One way to "resolve" this kind of issue is to accept that many things aren't the real thing anyway, but only an "approximation" of the real thing; and as long as they serve our purposes, it doesn't matter if they're the real thing or not.  In the tech world, we face this all the time.  A high-res digital photo may look life-like, but if you zoom in many times, you see that it is only composed of square, solid-color pixels -- it is merely an approximation of a real photograph or the real-life subject it depicts.

Another way to resolve this is to allow a thing to add ancillary attributes within its own identity.  For instance, a person is a student now, but later becomes an Access programmer, then later becomes a father, father-in-law, grandfather, etc.  He keeps adding attributes to his identity, not unlike Theseus' ship.  His latest identity may be very different from his initial identity, but it is a superset of all the attributes he has accumulated, including his initial identity.  Another similar analogy would be the ID cards in our wallets: driver's ID, bank card, credit card, etc., each one an additional aspect of our identity.

Kevin very wise insights. Thank you. :)

I think the key is the identity, which is woven in with the journey.  If you don't account for the journey, you could have two identical ships and make a solid argument that they are the same Theseus.  The Identity is what separates them and those separate identities are only important due to the individual journeys that they make.  In my mind, that would be the Theseus, no matter how many parts you replace, as it would have the singular unique history.

For the individual, we can and do evolve and grow, even if negatively sometimes.  Our identity includes our journey as well.  I also believe there is an essential component to us too.  Some people are good even with a horrible journey and others are bad with every advantage.  Many people look at science and religion as competitors for different truths but I don't see it that way.  Religion is the historical proclamation of the truth that someone shared with us.  Science is simply the organized method for us to prove the same truth to ourselves, in a collaborative way.  They are more like two paths leading to the same place, truth.  Both can be perverted with false input, and have been, to deliver us to something that is not the truth.  Our scientific knowledge still has a long way to go to answer many of the most basic questions that have vexed us for a long time.

Matt I think you made a really important point when you said identity is tied up in the journey. I agree with you there completely. Where I see things a little differently is in the way religion and science approach truth.

To me, religion usually starts with a conclusion, often proclaimed by a leader, prophet, or sacred text, and then everything else is built around that proclamation. It's a top-down approach. Someone makes a claim that this is the truth, and the system is built to reinforce that claim, sometimes even in the face of contradictory evidence. Science, on the other hand, works the opposite way. It starts with observation, then builds models, tests them, throws out the bad ones, and refines the good ones. It doesn't start with answers. It starts with questions. That's why science is self-correcting and moves closer to reality over time, even if the path is messy.

I think your description of religion as a "proclamation of truth" was right on target. That's really what it is - a claim handed down. Science is the process we use to verify or falsify claims. Sometimes religion happens to line up with things science later supports, but often it doesn't, and that's when you see the tension.

For me, the key difference is that science welcomes being wrong, because being wrong means we learned something new. Religion, by design, resists that correction. That doesn't make religion meaningless - it provides cultural stories, values, and traditions that people find important - but I don't see it as aiming for the same destination as science. They might both claim to be on the road to truth, but one is more like a map we constantly update, while the other is a map someone drew centuries ago and declared final. Here be dragons... OK, well let's go find those dragons then!

You also mentioned that both religion and science can be perverted with false input, and I think that's worth unpacking. Religion has certainly been twisted throughout history to serve power or control, often delivering something that is far from truth. With science, I see it a little differently. The method itself is self-correcting - bad hypotheses get discarded when better evidence comes along. What does get perverted sometimes is not the science, but the people or institutions using it. Corporations have paid to muddy the waters on tobacco, climate change, and other issues, but that wasn't science producing falsehoods - that was human dishonesty exploiting uncertainty. The beauty of science is that, over time, the corrections win out and the truth rises to the surface.

And as for the point that our scientific knowledge still has a long way to go - I agree with you there too. There are still some of the biggest questions we don't have answers for. But I think it's important to also see how far science has come in just a few hundred years. At one point people believed disease was caused by evil spirits, and now we understand germ theory. For centuries many thought the earth was flat, and science showed it to be round. Religion tends to draw from ancient texts that haven't changed for thousands of years, whereas science continues to expand and refine what we know.

Now, will science ever be able to answer every question? Probably not. Some questions may always be beyond our reach. Is there an end to the Universe? Is there life after death? Why do socks disappear in the dryer? Personally, I don't think science will ever be able to give a definitive answer to questions like these. That's where religion steps in, offering stories and frameworks for things we can't yet measure or test. But without the scientific method, there's no way to evaluate those claims to see if they're actually true. At that point, are we really talking about objective truth? Is it truth if it can't be tested, repeated, verified?

So I really appreciate your take on the journey and identity. That resonates with me a lot. I just see religion and science as very different tools, with very different methods, and that's why I lean heavily toward science as the more reliable path. I also understand that religion gives many people a deep sense of purpose and comfort, especially in times of distress. There is real value in that, and I would never take it away from those who find meaning there. But for me, I would rather face the universe as it truly is, even if it feels harsh or indifferent.

The truth may be puzzling. It may take some work to grapple with. It may be counterintuitive. It may contradict deeply held prejudices. It may not be consonant with what we desperately want to be true. But our preferences do not determine what's true. - Carl Sagan

I guess I was trying to say that Religion works to address the meta-physical, like philosophy, and science works to address the physical knowledge.   While there is some overlap as they come together, they are not mutually exclusive and a person can embrace both.

A relevant Star Trek analogy might be when Vulcans make first contact with earth.  Humans had to decide whether take their word about the nature of deep space and our preparedness to explore or go and find out for ourselves.  While some of what the Vulcans said was misleading, the majority of it was true.  After two centuries taking their advise, we decided to find out for ourselves.  We found that, even then, we were barely able to survive, relying on a fair amount of good fortune and Vulcan knowledge.

It is also individuals, media, and governments that pervert science, through selective funding, selective testing, and selective reporting.  As consumers, it is our right to scrutinize the research and those involved for obvious conflicts of interest, external motivations, or implausible findings that undermine trust in the work.  I'm looking at you "two eggs a week will kill you" and "polar ice will be gone by 2013".  :)  The vast majority of what any of us knows, we were told by somebody.  So the same trust component found in religion is involved in the conveyance of these scientific findings. Somebody has to be trusted to tell the truth.

While science is supposed to welcome being wrong, because of the people involved, it is sometimes very unwelcoming of scrutiny.  Recently, a man who proclaimed, "I am science", told us things that seemed impossible to be true.  The people who dared to scrutinize his proclamations found themselves, labeled with pejorative names like Anti-Vaxxer or Science-Denier.  They were systematically cancelled from the public conversation through Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube under the guise of "mis-information."  In some cases they had professional certifications, like medical licenses, revoked.  

It is worth noting that over time, even the Catholic Church has adjusted its stances on various issues to address the changing world.

For me, religion and science depend on faith and trust.  Religion also leads to eventual truth.  In parlance of my grandmother, we will all "Learn the big secret" soon enough.  Until then, I find no personal conflict with embracing the science to teach ourselves while following faith to guide our path in life.  Everybody will be wrong about some things.  At the end of the day we just have to decide how we address Pascal's Wager.

Matt this is exactly the kind of thoughtful dialogue I had hoped to foster with the Captain's Log. I love this kind of stuff. Intelligent debate and discussion is wonderful.

I agree with you completely that science and religion are dealing in different domains. One is about the physical world and scientific facts, the other about philosophy and metaphysical questions. And you're right, they shouldn't be expected to provide what the other does. Religion shouldn't be relied upon to provide factual knowledge about the universe, and science can't answer some of the deepest metaphysical questions.

Your Vulcan analogy is perfect. Humans trusted the Vulcans when they said, "This is how it is," and for a while we had to take their word for it. That's a great picture of how religion works: "This is the truth, because we tell you so." But eventually, like humans in Star Trek, we had to start testing it ourselves.

You also make a good point that most of what we know comes from somebody else telling us, which is why we rely on experts. I'm not going to go spend 10 years studying neurochemistry or anthropology just to double-check. But here's where I think an important distinction lies: faith is a word with many meanings, just like the word love. I love my wife differently than I love my dog, differently than I love a good steak dinner, differently than I love Star Trek. The same with faith. Faith in religion means trusting without evidence. Faith in a spouse is trust built on relationship. Faith in science, though, really isn't the same kind of "faith" at all - it's trust in a process and in the expertise of people trained in it. And if we really wanted to, we could put in the years of schooling and do the research ourselves and arrive at our own conclusions. That's fundamentally different from the kind of faith religion requires.

And that's one of the reasons why publishing your research and having it peer-reviewed is so important because scientists love to prove each other wrong.

As for the perversion of science, I think you're right that individuals, media, and governments muddy the waters all the time with selective reporting or funding. But that's not the method of science failing - that's human nature. A good recent example was Trump's FDA head claiming that acetaminophen causes autism and birth problems, while the very study he quoted explicitly said the observational data did not establish causation. That's not science lying - that's science being misrepresented. The strength of science is that, over time, the bad interpretations get weeded out, and the truth rises to the surface.

I also agree with you that science has blind spots. There are some questions it may never be able to answer. Is there an end to the universe? Is there life after death? But the fact that science can't answer everything doesn't make it weaker - it's what makes it honest. It admits its limits and focuses on what can actually be tested. That's why I see it as the superior method for understanding the world we live in. We just have to be comfortable with the answer, "I don't know."

And I'll give the Catholic Church credit - it has changed its stances over time, which is certainly better than burning scientists at the stake for heresy. That's progress.

So while I respect your point that both religion and science depend on trust, I'd say the kind of trust they require is fundamentally different. Religion asks for faith without evidence. Science asks us to trust experts and methods that can be tested, repeated, and verified. For me, that's why I lean on science as the more reliable path.

I'll probably do a whole Captain's Log on Pascal's Wager one of these days, because I've got plenty of thoughts on it. The classic version says you should believe in God just in case, because if you're wrong you've lost nothing, but if you're right you gain everything. The flaw I see is - what if you pick the wrong god? Humans have created tens of thousands of different gods throughout history. What if you hedge your bets on the wrong religion and end up angering the "real" one? That's a risk Pascal never accounted for, and it makes the wager a lot less tidy than it first sounds.

True story about Pascal's Wager and the number of gods.  If you believe that he has any benevolence, you might believe he would be forgiving of the mistake of not having the knowledge of him available.  If you believe he has no benevolence, all is lost anyway.  So, in that sense you might be able distill it to another binary decision.

Thanks for the prompt and forum to share.  For me, the fun is finding the common ground and exploring the different perspectives that lie in the differences.

Absolutely... and to do it in a mature and civil manner. Any time you try to have an adult conversation on Crackbook it turns into arguing with a pigeon. Not even playing chess... LOL.