Chris Conway
Chief Architect, Quantiv
It’s the time of year when even the most scientific and rational of us might just be prepared to put aside those traits and partake in a little emotional and religious indulgence.
It’s often been thought science would eventually destroy religion. There have been many conflicts between the two throughout history, of which the Earth’s orbit around the sun is perhaps the best known. But at heart, both science and religion are really just different ways of relating to the world around us. It’s a human characteristic to explore the environment, to learn more, to try to explain what we see, and even to try to control our own destiny.
Science (knowledge) is based on reason and explaining what’s happening now. With our scientific hats on, we watch and draw, listen and write, measure and weigh – and create a model of the physical world as we find it. This approach is particularly useful in terms of day-to-day organisation, where applying some form of order to what’s being done is essential.
Where to watch and what to listen for
Our products are aimed at supporting this approach. NumberWorks helps suggest where to watch and what to listen for, while NumberCloud provides a way to record the resulting measurements.
In contrast, religion is based on faith and belief. It often tries to explain what might happen in the future. There’s less watching and measuring, and more feeling. And in place of a model, it creates more of a picture of how the world – or another world – might look.
(NumberWorks can help here too, but it needs to be used carefully to ensure it doesn’t try to impose too much structure on something almost intentionally flexible.)
It’s those two different perspectives that mean when there is a conflict – or just an immediate decision to be made – it’s science with its more tangible explanations that invariably wins out.
Understanding what we can see – and what we can’t
However, on its own, that scientific data still doesn’t feel enough to understand the world.
Even for the physics, there are places where science struggles. It’s good at explaining the observable world because it provides techniques to quantify situations, and from those to show how inputs and outputs are connected. (Again, this is the basis of our ‘Number’ products.)
But science struggles more with unobservable/theoretical concepts. Equations for those still exist but are supplemented by descriptions that sometimes feel as if they’re getting rather close to religious texts, with talk of ‘strings’ and ‘dark matter’. Space – ranging from the very small (between atoms) to the very large (the expanse beyond Earth’s atmosphere) – is a good example here, too.
And how do we measure and explain more emotional concepts? Being seasonal, the uplifting effect of a Christmas carol? Or the feeling of hope provided by traditional Christmas stories, no matter how many times we’ve heard them or whether we ‘believe’ these tales or not? For explaining and categorising those effects, intuitive beliefs often work as well, if not better, than pure science.
The difference between science and faith
Overall, this could come back to those different perspectives. Science is explaining what happens, i.e. something that can be proved with dry facts. But faith is more interested in considering why something might happen. It’s less easy to prove, and with more options – which possibly explains the variety of different religions that exist.
And perhaps that’s the value that comes from the seasonal indulgence. It’s about recognising that knowing what to do – and what will happen when it’s done – is important in the short term. While understanding why it’s being done is critical in the long term. But more importantly, that neither is enough on its own.
Festive greetings from the Quantiv team
Wishing you a Merry Christmas and warmest wishes for the New Year.
