engrossing to read that science generates a faith sometimes equal to and sometimes greater than religion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I became concerned when Sagan made science out to be better than religion as he spoke of science's abilities such as providing accuracy and validation. Science has not provided validation yet, in my eyes. No one has come up with a theory reasoning where everything-- time, space and matter, originated from. Also, as I clicked on the link to "Galileo's famous letter," Socrates came to mind. Galileo said: "It is human nature to take up causes whereby a man may oppress his neighbor, no matter how unjustly, rather than those from which a man may receive some just encouragement." Socrates asked Polemarchus, "And can the just by justice make men unjust, or speaking generally can the good by virtue make them bad?" Polemarchus replied, "Assuredly not." I believe humans are neither innately good nor bad. I feel compelled to say that the battle between good and evil is as broad, overlapping and conflicting as science and religion. Sometimes, it is difficult to differentiate one from the other. By that I mean whether something is good or bad, or whether something is religious or scientific. I believe this is true for me because I am agnostic. An atheistic scientist may have a theory for why something is the way it is, but it could also be because of an unknown higher power's will. Just because one understands why something is or works does not mean there is no higher power. Thus, Sagan is somewhat in the wrong because though they do have instances where they overlap, science and religion neither confirm nor disprove the other, they simply exist separately. It may be from a misunderstanding, but this article by Maria Popova doesn't touch much on religion at all except to say it is inadequate at telling the future and saying it allows for spirituality as does science.
Popova seems to have a bias in favour of science. As I followed another embedded link to "Carl Sagan on Mastering the Vital Balance of Skepticism and Openness," I felt as though she shouldn't totally reject religion. No religion has been disproven that I'm aware of. Therefore, we should be open to the possibilities. Religion might not be perfected-- meaning perfectly understood or written, but neither is science. Science has led to deaths and murders. Science and religion overlap in this way also. But, what if these extremists realized that they were wrong? That science was created and could be known because of a higher power's will? If there was no higher power? How would they react?
KQ: To what extent can humans foretell what would be good or bad?