If contemporary scientists write the theological hypothesis as an argument in their papers, I am afraid that no serious scientific journal will publish such papers. There are also a very small number of scientists who believe in religion, but this does not mean that religion and science are necessarily related, just as there are smokers in scientists, which does not mean that smoking helps scientific thinking.
If someone says to us, "People need faith, faith is like the back of a chair; faith is the spiritual homeland that guides us forward and soothes our hearts." We sound like: "People need cigarettes, smoking can relieve fatigue, smoking helps thinking, smoking looks very cool". But we know that:
If human beings had not invented smoking at all, there would have been no need to smoke, and it would not have harmed fatigue and thinking. And people who have never smoked still don't feel this need, even though they will also be tired and think.
The reading article "Religion, Superstition and Science" shows us several "timely" views: science is not omnipotent, religion is the mother of science, and religion is more rational than superstition. However, these views are not so "self-explanatory" and have many debatable points.
Seeing that "science is not omnipotent", I would like to add the sentence "No science is impossible".
<h1>At the very least, the scientific method is the most reliable and powerful of the methods we know.
</h1>
Professor Zhao Nanyuan of Tsinghua University
Tian Wen has a very comprehensive discussion of the limitations of science: "The tentacles of science have not yet, and cannot, touch all the fields of human activity, emotion and thinking. Science does not solve the infinite problem, science does not involve the ultimate concern for mankind, science cannot, and may not, satisfactorily explain some of the ultimate questions, such as why the world is regular and what the meaning of life is; in the field of human feelings, science is almost powerless; science cannot solve all the problems in human social activity. "So science is really incompetent. But this statement does not reflect reality.
Behavioral psychology, emotional psychology, thinking science, biochemistry, neuroscience, cognitive science and many other disciplines have long touched or deeply studied the laws and material basis of human activities, emotions and thinking, as to whether it is "all fields", it is meaningless, science is always constantly creating its own field, the future field of course has not yet been touched, as for those "fields" created by theology, it is still not good not to touch, "the child does not speak strangely and chaotically". Scientists don't want to do boring things, too.
Who says "science doesn't solve infinite problems"? Mathematics studies many different infinities and infinitesimals, and physics also discusses whether time and space are finite or infinite. It's just that we don't know which "infinite problems" theology solves, and are those problems really worth "solving"? I also asked Mr. Tian to teach him.
The "ultimate concern for humanity" is often found in articles, but its references are never clear. Are we not cared for as childless as if we were not in a certain religion?
<h1>As for the specific "ultimate question", it is easy to explain scientifically. </h1>
Like "why the world has laws to follow", it can be explained by the "anthropic principle": if the world has no laws to follow, it means that the methods that succeed today may not succeed tomorrow, and in such an "impermanent" world, it is impossible for living things to evolve, and it is impossible for us to exist, and it is impossible for anyone to ask the question of "why the world has laws to follow", so the world must have laws to follow.
Einstein asked a similar question: "The most incomprehensible thing I find is that our world is understandable." Einstein was probably surprised that his simple and beautiful formula fit so well into the real world. In fact, he himself said that theory is an invention rather than a discovery. If it is an invention, it is not surprising, just as it is not surprising that airplanes can fly and cars can run. In fact, in many disciplines other than physics, scientists have not yet had such good luck and obtained such clean results, especially the "social sciences", according to Soros, are still only "social alchemy", but alchemy is also promising to develop into science.
<h1>As for "what is the meaning of life", children can also answer. </h1>
In the TV program about the Beijing-Kowloon Railway, there is such a scene: a child is herding sheep while being interviewed by reporters. "What are you doing?" "Shepherding sheep". "What are you doing herding sheep for?" "Save money". "What are you saving money for?" "Marry a daughter-in-law". "What do you do when you marry a daughter-in-law?" "Baby". "What is Shengwa doing?" "Shepherding sheep". In such a cycle, the meaning of life is exhausted. If this answer is too vulgar, it can also be elegant: according to the British biologist Chad Dawkins's theory of "selfish genes", all living individuals are genetic vehicles. This solution is more "scientific", but the meaning is similar to the sheep herding baby's answer, that is, the meaning of life is to maintain life itself.
Of course, theologians will answer differently: the world was created by God, so there are laws to follow, because God does not like chaos. The meaning of life is to prove the greatness of God. However, this answer will not be appreciated by rational people, and although creationism and evolution are still debated in the United States, those without religious bias can see that evolution can tell us how to improve breeds, and creationism cannot tell us how God created species. If a person pursues the meaning of life outside of life all his life, I believe that he will definitely live the most meaningless life.
When Zhu Qing, the "master of metaphysics", did not even use the microwave oven in his life
Religion is the mother of modern science, presumably in keeping with historical facts, and Newton's study of mechanics, probably to prove God's first impulse. But when he arrived at Laplace, confronted with Napoleon's question about why the Almighty God was not mentioned, his answer was, "Your Majesty, I don't need that hypothesis." At this point, the umbilical cord between science and religion is broken.
<h1>If contemporary scientists write the theological hypothesis as an argument in their papers, I am afraid that no serious scientific journal will publish such papers. There are also a very small number of scientists who believe in religion, but this does not mean that religion and science are necessarily related, just as there are smokers in scientists, which does not mean that smoking helps scientific thinking. </h1>
In order to examine the relationship between religion, superstition and reason, it is necessary to first look at what "reason" means. What we usually call rationality generally includes the following: logical reasoning, represented by Euclidean geometry; practical reasoning, a method of verifying truth and falsity according to facts; value rationality, that is, the rationality referred to by the "rational man hypothesis" of economics, also known as economic rationality. The philosophy of science often refers to "logical positivism", that is, the concentrated expression of the first two kinds of reason. In fact, in scientific practice, there is also a great emphasis on economic rationality, and to discuss whether a research topic is meaningful is to use economic rationality , including the actual economic prospects and contributions to the economy of thinking.
So what is the relationship between religion and superstition? Religion is also a superstition, characterized by the organization of practice and the systematization of theory. In other words, religion is a superstition with a permanent organization and a theoretical system.
From this, we can examine which religion or superstition is more in line with the spirit of reason. For this reason, we can observe the superstitious examples in daily life: seeking medical treatment, seeking children, asking for rain, divination, and public opinion. These superstitious activities are scattered and unorganized, and there is no theoretical system. Illness, infertility, and drought can be tested by asking God to worship Buddha, and whether God and Buddha have a spiritual experience and whether what they ask for can be realized can all be tested. According to the philosopher Carl Popper's principle of dividing science and non-science - falsifiability, the question of whether the gods and Buddhas are spiritual in superstitious activities is falsifiable and can be classified into the category of science, which is in line with practical reason.
Carl Popper
(Article has been abridged)
Author: Zhao Nanyuan, professor at Tsinghua University, artificial intelligence expert