Aug 29, 2011

Two most popular models: Science and Religion

Modeling is essentially an exercise that involves a few parameters and certain definite relations between these parameters. For a specific set of input parameters, a model generates a specific output. Model is intangible. It is non-existent. One cannot see a model. One cannot touch or smell a model. Modeling is a technique that one uses to explain real life happenings in an understandable way. It is employed with objectives of simplifying one’s life and increasing faith in one’s ability to understand the hitherto inexplicable events.
I believe Science and Religion are the two most popular models ever conceived. Both of them are an integral part of my life and have provided me with an invaluable guidance. Every one, at some point of time in one’s life would have been involved or at least, witnessed a debate pertaining to the better of the two: Science or Religion. I feel it’s unwise to compare Science and Religion. As I see, they are essentially, two distinct models having absolutely different objectives to attain. I shall summarize my understandings of Science and Religion in a tabular format. It will enable me to simultaneously compare both of them and reason out why they should not be confused as opponents of each other.

Science
Religion
Objective of Science is to engineer reason for everything that happens around us. Science aspires to map all the events in a causal relationship.
Objective of Religion is to guide human behavior in a way that fosters peace and harmony. It aspires to promote an effective way of living.
Neither does Science talk about loving your neighbor nor does Religion take an onus of explaining the events of nature. It probably makes a God for each event who takes care of its happenings.
Logic is the fuel of any scientific inquiry.
Faith is the fuel of any religious sermon.
You must not demand Logic in any religious sermon as it never claimed to be logical and you must not dare to take even a single step in any scientific inquiry on the basis of faith because Science does not keep its fingers crossed and await an outcome (Quantum Mechanics is a separate thing, it’s no guesswork as I know of it, I wish readers to appreciate the difference between guess and probability).
After experimentation, a scientist probably manages to find relations between various physical entities but needs to use his/her imagination to insert intangible entities for developing a model. To cite examples, Electric field, Magnetic Field, Gravitational Field are the most common. I know nobody who claims that he/she has seen/ heard/ touched one of the above mentioned fields. But, according to scientists they exist, they are there. It is an axiom, not to be questioned.
After experience, humans probably understood statistical outcomes of various human behaviors. They might have realized that desirable behaviors are contrary to basic human nature. Hence, they created intangible Gods, Heaven and Hell. These concepts fed upon human emotion of Fear and subordination/ reverence to higher authority (like a Circus Lion). No one has ever seen God/ Heaven/ Hell. But, according to Religion, they are there. It is an axiom, not to be questioned.
Intangible entities bring semblance to otherwise haphazard relationships among various physical entities. It reduces uncertainty in the occurrences of natural events. It helps humans to progress materialistically.
Intangible Gods bring semblance to otherwise random human behavior and guide them in a particular direction. It significantly reduces hostility among people and encourages them to lead a happier and peaceful life.


But, the growing acceptance of Science as a model and increasing reliance of human-beings on Science cannot be denied. Probably, it is one of the major reasons that fuel the debate of Science v/s Religion. An advantage with Science is that it continuously evolves and discards theories as soon as they are contradicted. Another major plus is that it is quantifiable. In an educated world, Science turns out to be an attractive model, as education inculcates a spirit of Logic. Religion is deprived of both the advantages. As far as I know, it neither updates itself nor is it quantifiable. The ideas of updating and quantifying a Religion seem absurd in the current setting of the world.
I think of opinions mentioned in the table as the essence of Science and Religion. And to an individual, both the aspects are equally important. Hence, choosing Science over Religion or vice-versa might not be a wise decision. One has to be very certain of not mixing the two things; logic and faith. They can be easily misinterpreted and erroneously applied in different scenarios. Tweaking intangible entities is an option that is always available to one, till a point one is not altering the implications of theories/sermons by one’s imaginary inventions.

6 comments:

  1. Some comments:

    1. "Objective of Religion is to guide human behavior in a way that fosters peace and harmony. It aspires to promote an effective way of living."

    I hope you are not asserting that God/religion is essential for humans to lead a peaceful life.

    2. "nor does Religion take an onus of explaining the events of nature. It probably makes a God for each event who takes care of its happenings."

    Both statement kind of contradict each other.

    3. "his/her imagination to insert intangible entities for developing a model. To cite examples, Electric field, Magnetic Field, Gravitational Field are the most common."

    This is just plain wrong! You do know that light is nothing but an EM-field and we do see light! There are kinds fish which can sense electric fields as well as we can hear. There are birds which can sense the earth magnetic field and navigate. And anyone who has had a plane flight knows what sensing a gravitational field is.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 1. No, I do not assert God is essential for leading a peaceful life.

    2. No, they are not contradictory. Religion never explains like Science does. It made up Gods. That is no explanation.

    3. Well, I still don't understand how do you perceive gravitational and magnetic fields. Feeling changes in oneself is different from actually observing something. I am talking that gravitational and magnetic field is something that I cannot see, touch, taste, smell or gear. And, yeah I am unaware about the stuff regarding hearing electric field. I am sorry, I may be wrong. Kindly throw some light.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Of course you can feel an electric field, just put your finger in an electrical socket! :P

    Anyway, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroreceptive some aquatic animals can sense electric fields in water. Now this sense not one of the 5 you have listed, but it is a sensory perception.

    2. Magentic fields: http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Research/magsense/

    This is a link to actual research which shows that certain animals can detect magnetic fields just like any other sensory perception.

    The light that you can see, has both electric and magnetic fields.

    3. Well, the feeling of weight or weightlessness that you have is nothing but you feeling a gravitational field.

    Using your "logic", I can name a lot of things that do not really exist and are made-up intangible things. The list will include light beyond human visible frequencies, sound beyond the human audible frequency, the center of the earth and the inside of a brick!

    By the way, no one had seen atoms 50 years ago, but now we can! So I guess atoms did not really exist and were made-up intangible things until we invented microscopes powerful enough to see them.

    I can repeat the above paragraph by replacing aoms with bacteria. Or with galaxies 1000 light years away.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My apologies for replying late. Sticking to Physics, as almost all your examples come from it, what I intend to convey is that "Physics aspire to establish causal relationship for all events that happen in nature, in a perfect model." That done, Physics will be a success, of this I am sure. (Do you disagree?)

    Talking about knowledge in Physics, it is definitely your field of expertise. I might have taken difficult examples to convey my thoughts but as I read your dissent, I am sure I have conveyed the meaning correctly. To screw my case, one need not go to Physics, but can discuss trivialities such as Love, Hate, Pain, Happiness, Hunger, Thirst and so on. None of us can smell, taste, hear, touch or see these entities. But, it will be foolish to reject their existence based on this argument. (Neurologists explain occurrences of these states).

    You say 50 years ago atom was not seen. You will also know, around 110 years ago we had a Cubic model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_atoms), a Plum pudding model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plum_pudding_model), 100 years ago Rutherford model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutherford_model) arrived on the scene, 98 years ago Bohr's model pitched in and which was heavily improved upon with time. Newtonian mechanics was so very alluring that Quantum Mechanics would hardly be appreciated had we not accepted change in our thinking. Sir Albert Einstein went as far as saying 'God does not play dice'. But that could not stop the development of Quantum Mechanics and if I am not wrong he later accepted it too (Confirm please).

    Around 200 years ago, Laplace had made a statement about determining future. In principle, he wished to find a global solution to an initial value problem, initial values being: position and velocity (http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/64). 20th century developments completely thrashed his beliefs. Forget about solving, is it even possible to get those accurate initial values (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle)? I can go on and on, as you can with bacteria and quark.

    I, at no point even think of demeaning these great men. To be frank, I have earned no right to do that. In fact, I respect all of them for their contributions. I wish to convey that all of them in the best of their capacities and resources at hand developed models to explain various happenings and were proven wrong eventually or significantly improved upon later. In essence, all of them were modeling and I believe that a model is just as good as your input parameters and underlying theory.

    I am unaware about the latest developments in Physics. Who cares if our imagination is restricted to 3 dimensional space, it definitely has not stopped scientists from exploring possibilities of dimensions greater than 3 (spatial or non-spatial, am unaware, will not write) and weave a Grand Unified Theory. I do not assert whether it is or is not a Black Swan Model but I assert, in essence, it is still another model.

    And strongly believing in any model or any theory because it has not been proven wrong till now is unwise or exhibiting arrogance. Just for example, (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/8783011/Speed-of-light-broken-at-CERN-scientists-claim.html), in this recent news scientists at CERN are in two minds on whether they have correctly found neutrinos traveling at a speed greater than light. It is being tested in laboratories near Chicago and in Japan. Skepticism is very essential for progress. It might be that it is just a hoax as detection of neutrinos in itself is very difficult and numerous other factors might go wrong in experimentation but if true, people 100 years later will again pop up the same arguments, "How stupid of our ancestors to believe that speed of light is the ultimate speed!"

    I hope I have been successful in putting forth my stand in a better way. Thank you for your constructive criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A reliable link: http://public.web.cern.ch/press/pressreleases/Releases2011/PR19.11E.html

    ReplyDelete