Is “Science v. Religion” a Nonbinary Issue?
“Now accept one who is weak in faith, but not for disputes over opinions”
-The Holy Bible, Romans 14
Warm, Fuzzy Truth feels good. Is Truth Warm and Fuzzy?
It’s dangerous to presume the Universe depends on our beliefs. Reality doesn’t play along with our need to be correct. Beliefs must depend on Reality, not the other way around. People often discuss “Truth,” then explore only their side of issues. We assume our opinions are correct and seek to confirm them.
Reverend Thomas Bayes’ theory of inverse probability tells us: to seek Truth, admit and quantify uncertainty. We invent a distribution over possibilities. Give each possibility a name and a probability. Even if our initial distribution is wrong, it improves as we learn.
Next, we must consider “counterfactuals.” We flip our beliefs and ask, “what if this thing I believe to be false is actually true?” Or, “what if my Truth were Not Truth?”
Probabilistic and counterfactual analysis makes us more mentally flexible, so it makes us stronger. Let’s study with an example. Let’s study ye olde debate: Science v. Religion.
A “militant atheist” like Richard Dawkins might invent this distribution:
The Atheist believes Science is probably Truth. In an exclusive, “Science OR Religion,” two possibilities, a high probability of Science forces a low probability of Religion.
A devout follower of Christianity or Islam might invent this distribution:
The Follower believes Religion is probably Truth. In our distribution of two possibilities, a high probability of Religion forces us to set a low probability for Science.
This helps us understand why some militant atheists close their mind to religion, and why some devout followers avoid scientific evidence for evolution. Under the “Science OR Religion” distribution, conflicts with Truth are False.
Now we can apply counterfactual analysis:
If Science is Truth, our counterfactual is, “What if Religion is Truth?”
If Religion is Truth, our counterfactual is, “What if Science is Truth?”
We’re not done.
There’s at least one more important counterfactual here.
Can you see it?
What if Both Science AND Religion are Truth?
Here’s a new distribution for this nonbinary possibility:
This new distribution assigns lower probabilities to Science and Religion alone, but adds a new possibility: Both! If we accept Both, we open our minds to Science, and we open our minds to Religion.
Admittedly, this is oversimplified. Science and Religion are umbrella terms. We can’t go around believing everything! Not everything scientific is Truth, and it’s unscientific to deny God/Allah, and Intelligent Design are possible. Even if these things don’t exist in the Universe, they do exist in the minds of men. their impact on our world is evident.
Likewise, religious ideas contradict. It can’t all be Truth. Religion is often used as a substitute for Science. If we don’t understand something, we invent superstitious causes related to Religion so we don’t have to work hard to find what Science says about Truth.
Maybe the “Both” distribution will help us free our minds and understand the Universe. Let’s finish with a concept in information theory. Computers work using bits, which are either Zero OR One. On OR Off. Yes OR No. A coin flip gives us one bit of information: heads OR tails. Transistors have created trillions of dollars in wealth for humanity. They’re little switches, On OR Off.
Quantum computers are built using, “qubits,” which are similar to bits but with another capability: they can be Zero AND One, simultaneously. If qubits sound similar to our “Science OR Religion OR Both” concept, that’s probably because these ideas are similar. Quantum computers have this big advantage: they process counterfactuals like “Both.”
If you want, answer this question below or on facebook.com/groups/churchofmaths -
How can the Science of Quantum Computers and Qubits can help us understand the Truth of Science v. Religion?
The Universe Works in Mathematical Ways.
Until next time,
B
