Religion takes faith / Science does not

[hansel]

*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**Nonetheless, your general thesis is pretty much on target: most “scientific” beliefs are held conditionally, and subject to change as new discoveries are made; most religious beliefs are held unconditonally. But I did feel it was worth noting that there are exceptions on both sides. **

Just to be clear, I wasn’t making a claim about the state of the world regarding scientific and religious beliefs; I was making an assertion about what our ideals for each sort of belief are. I doubt that anyone is perfectly rational or perfectly faithful; I’m claiming that deviations from that standard of totally conditional/totally unconditional belief are just the human inability to be perfectly anything.

Matt’s faith, in particular, strikes me as far from an ideal faith, since he deliberately selected a more pleasing religion. I think that makes religion, for him, more theapeutic than philosophical; I suspect that, at heart, religion is that way for many religious people. Actually, I think that a therapeutic mode of religion is probably better all around. The people I know who have been severely damaged by religious beliefs are usually those for whom religion was an apparently objective reality with which they were forced to deal, rather than something like “it’s good for me to believe this.”

[matt_mcl]

*Originally posted by hansel *
**Matt’s faith, in particular, strikes me as far from an ideal faith, since he deliberately selected a more pleasing religion. I think that makes religion, for him, more theapeutic than philosophical; I suspect that, at heart, religion is that way for many religious people. Actually, I think that a therapeutic mode of religion is probably better all around. The people I know who have been severely damaged by religious beliefs are usually those for whom religion was an apparently objective reality with which they were forced to deal, rather than something like “it’s good for me to believe this.” **

Hmm. I assume you’re using “ideal” here to mean “closest to a standard definition” rather than “best”, given the rest of the paragraph. Actually, I started with the religion as explained by others, but then I thought it out to suit my philosophical understanding of the universe, rather than the other way around. It’s not something I added on top of my perceptions, but a reinforcement to my perceptions.

[hansel]

*Originally posted by matt_mcl *
**Hmm. I assume you’re using “ideal” here to mean “closest to a standard definition” rather than “best”, given the rest of the paragraph. Actually, I started with the religion as explained by others, but then I thought it out to suit my philosophical understanding of the universe, rather than the other way around. It’s not something I added on top of my perceptions, but a reinforcement to my perceptions. **

That’s exactly what I mean: you chose a religion to suit and to enhance your intuitions, rather than to reshape your intuitions to match your religious circumstances.

Under these conditions, I support religion as an activity. If you read Frank Herbert’s books, you’ll often come across figures who are chaplain/psychiatrists, who are spiritual physicians instead of conduits to a metaphysical realm. I’m leery of the other kind, that strives to shape believers to suit the doctrine.

[Sterra]

If you go about this arguement in a scientifc way you come to the conclusion that they are diffrent, you however still have faith in science.

[hansel]

*Originally posted by Asmodean *
**If you go about this arguement in a scientifc way you come to the conclusion that they are diffrent, you however still have faith in science. **

Nonsense. My belief in the efficacy of science is limited and very conditional, depending on the circumstances in which it is applied. I have no faith in science; I have a useful belief that science generally works, and that what I do not personally understand is still evidenced, to some degree, to scientists who do. But I’m very willing to consider evidence that the scientific method fails in certain circumstances, or that particular scientific conclusions are wrong. Moreover, I don’t believe that science attains Truth, or gets at things the way they “really are”.

Sorry, that’s just not faith.

[glee]

matt_mcl,

You posted ‘I believe in my religion because I worship the universe and I know the universe exists. I don’t know it’s the right one.’

Please can you tell me something about your religion?
(Is there a God? Is there an afterlife? Do you have to do anything because of your religion?).

Further ‘But not knowing doesn’t matter, because since my perceptions are subjective by definition, I can’t know anything for a fact.
I can certainly act for most practical purposes as though my perceptions are facts, and that usually seems to give pretty good results. … I don’t see an elephant in this room, so it’s safe to act as though there is no elephant in this room. But I don’t know that for absolute certain, because I don’t know anything for absolute certain.’

Why do you need religion to use reason? If I don’t see an elephant, I act as if there isn’t one present either.
Similarly, I don’t know with ABSOLUTE certainty that gravity won’t suddenly stop working on Earth. But it seems impractical to strap myself in every time I use my computer!
Surely the major point of science over religion is that you can test the results of scientific theories yourself. Can you show your religion in action to anyone else?

Further ‘I am well aware that reason gives answers based on our current knowledge; … The problem occurs when they are treated as absolute answers. That’s my point.’

My point is that you wrote ‘Reason can be (and often is) … treated as a means of getting absolute answers…’
If you prefer, I’ll object to your use of ‘often’. Scientists do not often claim to have absolute answers.

I asked 'what other methods (apart from science) can we use to understand the Universe?

Common sense, creativity, intuition, memory, ethics…

And (possibly apart from ethics) these all use scientific observation and testing. E.g. how can you use ‘common sense’ without applying previous knowledge in a scientific manner?

I posted '- not all Gods are called Jehovah.

• it’s difficult prove a negative (God doesn’t exist), especially when he is supposed to be omnipotent, and wants to conceal himself.
• by using emotive language (believing in God is absurd), when religion is a deeply-held personal belief, you’re just trying to upset people.
• science isn’t perfect. It does, however, make predictions that can be tested.’

You replied ‘And there you have it, folks. Proof positive of the death of irony in western civilization.’

Yes, I knew it was sarcastic (and well-written too!). But it doesn’t apply to true scientists, and I was trying to stick to answering the initial question.
(If the debate was ‘do some people think that science is omnipotent?’, it would, of course, be completely relevant).
I’m also nervous that KarlGauss took it literally.