Hmmm… I have this funny feeling that I know what your point is and actually agree with some parts of it.
Something that I think you should directly address though, is that the acceptance of our senses in many ways not an intellectual or even emotional decision. It is not even a learned tradition like a religion. It is probably almost as integral to our minds as breathing is to our bodies. Through various mental disciplines a belief in the senses can be unlearned somewhat but this is not as easy as saying “this could all be an illusion”.
Even in the Matrix, the main character just trades one world for another. He comes to see his senses in a different manner, yet he still believes in a “real” world that is the basis for his senses. He doesn’t sit around and say “what if this is yet another illusion?”
From an intellectual standpoint, trusting our senses is like a religious belief, but in the actual practice of life it is more than a matter of changing a belief. It is a restructuring of all of your mental habits.
Try turning your critical lense on yourself. Haven’t you just provided us with yet another faith based explanation of reality? You’ve obviously trusted your senses enough to say that science exists right?
So… if you’ve been making assumptions too, then your ideology negates itself. If all knowledge is faith based, then you’ve apparently just come here to make converts of us all.
Sorry if that answer is too flippant, but I think it reinforces my point.
perspective: Yeah, we are basically stuck with believing what we see. That’s why we can, and do, fall for all those optical illusions until our mind knows what is really going on. But I was never trying to say I had some non-faith revelation. I was trying to say that every life is based on some amount of faith, so I would be negating myself if I claimed to be different.
The thing about science, and every other religion, is that it depends upon correct application of all relavent principles. If a principle involved has not been discovered, it cannot be applied.
I am not trying to scientifically tear apart science. I am trying to put science on a philosophical pedestal. Science defines its own little sphere, in which it alone rules; but it is resting upon certain philosophical assumptions, or faiths. This is no different than other religions. Most religions worth their salt define a sphere in which thier tenants are irrevocable, and they too have certain faiths about what reality and knowledge are.
If you say, as Libertarian, that you are incapable of faith, I will not argue with you. I am not trying to bash down deeply rooted convictions (I think that is pretty futile). For myself, it seems that if you take nothing on faith, you are having faith that there is nothing which must be taken on faith.
Another point: what is today considered “beyond” the realm of science may tomorrow’s hot topic in the scientific community. Here I reference Libertarian’s article. I likewise suggest that perhaps the farther reaches of science–quantum physics or something–will produce an explanation for belief in god, or the ability to ask philosophical questions. Science is always poking its nose where people thought it never would.
Then again, science does not necessarily answer any such questions, since once could always argue that the physical phenomenon are only symptoms of the spiritual actions. Whatever.
If we were all together and somebody dropped an apple and said, “That proves the law of gravity,” I could say, “No, it doesn’t. It looked like what you say, but I believe I’m being fooled. I saw a magician do something like that just last Wednesday.” And if you continued to drop apples I could continue to cry “Illusion!”, and maintain my wierd belief that apples do not fall. How could you prove it was not an illusion, if I were bent on believing it was?
It reminds me of the parable in which a rich man in Sheol asked Abraham to send Moses back to all his (living) friends, so that they would believe the truth. Abraham basically said that wouldn’t do any good.
To get creative (and not theological), wasn’t he basically saying that people would just work a resurected Moses into their current beliefs? Hypothetically, science would just try to figure out how Moses got alive again, not suddenly fall on its knees and obey the ten commandments. In this hypothetical scenario, Moses is like the apple in the above situation.
Again, I am not trying to discuss theology. The parable just occured to me when I wrote the apple scenario.
Then why is it useful to consider it an act of faith like accepting x as you savior? People who accept x as their savior still “have faith” in their senses the two concepts are generally unrelated.
It seems you’ve acknowledged a critical difference, yet you haven’t convinced me why I should ignore this critical difference and lump sense experience together with religious faith.
Well, that’s the crux: damned if you do, damned if you don’t. To me you’re essentially saying,“Everything is based on faith, therefore all veiwpoints have equal standing.” Well if we follow this logic out then your viewpoint of all viewpoints being equal is just as valid as the viewpoint of all of them not being equal. Not a very convincing argument. In fact it’s hard to see what you can disagree with at all or why you would even want to argue.
Not that this makes you wrong. It seems that you want to consider things that are beyond true and false. But this view is better suited for meditating on koans than trying to convince others of it.
Well, it is already on one in a sense. There are those philosophers who would criticize that pedestal, but it is there. If you’d like to change it’s foundations, you need to have some pretty good reasons for it.
It is all well and good to preach tolerance and open mindedness. In that sense I agree with you. But I’m not sure what else you would like to see.
As hard as it would be for me to accept the existence of a Judeo-Christian type deity, I’m not one of those people. I take a lot of things on faith, but I don’t think sense experience is one of them.
I agree with you here. But speculating about it doesn’t give science a framework to examine those questions.
“People who accept x as their savior still “have faith” in their senses the two concepts are generally unrelated.”
I was imprecise. We are “basically stuck” with believing what we see, but not totally; we can disbelieve, doubt, mistrust, and otherwise not believe what our senses tell us. It just isn’t the default setting.
“Well if we follow this logic out then your viewpoint of all viewpoints being equal is just as valid as the viewpoint of all of them not being equal.”
The interesting thing about your point is that it allows the [religious fanatic] just as much room to dismiss science as it allows the scientist to dismiss religion. Since my intention was to put science on a level with religion, I can’t say as I am complaining.
“But I’m not sure what else you would like to see.”
This is the proverbial beginning. I may not personally try to go anywhere from this foundation, but if science is recognized as being another sort of religion–what, can’t you think of any debates where that would change things? What about the good 'ol Evolution vs Creationism? (Which is NOT the topic here!)
We have already said that science never proves anything–induction I guess is the proper term. But another thing to consider is that, theoretically, science may some day find such evidence that it reverses its current position and declares sudden creation more likely the slow evolution. (Again, creation vs. evolution is not my point. It is just an example.) Now, before anybody gets too upset, let me add that I don’t think such a reversal of positions is likely; just that, without knowing the limits of the Evidences and Principles out there, science cannot claim to have reached a conclusion. It is always possible that today’s theories will be radically disproved. It has happened before.
Most of my argument has been to the effect that even if Science could prove something, nobody has to believe the evidence any more than anything else. But I think the above point has more actual impact: science could wind up accomodating religion, without particularly meaning to. Nobody can say where science will go, only where it’s been.
Essentially the scientist says, “Wherever science offers an explanation, it is the best explanation. Where science is silent, I will consult another source [e.g, religion]”
Essentially the (true) theist says, “Wherever [doctrine] offers an explanation, it is the best explanation. Where [doctrine] is silent, I will consult another source [e.g., science].”
One of them is putting belief foremost with the human mind. The other is putting belief foremost with god(s). So who should be believed more?
But that riddle is exactly my point. I am by definition right. This is a very obnoxious way to be right, and makes for poor debates; but it doesn’t seem to have stopped some people from missing the point.
As long as you understand it’s easier said than done.
But in order to accept that point you must also refute it. It negates itself. So any conclusions drawn from it are meaningless. No equal ground has been achieved.
Well, only if it is meaningful to consider science as a religion. You’ve pointed out a similarity between science and religion. Simply sharing a similarity does not make things equivalent. I might have black pants and a black shirt for instance. They share the property of being black but pants are still not shirts. Perhaps it’s interesting to note that they’re both clothing, but you still wouldn’t wear two pairs of shirts instead your pants.
Furthermore even if I agreed with the equivalence, there’s still no room for debate. Would a debate between an Australian aborigine and a Muslim about the creation of the universe be meaningful? I don’t think so. There’s no room for one to influence the other. They derive their knowledge from different sources.The same goes for a creationist/big Bang debate. It’s meaningless.
I agree with you here. I don’t think the acretion of knowledge by science is as linear as some would believe.
I do not think it is useful to describe the tenets of science as “faith”. DSeid and I shared a few words on the subject, and I must say that in my stay here on the baords the topic does come up over and over again. And, each time, I further refine and correct my understanding of the term “faith” and what is also meant by “science”.
So sometimes it may seem that I contradict myself based on previous posts, but I would rather say that there I was unclear or incorrect, and now I think I have it.
DSeid mentioned my saying that they were “god axioms”, and I think that is a good way to put it. My views on the underlying assumptions we make have shifted somewhat in the past six months, though not overtly so.
Science puts explicit and implicit assumptions to use in order to reveal information about how they interact in a system of incomplete induction. Whether we “know” or “really know” anything by these investigations is, I think, a topic for another thread.
I don’t believe, nor have I seen, religion do this. From what I understand, to “scientifically examine religion” would be a form of gnosticism. Or magick (I use the spelling to distinguish it from card tricks)? I am not aware of schools of magick that have the popularity they may once have, though I admit somewhat sheepishly that I also haven’t looked. The last great magician I can think of is Crowley, though any trip into an occultic book store will reveal all sorts of updated material.
Which is to say, there are still people interested in investigating things without “faith”. Whether their methods would appeal to scientists is another question, one which I do not care to personally answer.
There was (IMHO) a great thread about this you might care to search for. The original poster was a Mr Svinlesha and the title was “what’s wrong with this definition of science?”. Great thread, I think. I enjoyed it, anyway.
There is a perspective that science doesn’t know anything, but our theories work, so they seem to be right. Then there are theories that even this is incorrect, since by all rights science has reversed its position many times on many topics, that science can never tell anything, and it is just parlor tricks (my phrasing for emphasis) that anything works at all. And, let me say, that if I accept the epistemological limitation on incomplete induction, then I am comfortable saying that science is another religion.
It is clearly just as dogmatic. Note that scientists like to claim exclusivity on the nature of empirical propositions. For example, in a recent debate one person asked that I provide scientific proof of God, or something similar (note: I am not religious). And it occurred to me to mention how much this stacks the deck. Science dictates the method of proof, the form of the proof, and what information it will accept for such matters that it can never prove. Then when someone comes along with a “non-scientific theory” about something (say, the nature of the soul), the pro-science crowd will quickly jump up and demand that you explain it in terms of science or they won’t consider it.
If this seems to be strange behavior for people who say they never prove anything, I think you are with me. Why would they demand proof for something that, even if it fit their means of data accumulation, they would still say is never proved anyway? Your guess is as good as mine. I think its a load of hog spit, and I basically said as much in the Svinlesha thread mentioned above.
And we are led to question the foundations of science; which is to say, what tells us that these methods are “good”? Nothing tells us, we just use them for kicks? Nothing tells us, they just work? (which begs the question: what is “works” for theories of judgement? Saying that they work is a judgement!)
There is no beginning, IMO, if we look for a pure foundation of science, that doesn’t stem from some sort of axiomatic foundation. And we would then be led to wonder, “Is the axiom ‘Logic works’ any more or less taken on faith than the axiom ‘God exists’?” For Libertarian, the existence of God is an empirical fact; he has felt him in his life, and seen his work, and so on. For the scientist, there are any number of assumptions which they take for granted and say they test, but I do not believe there can be a test for all things (because, again, what test the standard for testing?).
But do they take their axioms on faith?
I am beginning to wonder whether or not “faith” is a term that actually describes anything at all. Is it “absolute trust in my axioms”? Is it, “knowledge which cannot be proven empirically”? If it is this latter, then philosophers’ a priori knowledge is faith, something that wouldn’t go over well either.
I am reminded of Soren Kierkegaard’s commentary on Abraham taking his son out to kill him as god commanded. To Soren, this was the ultimate example of an act of faith. To Soren, then, it might be said that an act of faith is one which challenges every convention, including your own system of judgement (in some sense). It really was a beautiful passage to read, and soren is the only religious existentialist I know of.
If we accept that definition, then most people do not perform acts of faith at all. But do they still have faith? Is faith really just using axioms, or believing their truth, their application? I would not say it is the latter or the former. But again, I am not clear on what faith actually means anyway. Every instance I can think of for faith that is common doesn’t seem to be anything unique to me which would indicate that it warrants an entire class of feeling called “faith”. Perhaps if we started there.
A pro-science person might define faith as knowledge not gained from science. Or knowledge which can’t be proved. Or something like that. Which is to say, if I say that I know hitting this certain key on my keyboard will produce the letter ‘t’ on the screen then I am taking that on faith. Unless we accept incomplete induction for knowledge. In which case the distinction becomes very unclear.
I am interested in investigating what “faith” means. Should I start my own thread for that or does it actually apply here?
And I should add, that when I asked for a religious proof of science, the response was, “I believe in science on faith!” If that is their view of faith and religion, then I can understand why they may find themselves to not be religous, or at least to not consider science and religion similar.
But still, I don’t think the matter is so clear. I do not wish to lend credence to religion nor science, nor bring one on the level with the other, but I’d like to understand the difference that it is asserted exists epistemologically. Behaviorally, of course, they are worlds apart.
, Technically both are putting their belief foremost with the human mind. This is why Kant was a fan of noumena. We can only describe the external, we can never really KNOW it. This goes for both God and science. What remains is a choice between different kinds of stimuli (to take a sharp turn and become bluntly materialist). In my mind, “god” appeals to the aesthetic sensibility while “science” appeals to the quantitative (or dispassionate) sensibility. Religion is top down, science is bottom up. Of course, those are both overgeneralizations, but I think they get at the heart of the difference between the two institutions and why, for example, a creationist and an evolutionist basically talk past each other. I do not think one can simply say that science is a religion just because both are based upon beliefs. The justification for the beliefs are fundamentally different.
—Apos: Easy. I’d use the religion of science.
Sorry if that answer is too flippant, but I think it reinforces my point. —
No, not at all. In fact, it negates your own point. You are claiming that there is no difference between the method used by what is conventionally known as religion and what is conventionally known as science. That you inexplicably label science a religion (despite it being pretty convincingly argued, with no rebuttal by you, that it is not) doesn’t change matters much: we STILL are left questioning whether one method (science) is better for finding truth about the observable world around us than is another supposed method (religious inquiry or faith). Even if you call science a religion, you are still left with the problem that this “religion” seems far more suited to the sort of inquiry we’re looking at in this case than that other “religion.”
I’m going to take a stab at this since kabloomie seems to be away at the moment.
I think kabloomie’s point is that science is the religion concerned with the observable world. The observable world amounts to it’s holy book and there is no room to question it within that “religion”. Another religion wouldn’t be suited to describe it any more than Christianity could add on to the Bagavad Gita.
I thought you might not like that. Rats. So much for easy answers.
perspective did a good job answering, so I won’t try to repeat that line of response.
First, I don’t think I ever claimed to be using conventional definitions. The conventional ideas of religion and science are intrinsically opposed. My whole theory was that this opposition is unwarranted.
" Even if you call science a religion, you are still left with the problem that this “religion” seems far more suited to the sort of inquiry we’re looking at in this case than that other “religion.”"
A religion that does not try to systematically analyze the entire world is not likely to be better at the task than one which does. That does not mean that one can not take seriously what terrestial topics the “normal religion” covers, and only fill in the blanks with science. People do this the other way 'round all the time (taking science first).
As to why “they did it, so I can” is a valid argument, refer to the points about philosophical validity.
I think you are at least very close to understanding my point. Faith might very well be a confusing word to use, but I couldn’t think of a better one.
At one point (though not in the OP), I defined faith as unproved assumptions. I did not mean to give a comprehensive, exhaustive definition of faith, but one that would suffice for my argument.
That brings up another point. I really didn’t think there was much to prove about the topic post, and have spent most of this time intending to only make my original point more clear, not prove it per se. To demand proof of my point is, to me, a sign that you didn’t understand it to begin with. You may get a response from me, but I am more trying to illustrate my point than prove it.
P.S. I think I somewhat maligned Libertarian by implying that he thought himself without faith. Without getting into the particulars of Libertarian’s beliefs, which sound very interesting, let me just apologize for hastily stereotyping him. (Assuming Libertarian is “him,” not “her.”)
While most religions would agree that “enlightenment” is filtered through the human mind, there are some which claim to deliver the actual “mind of god” type of enlightenment.
Too many people here are saying “Only Science is good at what science does, so everyone else can…” Hah! That’s what all the religions say, too! Welcome to the boat!
perspective
“But in order to accept that point you must also refute it. It negates itself. So any conclusions drawn from it are meaningless. No equal ground has been achieved.”
Philosophically, you score 100%–because, if you doubt things hard enough, you can never escape totally arbitrary theories/points/etc. I think, though, that I do have a practical point, and not just some bait-the-scientists routine.
“Well, only if it is meaningful to consider science as a religion. You’ve pointed out a similarity between science and religion. Simply sharing a similarity does not make things equivalent.”
To make science perfectly equivalent with what is considered “religion” would be as atrocious as making Islam perfectly equivalent with Christianity. Yes, there are differences.
If I were a flat-earthist, I could look at all the data gathered to the contrary and dismiss it by saying, “Well, one day science will prove me right. They are being misled at the moment, but in the future they will discover the truth.” No matter how tired you got of my insistance that the earth was flat, you could never claim to have proved it wasn’t. Perhaps someday some audacious metaquantumdeminsional fellow will prove that the earth is flat.
Whether sucessfully explaining my point changes anything depends on where you’re coming from to begin with. Perhaps the only people who would be affected by my point are the people who (to be slightly facetious) are simply to radically, religiously scientific to ever concede the argument.
Well, if this discussion is to be the discussion of whether or not science is a “religion”, then I’d like a defintion of religion please.
To my sense the two are fundamentally different. Religion is all about faith, preferably absolute faith. It is about providing answers with certainty. It usually is about higher powers and the otherwise unobservable. Religion also provides a basis for societies to justify codes of conduct; a basis for laws.
Science is about doubt and its regulation. It is about approaching certainty but never achieving it. “Faith” in science is always provisional. Science is about providing answers that fit the observed as best as possible. It is neutral about what it cannot observe and thus has no comment about God(s). It serves no function as an ethical basis. (Shared secular values developed in recent centuries are often replacing religious justifications for codes of conduct in much of the world, but while such may be science’s sister, it is not science.)
They are both birthed out of trying to understand the Universe. That they have in common. Before science, the religious explanations were the best hypotheses going. And they both involve a some modicum of rituals. But the goal of science is to minimize the axioms as much as possible, whereas the goal of religion to get people to accept a variety of axioms on faith alone and even in opposition to inductions based on experience.
It seems possible to me that there is a practical side to this, but I’m not sure what that is yet.
Ok, so are the similarities interesting enough for us to try and draw some conclusions?
Maybe, it would be nice to get beyond that though. DSeid,
There are many forms of religion you are ignoring or are unaware of. Many religions stayed alive instead of being codified in a dead book. Primitive people see, hear and interact with their gods. It doesn’t seem at all like faith to them. Religions such as buddhism are based on strict mental disciplines that allow for very specific experiences that are unrelated to faith.
I’m not sure that the goal of minimizing axioms is nearly as important to science as maximizing explanatory power . The difference to me is that it has a very specific methodology based on repeatable observation and biased towads mathematical/logical explanations as opposed to intuitive or metaphorical explanations. Also it’s current scope is much smaller than religion. It is limited only to cosmology, whereas religions also attempt to bring meaning and social harmony into people’s lives.
Not one and the same. I did not say scientifically, and I don’t mean scientifically. Everyone who can think for themself decides for themself what to believe whether it be politics, favorite sport, scientific theories, or religious truths. That is individual minds at work. Foremost in reaching the point of belief is the appeal to the mind. If this does not occur, then no one is convinced. The next time you want to convince someone to believe the same thing you do, try using the tactic of appealing to to something other than the person themselves.
As I write this it occurs to me that some religious folk believe that direct appellation to God is the most effective means of bringing about change. Still, this is a belief that someone holds, and by definition, people believe with their minds (or their hearts… which is really part of the mind).
Of course science is good at what science does. There are other endeavors which try to mimic it, but aren’t as good at it. It’s a rather large boat then (ark?) as the same thing can be said about any niche institution. Your definition of religion seems to be a “philosophy of life”. If you want to go down that road then everything is a religion.
Your corner pet store is a religion
Your family is a religion
NATO is a religion
The auto club is a religion
Those watching the same television channel as you are members of a religion.
perspective I am sure that there are many religions I am unaware of. You’ll have to explain specifically which “primative” tribal religions you mean, and what exactly is involved, before I can intelligently respond to your claim that it is a religion that fails to meet the critera that I suggest. I would be educated and surprised if it entailed other than a certainty of answers, and evoked the unobservable and unfalsifiable. Buddaism covers a wide range, so be a little more specific about which form. In point of fact, many forms of Buddaism probably are not religions, but are instead better considered as philosophies and ways of thinking. Nevertheless, there are multiple axioms that are accepted unquestioningly as part of most Buddist systems. Again, I ask, as JS asks, for a working definition of religion, instead of defintion by examples of what some consider members of the class. (That would be a defintion by induction, and we know its limits, don’t we! ;))
The last great magician I can think of is Crowley, though any trip into an occultic book store will reveal all sorts of updated material.