Science and religion have often been at loggerheads. Now the former has decided to resolve the problem by trying to explain the existence of the latter
Read more »
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality,
they are not certain; and as far as they are certain,
they do not refer to reality. — Albert Einstein
Humans have a strong urge to find the “truth”. I think that’s an evolutionary trait helpful in gaining control — the “truth” allows for better predictions hence you have more control over your situation and have a better chance of survival/reproductive success. But due to our limited knowledge and limited perceptions there is no way we can find the ultimate, actual truth about anything. What we do is form a model that fits within our limited knowledge, and use it as the ultimate truth. A better approach would be to use the model as a predictor, and watch for a superior predictor to replace it, knowing that neither is likely to be the real truth. Einstein’s quote above puts this idea succinctly.
It sounds like scientists would all have this approach, but human nature intervenes — most believe their models (theories) are the truth and will argue vigourously to defend it as such. I’d much rather they’d argue to defend their theories as being the best predictors they know of. The difference in approach should give one an open mind to improvements.
Those whose beliefs of “truth” comes from a book (such as creationists) would benefit the most from this approach, as models in such books are not useful for prediction. Their vigourous arguments to defend their truth rests solely on discrediting other models. By not being able to predict properly with their useless models, they give up control over their lives.
Study examining how the brain processes belief.
“…within the brain pan, at least, the distinction between objective and subjective is not so clear-cut. Although more complex assertions may get analyzed in so-called “higher” areas of the brain, all seem to get their final stamp of “belief” or disbelief in “primitive” locales traditionally associated with emotions or taste and odor…”
I always wondered about how religion started. I am currently of the opinion that the most important factor was the human tendency for having as much control as possible (evolutionarily a very positive behaviour), and where impossible, invent a semblance of control (as in praying to a god). It’s obvious that religion provides numerous other benefits too. This article postulates that religion promotes cooperation, which would certainly provide a huge evolutionary benefit. Maybe there is a gene for faith? If there is, I certainly do not have it…
Here is the article:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070723/full/070723-6.html
A few days ago I was reading Robert Cringely’s comment on the opening of the Creation Museum. The first reader response is by a fervent creationist who included a reference to “a global flood that destroyed and buried most land-dwelling creatures on the earth.”
Which got me thinking.
Although it started out as a means of practising expressing myself, this blog is turning out to be more of a compendium of interesting information I come across. One of these days I’ll have to actually write something as opposed to cut and paste. 
