The Science of Faith


I am writing this in response to attacks on the TV show Cosmos by religious believers.  Cosmos represents a litmus test about the public’s understanding of science.  The series represents an overview of what science has learned in the last four hundred years.  Despite all the efforts of modern secular education, I think many of the ideas presented in Cosmos are new to a majority of the public.  Science and technology succeed in our society without the majority of the population even understanding it.

Cosmos represents a good consensus of what science knows about reality, and yet it is often in conflict with many people’s personal beliefs about how reality works because of their religious education.  Whether they accept it or not, science is in direct conflict with religion.


Religion is wildly popular  because people want to believe.  People want to believe because of psychological needs.  Religion is 100% hope for certain fantasies to be true.  Believers validate their beliefs by getting other people to share their hopes.  But, what if the faithful applied the rigor of philosophy and the discipline of science to their religion?  Truth about reality is revealed not through our personal desires, but through what works for all people.

Why are there so many different religions, sects, creeds, beliefs if they are true?  They can’t all be true.  Why is there little consensus among believers, and much contention and hatred?  Religious wars are infamous for their cruelty.  Now the faithful feel under siege by science.  And some even invent pseudo-sciences to defend their beliefs.  If their beliefs were an actual feature of reality wouldn’t they be universal and testable?

Instead of attacking science, or making up fake science, the faithful should apply science to their beliefs.  First, they should find the core beliefs they all share and develop a consensus as to what is true about God or gods.  Anything your religion believes that all the other religions don’t, should be immediately crossed off the list of things that are probably true.  If something is universally true, it should be universally believed by all people.  False beliefs can be infinite because we can imagine anything, but universal truths should be finite because reality only works one way.  What are the universal truths in religious beliefs?  If a religious concept doesn’t apply to all humans on Earth, or even all aliens on every planet in the multiverse, then it should be doubted.

Science works by seeking such universal truths, and this is why the faithful feel under attack.  Not only does science work in a consistent manner, with a fantastic track record, but it’s truth works the same for Americans and Chinese, for Russians and Iranians.  Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus can barely agree on anything amongst themselves, much less with other religions.  If the religious really want to prove themselves, they need to band together and make one religion.  The obvious reason why religion is false is because there are too many of them.

If you are a firm believer in any metaphysical concept, you have to consider it a desire on your part unless you can find consensus with others.  That’s why religious people are so big on converting new recruits.  Getting someone else to believe like you do, validates your own fantasies.  If you really want to believe in something that’s true outside of your head, you need to be more scientific.  Any belief you hold that isn’t shared by a majority of the other seven billion people on this planet should be considered suspect.  Science succeeds because it’s under constant suspect.  Ideas have to taking a beating and keep on ticking – by everyone.

Even if six billion believers get together and form an absolute consensus on Laws of Religious Concepts, it won’t necessarily mean these beliefs are true without additional proof.  If the consensus is there is one God and that God listens to everyone’s prayers, then you need to test this hypothesis.  Let’s say every day six billion people all pray for the same unique thing each day.  If the prayers are answered repeatedly over years, then you can assume your theory is correct.  If it is not, you will have to alter your theory to there is a God but he doesn’t listen to people.  You will need to find a way to test this hypothesis.

However, even without scientific proof, the beliefs of the faithful can never be considered real unless they find more consensus.  Religious minded people would help their cause if they sought agreement rather than constantly splintering into smaller groups.  You can’t beat science by altering the rules of science.  You can’t beat science by lying about it.  You can’t beat science by putting your head into the sand.

I can think of two beliefs that a majority of religious believers might embrace.  One, there is a creator.  Two, the Golden Rule.  And those two might still cause a lot of arguments.  But beyond that, there is little agreement among the faithful.  Which to me, means there’s little reason to believe them.

Instead of attacking science, the religious should embrace each other.  You can’t elevate religion by undermining science.  Religions have always succeeded by war – by killing the unbelievers.  If you want to prove your religion is true, prove what you believe, not what everyone else believes is false.  Science succeeds because it proves what’s true, what works.

My challenge to the faithful, start proving your beliefs work universally.  I’ll consider the first step towards that proof when all religions become one.

JWH – 4/7/14

5 thoughts on “The Science of Faith”

  1. I haven’t been following this so was unaware that Cosmos was under attack. It doesn’t surprise me in the least however. If you’ve read “End of Faith” by Sam Harris, he points out many of the same things you’re writing about here albeit not directly related to Cosmos. I used to believe that I could discuss science rationally with religious individuals. After years of trying, I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s an exercise in futility. Most simply won’t allow for logical reasoning to enter any discussion that “threatens their “faith”. I’ve come to believe that it will be faith that will be the downfall of humanity. Just as faith has caused countless deaths and levels of suffering for centuries, so too will it cause death to the human race. It’s only a matter of time.

  2. I would say Cosmos is my favorite TV show, and each episode seems to be an intentional poke in the eye at the faithful. “We are stardust” gives more awe and wonder than myths (of religion) which only lead to separate us from them. The original Cosmos fundamentally changed my view about the universe, and this version is affecting many others today. The faithful should be afraid of this show as they are losing the meme war to science, reason and empirical methods.

  3. It is an interesting idea here, but the christians are never going to support it as there fantasy includes a world religion run by their enemy and thus can’t support the idea of a universal religion. Also, your idea threatens the special status of individuals and their fantasy, you can’t be special if you have faith in the same thing as everyone else. And in the end that is the biggest issue, the human need to be special, not just another person and not at all special that religion meets. If you want the religous to act like rational beings first you have to get them to accept that’s okay to not be a special snowflake.

    1. I’m just new on these blog of Auxiliary Memory, actually I found it by mistake when I was troubleshooting one of my Panasonic Manufacturing Robots, I started reading some of James’s essays and I found them really interesting, so please please don’t get me wrong if I don’t explain myself very well. So here is my comment:

      If we go back in time long before modern religions, beyond western science and only focus in ancient civilizations like Chinese, Egyptians, Phoenician, Mesopotamian, Maya, Inca, etc, most of them followed the Sun as one of the main god and some other forces of nature as other gods (religions), it seems they did it for convenient reasons like agriculture but at the same time to fulfill their religious minds, still common needs in most humans brains now a days. Also they mastered some complex Astronomy calculations (science) for agriculture, like Mayan calendar, in the particular case of the Inca, we still wonder how they built their super heavy stone walls over the unreachable Andes mountains. The Egyptian and the Maya did their own on the Pyramid constructions, how did they come up to similar Architecture living in different continents.

      So to me mankind always had sort of religion beliefs and the use of Science and technology as elements in the their brains.

      1. Primitive religion has always done well at explaining day-to-day reality, it just failed at speculation about cosmic causes. It’s amazing that all those early cultures were able to figure out so much about astronomy and seasons. I could not do it. I can read a book, but I doubt I could make the same observations about nature they did. I’m currently reading Robinson Crusoe and I’m amazed by how much survivor innovation the castaway is capable of inventing back in the late 1600s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Engaging With Aging

As long as we're green, we're growing

A Deep Look by Dave Hook

Thoughts, ramblings and ruminations


A story a day keeps the boredom away: SF and Fantasy story reviews


Pluralism and Individuation in a World of Becoming

the sinister science

sf & critical theory join forces to destroy the present

Short Story Magic Tricks

breaking down why great fiction is great

Xeno Swarm

Multiple Estrangements in Philosophy and Science Fiction

fiction review

(mostly) short reviews of (mostly) short fiction

A Just Recompense

I'm Writing and I Can't Shut Up

Universes of the Mind

A celebration of stories that, while they may have been invented, are still true

Iconic Photos

Famous, Infamous and Iconic Photos

Make Lists, Not War

The Meta-Lists Website

From Earth to the Stars

The Asimov's Science Fiction Magazine Author & Editor Blog

SFF Reviews

Short Reviews of Short SFF

Featured Futures

classic science fiction and more

Sable Aradia, Priestess & Witch

Witchcraft, Magick, Paganism & Metaphysical Matters

Pulp and old Magazines

Pulp and old Magazines

Matthew Wright

Science, writing, reason and stuff

My Colourful Life

Because Life is Colourful

The Astounding Analog Companion

The official Analog Science Fiction and Fact blog.

What's Nonfiction?

Where is your nonfiction section please.

A Commonplace for the Uncommon

Books I want to remember - and why

a rambling collective

Short Fiction by Nicola Humphreys

The Real SciBlog

Articles about riveting topics in science

West Hunter

Omnes vulnerant, ultima necat

The Subway Test

Joe Pitkin's stories, queries, and quibbles regarding the human, the inhuman, the humanesque.

SuchFriends Blog

'...and say my glory was I had such friends.' --- WB Yeats

Neither Kings nor Americans

Reading the American tradition from an anarchist perspective


Speculations on the Future: Science, Technology and Society

I can't believe it!

Problems of today, Ideas for tomorrow


Peter Webscott's travel and photography blog

The Wonderful World of Cinema

Where classic films are very much alive! It's Wonderful!

The Case for Global Film

'in the picture': Films from everywhere and every era

A Sky of Books and Movies

Books & movies, art and thoughts.

Emily Munro

Spinning Tales in the Big Apple


hold a mirror up to life.....are there layers you can see?

Being 2 different people.

Be yourself, but don't let them know.

%d bloggers like this: