Religious faith and interest in basic science

[dga471 (Daniel)]

@Herman_Mays

Would the same basic questions you are asking now as a physicist be equally interesting to you if you were an atheist or agnostic.

I’m not sure, because it’s hard not imagining myself as a theist of some sort. From a very young age I’ve always had this vague, Platonic notion of consilience, that all approaches to knowledge have to “converge” in some way towards some fundamental rational order, and that this “unity of knowledge” is the fundamental reason why we should try to seek knowledge at all. Thus, all sorts of knowledge (not just utilitarian ones) are equally important to approach this “unity of knowledge”. It is possible for some non-theistic scientists to have a similar idea (e.g. E.O. Wilson, who wrote a book on this), but I don’t know if I would believe in it as strongly. I would actually guess that this deep-seated belief in consilience is one of the primary reasons for why I’m religious.

I would guess that if I were an atheist or agnostic, I would attempt to derive value from serving and uplifting fellow humanity, not an abstract, lofty goal like getting to the basic consilience of knowledge. If there is no God watching then fellow humans are the closest alternative. I don’t know if this necessarily leads to a complete utility-approach to science. But I think I would be interested in some sort of ethical transhumanism.

@Herman_Mays

Lot’s of different sorts of people do science and the value of science I think needs to be articulated independent of utility (while acknowledging utility as a component) and independent of anyone’s beliefs (it’s fine if science as worship is your personal view but it has value beyond both utility and any one group’s beliefs).

What’s wrong with having a diversity of motivations for basic science. I don’t understand this drive for uniformity. Some Christian, Muslim, and Jewish scientists do it for religious reasons, some atheist scientists do it for pure curiosity, some others do it for other reasons.

@Herman_Mays

I think it is just a logical outcome of decades of devaluing basic research relative to utilitarian, goal orientated, practical, applied research by administrators, politicians, funding agencies, industry and even many scientists, physicians and engineers themselves. I see it as a form of anti-intellectualism that’s been brewing at least here in the US for a very long time.

While a certain form of religion (such as American fundamentalism, which arose in the early 20th century) drives anti-intellectualism, I would argue that another kind of religion tends to drive the impetus for basic research. In fact, the prioritization of utility over basic truth in modern technological and scientific culture is one that theists on this board have complained about before. As @Eddie said:

@Eddie

In very recent developments, where the Baconian technological motive has reached its apogee, and where the Kantian understanding of nature (we can never know the things in themselves, but only the appearances, so the most sensible thing for scientists to do is learn how to predict the appearances and remain silent about whether they tell us anything about the real character of nature) has become dominant, many scientists and philosophers of science are now saying that science has nothing to do with truth or reality or knowing what nature really is (all supposedly useless “philosophical” questions), but is merely about measurement and prediction – often with a view to technological control. I don’t think this is a positive development. I think the theoretical motive should always be greater in natural science than the predictive or the technological motive (though the technological motive is perfectly appropriate for engineers, medical scientists, etc.). The question, “Why does nature behave in this way?” is, so to speak, an epistemologically nobler question than “How can I predict and control things?”