Yes, this is true. But I think somehow you have to believe in eternal life or no matter how much you love, instinct will take over. I mean, when Porete was burned at the cross here husband/boyfriend/follower (the records are unclear IIRC) confessed to the Dominican Inquisitor(s) his “heresies” and did life in prison instead. I think if he had loved Porete, and for that matter God, he would have died with her. But, even Peter denied j.c. to save his own life. So somehow I think ultimately you will have difficulty overcoming survival instincts if you don’t believe in a divine being. Not because eternal life is strictly the reward, but rather because to love perfectly you must be willing to lay down your life for whom you love.
Many people who do not believe in eternal life are perfectly willing to die for those whom they love. Ask any atheist parent. Ask any atheist soldier. Ask any atheist cop. Hell, plenty of 'em die for total strangers, or for ideals. But I think we’ve hijacked this thread enough.
Gaudere
I’m not so sure this is a hijack at all.
EdWino pretty much has formulated his conclusion, quite eloquently, I think: “Proof is only based on observation, at least for science. Proof_r depends on none of this, and therefore, if you accept the religious assumptions, is much more powerful. Since we assume God exists, we can build a far, far sturdier structure than science ever can, because we can extend our predictions into non-observable phenomena. This, I believe, is much easier to accept. Our brains are built to accept stability and constancy, and man strives for a higher meaning in the universe. This is something only religion can give us.”
His conclusion, I think, is compatible with Dr. Ramachandran’s.
I understand the reason for his dichotomy — “[religion] never has to use these assumptions – it is a different system” — but I don’t think it’s necessary, at least not if he is using “religion” to mean “faith”, as opposed to “political machine”.
His secondary topic, aside from comparing science to religion, is “the meaning of life”. I believe we are here to act out our morality in the amoral context of nature. Surely, the difference between us is simply our frame of reference. I see life as an attribute of God, whereas you see it as an attribute of nature. For me, life is a divine eternal continuum; for you, a temporary statistical burp.
It might seem like a contradiction when I say that my experience convinces me of God’s love while you say that yours convinces you otherwise. And if were in your shoes, I would likely agree with you that life is nothing more than an arrangement of the atoms. But, unlike you, my morality would change drastically. I think I would become a Randian Objectivist. But if I am right, and we will live forever, then our experiences do not necessarily contradict because eternity renders probability moot. At some point, we will-have/do-have/have-had the same experience. Don’t forget the spatial, as well as temporal, aspect of eternity. Eternity isn’t just every time, it’s every where, and in every dimension.
Oops. That was actually I, and not Edlyn. Sorry.
I’m sitting here LMAO, because I was thinking “That’s got to be the most well coordinated pair I’ve ever seen. Egads, they even write the same way!!”
You know I meant that in a good way, Lib.
Holy Cow! (no, I’m not converting to Hinduism)
Usually my logorheac posts kill threads faster than my fierce kitty can break a mouse’s neck. I’m pleased to see that Edwino’s thread continues.
a few thoughts.
Libertarian is correct when he mentions that inductive reasoning is problematic from an epistomological point of view. The most common example is the statement “all ravens are black.” This can be verified by our constant observation of black ravens. However, the sentence immediately needs to be modified when we spot our first albino raven. Even when we say “all ravens are black, except for albinos,” and develop an explanation why albinism doesn’t really contradict the first statement, How can we be sure that there are no, say, magenta ravens out there.
Thus we see that the inductive proof of science is always a bit less satisfying than the deductive proofs of logic and mathematics. However, science never claims that its theories are anything but provisional. Any theory is an explanatory device that merely serves to tie observed phenomena together in the most reasonable way possible. (This aspect of science is abused by creationists, but never mind.) Furthermore, once a scientific theory has stood a number of empirical tests, we naturally become more and more comfortable with it.
I do have to take exception to Libertarian’s equating science and math, as the two seem to me to be profoundly different. Math is an arbitrary system which is determined only by its first principles. It need bear no relation to the real world. (It is startling, though, how the most abstract branches of math often do become descriptions of real world phenomena.) Science is an attempt to explain phenomena. Math can be a tool of science, but so are experiment and observation. The world determines the validity of scientific theories, while math is bound only by consistency and the laws of logic. Science does not seek proof, at least not in the mathematical sense. It just seeks the most compelling explanation, given the evidence. (In this sense scientists resemble detectives more than mathematicians.)
JM Mullany’s point about science requiring faith because we ourselves have not performed experiments seems wrong to me. Although none of us, even scientists, have performed every experiment (Observation, reasoning, whatever) that has lead to the modern world picture, faith is not neccessary to assume that these experiments were responsibly performed and have lead to the conclusions scientists claim. We are familiar with the scientific community, we know the standards of check and double check, of peer review, and of repeatability. We have seen modern science deal with hoaxes and pseudo-science, even when the hoax was dressed up respectably, as in cold fusion.
Whew! and now, part two.
The one point made by David B and Satan that I agree with is that religion requires faith. Gaudere has wisely pointed out that faith does not a religion make, as with her example that one can have faith that the Cubs will win the next world series, with no empirical evidence at all. However, faith is a neccessary, if not sufficient, component of religious belief.
Honestly, I feel rude and arrogant discussing the foundations of religion, when I have so little personal experience and understanding of it. I was raised in a mixed marriage, 1/2 Jewish and 1/2 Lutheran, with neither parent a believer. I’ve been more or less an atheist, though I’ve had some sort of semi-pagan pantheistic leanings at various points in my life. However, unlike some atheists, I don’t hate religion, and I’m not rebelling against an overly strict upbringing. please take these musings as the thoughts of an interested outsider, rather than as dogmatic pronouncements. Hell, I’m not a scientist either.
Libertarian seems correct in saying faith is belief without proof, not belief without evidence. I would even say that this use of “proof” encompasses my description of a valid scientific theory, above, as well as the more demanding standards of mathematical proof.
It seems to me that a lot of people come to religion based on their upbringing and tradition. People born in Minnesota will be Lutherans, those born in Pakistan, Muslims. However it does seem that there are some people who come to a religion based on profound personal experience. These people include converts, former atheists, and even people who have experienced a deepening of an already held religious belief.
What these experiences are, I am not competent to say. How they relate to the acceptance of a revealed theology (i.e. that Christ died for our sins, or that the Jews are the chosen people) I don’t know. The one thing that strikes me about religion is that, for the profound believer, it is an intensly private experience. The believer may share his thoughts, or describe the tenents of her faith. But the actual spark of religious belief, what Aristotle would call the “efficient cause” is intensly private.
Thus, in answer to Edwino’s OP, I would say that the fundamental difference between Science and Religion is not that religion requires faith and science doesn’t but that religion is private and science is public.
A cold beer and my heartfelt thanks to anyone who read this absurdly long post. As I said, it’s just a few thoughts, not a consistent argument. Any replies are appreciated
Larry
For the record, I did not equate math and science. I said that separating them is arbitrary. Math is a science, and is thoroughly used by any science that measures or quantifies.
Larry Borgia: I fail to see how the fact that “one is public and the other is private” means anything. How the two ideologies are practiced, I do not think, changes the philosophies behind them.
And if it did, one need only look at my thread in The Pit about some Fundamentalist Christians who invaded a recent airplane I was on to show that religion being a private thing is not a constant at all.
Lib,
I still have to respectfully disagree. Although math and science are clearly related, in a practical sense, the goals and methods of both are different. Math reasons deductivly from initial premises to conclusions that, given the premises, are irrefutable. Science reasons inductively from phenomena to come up with explanations that, however convincing, are ultimately contingent and refutable.
Satan,
I think we are talking at cross purposes. I read your very funny BBQ pit thread, and have had similar experiences myself, though none quite so alarming. Clearly the excersise of religion is very public. Look at the sad state of affairs in Afghanistan or Northern Ireland.
However, what I meant by religion being private was not the public political activities of zealots and fanatics, but the fundamental grounds of religious belief. Science is communal knowledge, whose validity can be debated in public forums. Genuine religious belief, as I understand it, comes from a person’s own private experiences, and can be described and discussed, but never proven, even in the contingent sense that scientific theories are proven.
I was a little excited last night, and would like to pull back from the conclusion that the only difference between religion and science is the public/private distinction. Clearly there are other differences.
Also, I think if your friends at the airport had thought about the public private difference, they might have behaved better, and not made such a spectacle of themselves, a spectacle that clearly alienated you and others from their belief system.
Larry Borgia wrote: “Actually you don’t need to make any assumptions about the nature of reality to do science. All you really need to believe is that there are phenomena (in the most limited empirical sense) and that phenomena are more or less common for all observers. The first is undeniable. I mean, whatever your view of reality something exists. The second is confirmed by all experience. Fire is hot, fur is soft, etc. etc. Exceptions can be explained (Someone wearing a sophisticated flame-retardant suit might not feel fire as hot, but that’s because of the suit, not because fire itself suddenly became cool.)”
No assumptions there, hmmmm? Well, I hope you never get caught in a pack of ferocious philosophers. They’ll tear ya to shreds in seconds. (Watch out! The epistemologists are going for the throat!)
Libertarian: I have to go with Larry on this one. Math and science are not the same thing. Math is a formal abstract system, true by definition and not directly connected to the physical world (in the sense that there are tons of mathematical statements that are true, but have no corresponding phenomenon in the real world.)
Science deals with testable statements about the real physical world. It’s possible to make testable scientific statements without using any real math as such (e.g. “Things fall when you drop them.”) (It’s also possible to have scientific theories that are are Bad Math – internally inconsistent – that are nonetheless provisionally accepted simply because they are the best theories available at the time.)
Now, it turns out that math is really, really handy language for making scientific statements because it’s so rigorous. For example, it’s much easier to rigorously test a theory about a liquid’s viscosity at different temperatures that’s based on an equation than a theory based on a statement like, “It starts out all sticky and then gets, like, really runny.”
Math turns out to be so extrememly useful in describing physical phenomena that many scientists have speculated that, in some sense, the universe is math. But that’s all that it is–speculation. It may be simply be that we find math so useful only because deep down we want nice, orderly universe, and we block out all the messy bits that defies mathematical analysis.
Lordy mercy, here we are hailing the virtues of deductive logic, and I am having to explain this.
I never said that math and science are the same thing. I said that math is a science, just like a cow is a bovine. That is, all math is science, but not all science is math; just as all cows are bovines, but not all bovines are cows (some are oxen, some are buffalo, etc.).
Further, I said that math is used by every science that quantifies or measures. I stand by these assertions.
As to deduction being superior to induction, given the premises, I’m afraid you can’t be “given” the premises. You must, in the end, take them on faith because they are derived from faith-based axioms and undefined terms.
Two points:
One, Lib is right. Bio, Chemistry, Physics which deal with the real world are sciences. But math is a science too. As is psychology and sociology, which are both certaintly less “pure sciences” that any of those first four.
Two, Larry Borgia does make an interesting point about the private nature of religion. If there is a God, you would think he’d sent his angels to everyone so as to enlighten them about his existence. And people who claim they have never been made aware of God would thus be lying. If there is not a God, then people who have experienced his existence are the ones fooling themselves.
Three (oops), just to continue that off topic hijack, Gaudere – if you are a consciousness attempting perfect Love, for reasons of humility you must admit to there being an ideal perfect consciousness capable of perfect love without flaw. Otherwise, your ideal of perfect love would be shattered should you ever falter.
Why? Let’s say I have a concept of the perfect painter. I attempt to be the perfect painter. I may or may not become a perfect painter, but that does not mean I must admit that a perfect painter exists in fact rather than just as a concept simply because I am attempting to achieve this, nor do I feel that the ideal is shattered as a concept if I personally cannot achieve it.
[Edited by Gaudere on 07-23-2000 at 07:37 PM]
Hm, editing not working. A further note:
If you are saying that, logically, to attempt to completely realize the ideal I must admit the ideal is possible, I agree. However, that does not mean that I must believe the ideal actually is realized, or ever shall be. The concept of the ideal can exist untainted by my own failures, yet still without actual manifestation.
JMullaney:
The listing of psychology and sociology as sciences is iffy. The Library of Congress decimal classification, for instance, includes psychology in with the B’s - philosophy. Noam Chomsky has some excellent riffs about “social sciences” not being sciences at all, but humanities, on the grounds that you cannot make predictable statements about creatures with free will.
Matt
[Better sit down for this…]
I agree with you.
Hmmm… maybe math is a philosophy also.
Anyway – the whole debate as to whether there’s a “god” or not has been going on for at least 2K years. I thought I had a good angle with the ideal consciousness idea. I mean, if you wish to teach your ideal of perfect love to others, yet you must occasionally fail, what is to keep them from saying perfect love is impossible?
But, working my way backward through the creed – what about the communion of saints? God as a sort of collective gestalt among believers, if you will. (I don’t buy into “communion with the dead” but all things considering those benedictine heretics at the RCC have things very correct.) I think you can practice perfect love without believing in God – but I can’t see how, should you have this faith for long, that you would not observe certain events which give evidence for this. I experienced some strange coincidences during my time as a believer – things that would make me extremely paranoid if there were not a God (e.g. you are 300 miles from where someone is supposed to be. You are miles and miles from where you generally are – nowhere near where you’ve ever seen this person or anyone who knows this person before and no one knows you are there – but you had an intense feeling to go here. And you think about this person, and suddenly they show up. A total temporal/spatial coincidence. Maybe, the CIA has a tail on you and what you are experiencing is a delicate ruse, right? Or maybe, this is pure coincidence. Or maybe there is no god – you merely have psychic powers – but I think that is equivocating. But this happens to you enough times and you have to wonder.) I’ve had mere coincidences happen to me before. This was more than that. But I’ve tried the “try perfect love and you’ll see” argument before with you (so much for science) so I don’t expect you to take my word for it – especially since this sounds nuts.
Oh, I dunno, hope? There is also no reason why, if a person wished to not strive towards an ideal, that he could not say “sure, that person achieved it, but he had these various advantages/traits that I do not, so there’s no way I can do it”–if someone wishes to believe something is impossible for them to achieve, the fact that it has been achieved would not necessarily convince them either. I think you grievously underestimate hope; I think peace on earth is possible, even though we haven’t achieved it yet. I think human travel to other solar systems is possible, even though we haven’t achieved it yet. I think a more thorough understanding of quantum mechanics is possible, even though we haven’t achieved it yet. And so on, and so on…the single belief that we have not achieved something yet seems a overly hasty reason to say something is impossible. Indeed, perhaps the fact (or belief) that ideal has yet to be achieved would be more of a spur towards attempting to achive it; nearly everyone wants to be the first to climb Mount Everest, not the second.
So are you extremely paranoid then? I keep getting this vibe from you that you really do believe in God, you just don’t want to do what you believe He demands.