I another thread, jayd posted a link to this Salon interview with John Haught. One question and answer jumped out at me.



What do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?


The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there's no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God. But that statement itself -- that evidence is necessary -- holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It's a deep faith commitment because there's no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It's a creed.


It's an interesting argument, but the logic is a little odd. This is my re-interpretation. Haught says atheists believe

1. Science is the only reliable way to truth.

and that a main principle of science is

2. We should only believe in things for which we have evidence.

which when combined with 1 gives

3. We should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence.

and since

4. There's no scientific evidence for God.

therefore

5. We should not believe in God.

Haught then undermines this argument by adding the following

A. The evidence that Science is true can only come from outside Science.

But given 1, we must therefore allow that

B. It is right to believe in some things for which we have no scientific evidence.

which negates 3 and implies that 5 is not true.(At best there is a contradiction; A and B together imply that 1 is true and if 1 is true so are 2 through 5. And so it would be valid to say 5 is both true and not true.) A reasonable argument?

rrp, 'A. The evidence that Science is true can only come from outside Science' sounds very fishy. Does Haught give examples or reasons to believe this? It sounds like a dubious assertion cooked up to justify his conclusions.

The conventional reason for believing that scientific theories are 'true' (actually, the best approximation to truth that humans can presently devise) is the correlation between predictions made by scientists and actual observations and experiments. By observations I mean uncontrolled observations, such as behavior of animals 'in nature' or statistics on distributions of different types of stars -- not controllable by humans but observable.

So it seems to me that evidence for the 'truth' of scientific theories comes from within 'Science', not without. Of course the utterances and writings of scientists are public and open to criticism by anybody.

Metaphysics is not sufficient to the task of judging physics.

I think the point that Haught would make would be to take a statement like

Science is a reliable way to truth.

and try to come up with a way of demonstrating that it is true. How would you justify that statement? You can't use Science to demonstrate that it is true because to do so you have to assume that the method you are using, i.e. Science, is a valid method of determining the truth, which is the very thing you are trying to demonstrate.

If there is another way of demonstrating that it is true, then the statement Science is the only reliable way to truth is false.

So either Science is not a reliable way to the truth or there is another reliable way to the truth.

When you get down to it you can't prove anything about the real world, but who needs absolute proof? Science has done pretty well for itself in explaining the world and does a better job of it than religion ever did.

rrp, #4: good point. However, given the apparent non-existence of 'reliable ways to truth', I am not going to spend time worrying about whether science is one or not.

To paraphrase Winston Churchill, science is the worst way to truth except for all the others.

Ditto 5. Not to mention that "science" is just a more modern name for the collection and analysis of objective data on which all animals and all people base the vast majority of their behavior. The question is why religion should be an exception to that rule.

If I were younger, and more nimble intellectually, I'd try to consider all of this argument by reflecting on Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, a reasonably cogent explanation of which can be found in the Wikipedia article about it.

Suffice it to say that in any formal system, there are propositions that cannot be proven within that system.

Another discussion, readers, can be found by reading Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages. For that matter, read him anyway, he's worth it!

-----------------------------------------
#7 Is religion the only exception?

Message edited by its author, Aug 11, 2009, 1:29pm.

So to answer the original post, it seems to me that John Haught is using sophistry to try to undermine the self-evident truth that science is a reliable method of learning about the world.

Not being a logician and for that matter, not being as smart as I would like, I can only say that.

"How would you justify that statement? You can't use Science to demonstrate that it is true because to do so you have to assume that the method you are using, i.e. Science, is a valid method of determining the truth, which is the very thing you are trying to demonstrate."

I think this is supposed to be an example of circular reasoning, but something smells fishy about this to me. Science is a proper noun encompassing many, many different methods of describing the world we encounter through our senses. Science does not look for truth it attempts to describe, not determine. Religion, on the other hand is all about determining the TRUTH, whatever that is. Science describes what it finds. It is up to some other discipline to convert that description to the TRUTH.

Science gives us a reliable method of achieving a desired outcome by showing us how to reliably manipulate the physical world. This is a form of truth. Agitate water with an electrical current and you get two gasses, proving the hypothesis that water contains hydrogen and oxygen and, potentially, how much of each. This can be done a million times without fail and without variation (aside from the purity of the water). So, in English we can say with total assurance it is true that water is two parts oxygen and one part hydrogen. Science cannot function outside the real world. We have metaphysics for that. Metaphysics is great exercise for the imagination. Of course science is not going to be able to render a judgment on the truth of God. God does not exist in the physical world (or is He the physical world?) and thus does not fall into the purview of science. However, there are aspects of the physical world which metaphysics cannot pass judgment on because metaphysics is dealing with the imaginary world, a world not available to science. Metaphysics and physics work in two different spheres of "reality", one the reality of the universe as determined by our senses, and the other the reality of existence as determined by our imaginations.

As long as metaphysics attempts to describe the physical world, and science tries to determine the metaphysical world, both are out of their element and much confusion and stupidity will ensue. Both perspectives are valuable within their own realms of activity. To try to treat them as two ways to look at the same TRUTH is sophistry.

#9: jjwilson61, I hope you are joking. It seems to me that there ain't any 'self-evident truths' or 'reliable methods of learning about the world'.

The whole point of scientific method, IMHO, is that humans are fallible and their ideas need lots of scrutiny, cross-checking, and public discussion before they are even tentatively reliable.

#10: geneg: science isn't reliable because nothing done by humans is reliable. However, well-established scientific theories seem to be far less fallible than the extant alternatives.

Haught (in that interview) says something else that I find interesting/dismaying:

Faith means taking the risk of being vulnerable and opening your heart to that which is most important. We trivialize the whole meaning of the Resurrection when we start asking, Is it scientifically verifiable? Science is simply not equipped to deal with the dimensions of purposefulness, love, compassion, forgiveness -- all the feelings and experiences that accompanied the early community's belief that Jesus is still alive. Science is simply not equipped to deal with that.

My response: No, the scientific method isn't going to answer the questions of "why" and impart the Meaning of Life and so on. But I don't think it "trivializes" things at all to take a skeptical stance and ask questions when someone asserts something -- Is that true? How do you know it's true? What evidence do you have that it is true? It's especially important to ask these questions if the claim is extraordinary, or if it requires a person to perform actions that are drastic, life-altering, or harmful.

Maybe I'm gravely misunderstanding Haught, but he seems to be saying that it doesn't really matter if the Christian claims (e.g., Resurrection) are true or not; what's important is that they/we believe, and that it's out of line or irrelevant to ask for any evidence of the claims. I see that as a potentially dangerous, slippery-slope way of thinking.

Maybe there's a god, maybe there's not, but I'll tell you that last week I tried to walk on water and I sank like a fucking stone.

Message edited by its author, Aug 11, 2009, 3:49pm.

13
perhaps you were lacking in faith...

rrp - the problem I have is with your starting point. First, as an atheist, I don't rely upon a perfect scientific proof that there is no god. I see a trend of negatives and no positive indications. Science seems to indicate there is no need for the existence of god to explain anything. However, I don't think it will PROVE god doesn't exist.

Second - just because Haught sees a dogma "that science is the only reliable way to truth" does not mean this dogma should be the basis of any reasoning. It's a straw man of sorts. (psst: Science is not a way to truth.)

So, if no one actually thinks science is a reliable way to truth, than what's the point of the discussion?

Message edited by its author, Aug 11, 2009, 5:47pm.

I don't think the point of Haught is to diminish Science. His is more of a defensive argument against the "New Atheists" who do indeed think the argument 1 through 5 is sound and use it to attack religion. He soundly refutes anyone who dares to make that argument. His refutation challenges anyone who might use the argument that there is no scientific evidence as an excuse for not believing. (Other reasons for not believing are not relevant to the discussion.)

Haught believes in Science; he doesn't doubt, for example, that Darwinism is better Genesis. He doesn't think that Science is the only reliable way to truth, he thinks that it is one important reliable way to truth. He happens to think that religion is another.

Maybe evolutionary theory, along with modern physics, does pose a serious challenge to religious belief. To put it another way, how can an intellectually responsible person of faith justify that faith -- and even belief in a personal God -- after Darwin and Einstein? That's the question John Haught has set out to answer by proposing a "theology of evolution."

Science certainly has as its basis "the collection and analysis of objective data", but it is more than just that; it's a sophisticated system that formalizes that process. It is sophistry however, to claim that the objective of Science in not the truth but "descriptions of what it finds"; if the objective of science were not to generate true descriptions, then science would be worthless.

rpp - I only see more flaws in the reasoning.

Science doesn't make "true" descriptions, it makes systematic ones (in an attempt to observe while avoiding bias). This does not make science worthless.

The equation Science = Truth is just a straw man that is easy to argue against. (The value of science isn't as at truth by more along the lines of as a systematic attempt to acquire knowledge that is not corrupted by the human tendency towards bias.)

These "New Atheists" are basically straw men. It doesn't describe anyone who has posted here so far.

His refutation challenges anyone who might use the argument that there is no scientific evidence as an excuse for not believing. - this sentence is too convoluted for me; I'm not sure what it's saying. But, as the "Haught argument" is based on a straw man atheist, it doesn't successfully make an atheist challenge; it's off the mark. Breaking a straw man doesn't make an argument successful.

I think you miss a major point in your reinterpretation. The starting point is not "science is the only reliable way to truth", the starting point is that "evidence should be necessary to believe in something". Bringing in science, especially Science, is a red herring; the concept that evidence in some shape or fashion is important is a much more basic idea than the complex and modern edifice of science. One biblical example is that of Matthew, who continually pointed to prophecy as evidence of Jesus as the Messiah.

Frankly, I'm very leery of accepting any claims not backed by evidence; I've done enough times for things I really wanted to believe, and then had the universe back-hand me for the presumption.

#17

Science doesn't make "true" descriptions, it makes systematic ones (in an attempt to observe while avoiding bias). This does not make science worthless. The equation Science = Truth is just a straw man that is easy to argue against. (The value of science isn't as at truth by more along the lines of as a systematic attempt to acquire knowledge that is not corrupted by the human tendency towards bias.)


I am not sure what you mean by systematic or avoiding bias but I would guess you mean something similar to what I mean when I say true. Of course, truth is one of those things that's hard to pin down when you really get into it, but that's the point. Maybe if you can expand on what you mean by avoiding bias and I'll understand what you mean.

These "New Atheists" are basically straw men. It doesn't describe anyone who has posted here so far.

I think that Haught has specific people in mind, e.g. Dawkins, Hitchens etc. What is your point? Aren't we discussing the validity of Haught's argument?

His refutation challenges anyone who might use the argument that there is no scientific evidence as an excuse for not believing. - this sentence is too convoluted for me; I'm not sure what it's saying.

If you say something like "I don't believe because there is no evidence for God" or "evidence should be necessary to believe in something", and you meant scientific evidence, Haught would say that you are making an error.

#18

That's a reasonable point. I don't think we are throwing out the proposition that "we should only believe in things for which we have evidence" only "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence."

Evidence comes in many flavors, not just as scientific evidence. So there are indeed reliable ways to the truth other than science.

How can you say that scientists aren't searching for truth? They aren't searching for any truths that are outside what can be tested by science, but within that realm aren't they trying to find out what the world is really like? And isn't that a truth?

I'm beginning to think that you don't mean the same thing by "truth" as I do.

Doesn't "truth" imply universality? Something that is "existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions"(Webster's online)? If this is the case then once something is determined to be "true" why should there be any further inquiry into its nature? Truth seems to be where science ends.

#21- jjwilson61 - I did not meant to imply that scientists aren't searching for truth - I meant that science is not truth. Essentially I'm saying science is limited not only to the human power of reason and observation, but also to it's own rigid restrictions. It's a powerful form of argument - great for certain things. But "TRUTH" is one of those human creations that, well IMO it doesn't really exist - or it exists only outside human comprehension. Yes, I'm arguing truth is created by humans as something they (we) can't actually grasp. It's also something we persistently search for. (and it's also something that probably has a different meaning for each person.)

I'm thinking out loud here...

#23 dchaikin: Good thinking! It seems to me that we can approach 'truth' asymptotically via some method involving public discussion and testing of hypotheses, such as science. The rub is that we can't tell how close we are to the 'truth'.

The other problem is that we sometimes move away from the 'truth' for a while when we get caught up in fads like Lysenkoism or postmodernism.

#19 rpp - prosfilaes post #18 does a better job than I did above at making the point that this argument is flawed up front. prosfilaes argues that the flaw is equating evidence with science - I agree (and actually that is what I started to explore in post 17 - but later erased it). I'm arguing that Haught was (also) wrong up front when he says "And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth." I don't believe this dogma actually exists in any seriousness - maybe I'm wrong here simply because I see it as overly simplistic and not a view I share. Certainly over-simplifying science in this way adds a fragility to science that simply isn't there.

(PS: What is unclear about 'avoiding bias'?)

Message edited by its author, Aug 12, 2009, 8:37am.

#22: mikevail - entering a bottomless pit - but we can't possibly test something "under all conditions"...

#8 As I understand it, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that nothing can be proven logically true (or false) by any system of mathematics. It has not been proven to apply to scientific truth gained through experimental evidence.

27: darrow, I think a better summary of the theorem is that in any sufficiently complex system of axioms (such as for arithmetic) Gödel shows that one can produce theorems which are unprovable but which can be seen to be true.

That is a lot less sweeping than your version. In fact, lots of theorems in mathematics can be proved perfectly well.

Actually I don't agree with your "can be seen to be true." I think it's more accurate to say that there exist true theorems that are not provable.

#20>
But the original question was "What do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?" The direct answer is not to attack science, it's to bring up the evidence or deny that any evidence is needed at all. Certainly the evidence that's going to be brought up is going run into a lot of questions, which most likely is going to reveal that atheists tend to more skeptical of non-scientific evidence, but I think the responses are going to be a lot more subtle and complex than simply dismissing it as non-scientific evidence.

It strikes me that the real answer is that evidence isn't necessary, but he knows that will rub more than the atheists wrong.

#29: fair enough. A reference for non-experts is Ernest Nagel's Gödel's proof.

What the hell is unscientific evidence?

30- "It strikes me that the real answer is that evidence isn't necessary, but he knows that will rub more than the atheists wrong."
Could a believer answer an atheist by claiming that the existence of God is a matter of experience rather than evidence? For instance, if I step off the roof of my garage I experience a sensation; a phenomenon. If 5000 random people also step off my garage roof they will experience the same or very nearly the same phenomenon. However, if you ask the same 5000 people to explain the experience you may get some people using Newton's equations, some using Einstein's, and some saying it was the "will of God." The truth of the phenomenon lies in the experience rather than the explanation.
Now there are millions who claim to believe in the same God or divine entity(Christians, Muslims, etc) If they are not basing this belief on scientific evidence, are they basing it on a common, direct experience of a "God phenomenon"? If not, what else can be the basis of their belief? If their experience of the "God phenomenon" varies from person to person, how can they be sure they are experiencing the same God?

#32 :) Presumably unscientific data, like anecdotal evidence or data not collected systematically. But, since even that can probably be used in some kind of scientific manner...

#33 "What else can be the basis of their belief?" - come on man, the answers are endless...even the good answers are endless...

Lots of good stuff!

#25 I thought I agreed with prosfilaes in #21. Haught is arguing against a specific attack on religion which comes from, for example, Dawkins who does say things like "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" or at least by evidence means scientific evidence. I, only partly, disagree with prosfilaes in #30 because I believe that some form of evidence is necessary, you need some evidence, for example non-scientific evidence (#32) like sacred texts and the testimony of other believers. I am sure that many will scoff at this type of evidence, as "atheists tend to more skeptical of non-scientific evidence", but mostly their complaint will be that it isn't "scientific" enough which brings us back into the scope of Haught's argument. It's not over-simplifying science to take a rigorous critical look at the assumptions at its foundation.

(PS: What is unclear about 'avoiding bias'?)

By bias do you mean the avoidance of prejudice in favor of one theory or another (we should give all theories equal value), or do you mean something more technical like a statistical bias, a persistent and systematic error? If it is the latter, what is the thing that represents what the bias is in error relative too? But in general, if we aren't concerned with truth, then the whole argument is mute. If science doesn't give us the truth than saying "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" is totally irrelevant and Haught's point is made another way.

ref #1

The bones of the argument is a concession that there's no actual evidence followed by a rejection of the need for evidence.

The bit about "scientific" evidence is misdirection.

I suppose reasonable people can agree (or agree to disagree) about what constitutes "evidence" but to turn around and say that "atheists" believe that "only science is the way to truth" creates a disturbance which distracts us from the real issue, which , put crudely, is "Should we believe things on no evidence?"

The argument is not about what science is, or whether science is an exclusive, or even a uniquely effective, road to truth, the argument is about what
warrant, if any, we should have for our beliefs.

This is the sort of thing that makes me grumpy about many would be supporters of religion. If you say "I believe X on no evidence", well, it might not be a choice I'ld make, and I certainly dont think it shows much wisdom (but what do I know, after all?) but how can one argue? We both agree there's no warrant, you think warrant is for sissies, I laugh at you (but inwardly because I'm not out to insult anyone gratuitously) and that's about as far as she could go.

#35 - "If science doesn't give us the truth than saying "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" is totally irrelevant and Haught's point is made another way."

I'm so confused. We've already killed Haught's argument, you agreed at the beginning of your post. Then you throw this line with hook out there....

Ok, let's break this down:
1. Haught says there is a dogma that "that science is the only reliable way to truth," and this must be wrong therefore atheists should understand it's a creed, a faith; and that explains everything.
2. I say science doesn't give the truth
3. you say, so therefore Haught is right...

&*$@%~!!!

as for the other stuff:
1. bias - a prejudice. I wasn't being any more specific than the general meaning of the word bias.
2. avoiding bias - avoiding the prejudice when interpreting data.

Message edited by its author, Aug 12, 2009, 11:00pm.

It might be worthwhile -- just as an exercise -- to sever the notion of justifying science from the notion of justifying atheism.

You can be an atheist without believing that science leads to truth.

And you can believe in God, while also believing that the best way to establish truths about the universe are to use science.

Heck, there are even people out there who believe that science HAS proven the existence of God.

So taking a discussion of the flaws of scientific method and labeling it "The Atheist Delusion" is really a mistake.... it's the wrong argument for the conclusion.

#33 "What else can be the basis of their belief?" - come on man, the answers are endless...even the good answers are endless...
What's a good answer? Outside of objective evidence or direct experience what is a defensible basis for a deep seated conviction like belief in God? Because its written in an old book? My parents say its true? The beauty of a sunset implies a Creator? Force of habit?
If you ask a random Christian to explain the basis of their belief how are they likely to answer?

#37

"I'm so confused. We've already killed Haught's argument, you agreed at the beginning of your post."

I can see that you are confused, because you didn't and I didn't.

Haught's argument is that one particular argument is unsound. That argument, 1 to 5 in #1, is presented by certain atheists who conclude "we should not believe in God". The reason that the argument, 1 to 5 in #1, is unsound is that the conclusion "we should not believe in God" does not follow from the premisses because the premisses are not true. In particular, the premiss "Science is the only reliable way to truth" is not true. If you agree with Haught that that premiss is not true, you agree with his argument that the argument, 1 to 5 in #1, is unsound. This doesn't mean that the conclusion "we should not believe in God" is false, it just means that it doesn't logically follow from the premisses. gregstevenstx (#38) is perfectly correct, you can be an atheist without believing that science leads to truth and you can believe in God, while also believing that the best way to establish truths about the universe are to use science. Those positions may or may not be rational, but the argument, 1 to 5 in #1, has no relevance either way. ( BTW, the title "The Atheist Delusion" was the title of the Salon article.)

modularursine (#36) is also right, partly. The bones of the argument is a rejection of the need for evidence. But this rejection only applies to one specific proposition. The one and only proposition you need to accept without evidence is the proposition "You should not believe in things for which you have no evidence." msladylib (#8) is right in that this has something of the flavor of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem. It's perfectly OK to accept that proposition without evidence because it bootstraps the whole process. But, you have to acknowledge that there is one, and perhaps only one, thing you take on faith. If you do take that one fundamental thing on faith, then it is not logical or rational for you to use that one thing to criticize someone who takes a different one fundamental thing on faith -- that we should believe in God.

(On "bias" and "avoiding the prejudice when interpreting data". Do you mean something like -- we should not be prejudiced against interpreting the data of lightning as being caused by the acts of the god Thor?)

#40 rrp: a potential source of confusion here is referring to "You should not believe in things for which you have no evidence" as a proposition. It is not: it is an imperative sentence, not a declarative one. It is a rule for conduct.

Rules for conduct can be justified by reference to authority or by an appeal to workability and good consequences, but they cannot be proved or disproved.

#40 rpp -

That argument, 1 to 5 in #1, is presented by certain atheists who conclude "we should not believe in God".

This is our point of departure. I simply don't see how "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" means "Science is the only reliable way to truth."

We're going back and forth without resolving this. So, until some kind of communicative bridge can be reached, I'll have to leave this discussion aside.

May I drop some hypotheses on the page... just to get them out there and see what all y'all think? That's how this thread started (the setting out of a collection of propositions), so I figure... let's add another set into the mix.

1) The only "scientific" way to adjudicate between alternative theories is a) evaluating the set of observations with which they are consistent/inconsistent, and b) evaluating their internal logical structure and coherence.

(i.e. a theory is "good" or "bad" based on how well it fits facts, and the sorts of assumptions it makes and how well they fit together with one another)

2) For any given set of observations, there are many (likely: infinite) theories that will be consistent with that same set of observations, but are semantically different.

(this hypothesis comes out of the entire argument against logical positivism, which asserted that any two theories that make the same predictions are de facto the same theory; there is an entire body of literature dedicated to a discussion of how semantically different theories can nonetheless make the same set of predictions).

3) For two theories that are semantically different but make the same predictions, the only way of ajudicating will be some kind of evaluation of "internal consistency" or assumptions like "Occam's Razor" (i.e. fewer assumptions = better) and the like.

4) The adjudication of "consistency" and the like is not, itself, scientific. There is a lot of "wiggle room" in determining what TYPES of hypotheses are a priori "better" than others.

5) Therefore, accepting any given scientific theory requires a certain level of "faith", inasmuch as it requires the (usually implicit) rejection of a large number of alternative theories that have the same "fit" to observable data but are based on a different semantics and internal structure of hypotheses.

#43- we've discussed this twist on the word "faith" and haven't gotten anywhere. Usually faith means to believe without evidence, or despite the lack of evidence. The problem when assigning this to science, is that 1.) scientific conclusions are the best answer available from the evidence. They derive from the scientific method. The does not mean they are right, or true. It means there isn't a better idea...yet. And, 2.) scientific conclusions aren't right or true, but imperfect and correctable interpretations of an infinitely complex world.

When one argues that a scientific argument is true, then, again, the straw man is created, fragility introduced, and the logic can be broken down and attributed to faith. Something like - this can only be true if all the assumptions are true. But, how can we prove all the assumptions are true? We can't, therefore we are taking a "leap of faith" from the assumptions.

editing conclusion - arguments usually devolve into arguments of semantics, instead of ideas.

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 11:34am.

#39 mikevail - What's a good answer?

Ah, I think you misunderstood me. I meant to imply that a great number of the "good" answers do not require a "transcendent reality."

ETA- or maybe I've misunderstood you. A good answer would need to explore human psychology.

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 11:39am.

44 says, "1.) scientific conclusions are the best answer available from the evidence."

This is exactly the proposition that I am trying to question in my chain of reasoning in 43.

If there are a number of different theories that all can account for the SAME set of observations, then there are multiple "equally good" and also "equally scientific" answers from that set of evidence. Your assumption that science will, given a set of theories X and a set of evidentiary observations Y, return a result of only 1 theory that "fits the best." That is EXACTLY what I'm questioning.

And this is not only the case for scientific theory, but also for day-to-day practical knowledge and inference, as well. Most things can be "explained" in a number of different ways, all of which capture the same DEGREE of accuracy in explaining the available data. In this situation, what do you do?

I'll tell you what most non-scientists do: they pick one way of looking at things for one context, and a different one for a different context.

And I'll tell you what most scientists do: they pick the one they feel the most comfortable with.

But go back and read again what I said in #43. I'm not just saying, "Ha, ha, scientists make assumptions, too! Nyah nyah!" I'm making an argument from the perspective of the actual decidability between alternative theories.

#46 - I think a critical point in your argument is that scientists are human and make human mistakes, and have human biases. I fully agree. What I'm arguing is that the scientific method make a serious attempt to avoid, or at least minimize these biases - and that differentiates it from a religious faith (or from non-scientific arguments).

So, if there are two or more equally convincing arguments, scientists take sides that can be biased. But...and this is important...the question remains scientifically unsolved.

The thing is there usually aren't two equally convincing arguments. There are infinite possibilities, but usually only one very powerful and convincing explanation that is in accordance with all the known data based on the assumptions. For example - the earth revolves around the sun. We "know" this because the data points that direction. There are other possibilities (some extra-magical figure has imposed a lot of physically consistent observable information into our sky.) but the data for other arguments either isn't there or hasn't been presented in a convincing manner.

Scientifically solved, but conceivably wrong...What is critical is the scientific conclusion is based on systematic evidence and reasoning.

And, as there is more complexity to the earth's movement than simply rotating around the sun, saying simply "the earth rotates around the sun" isn't TRUE. There is more to it.

more to come...

#42

You are right "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" does not mean "science is the only reliable way to truth". The second implies the first; it is a chain of logic. You have to follow the logic chain. If and only if science is the only reliable way to the truth then scientific evidence is required to justify a belief. If science is not the only reliable way to the truth, then a belief can be justified in other ways, perhaps by using other evidence or by making a rational assumption.

#41 bertilak is also right, the wording of the statement "You should not believe in things for which you have no evidence" could call confusion. It's intent is unchanged if it is reworded as above -- a belief is unjustified unless it is support by evidence.

#47

What I'm arguing is that the scientific method make a serious attempt to avoid, or at least minimize these biases - and that differentiates it from a religious faith (or from non-scientific arguments).

I am not sure that a theologian would agree with you; they do make serious attempts to avoid and minimize biases within their discipline. I am certain a lawyer, if we agree that legal arguments are non-scientific, would also disagree. Many legal arguments are about minimizing biases in non-scientific i.e. legal evidence.

ETA. By bias I mean prejudices that cause distortions of the truth

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 12:38pm.

#47: "I think a critical point in your argument is that scientists are human and make human mistakes, and have human biases"

I'm sorry for not being clear; but that is absolutely NOT my point at all.

My point is that for any given set of facts, there are actually mutliple, meaningfully-different but equally good explanations for things.

I'm not sure how I can make this more clear.

Using the term "equally convincing" is probably a bad idea, you're right, because "convincingness" introduces a lot of very (potentially) personal elements.

But for any set of data, there are almost inevitably multiple theories that explain that set of data EQUALLY WELL. From there, scientific method provides adjudication mechamisms like "Occam's razor" and notions of "consistency" to cull some of the alternatives away.

But I would suggest that that will still leave a number of alternatives.... and from there, what you do to decide what theory to operate under is .... well, non-scientific. Science provides no mechanism.

I'll even provide a reductio type of example. Is a photon a particle or a wave? Both "theories" ("it is a particle" or "it is a wave") capture only a part of the variance. They are both the "best explanation" under some circumstances, but not all. One was not "better" than the other.

Of course, the solution to this is to (correctly) argue that neither the "particle" model nor the "wave" model is correct, and to come up with a new way of classifying photons.

But by extension, my argument is that no matter how "good" your theories become, this kind of situation will always occur. You will always have alternatives that provide EQUALLY GOOD FITS to the data. And in those situations, you decide based on.,.... non-science.

greg - to address your post - focusing on two equally convincing ideas separated by semantics.

The use of the word "semantics" is a bit confusing, because, it implies the two ideas are actually identical, just misunderstood.

But, lets assume two equally convincing but different ideas.

Therefore, accepting any given scientific theory requires a certain level of "faith"

a) if the "wiggle room" is avoided, and one theory is actually better and more convincing.
b) if we use care with the idea of "accepting" a scientific theory - By which I mean we accept it scientifically based on the evidence and argument - and hence acknowledge it could be wrong. and also that there is more complexity still not incorporated.

THEN the conclusion is not made without evidence, but is the best conclusion from the evidence - "best" being a transient here. Best until something better comes along, such as one that breaks the theory.

Now, if the wiggle room isn't avoided, and the results are doctored by some kind of bias, there is a built in control. That can be exposed, and the scientific theory can be broken or weakened. But, until that point, it retains it's "bestness" - based on the existing evidence.

more to come...

Spencer-Brown, in Laws of Form, demonstrated that it is possible to construct a formal framework that is formally as powerful as propositional logic and from which all of mathematics can be derived, but that IS NOT rooted in the semantic concept of "truth" or "proof". It uses different conceptual "atoms", but is able to build a logical framework that has the equivalent formal power.

This kind of thing exists ALL OVER THE PLACE.

My background is in neural network programming. As part of my dissertation, I showed that (for a certain class of computational models) there are two different TYPES of models, that are rooted in VERY DIFFERENT assumptions about underlying cognitive mechanisms, that nonetheless will always be able to have co-extensive explanations. Vary parameter X in one type of model, and you can vary parameters A and B in the other model and get the same effect. Despite the fact that these models were implementing very different CONCEPTUAL ideas about how the mind works.

So it's a failed premise, to think that "There Can Be Only One" in the science world. The constraints of observational fit and internal consikstency only get you part of the way home.

#50 greg - just now reading this. I like your ideas in this post. I'm not sure I will be able to digest and reply soon, just so you know.

P.S. #51 says "The use of the word "semantics" is a bit confusing, because, it implies the two ideas are actually identical, just misunderstood."

This was a simple mis-communication, and I'm sorry for that. My use of the term comes from logic, rather than literary theory. :) What I mean by "semantically different" is "there is a real MEANINGFUL difference between the two theories.... they are not just different ways of saying the same thing."

But it's admittedly jargony, so I'm sorry for that...

#50/52 - These are great posts. You've gone beyond my thinking...

I might argue then it's scientifically unresolvable. But, if the models are so drastically different and at the same time infinitely flexible - there can't be a resolution. As you say, science has no mechanism.

But, if we say science is, here, stuck in a loop... how do you bring that back to the faith?

#54- yeah, I got that now from your later post. ;)

#48 rpp You are right "we should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" does not mean "science is the only reliable way to truth". The second implies the first; it is a chain of logic.

Sorry, again I'm stuck. He is saying science is the best way to go (something I think is dangerous, as science only goes so far), but he is not necessarily saying science leads to truth.

#49: rrp - Theologians start with a conclusion - that god exists. Then, they go forth to justify that. While their entire argument after that point may be elegantly done, it still a huge flaw welcomed with open arms. That's a bias.

#55 says "But, if we say science is, here, stuck in a loop... how do you bring that back to the faith?"

Well... here it gets sticky because it depends on how you view the connotations of "faith", I suppose. It's a bit of a charged word.

I'll draw on a specific example from a field with which I am very familiar, cognitive science.

The earliest attempts to scientifically and empirically study the mind were reaction time experiments. People did experiments: say, "press a button when you see a blue dot" and then show them lue dots, and see how long they take each time. 500 ms. Say, "press the left button for blue and the right for green" and then randomly mix them, and see how long each one takes. 800ms. If we suppose that both involve perceiving and acting, but only the second involves "deciding", then we conclude: "the internal process of making a decision takes 300 ms!"

And of course the details evolved and got much more sophisticated than that, but for a long time this is how the study of the mind was able to gain respect: We can now make concrete measurements about the length of time MENTAL processes take. Oh yeah, but as long as we assume that things happen in stages: first you perceive, then you decide, then you respond. And as long as you assume that you can just add up the times of each stage to get the total.

When the "computer metaphor" comes along, it only supports these ideas. We can see the mind as being a "program" that executes "modules" or "functions". Add up the time it takes for each function, and you get the time of the entire behavior. And people built complex computer models based on this idea of mental "stages" and mental "modules."

And then the 1980's come along, and there is this HOT NEW idea: neutral networks. Information gets processed in a distributed pattern, a continuous flow of information. Things aren't in "stages" at all! And we have computer models to prove it! The idea was new, it was sexy. Anyone who complained that the "stage" metaphore didn't seem "brain-like" enough was on board. Anyone with a bit ofa rebellious streak was on board. This was the HOT NEW THING.

And in the last decades, things have swung back and forth, back and forth. Every time a "stage-like" model explains some new data that "can't" be explained in a continuous network model, a new network model comes out to explain it. And vice versa. Ultimately, both frameworks are general and powerful enough that they can explain (probably) anything at all.

So, do mental processes work in stages? Or do they overlap and work continuously in a network? If you believe in "truth", you know: THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT. But scientific method -- at least as it's grown up so far in the field -- can't decide.

So how do you decide what to believe? I'll tell you, from my experience, how researchers decide. Based on what they think is cool. Based on what their dissertation advisors thought. Based on who is giving them grant money. Based on what "feels right." Based on some abstract idealist notion of "how the universe SHOULD work."

So how much of that can be called "faith"?

#58

"Theologians start with a conclusion - that god exists."

No, it's an assumption not a conclusion. It's a premiss. It has the same status as a premiss like "science is the only reliable way to the truth" or, if you want to start there with "all beliefs need to be justified with evidence". They are assumptions or premisses unless there are things further upstream of your reasoning which will independently justify them. If you follow any chain of reasoning back, you will come to things you cannot justify but must accept. That is as true of science as it is of religion. If you think -god exists- is a source of bias (whatever you mean by that, I am still not sure) then so must the assumptions you make.

#58, #60

As I commented before, I would again suggest that it might be useful to separate the question of "faith in god" from the question of "faith in science", because it's not the case that a lack of one implies the other.

Plus, I'm afraid you (#60) come across as a little mealy-mouthed when you use the language of premises and conclusions IN ORDER TO ASSERT that scientific reasoning is not the only reliable way toward truth.

It seems, from all you've said, rrp, that your position is more like this: Scientific method is a perfectly valid way of drawing truthful conclusions from observations and assumptions, but using the existence of God as an assumption is no less valid than any of the MANY other unstated assumptions that OTHER people make in scientific thinking.

That's what your argument seems like, when you talk about belief in God simply being another kind of "premise", etc. It seems like you're not arguing against scientific reasoning at all.

I'm sorry for posting so much in a row, but for anyone who actually read my long-winded comment #59 (sorry about that), I have a personal addendum to make:

Part of my dissertation work involved creating a neural network model that contained stage-like mechanisms. And you WOULD NOT BELIEVE the grief I got from the neural network community, being told that using processing stages in a network model was "antithetical to the entire philosophy of neural networks" and so on.

Now don't tell me THAT doesn't sound like faith is creeping into the picture. :)

The problem I find with Haught's argument is that he uses "evidence" and "scientific evidence" interchangeably. He is, I suppose (haven't read the book), arguing with Dawkins. Philosophers discussed the evidence/proof or lack thereof for the existence of a god for centuries before Dawkins --- or evolution, or anything resembling modern science --- came along.

#61

You are right, I am not arguing against scientific reasoning at all. It's a wonderful thing. The only problem with it is if you try to apply it to a domain where it doesn't work, and in particular at the foundations of reason and religion. The argument in #1 is an argument against those that try to apply scientific reasoning to religion and, by doing so, come to the conclusion that belief in God is not justified. Those that do so come at it from many directions, "there is no evidence" being a prevalent one. It's an argument against not separating questions of god and science. The argument doesn't assert that the proposition "scientific reasoning is the only reliable way to truth" is false, it proves that it is paradoxical. If it's true it must be false.

ETA a vital "not".

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 2:25pm.

Sure, scientists get invested in their pet theories. Scientists are people too, you know. But if new evidence were introduced that disproved their theories they'd come around eventually, wouldn't they? So all "truths" in science are tentative and can be overturned at a future date with new data. So, this "faith" is a rather weak and tepid kind compared to religious faith.

#65: I'm not sure to which comment(s) you were replying, but at least in the examples I've been discussing (e.g. #43, #50, #59), Im' not talking about that "weak" kind of faith that you describe.

I'm talking about deciding between two different theories that account for the same data. I'm talking about different explanations that cannot be adjudicated between based on fit to the data, and both of which are internally consistent.

The "faith" in science lies in choosing between those two theories. (Or proposing that alternative meta-theory that there is no objective answer and both theories are right... which, I suppose, would be a different kind of premise, and therefore a different kind of faith.)

One wonders why, if rrp truly believes that all beliefs are predicated and require an equal amount of faith and therefore are equally valid, he spends so much time trying to invalidate what he sees as scientist's and atheist's "faith".

Still waiting for someone who advocates the use of "unscientific evidence" to explain just what is meant by that phrase...

68: Jesse_wiedinmyer: I am not particularly a fan of unscientific evidence, but nonscientific evidence might include testimony in court cases, quotations by witnesses or participants in newspaper stories, etc.

Court testimony might include scientific evidence from 'expert witnesses' but juries have to hear testimony from anybody the attorneys put on the stand, and this is considered evidence.

There is also historical evidence: documents, letters, inscriptions, etc. which must be evaluated by historians' standards but which may not be verifiable by scientific methods.

#64 and interwoven threads on up - rpp - I can see your point that religion is a form of reasoning; and that science is a different form of reasoning. But the prejudice is handled very differently. Science is a very cold logic and makes every conceivable attempt to limit human or other bias. Religion is more of an instinctual thing, and it does not have any adequate control over bias. Actually, being instinctual, it must be free of these restrictions.

But, I don't think one can deny a bias in religion. The thing is God may be a assumption, but it's an unnecessary assumption. Its need arises from the human instinct, and human desire; and not from cold logic. In that sense it is unlike any scientific assumption.

Certainly scientific ideas rest on unverifiable assumptions, but this is a always (in intention, at least) a matter of need. We assume this, among other reasons, for simplicity, because we may have no way to prove it, and because it's necessary to get at the problem at hand.

What I'm saying is I agree scientific reasoning and religion reasoning are two separate branches, but they are not equivalents. They do different things. Only one of them tries to follow cold logic.

#68: Jesse_wiedinmyer

"unscientific evidence" is a euphemism for lacking evidence from scientific conclusions.

In other words, someone argues, on scientific grounds, that the earth rotates around the sun. This conclusion is then scientific evidence, exhibit A. The observation that the sun appears to rise in the morning and fall at night is not scientific, it's simply evidence. It's not wrong, it's a true observation. But without a scientific reasoning, it can only be called "unscientific evidence" - alas it may even mislead someone think the earth is the center of the universe. .

I'm not saying it a good phrasing, but interpreting.

#59: gregstevenstx

I follow, but does the "faith" come from the scientific breakdown, or from human failure to see that breakdown...

You all must be sick of my posts by now....

#67

I am not saying that all belief are equally valid, far from it. I simply accept Haught's argument that any criticism of religion on scientific grounds is based on unsound logic. There is much "scientific", "evidence based" criticism of religion from the atheist side that is purely and simply unsound.

Get past that, never mention science and religion in the same sentence again, never use science as a tool to criticize religion, then there are many other points worth of discussion.

#73

You all must be sick of my posts by now.

Not at all; they are interesting.

ETA. I like your definition of scientific evidence.

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 4:51pm.

#74 - No, I would argue religion needs scientific criticism... whatever religion's value, it should be clear that it does not derive from a simple, cold logic. That's important. God is not a logical discovery.

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 4:53pm.

#76

I couldn't disagree more. Science can certainly speak to some specific claims of religion. (Expose phony healers, etc.) But with regard to the basic premises. . . . Do you figure no one used logic before modern science came along?

#76-77

Yes, you are right. There are certain religious practices, such as the power of prayer and faith healers in curing disease, religious claims about the age of the earth, even to study the history and transmission of religious ideas, that are all open and fair game for scientific investigation. And God is certainly not a logical discovery or can be proved by logic. But religion is subject to logic and reason and can be rational. To dismiss the whole of religion, to question the foundation of belief on scientific grounds is unsound.

myshelves - Sorry, can you clarify? I'm not following, partly because I can't quite grasp the meaning in your last sentence. We might be in agreement.

#79

Could be. :-)

I'm saying that there is no need to drag in science in order to ask for or refute any proofs offered for the existence of a god. Reason and logic have been on the job for centuries, without reference to science.

If you thought before that science was certain-- well, that is just an error on your part. ~ Richard Feynman, The Character of Physical Law

So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place then, for a creator? ~ Steven Hawking

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science. In that case, it would not be necessary to appeal to God to decide on how the universe began. This doesn't prove that there is no God, only that God is not necessary." ~ Hawking, again.

The principle of science, the definition, almost, is the following: The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific "truth." ~ Feynman (and note the scare quotes on truth) from The Feynman Lectures on Physics

#80 myshelves - Ok, I follow. I've always assumed that the philosophical development of the scientific method, and the advances made through science were the main concepts that brought down religious certainty in western culture - or at least the spoken justification for undermining it. On the other hand, religious politics and wars play a large roll too. But, regardless, I see your point.

#81 Jesse - good stuff, thanks for posting.

I think that the final quote is the crux of the matter. We are essentially arguing epistemology.

#78 rpp To dismiss the whole of religion, to question the foundation of belief on scientific grounds is unsound.

The logical undermining of the certainty and/or of the necessity of God's existence is the killer in regards to religion. A real killer. If we don't need god to explain this, then... why bother with the concept.

Science absolutely forces us to question the foundation of religion.

Another good one from Feynman -

"Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don't think there are flying saucers'. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it's impossible?" "No", I said, "I can't prove it's impossible. It's just very unlikely". At that he said, "You are very unscientific. If you can't prove it impossible then how can you say that it's unlikely?" But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible. To define what I mean, I might have said to him, "Listen, I mean that from my knowledge of the world that I see around me, I think that it is much more likely that the reports of flying saucers are the results of the known irrational characteristics of terrestrial intelligence than of the unknown rational efforts of extra-terrestrial intelligence." It is just more likely. That is all. " ~ also from The Character of Physical Law

Message edited by its author, Aug 13, 2009, 6:38pm.

What I have done is to show that it is possible for the way the universe began to be determined by the laws of science.

Well, when we have that determination, and it can be expressed in terms that more than Hawking and 3 or 4 other people understand (grin), please let me know. In the meantime, logic tells me that postulating a creator answers no question. Where did the universe come from? Created. Where did the creator come from? Always existed. Simpler (good old Occam's razor) to figure that the universe, in some form, always existed.

Or mayhap the creator is otiose. He's something like the birthday party that was once thrown for me that I was not invited to.

OK. Many points in several directions. (Love the Feynman quotes BTW.) But it's all somewhat away from the main point.

So let me ask a direct question. Does anyone think the argument 1-5 in #1 is sound?

#88

See #63. As far as I'm concerned, he's creating a straw man to knock down.

I don't imagine that Haught believes in the Easter Bunny. Because "science" told him not to?

#72: dchaikin:

In the scenario I described, where a scientist is presented with alternative theories X and Y, each of which accounts equally well for the data and each of which is internally consistent but contradictory with the other theory, I consider it "faith" when the scientist chooses to assume / work within the framework of Theory X simply because it "feels more right" or "is more like the way he thinks the universe SHOULD work" or "it what he's been taught all along" or what-have-you.

The fact of the matter is, for research to proceed in the field, a scientist in that situation HAS to choose X or Y .... until some new evidence comes to light that can distinguish them. So scientists inherently are forced to make assumptions that are not based on or tested by the scientific process. Those, I call assumptions of faith.

In the context I described, at any rate.

#89

I think you are right in #63, he is arguing with the likes of Dawkins and others that bash religion from a scientific viewpoint. The argument is against a specific viewpoint. It has nothing to do with the positive, proofs of or evidence for the existence of God. It is about the negative, the soundness of an argument that uses science to say that a belief in God is not justified. All it does is say that particular argument is unsound.

You declined to say whether or not you think that particular argument is sound.

All we know is that is his take on Dawkins argument. Has anyone read or heard enough Dawkins to know if it is accurate?

#91

I haven't read Dawkins, so don't know if he bases his atheism upon science.

The idea seems odd to me, perhaps because I and those with whom I discussed the question of the existence of a god, way back before I'd taken my first high school science course, never gave a thought to it. It was just a case of "What makes someone think there's a god?" and none of the alleged proofs holding up to rational analysis. As a philosophy major, I studied the proofs offered by people from Plato on, and the counter-arguments, none of which I recall being based upon science.

As I've said before, on various threads, and to you on some of them (smile), I don't think that "science" is the opposite of "religion." (Nor do I have "faith" in whatever is declared to be "science.")

Is "science" the only reliable way to "truth"? The scientific method clearly seems to be the only reliable way to find out the truth about nature. But if I want to know the truth about the Health Care bill, I won't call a scientist --- I'll read the bill.

Dawkins book is called The God Delusion. The theme is that religious belief is a delusion, that is a belief that is not justified because of lack of evidence. The argument 1-5 in #1 is a formal version of the many "lack of evidence" arguments. Examples include, "you don't believe in X, why do you believe in God?", where X is the Easter Bunny (#89), Santa Claus or unicorns (Dawkins's favorite I think). Those rhetorical sentences, when logically unpacked, all boil down to something formal like 1-5 in #1. If 1-5 in #1 is unsound, so are all these imitators.

#94 If 1-5 in #1 is unsound, so are all these imitators.

You're jumping to conclusions despite the mass valid criticism of fundamental point (1). You would better off to start with your (3) - "We should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence."

edited to change a few typos

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 9:34am.

OK. So the argument should be

X. We should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence.
Y. There's no scientific evidence for God.

therefore

Z. We should not believe in God.

and this is a sound argument?

Although this is a better starting point because it's cleaner, I don't think it will get much discussion because you won't find many people who agree with (X). Maybe you can argue with Dawkins? But, not having read Dawkins, I'll have to stay out of that debate. I suspect there is some context missing.

I think looking at it that way better exposes how 1-5 is flawed. You have to force 3 by manufacturing 1 - Haught's basis.

So you agree that the argument is not sound?

(X) has problems - it's wrong.

But, given X: X + Y = Z is sound.

96-99:

The entire point behind my previous comments (e.g. 43, 46, 59) is to give specific examples of when X doesn't apply... EVEN IN SCIENCE.

There are VERY few places in science where there is one and only one theory that returns a clear "best fit" to the available set of data. In most cases, there are several equally-powerful theories competing, each of which fits only a portion of the data, and each of which are internally consistent but contain assumption contradictory to the others.

In these cases, scientists have to use SOME theory as their starting point for investigation.... and usually they pick one based on one of the following (non-scientific) methods of selection: what they were taught in grad school; the theory they think is the coolest; the theory that fits with "how they feel the universe SHOULD work"; the theory they know they can get the most grant money for; etc etc etc.

#99, 100

I think we three agree. The argument in #96 is not sound because the premiss "We should only believe in things for which we have scientific evidence" is false. gregstevenstx thanks for the examples where it doesn't apply, even in science.

#90: "So scientists inherently are forced to make assumptions that are not based on or tested by the scientific process. Those, I call assumptions of faith."

Um, so any non-scientific behavior is faith-based?

Doing something because it "feels more right" or "is more like the way he thinks the universe SHOULD work" is intuition-based; and frankly, anyone who has worked long enough in a field often does have a grasp of the subject in a way that may not be consciously articulatable, but is nonetheless accurate. Most notably, a couple details in Maxwell's equations that were exactly correct were based not on data but Maxwell's feelings about the nature of symmetry in the universe.

"What he's been taught all along" is authority-based, or possibly based on a rational risk-taking analysis; if he's going to be able to get more or better results without having to relearn a bunch of stuff, it may be better for the scientist personally to take that theory as a basis rather than bet on the other theory being right. Another option is "this is where the grant money is"; if that's faith, then business schools need to be a part of the divinity program.

88> Not as an answer to the question that was given. Possibly as an answer to some argument, though not an argument I think particularly interesting.

#102 prosfilaes:

Interestingly, if you assume that there can be no overlap between intuition-based and faith-based assumptions, and no overlap between authority-based and faith-based assumptions.... then maybe I need to ask: what exactly IS the allowed domain of things that can be called "faith"?

Most people who attempt to explain why they have faith in one religion rather than another appeal either to authority ("it's what I was brought up with") or intuition ("it just makes sense to me" / "it's OBVIOUSLY true"). I'm not really sure why or how you would say that "faith" must be completely distinct from these.

It's been a while since I read the Dawkins book, but as I remember it he didn't use science to directly argue that their is no god. As I remember he used science to argue against some beliefs held by christians which are unscientific (i.e. the world is only 4000 years old). From there he argues that religion has a tendency to lead to believing in things we are fairly certain cannot be true.

(I could be wrong and it could be that he does use the argument that there's no proof for god so therefore god isn't real. It has been months since I read the book and have gone through multiple graduate courses since then.)

I just had a look at the Wikipedia article on Dawkins. He is quoted as writing in another book

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

I can see why people call him arrogant. :-) Atheism "might have been intellectually tenable before Darwin? It requires an understanding of evolutionary biology, which just happens to be Dawkins' field, to lack belief in the supernatural and be intellectually fulfilled? Poof; so much for all those who considered the question before the 2nd half of the 19th century. If that's typical of his arguments, I'm glad I haven't wasted money or time on Dawkins' famous atheist book. I'd been thinking that his critics talk as if Dawkins invented atheism; now I wonder if he thinks he did.

As for points 1-5, let's try a revision:

We should only have no reason to believe in things for which we have scientific no verifiable evidence.

There's no scientific verifiable evidence for God.

Ergo: We have no reason to believe in God.

ETA: deleted above because I messed up closing italics & couldn't spot where. :-(.

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 1:53pm.

#104: and when did I say that there can be no overlap between intuition and faith? Instead of labeling everything as faith, which is only done in the midst of debates, perhaps it actually has a more limited meaning. Since you don't seem to intend to offer a definition, I'll give a dictionary definition: "a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny". Given that, I would say that these aren't faith-based choices.

#108 alternately: belief that is not based on proof (dictionary.com). Although I have always viewed it as belief without evidence, which is quite different. Are we confused yet?

I think their is a difference between making a necessary choice in selecting one of two equally plausible assumptions, and choosing to believe something that is not necessary. I think the former is being practical, and the later more akin to religious faith.

Good old wiktionary has as number 1:-

Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.

#108: prosfilaes

Ok, SERIOUSLY?

"I'll give a dictionary definition" you say... you think other people can't look things up iun dictionaries, and see that the definition you chose -- the ONE definition you chose -- is one of the only ones where my examples above don't apply. That your definition is #3 on dictionary.com, while #2 (belief that is not based on proof) corresponds very well with what we are discussing here?

You just have an issue with the *WORD* "faith". Which is fine. I'm sure you're not alone in your prejudice.

But that doesn't change the fact that for most intents and purposes, we have an equivalence class here. There is A TYPE OF BELIEF (whether you feel happy calling it "faith" or not) that is based on non-rational, non-scientific things, and is strongly rooted in "feelings" or "comfort" with ideas, and --- most importantly --- these types of belief exist both in religion, AND IN SCIENCE.

Now, if you want to a priori declare that "if it isn't about supernatural things then it isn't 'faith'" then fine -- whatever. But I submit to you that that is NOT how most people use the term. And I submit to you that it is not the point most people are making when they say "Science requires a certain amount of faith."

109 - 111:

LOL, we all collided getting to that point at the same time. ha.

#112 Greg- yeah, but I'm still battling you with my second comment in #109. ;)

113 (re: 109): Fair enough. You say,

"I think their is a difference between making a necessary choice in selecting one of two equally plausible assumptions, and choosing to believe something that is not necessary. I think the former is being practical, and the later more akin to religious faith."

Well, let's let's not get into the sociology and psychology about what choices are "necessary" when discerning between beliefs. ;-)

I'm trying to say that there definitely is a parallel in the type of mental processing going on:

When non-scientist A says "I choose Christianity as my way of viewing the world, because I was brought up with it, I feel comfortable with it, and it JUST MAKES SENSE to me!"

and

When scientist B says, "I choose to view cognition as the result of a distributed interaction between associative networks (instead of a structured rule-based manipulation of propositions) because I'm more familiar with those models, that's where all the research money is at right now, and besides it JUST MAKES SENSE to me!"

And when *I* say that these are both "faith", I guess that is specifically what I mean: these decisions that are being made about beliefs that are outside of evidence, outside of rational choice, they are "extra-scientific" (in the sense of not being within the domain of scientific decision-making).

You say: "Well, the later is necessary while the former is not."

Maybe, maybe not. How necessary is it for lay-people to have a world view? That's a different debate. ;-)

You say: "Well, the later is necessary while the former is not."

I say that the latter is a contingent assumption that may be overturned by further evidence while with the former the lack of evidence is the point. There's a world of difference even if it doesn't show up in the top dictionary definition.

I'd also like to introduce a bit of introspection into this discussion. Too often people on the "anti-religion"/"anti-faith" end of the discussion (**I include myself in this) make accusations that the other side is reacting based on upbringing or bias or emotion or what-have-you, with the implication that they, themselves, are not thus influenced.

That could not be farther from the truth, and I think we should acknowledge that. We should acknowledge that our level of adherence to science does not occur in a "rational/theoretical" vaccuum.

As much as many people "can't help" being Christian (for example) because of how they were raised, I most certainly am also a product of my own upbringing. I mean SERIOUSLY: born in the early 70's to an atheist Chemistry professor (father) and a Unitarian painter (mother) and grew up in New York City.... I didn't have a CHANCE! I clearly had no choice but to end up an agnostic. ;-)

.....Now, that last paragraph was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but I hope you get my point. The pro-faith people are not the only ones who have a history attached to their beliefs.

#115 says, "I say that the latter is a contingent assumption that may be overturned by further evidence while with the former the lack of evidence is the point."

You are making an unfair comparison, because you are making a comparison between the IDEALIZED process of science, but the ACTUAL process of religious faith.

In the ACTUAL practice of science, as I'm sure you know, senior researchers will cling to their pet theories like a junkyard dog to a bone. In practice, they will always prefer a slight augmentation of their theory that accomodates the new data over an alternative theory that refutes the basic premises of their own. And in many cases, adjudicating between sufficiently powerful theories is ACTUALLY UNDECIDABLE. You can have two computational frameworks (for example) for simulating certain mental processes that make very different underlying processing assumptions, but that are both so flexible it can be PROVEN that they both can account (with the right sets of parameters, etc) for all of eachothers' predictions.

So which one is right? It's not over-turnable by new evidence. It's "which one do you like"?

#111: SERIOUSLY! I know you can consult a dictionary; then do so instead of saying "what exactly IS the allowed domain of things that can be called "faith"?" Belief that's not based on proof is a worthless definition for rigorous discussion, as that includes all beliefs. Let's take the definition "belief without evidence".

It's not an equivalence class here; intuition is neither belief nor without evidence. It's a feeling that can be used as evidence or ignored, and it itself is based on a huge amount of data, a lifetime of data, crunched and processed by the subconscious until an answer comes out. It's not a cold rational answer with clear supporting arguments, but it's not without evidence. Working from authority is also not necessarily a belief nor without evidence. You can pick one theory to work on without positively believing it's the only possible answer, and you can accept authority's answer knowing that it's based on far more educated and thoughtful minds than yours and is more likely to be correct then the answer you could achieve with the time you have to study it.

Frankly, when most people say "science requires a certain amount of faith", it's trying to equate dissimilar things. We all kill other living things; we massacre children, you eat potatoes, what's the difference?

117> No, he's making a comparison between the idealized process of science and the idealized process of religious faith.

118: OK. I really feel we're no longer disagreeing on anything substantive.

Our disagreement, as I see it, is this: for you, the word "faith" INHERENTLY implies religion, the supernatural, the mystical, and so on. For me, the word does not inherently connote those things. Neither of us is "right" or "wrong"; the dictionary contains both senses of the term. When you see the word "faith" your mind gravitates to #3 (for example, in dictionary.com), and when I see it, my mind gravitates to #2.

That's fine. But when you remove that annoying lexical ambiguity from the discussion, I do not think we truly disagree.

You would acknowledge (correct me if I'm wrong) that scientists often MUST make decisions about their assumptions based on things other than evidence or logic. And I would acknowledge that most good scientists do not make those assumptions based on a belief in the supernatural.

So we agree.

Correct me if I'm wrong....

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 3:32pm.

More Feynman -

I can't be practising in the conventionally religious sense. It doesn't fit together. It seems to me that the ideas of conventional religion - like in the Bible and so forth - are very limited. They didn't realise the tremendous extent of the world, or the length of time in which things have been going on. It seems to me impossible, in a certain sense, that so much attention could be paid to man as is advertised in the usual religion, and so little attention paid to the rest of the world. It doesn't seem to me that this fantastically marvelous universe, this tremendous range of time and space and different kinds of animals, and all the different plants, and all these atoms with all their motions and so on, all this complicated thing can merely be a stage so that God can watch human beings struggle for good and evil - which is the view that religion has. The stage is too big for the drama. So I believe it's not the right picture.

"Viewpoint" interview, c. 1959

#32 : What the hell is unscientific evidence?

Well, for one, anecdotal evidence. (Everyone loves a story.)

If I tell you that I have had a mystical or transcendent experience, who are you to naysay? You needn't believe, of course. You may wish to give it some credence, if your experience with me tells you I am trustworthy and reliable otherwise. Of course, you could conclude I'm a bit doolally.

Also -

...the religions have tied together together two things: They, for instance, if they want to teach the Ten Commandments, they're not satisfied to teach the Ten Commandments because it's the experience of mankind or something that these are a good way to proceed. But they teach the Ten Commandments because these things were given to Moses through lightning. Now, when the science comes along, it suggests that it's possible that maybe these things weren't given to Moses through lightning. A person who doesn't think too far says, "Oh, then the whole thing is nuts. And I'm afraid to think that possibility, because maybe then the Ten Commandments have no basis at all." But that's not necessarily so. It's perfectly possible that the moralities could have come from men. It could have been that Moses was an ordinary man and that he wrote these things. And I still could believe and still behave the same way. And what I think has happened is that the religions have put together two different kinds of ideas and welded them so thoroughly - namely the theory of how the Ten Commandments arose, and the belief that you ought to follow them - that when science comes along and challenges one end of this - namely, how the Ten Commandments arose - people get nervous that they're challenging the other end of it; namely, that they have. But it's the religion who's tied them together unnecessarily; there's no real connection. And that's the way I feel; that's a personal, philosophical view of the relation of religion and science.

"Viewpoint" interview, c. 1959

as found in Perfectly Reasonable Deviations from the Beaten Track

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 5:03pm.

Also-

There is an infinite amount of crazy stuff, which, put another way, is the environment is actively, intensely unscientific. There is talk about telepathy still, altough it's dying out. There is faith-healing galore, all over. There is a whole religion of faith-healing. There's a miracle at Lourdes where healing goes on. Now, it might be true that astrology is right. It might be true that if you go to the dentist on the day that Mars is at right angles to Venus, that it is better than if you go on a different day. It might be true that you can be cured by the miracle of Lourdes. But if it is true, it ought to be investigated. Why? To improve it. If it is true then maybe we can find out if the stars do influence life; that we could make the system more powerful by investigating statistically, scientifically judging the evidence objectively, more carefully. If the healing process works at Lourdes, the question is, how far from the site of the miracle can the person, who is ill, stand? Have they in fact made a mistake and the back row is really not working? Or is it working so well that there is plenty of room for more people to be arranged near the place of the miracle? Or is it possible, as it is with the saints which have recently been created in the United States - there is a saint who has cured leukemia apparently indirectly - that ribbons that are touched to the sheet of the sick person (the ribbon having previously touched some relic of the saint) increase the cure of leukemia - the question is, is it gradually being diluted? You may laugh, but if you believe in the truth of the healing, than you are responsible to investigate it, to improve its efficiency and to make it satisfactory instead of cheating. For example, it may turn out that after a hundred touches it doesn't work anymore. Now it's also possible that the results of this investigation have other consequences, namely, that nothing is there.

as found in "The Role of Scientific Culture in Modern Society", as found in The Pleasure of Finding Things Out

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 5:14pm.

God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out.

as found in Superstrings : A Theory of Everything

117> You are making an unfair comparison, because you are making a comparison between the IDEALIZED process of science, but the ACTUAL process of religious faith.

Actually I'm not. If you ask that scientist if an experiment showed that his views were wrong I'll bet that he would tell you that he is prepared to change his mind. That is he at least tries to hew to scientific principles. On the other hand, if you asked a religious person if there were evidence that God did not exist what he would do. In most cases, I think he would state that he would still believe in his God and it might even strengthen his faith.

As to two different theories both explaining the known facts equally well, I think reputable scientists would just accept that they don't know which one is correct. There would of course be proponents of one side or the other but eventually one side will come up with evidence that the other cannot refute. In fact isn't this the competition of ideas which will make sure that all ideas are thoroughly tested and experiments rigourously examined?

And if you have two theories that can be proven to yield the same experimental outcomes in all circumstances aren't the both right? Is there any point in arguing about which is right? If they really can be mathmatically proven to yield the same results aren't they really the same anyway?

#32

Non-scientific evidence:

Documentary evidence. (Not necessarily evidence of the truth of the content. But a will is evidence that someone was alive when he signed it, as were the witnesses. Magna Carta is evidence of the names of the King and the Barons who signed, and of the subject of their dispute.)

#126

Any new evidence that comes along will maybe make one of your competitive theories less viable ("correct" is maybe too strong a word -- how often does some counter indicating data actually change a theory? If that was the case, there would be no theories left in medical science). But even so, with the new data, there will be more than one new theory that is compatible with both the old data and the new.

"On the other hand, if you asked a religious person if there were evidence that God did not exist what he would do. In most cases, I think he would state that he would still believe in his God and it might even strengthen his faith."

That's another one of those bogus claims made by people who are antagonistic to religion. I know that most believers, presented with convincing evidence that some part of their religion was wrong, would change their minds. In spite of what some atheists think, you don't give up all powers or reasoning when you believe. Some good examples are the various denominations in Christianity. They all came from the same root, and at some point someone had to change his or her mind to start the branch from that root. Theologians make a living out of examining the evidence and revising the body of knowledge that contributes to belief. In fact, that's what John Haught, the theologian in #1, is all about.

#128 rrp -- thank you, that was exactly what I was thinking when I said that jjwilson was presenting an unfair comparison.

In the ideal, religious people are rational. I've spoken with many pastors who say that they are constantly revising and reconsidering all kinds of interpretations of scripture based on various types of evidence. It is really only a certain type of religious person who decides that they HAVE to believe (for example) that the earth is 6000 years old NO MATTER WHAT.

And the idea that scientists will always revise their theories in light of new data is also idealized... and absurd.

All I'm asking it that we not caricature EITHER side.

#107

I liked your character analysis of Dawkins; he gets up my nose in the same way.

Back to the argument. The proposal was it should be modified to

Premiss R: We have no reason to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence.
Premiss S: There's no verifiable evidence for God.

Conclusion T: We have no reason to believe in God.

Unfortunately this won't work because both premisses are false. (Unless by verifiable you mean scientifically verifiable, then only R is false.)

In the ideal, religious people are rational.

Agreed. So why waste all this time on bashing science instead of telling the "deluded" atheists who or what God is (few around here seem to mean the same thing by the word), and on what rational basis they should acknowledge his/her/its existence?

131: Some people bash science, some people bash religion. I don't think I've done either, throughout any of this.

And, being a fan of both science and logic, it irks me slightly to see religion-bashing OR science-bashing being presented as "purely logical arguments" or what-have-you. That's what drew me into this mish-mash to begin with, anyway. For what it's worth. LOL

Just to be clear, I think the intent of the original article and many of the posts here is not to bash science; John Haught is a fan of science. I have not noticed any comments here by anyone who is not a fan of science. The intent is to defend against some people who falsely use science to bash religion. It isn't bashing science to point out that some who take it's name in vain are committing logical errors. It isn't bashing science to point out that it's philosophical foundations are a little murky at times. The value and standing of science remains the same if someone points out how it really works. Only someone who looks on science with an unrealistic awe could possibly be offended.

#132

Is it bashing religion to assert that there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of a god, or to ask what it might be? (I think it is bashing science to treat it as the opposite of religion. "Science" may contradict some specific factual claims made by some religious believers, such as ones regarding the age of the earth, but it doesn't deal with the same broad questions.)

#130: If we accept the evidence of our senses as verifiable, then why is premise R false?

134: No, that's not what I was referring to. And for the record, I agree completely with what you say about it bashing science to assume that it's the opposite of religion -- some of my earliest comments on here was suggesting that it's important to sever the issues of "atheism" and "science".

But what I was thinking about comment #132 was the tone of several subsequent comments that seem to imply that scientists are all purely rational beings that never take anything for granted, and (also implied) how silly of these religious people to believe in things without evidence. And so on. That's why I injected my comments about the fact that often you can't decide between theories based just on scientific means, and that in the actual practice of science often people pick the theory that "feels true" --- and that in many ways that's like people who believe the religion that they think "feels true".

I wanted to point out that similarity because of the subtle religion bashing that is *implicit* when pro-science people act as if every decision in science is logical and tied to observation.

I wanted to point out that similarity because of the subtle religion bashing that is *implicit* when pro-science people act as if every decision in science is logical and tied to observation.

But you're bashing science when you suggest that just because scientists are not perfectly rational beings that there is some equivalence between science and religion.

And I agree that my previous statement about religious faith was overly broad (although that's not to say that there aren't some people who do think that way).

#136

I don't think I've ever known any experimental scientists well if at all. I would suspect that they are like other people, and that some of them can sometimes let their biases, wishes, monetary interests, career prospects --- whatever --- influence the way in which they design or interpret experiments.

But since I've never said otherwise, I have no cat in this fight. :-)

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 8:04pm.

#137 says "But you're bashing science when you suggest that just because scientists are not perfectly rational beings that there is some equivalence between science and religion."

Well, I'm truly sorry if my language came across that way. That was absolutely not my intent.

Although.... I am going to push you a little bit on that statement. (In a friendly way, though.)

You say "that there is some equivalence". There's a lot of wiggle room in that phrase. I certainly didn't mean that the two ARE equivalent, certainly. Different methods, different goals, different ways of justifying belief (as we've been discussing). However, I did intend to suggest (as I've said a few times) that in both cases, decisions about what to believe are sometimes (and sometimes BY NECESSITY) based on "non-scientific" things like intuition, comfort, authority, what-have-you.

Now, if that's the "some equivalence" you're talking about, I have to ask -- why would it be "bashing" to say that both have this in common. It would be "bashing" only if 1) you think so lowly of religion that simply pointing out ANYTHING science has in common with it is inherently "bashing" science, or 2) you think there is something automatically BAD about the fact that some beliefs need to be based on non-scientific decisions..... which, as it happens, I do not believe.

#138 says "But since I've never said otherwise, I have no cat in this fight. :-)"

Ha! Very true. :)

And you're right about your suspicions, but I want to parse what you said very carefully for a moment.

All of those non-scientific influences that you mentioned are bad, and should rightly be excluded from science, when they OVER-RIDE decisions that *can* be made on the basis of simply evaluating the evidence or the logic inherent in a theory. This is where pro-science people will say, "Oh, sure, sometimes that happens but that's not capital-S *Science*, as it should be!"

And they are right. But I want to add an additional point, or twist (however you look at it). My claim is that there are times (in some fields, MANY times) when the actual scientific process CANNOT actually decide between two different but equally good theories. And in those situations, it's not "bad" to base your assumed "starting point" on something like intuition or wishes or biases... it is, in fact, necessary.

My ignorance is on display here. I didn't realize that a theory was the starting point. I thought it was the ending point --- until someone comes along and knocks it over.

I suppose that it can be necessary to select from equally probable ones a hypothesis that you want to test. But if you select on the basis of wishes or bias, I'd hope you'd work to design the experiments to try to cancel out any effect they might have. (Of course, the results would have to be replicable.)

In my non-expert opinion, intuition can be the result of a subconscious process of linking up information. I see no problem with taking it into account in selecting what hypotheses to test.

(OK, LT scientists, go ahead and mop the floor with me. :-) I confess, I scraped a "gentleman's C" in my science courses --- except for that anomalous B in botany.)

I missed quite a bit

Jesse - I have some general responses to your quotes - but they're only partially thought out. If I can work them out I'll post.

greg - It's true that science is imperfect. There is a human element that simply undermines the scientific purity, often by mistake. And the scientific mechanisms have limits. But, what separates science is that it tries to take the human frailty out. In its ideal state, the pure science in concept, the science follows the data, has no bias in a systematical data collection, checks against the data, tests, tests, tests, and then follows the results to their logical limits, contributing to a greater understanding of the real physical world.

Also, in the peer review process of science the goal, and this the critical point, is in trying to stay close to that ideal concept of scientific purity - limiting the bias, avoiding misleading data, strengthening the verification, standardizing the data collection, etc. etc.

Religion will use scientific ideas where beneficial, but there is still a bias. I haven't worked this out, but as I see it there is a human instinct that craves a "transcendent reality", or something spiritual. Religious ideas must be applicable to that instinct, which lies outside reason, or they really aren't offering much. So, the religion begins with some kind of god, and then finds the arguments to support it and describe it. And then tries to evaluate what that means.

In its purist form, religion would avoid the whole logical mess, and apply directly to that human instinct - as healing source and/or a path and/or provider of that extra resolve and/or whatever the human psyche needs or craves.

So, while in practice there is a decent amount of faith in the scientific community - in its purist form, that aspect isn't necessary. In religion, it's fundamental.

I'll have to sign out for the night...

Message edited by its author, Aug 14, 2009, 10:34pm.

#135

Premiss R: We have no reason to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence.

It wasn't my choice of words and it's an awkward double negative that's hard to parse, but here is an easy proof : -- I have a good reason to believe that pink, invisible unicorns exist even though I have no verifiable evidence that they do exist, because if I did so I could prove to you that Premiss R is wrong. I do have one reason to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence. Therefore Premiss R is false.

#143

To borrow a phrase, there you go again. Please, this isn't the sophomore high school debate team. You could claim to believe that to try to score points, but it would for be a childish reason, not a good one, and you would prove nothing except perhaps that you are a loss for a serious response.

Btw, that's not a double negative. (It isn't difficult to parse, either.) An example of a double negative would be "I don't know nothing about grammar." That would mean that I know something about grammar. And I do. :-) Look it up.

To borrow a phrase, there you go again. Instead of thinking about what I wrote and coming up with a substantive response, you resort to personal comments.

There is, of course, a serious response behind my late night attempt at humor. Premiss R is false if there is one thing one of us has reason to believe in for which we have no verifiable evidence. I gave one, admittedly somewhat silly. There are plenty more, in fact many would reject Premiss R out-of-hand for being obviously false for that reason. Another example of a thing someone believes in without verifiable evidence is Premiss R itself (the original argument in #1).

Now it may be that the intent of Premiss R is to redefine the word reason to mean precisely "have verifiable evidence for". That would be a very non-standard use of the word reason, but say we allow it, for the sake of argument. The argument in #130 would then be

Premiss R: We have no verifiable evidence for belief in things for which we have no verifiable evidence.
Premiss S: There's no verifiable evidence for God.
Conclusion T: We have no verifiable evidence for God.

Which is a tautology followed by an example of begging the question. I am sure you didn't mean that.

It's official! The New Scientist declares

The notion "only scientific statements are rational ones" (implicit in so much western thinking) is not itself a scientific statement, it is a false philosophical one.

Actually, it's in an opinion piece by philosopher Hugh McLachlan. I started a new thread with that article as its topic.

141 myshelves says, "In my non-expert opinion, intuition can be the result of a subconscious process of linking up information. I see no problem with taking it into account in selecting what hypotheses to test."

Unfortunately, the subconscious can be very suspect in its conclusions because of known biases in the way it processes things. The subconscious is also what causes people to see faces in woodgrain, and shapes in static. The brain is fantastically good at being paranoid--a good evolutionary trait, to be sure; but not a good basis for finding out what's what.

142 says to me " It's true that science is imperfect. There is a human element that simply undermines the scientific purity, often by mistake. And the scientific mechanisms have limits. But, what separates science is that it tries to take the human frailty out."

But that's why I keep making a POINT of saying (from the comment immediatly before, 140):

"My claim is that there are times (in some fields, MANY times) when the actual scientific process CANNOT actually decide between two different but equally good theories. And in those situations, it's not "bad" to base your assumed "starting point" on something like intuition or wishes or biases... it is, in fact, necessary."

Sometimes, the introduction of non-scientific assumptions is working against the "ideal" of science; but sometimes it's not. Sometimes it a necessary part of the process.

dchaikin, I'm not saying "science and religion are the same". I'm not saying their goals are the same.

But you seem so loathe to admit that there might be ANYTHING SIMILAR ABOUT THEM AT ALL that it really starts to feel like a visceral bias on your part.

Come on. It's OK to admit that sometimes scientists must, correctly and as a part of doing science, take certain assumptions on "faith". It's OK to say that. It doesn't mean science is tainted or horrible. Heck, you can even keep believing that science is "better" than religion; there's nothing to stop you.

But you don't have to be so dogmatic that you need to refute the mere application of the word "faith" -- even in the limited context in which we have been discussing it -- simply because it offends you so badly.

(Sorry if I'm caricaturing your position; I'm trying to make a point)

greg,

You have done a great job explaining the role of faith in science. There does seem to be an allergic reaction to any words that might be tainted by religion. You wouldn't believe the trouble we had a while ago with the word "believe" (apparently any self respecting atheist scientist doesn't "believe" anything).

It's a while ago, but did you catch the article by Paul Davies in the NYT titled Taking Science on Faith?

#145

Oh, was that late night humor? I don't think Jon Stewart & Stephen Colbert need to worry too much. Maybe I should have realized that the statement that you find it difficult to parse a sentence written in plain English was a joke, since you have demonstrated considerable fluency in the language.

I still wonder why you would lapse into posting such nonsense, even at a late hour. You started a serious discussion. You've gotten a large number of serious responses. Perhaps you didn't like them, but you really can't insist that people accept your or Haught's (or for that matter, Dawkins') premises expressed in post #1.

I took a shot at revising the rrp/Haught points, leaving out what is apparently directed at statements by Dawkins which I and some others are not interested in defending. I can think of psychological reasons for people to believe things for which there is no verifiable evidence. Perhaps I should have said that there is no philosophical or epistemological reason to accept an assertion for which no verifiable evidence has been adduced.

#146

Nice to hear that The New Scientist agrees, or McLachlan agrees, with what I've been saying all along. I'll have to read that piece when I get time.

One reason I may be allergic to the equating of science and religion is that the Intelligent Design crowd want to say that science and religion are the same. I don't have any problem with saying that certain aspects of science and religion might be similar, but then certain aspects of any two human activities are similar, the question is how similar and the IDers aren't known for their subtlety.

Briefly, yet again: science and religion do not deal with the same questions. Science is particularly unsuited to answer religious questions, the metaphysics. Religion is particularly unable to address scientific questions, the physics. They deal with two separate and distinct kingdoms of questions. Trying to make science answer religious questions or make religion answer science questions is like boring a hole in a tree, inserting a food pump, and believing you are feeding the tree and then being mad when the tree dies. It just doesn't work.

I pretty much agree with geneg.

Who says (other thread) there aren't miracles? :-)

Does this page have any bearing on the topic?

#147: why do you need to apply the word "faith" at all? Faith is a heavily loaded word; a simple search on Google for faith comes up in the first page with "Faith.com: Ultimate Online Destination for Spirituality", faith.edu "Faith Baptist Bible College", "Boston Faith & Justice Network" ("Christians seeking God’s justice as an expression of faith and love."), "Welcome to FaithFirst.com!" ("Faith First Legacy Edition Parish has been awarded the 2007 First Place Award for Best Educational Books by the Catholic Press Association."), and "CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Faith
In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word means essentially steadfastness. As signifying man's attitude towards God it means trustfulness or fiducia." Oh, and Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, dictionary.reference.com and Faith Hill's website. Or Google Books, the first three listing it comes up with are The end of faith: religion, terror, and the future of reason, This Far by Faith: Stories from the African American Religious Experience, and The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity.

Whatever other meanings it may have, it's saturated with religious meaning. So naturally when you toss it out there, it's treated as a hot potato, and fairly so IMO. Trying to force it on the people you're discussing with isn't trying for understanding; it's a debater's trick.

#147 greg - you're right, I'm uncomfortable using the word faith in regards to science...maybe irrationally so.
#154 prosfilaes - I mostly agree. I think it's misleading.

I pretty much agree with geneg (#151) too. There are good sentiments. The argument in 1-5 #1, and all derivative arguments ("there is no evidence", "you don't believe in the Easter Bunny ..." etc.) are all unsound.

Jesse (#153) that's an interesting site. Thanks for posting the link. The Transcendental argument is related, but the intent of Haught's argument is not to say you should believe in God because you believe in other transcendental things. That's the "offensive" argument. His is the "defensive" argument -- you cannot criticize belief in God on the grounds that it is not supported by evidence because you also believe in things that are not supported by evidence.

#154 Faith is indeed a heavily loaded word that has many positive connotations to those that believe. To those that use it in connection with science it precisely captures an intended meaning -- a belief and trust, a steadfastness, in a core principle for which no evidence is available, and so to them is both an appropriate word and a positive word. It's only a negative word to those that think that faith carries negative connotations. There are no language courts to decide the issue, but hey, it's only a little word and if it makes you think and address the issues it raises and promotes understanding across the divide, then I thinks its use is a good thing.

#156
I pretty much agree with geneg (#151) too. There are good sentiments. The argument in 1-5 #1, and all derivative arguments ("there is no evidence", "you don't believe in the Easter Bunny ..." etc.) are all unsound.

I just love the way you sum up, ignoring anything that doesn't help shore up your argument. :-)

Message edited by its author, Aug 15, 2009, 10:35pm.

156: But "you cannot criticize belief in God on the grounds that it is not supported by evidence because you also believe in things that are not supported by evidence" fails on many levels. For one, it's a tu quoque argument. For another, belief in God or the Invisible Pink Unicorn is a logically different proposition than the basics of epistemology. To turn it around, "you cannot criticize belief in Santa Claus on the grounds that it is not supported by evidence because you also believe in things that are not supported by evidence."

"To those that use it in connection with science it precisely captures an intended meaning". Yes, that of religion. Is anyone here confused in the least by the title of the book The Case for Faith: A Journalist Investigates the Toughest Objections to Christianity? Anyone really for an instant had to wonder how the title connects to the subtitle? The intuition of an atheist tells me that the instant that word "faith" is accepted it's going to get thrown back in my face with every bit of the connotation that was just denied.

If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time. ~ Bertrand Russell

And more Feynman -

Anyway, I have to argue about flying saucers on the beach with people, you know. And I was interested in this: they keep arguing that it is possible. And that's true. It is possible. They do not appreciate that the problem is not to demonstrate whether it's possible or not but whether it's going on or not. ~ from The Meaning of it All

#156. It is not a tu quoque, I think you missed the on the grounds part. The argument that "we have no reason to believe in God" relies on a premiss that "we have no reason to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence". That premiss is false. It is fails on many levels, one of which is that it relies on us believing in something for which we have no verifiable evidence. The argument would be unsound, whether the conclusion concerned God, Santa Claus or electrons. An argument with a false premiss is always unsound.

On the word "faith", did you read the Davies article? There are scientists that are happy to use the word, why not join them? They know exactly what they mean. They know that they are safe to use the word with no danger of anything being throw at them by the religious. To quote Feynman again "What do you care what other people think?"

So here's a question for you, rrp. At which point are you going to give up and admit that you're advocating belief, despite your protestations to the contray? The thing is, most of us don't mind your apologetics as much as we mind your half-assed dishonesty in explaining your reasons for constantly posting your apologetics. Dishonest people suck.

#160: "you cannot criticize ... because you also ..." is by definition a tu quoque. If it is problematic for you, let us limit "things" to concrete objects instead of epistemological definitions. Why don't you believe in Feynman's teapot, or Santa Claus?

What do you call African-Americans? Niggers? Coloreds? Words are just words, but some of them come with so much emotional weight that people aren't happy to use them. The fact that I'm very uncomfortable with this word and yet you can't walk away from it tells me that I'm right in not feeling comfortable with using this word here. It's not about other people; it's about how you're talking to me.

"What do you care what other people think?"

It's not so much that I care what other people think, I care what school boards think. And the argument that my faith is a different kind of faith than that religious guys faith is going to get us religion taught in the classrooms.

#163

Might even end up with chemistry taught as a module in a religion class. Giving equal treatment to alchemy, of course.

#161

I have never made personal comments about anyone yet have been the butt of many. I am not in the slightest bit interested in apologetics. I am interested in questioning the poor logic and argumentation of those that promote anti-apologetics (whatever the word is). The interesting thing is the while most people of religion are blissfully unaware of most apologetic arguments, there are many evangelical atheists who seem to delight in their anti-apologetic arguments. As they supposedly base those arguments on logic, reason and science then, in the good name of reason, logic and science, it is a duty to point out the errors.

#162

I think you missed the "on the grounds of" again. It's actually Bertrand Russell's teapot and I don't believe in it because it's silly. I don't believe in Santa Claus either, why would I need to?

On the word "faith", OK I understand you have an odd sensitivity to that particular word. Can you suggest another word, that means exactly the same thing, that you are comfortable with and we can use in its place when talking about its role in science? I'd be happy to use it.

There are numerous believers in religion on LT who discuss and debate religious topics. Some (including a fundamentalist or two) have asked if they'd be welcome in the Happy Heathens group, and have expressed their sincerely held views and sought to refute those of nonbelievers. No problem.

It is a problem when someone makes disingenuous arguments, poses as a humble, puzzled seeker-of-truth who has not formed an opinion on the subject, feigns wide-eyed innocence and an inability to comprehend what others say, frequently misrepresents or sidesteps what others say, etc. When done in the Happy Heathens group, it amounts to trolling. When done here or elsewhere, on a repeated basis, it isn't likely to win much respect from those on the same side or from opponents.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in apologetics.

Then why have you posted nothing but?

ref #169 reffing #156

QUOTE
The argument that "we have no reason to believe in God" relies on a premiss that "we have no reason to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence". That premiss is false
UNQUOTE

Hey! Not so fast there young Skywalker! Not believing in things for which we have no evidence seems like a pretty good heuristic to me. And we DO have evidence to support that "believing in things with no evidence is a weak move", and for its antithesis, that its better to believe in things that do have supporting evidence; so its not quite so self referential as all of that.

166> You don't believe in Russell's teapot because it's silly? Then do you believe in platypuses? Butterflies that depend on one species of flower that grows only in a 50 square mile area? George Bush? Jimmy Carter? The rabid swamp-rabbit that attacked Jimmy Carter? Lichtenstein? Wave-particle duality? the EPR paradox? Gödel? All of those can be considered pretty silly in at least one aspect, yet most people would not find that a suitable reason to dismiss the evidence for their existence.

I was off the grid for a while there, so have some catching up to do.

#169 modalursine

Not believing in things for which we have no evidence seems like a pretty good heuristic to me.

I agree. It's a good heuristic, but not an infallible rule. There are circumstances where it is necessary to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence. Science believes in things for which we can have no verifiable evidence and believes in those things with good reason. That was Haught's point and is the reason why the premiss is false.

ref #171
Science believes in things for which we can have no verifiable evidence and believes in those things with good reason

Sorry, I'm not following you here.

I'm not sure what "believes" means in this context.

In some sense "science" doesnt believe anything, it merely has hypotheses that are more or less well supported by evidence. That may be too austere a stance, since I suppose we can say that physicists "believe" in the conservation of energy (whoops! Make that conservation of mass-energy to account for Einstinian transformations). Whoops again! Conservation of mass-energy can be violated in the small and for a time interval according to Quantum mechanics, unless I'm mistaken, which of course I very well may be.

Also "can have no verifiable evidence" and "believes...with good reason" seem to be at war with one another. If verifiable evidence really is impossible to come by, then the whole theoretical structure is pretty dodgy to begin with.

I can imagine positing something say for reasons of symmetry (which is some cases might constitute "a good reason") or for some logical or mathematical or otherewise "good" reason; but then one wouldnt necessarily "Believe" in the something, and certainly wouldnt defend the something in the light of contradictory evidence.

Maybe a concrete example would clear things up?

#172:

This is a little esoteric, but it's a VERY concrete example.

In cognitive psychology, one of the "big questions" over the last half-century has been the relationship between perception and action.

Back in the day, the most common and popular theory was that things happen in stages: First you perceive a stimulus, then you react to it. And there were a lot of experiments that seemed to support this. (I won't go into detail here, unless someone asks.)

But then some new-fangled theories came along and said: you don't need to completely perceive something before you react... you can be gradually formulating your response WHILE you are still gradually figuring out what you are looking at. In short: the two (perception and action) can be going on at the same time, without a nice clean divide of "step 1 followed by step 2". And they designed experiments that seemed to support this hypothesis.

And then there was a backlash from the original camp, and so on and so forth. And we've come to a point (at least, as of 2000, when I received my Ph.D. in the matter) where the question is actually not decidable uniquely based on the available data.

Now, some scientists REALLY REALLY believe that stimulus-response processing is "stage-like", and they build their theories based on this premise, and they come up with predictions and show that they are true and so on.

And other scientists REALLY REALLY believe that stimulus-response processing is continuous, and they build their theories. But the fact is that both "frameworks" are general enough so that you can tweak the parameters and account for all of the available data.

In this case, if you are not a scientists working in the field, I suppose you can just say "We don't know."

But if you are a scientist working in the field, you have to have some vision -- some starting point -- for your research. You have to believe SOMETHING... .and you can't believe both. These are mutually exclusive hypotheses.

And so, there you are: you are a scientist who has to make a choice and believe a hypothesis about the way the mind processes information, even when that belief is NOT based purely on the evidence.

.
.
.

When you dig deep enough into the details of ANY field, you see stuff like this. It is really a flaw of the lay-scientist to think that the set of evidence ALWAYS selects a unique "best theory" at any given point in time.

Greg - I see the point a little differently. I don't think that what you describe reflects on the "belief" part of the sciences, at least as rpp intended. It mainly illustrates that science has limits. Where is rpp to clarify (or obfuscate)?

As I see it his/her point is:

"science believes" that the scientific method as currently practiced has value...

The "no verifiable evidence" refer to the fact that the philosophy of science is something like an analytical concept, not a testable hypothesis.

The "with good reason" refers to the fact that science has a successful track record in vast amount of different fields.

Message edited by its author, Sep 1, 2009, 7:43pm.

#174. I can't speak to RRP's intentions, obviously.

But this is one of my personal "red flags" that always bothers me in conversation: when "pro-science" people fail to recognize that, embedded in the legitimate process of scientific discovery there are many cases where you have to pick and choose among hypothese that are not decidable from the evidence. And the thing is: THAT'S OK. It's just the way it is, it's part of the process.

So maybe you're right about the intent of RRP... I do not know. Maybe I'm on a tangent.

But, when I see statements like "There are circumstances where it is necessary to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence," my reaction as a scientist is "Yes, that is true."

And I think we do a disservice to science when we pretend that it's not.

Of course, the interesting distinction between science and non-science seems to lie in the "there are circumstances" clause, right? ;-) But the statement, as given, is something that I believe is demonstrably true.

#173

Can you please explain that a bit more? I don't understand why you have to believe one or the other to do research. Is it impossible to design an experiment to try to find out which (if either) is correct, or if both are correct under different conditions?

#176: If your goal as a scientist is to develop an understanding -- a "working model" if you will -- of how the mind works (or at least, how it works in the specific domain of perception and action, stimulus/response), then you can't really remain agnostic on the question because it's so fundamental. The predictions that result from other assumptions that you make will differ. Many of the models in this particular field are mathematical or computational, and to formally define a "model" of how this works, your models has to do it one way... or the other.

The problem is that, there is a lot of "wiggle room" in these models. There are a lot of other "parameters" you can fiddle with. So the sequent of events happens like this:

group A: Here is our model! It it stage-like (and includes other embedded assumptions X,Y,Z), and it can account for the results of our new experiment that YOUR continuous model cannot account for!

group B: We have refined our continuous model by changing parameter M and assumption N, and now it accounts for your last experiment,... AND, it makes a new prediction that your stage-like model does not, which we have verified with our new experiment!

group A: Well, we have changed assumption X in our stage-like model, and now it CAN account for the results of your new experiment, while still remaining stage-like! Plus, we now make this new prediction.....

And so on. The thing is, these "frameworks" are so general that it's almost certain that for every stage-like model that can produce some set of results, there exist some continuous model that can produce those results. It's like Windows vs Mac. They do things very differently... but are both infinitely flexible.

Greg,

Thank you, you have done a great job of expanding on my comment that in Science "there are circumstances where it is necessary to believe in things for which we have no verifiable evidence." Science cannot get off the ground without doing so. I sympathize with your "red flag" reaction, it gets to me too.

#177

Thanks.

What I'm getting from this is that both have evidence; good evidence, replicable experimental evidence. (It isn't as if they'd had visions or mystical experiences or relied upon hearsay or something.) But neither has conclusive evidence --- which is often pretty hard to come by. Either might be right, both might be right, or neither might be right, in part or in whole. Individual researchers have found A or B more convincing (or better for getting funding? or more favored at an institution?) and believe that their choice is correct.

Can it be said that "science says" that either A or B is true?

Anyway, I'm beginning to think that I should up the ante when someone tells me I should believe in the supernatural. Good evidence might be helpful, but I'll need more. :-)

> 173 "But then some new-fangled theories came along and said: you don't need to completely perceive something before you react... you can be gradually formulating your response WHILE you are still gradually figuring out what you are looking at. In short: the two (perception and action) can be going on at the same time, without a nice clean divide of "step 1 followed by step 2". And they designed experiments that seemed to support this hypothesis."

I've pretty much known this, by my own experience, all my life. I have this rapid startle reflex (mostly to sudden loud and/or sharp sounds) which quite definitely occurs prior to my perception (hearing) of the sound. The time lag is very short, perhaps a tenth of a second, but it's there. And I never have the startle response without some kind of definite stimulus.

Could I have slow ears? :)

Back to Haught: he starts out saying that atheists demand evidence or proof.

Then he says: Therefore, since there's no scientific evidence....

How did "evidence or proof" morph into "scientific evidence"? Has he never heard of any kind of evidence or proof that isn't scientific?

As many have said, he's setting up a straw man.

Edited to close italics, and add a bit.

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 12:15am.

I think Haught's intention was not to set up a straw man (a version of the argument that it is easy to knock down) but to put some rigor into a family of arguments that are loosely characterized by the sentence "why should I believe if there is no evidence". By trying to pin down what that concept means, it is clear that it is an indefensible position. Everyone believes at least one thing for which they have no evidence. There are other good reasons, apart from evidence, for believing things. Having evidence is certainly one good reason for believing things, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient.

Or how about no good reason at all?

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

The Queen, of course, prefaced this remark with a suggestion that it does take practice.

#170

You don't believe in Russell's teapot because it's silly? Then do you believe in platypuses? Butterflies that depend on one species of flower that grows only in a 50 square mile area? George Bush? Jimmy Carter? The rabid swamp-rabbit that attacked Jimmy Carter? Lichtenstein? Wave-particle duality? the EPR paradox? Gödel? All of those can be considered pretty silly in at least one aspect, yet most people would not find that a suitable reason to dismiss the evidence for their existence.

Russell's teapot is silly because it was invented by Russell to make a point in an argument and because even Russell did not believe in its existence. We have no good reason to believe in it, because of its provenance not because there is not evidence for it.

182 rrp: Then there is Cardinal Newman's reflection on how even the most ordinary forms of reasoning involve something akin to faith. To use Newman’s famous example, how does someone claim that England is an island? He does so on the basis of a collection of pieces of evidence from a wide variety of sources, very few of which could be directly or empirically verified, He has to consult maps (the accuracy of which he must take on faith); he has to read books of history (whose testimony he must take on faith); he has to listen to a host of other people (some or all of whom could be lying).

In this process of coming to assent in the matter of England’s insularity, reason is certainly in play, but it is by no means the only player. Hunch, intuition, trust, hearsay, and faith are all ingredient.

And so it goes with any act of intellection, save the most banal of mathematical calculations. In a word, assent, even in this simple matter, is not simply reducible to inference. And Newman’s keenest insight is this: despite the lack of totally convincing inferential support, the person who claims that England is an island is not the least bit hesitant or vacillating in his claim. He makes it, on the contrary, with utter confidence. So, he implies, does the man of faith combine lack of surety and strength of conviction. Reminds me also (in an opposite way) of those atheists who don't realize they place a God of Science upon THEIR ALTARS.

Props on the discussion you are leading here.

regards

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 10:19am.

Greg, rrp isn't interested in the subtleties of scientific research, all he cares about is to draw a sign of equation between religious belief and a normal and necessary scientific activity. Dchaikin and myshelves already remarked on this.

Yapete has already explained the nature of scientific research to perfection (can't remember whether in this or other thread), to no avail.

You will simply see your good intentions abused, your meaning distorted, your subtleties trampled over. It's not a conversation, it's an inane verbal game.

#185 - well - one could sail around England/Wales/Scotland... or look at a satellite photo (anyone can do this)... or walk the whole coastline... I mean these things are "totally convincing"... just sayin'

#186 - I'm don't exactly disagree, rpp does play a lot of questionable games. But, the posts can get me thinking. There is value in that...sorry, I'm just annoyingly contrarian at the moment. I think rpp gets too much heat for someone who is able to get us to make, read and analyze 200 post threads.

I totally agree about Yapete's posts, where ever they are.

187: The satellite photo was not available to Newman but walking the whole coastline obviously was and that was his point -- we assent to most ordinary forms of reasoning on faith (not to mention living in cities). And what he said still applies, unless you feel your examples here deny the validity of his argument. Do you find the paraphrase of his argument untrue?

The analogy is poor. One thing is testable and only depends on communication that the test has been done. The other is not testable.

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 12:22pm.

190: Well the analogy was generated in the 19th century and, as your example illustrated, hasn't held up. I was inquiring though as to your experience with the argument Newman stated, i.e., do you find that you assent to most ordinary forms of reasoning on faith?

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 12:32pm.

Everything on faith or doubt to some degree. I have to have faith my life isn't a complete delusional experience, and that my senses give some real information, and that the processing my brain does makes some sense. But, sometimes I doubt that is true. And, if I heard a good argument why it wasn't true, I would listen carefully.

191> You're asking us to equate the faith that if enough reliable people say that something is true that it probably is with the faith in God, however you define it. The English language may use the same word for both but they are not the same in any meaningful sense.

191: A good argument meaning the doctor telling you your wife isn't nutz, it's really you kind-of-thing? Or a good argument that in the world of quarks and gluons there is next to no relationality to our macro world -- hence everything you think you know is tossed into an asymptotic soup -- what you thought was safe and godless is now... but I digress. (Just joking there)

193: You're introducing truth into the argument -- I don't think that has been explicit or implied in anything said so far.

But let me indulge you -- it seems you want one word for faith as in faith in God and another word for faith as in faith in science? Do you think Christian faith is different from the "faith" of scientists? Is faith opposed to reason? Do you see opposition or agreement in the two faiths?

It's as if you don't trust me here -- oh ye of little faith ;-)

Who knows who is reliable? You trust the "scientific findings of the American Tobacco Institute funded by Philip Morris? Fox News? NPR? The Wall Street Journal?

Faith is a very tricky word for Christians, much the same it appears to be for moderns (if you accept my examples above). Christians start to define it in the eleventh chapter of the letter to the Hebrews, where we find this : “Faith is confident assurance concerning what we hope for, the conviction of things not seen.”

The description seems to tell us that faith is a straining ahead toward realities which are, at best, only dimly glimpsed. It is, necessarily, a walk in the dark.

But we also notice that faith is anything but a craven, hand-wringing, unsure business, for it is “confident” and marked by “conviction” and “assurance.” So maybe we can get up and expect the bus to be on time and get to work without losing our jobs.

Consider for a moment great figures of faith from Jacob and Joseph to Mother Teresa and John Paul II: these are hardly people that you’d be tempted to characterize as vacillating and unclear in their motivations. For faith, there is always a paradox of obscurity of vision and strength of purpose.

When I think of scientific faith or the arguments of atheists rooted in scientific materialism, I don't sense that paradox at all. But I'll let you interpret that. Otherwise I'll touch that hysteria button you all seem to have here...:-)

jayd

#193

Quite. Faith in a geographical fact doesn't equate to faith in "the unknowable." If it were shown that England isn't an island (actually, I'm pretty sure it isn't, having driven from England to Scotland without crossing any major bodies of water), not many people would continue to insist that it is.

I think that science and religion use faith in different ways, under different circumstances, and to different ends.

Having said that, I think that the actual phenomenon of faith in both science and religion are pretty much the same -- or at least, they have more similarities than differences.

A couple of examples:

In both science and religion, when they are at their best, there are relatively few "fundamentals" about which you have faith, while the rest of the "details" can be questioned, tested, and so on.

In both science and religion, when they are at their worst, faith is something about which people get very defensive and angry, and which will blind them to all but a very narrow set of interpretations of the facts.

.
.
.

What is really a shame is that many on the "science" side are quick to look at the phenomenon of science at its worst and say, "Well, that's not reflective of the ideal of scientific process! That's just human egos and foibles gumming things up!" whereas they will look at the phenomenon of religion at its worst and say, "AHA! See how terrible religion inherently is!!!"

196> What is really a shame is that many on the "science" side are quick to look at the phenomenon of science at its worst and say, "Well, that's not reflective of the ideal of scientific process! That's just human egos and foibles gumming things up!" whereas they will look at the phenomenon of religion at its worst and say, "AHA! See how terrible religion inherently is!!!"

So, you're saying that science and religion at their best both have very few fundamentals of faith. In religion that's a belief in God, a First Cause, or something beyond materialism, depending on your religion. In science, perhaps the bedrock matter of faith is that there is order to the world and it can be discovered.

Are these really equatable? A big difference I see is that science seems to be universal in that every sane person expects gravity to work the same today as yesterday and that the food I ate today won't be poisonous tomorrow. Whereas, there is no universal agreement as to the nature of God or even if there is one (many Eastern religions).

#196

In science --- not that I think that science has any necessary connection to atheism, as I'm sure many theistic scientists would agree --- the details do get tested. But an omnipotent supernatural entity (using that definition) could as easily take the form of a shower of gold to impregnate Danae as be responsible for the virgin births of Buddha, Mithras, et. al.; could as easily give tablets to Joseph Smith as to Moses. How do you design the experiment to test?

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 3:39pm.

194> I don't understand most of that. It seems to me that you were setting up an argument that science and religion aren't that different. In other posts you have argued that moderate religionists and moderate atheist ought to be able to find common ground and I thought you were continuing that argument. If that's not your purpose than what is it?

196> But the difference is that religion tells us we must have faith, whereas science is telling us we must test. Haldane (a recent member of that family) said that the story of Thomas, where he was belittled for demanding to actually see the risen Christ before believing in it, is the most evil part of the Bible, and I doubt many scientists could argue against wanting to see some good evidence before believing that someone rose from the dead. But for Christians, to be a doubting Thomas is a bad thing; Thomas should have had faith that Jesus had risen. I'll point to the first page of Google hits for "faith", which include "Faith Baptist Bible College" and "FaithFirst.com". If a religious person said that "I know that Jesus will return in the next five years because I have faith", the discussion would quiet down; if a scientific person said that "I know my cycloctron will work because I have faith" he would get mocked for that statement. What ever the deep processes are, the culture of one accepts faith as a value, and the culture of the other rejects it.

200: you are EXACTLY illustrating what I meant when I said this:

"What is really a shame is that many on the "science" side are quick to look at the phenomenon of science at its worst and say, "Well, that's not reflective of the ideal of scientific process! That's just human egos and foibles gumming things up!" whereas they will look at the phenomenon of religion at its worst and say, "AHA! See how terrible religion inherently is!!!""

I have had discussions with priests and pastors of various denominations, and every one I've talked with has said that you SHOULD question the details, and that specific assertions like "Jesus will return in the next 5 years" are exactly the types of things that should be tested and only accepted (or rejected) after they are examined with respect to scripture and other sources.

In both theology and science the most sophisticated advocates will say: "There are grand fundamental assumptions that you take on faith, and you use your power of rational thought and examination to determine the rest."

But in both theology AND science you will get people who say, "I read somewhere that XYZ is true, and if you disagree then you are a bad person!!!"

Let's not pretend that only one side does this.

In both theology and science the most sophisticated advocates will say: "There are grand fundamental assumptions that you take on faith, and you use your power of rational thought and examination to determine the rest."

Which is what I was trying to address in 199. Can you address that post please?

I have had discussions with priests and pastors of various denominations, and every one I've talked with has said that you SHOULD question the details, and that specific assertions like "Jesus will return in the next 5 years" are exactly the types of things that should be tested and only accepted (or rejected) after they are examined with respect to scripture and other sources.

Is that before or after you test whether Jesus will return at all, or whether he rose from the dead, or whether the bible is a trustworthy source, or whether those other sources are, or whether the only true God is Ahura-Mazda, or whether ALL such ideas were implanted by thetans? (Also see #198.)

Using the "scientific method," or using reason and logic, all things are not possible.

With faith in the supernatural, anything is not only possible, but just as possible as anything else.

#202: I *think* you meant to refer me back to 197, in which you said (in response to me):

"Are these really equatable? A big difference I see is that science seems to be universal in that every sane person expects gravity to work the same today as yesterday and that the food I ate today won't be poisonous tomorrow. Whereas, there is no universal agreement as to the nature of God or even if there is one (many Eastern religions)."

I actually spent a little bit of time thinking about this, so I'm sorry that I did not address it right away. I think you're being a little disingenuous by putting faith in inductive inference up against "the nature of God", to be honest. :)

Let's instead compare a SPECIFIC science with a SPECIFIC religion. Christianity takes on faith that Jesus is God.... but not all people assume that Jesus is God. Cognitive Psychology takes on faith that thinking is a form of computation... certainly not all people take this for granted. Particle physics takes on faith mathematical models of particle interaction can contain many more dimensions than we deal with in our day-to-day lives and still be accurate.... I'd say most lay people either believe it "because the physicists say so" or just dismiss it as "too weird to understand."

So I think when you get into the details, articles of faith in specific sciences are no more "universal" than articles of faith in specific religions.

#203: "With faith in the supernatural, anything is not only possible, but just as possible as anything else."

So says an unbeliever. :-) But I think -- being an agnostic myself I'm not sure, but I *believe* -- that the theological response would be to totally disagree with this. Different faiths have different texts, different frameworks, and different methods. Whether they come from consulting scripture, prayer, or meditation -- constraints DO EXIST on what can be believed within a theological framework.

Of course, people can disagree about the details -- just as scientists disagree on the details of different theories. One group can say Leviticus was over-ridden by the new testament, another group can say that Leviticus was never meant to apply beyond the culture in which it was written, and another group can say that it still applies completely today. Other groups might even say it was mis-translated. But they still have a starting-point. It isn't a "we're just going to make things up willy-nilly" kind of thing.

At least, it isn't for serious theologians, anyway. That's my experience, at least.

Christianity takes on faith that Jesus is God.... but not all people assume that Jesus is God. Cognitive Psychology takes on faith that thinking is a form of computation... certainly not all people take this for granted. Particle physics takes on faith mathematical models of particle interaction can contain many more dimensions than we deal with in our day-to-day lives and still be accurate....

Here's where we completely part ways. I can understand the argument that I put forth that a fundamental principle of science like there is order in the universe and there is a god can be equated, although I don't agree with it, But something so much further up the ladder as a certain model of cognitive function is in no way a bedrock principle. I don't believe any scientist believes that with anywhere near the same fervor that religionists believe there is a god.

#206: Oho, but I'm not talking about a certain model of cognitive function! I'm talking about a philosophical view of what the mind IS! Mind IS computation. And there absolutely is ferver involved. It is a basic and fundamental assumption within modern cognitive psychology. The debate within the field is not WHETHER mental activity is computation, but simply what the details of that computation are (e.g. what are the processes, how is the data represented, etc).

And people who are not in the field who come up and say, "I think there is something more to the mind than just formal computational processes" are usually dismissed. (Either with "They don't really understand what we mean by 'mind'" or "They don't really understand what we mean by 'computation'" LOL)

So this is a bedrock principle within a particular field. I am drawing the analogy between that an something like the assumption of the divinity of Jesus, which is a bedrock principle within the particular religion of Christianity.

And although I'm most familiar with cognitive psychology (that being my background), I don't think this is an unusual type of thing. Off-the-cuff I suggested another example, as well, in physics.

Particle physicists and high-energy physicists regularly work with models of sub-atomic particles that are mathematically expressed using 9 or more dimensions. They debate and disagree about the exact mechanics, the exact equations, or even the exact number of dimensions -- but none of them questions that is it appropriate or possible for a model with more than 3 dimensions of space CAN IN PRINCIPLE describe the universe we live in (at least at that scale).

That is an assumption that is bedrock within that community -- and is just plain weird to most non-physicists.

199: I don't understand most of that. It seems to me that you were setting up an argument that science and religion aren't that different. In other posts you have argued that moderate religionists and moderate atheist ought to be able to find common ground and I thought you were continuing that argument. If that's not your purpose than what is it?
------
Well, to retrace steps: I posted in 185 to rrp and referenced Cardinal Newman's reflection on how even the most ordinary forms of reasoning involve something akin to faith. Dchaiken took exception to Cardinal Newman’s analogies which were decidedly 19th century. There was some give and take there as I persisted in saying, ignore the analogies, what of the argument. Do you accept the Cardinals assertion that most ordinary forms of reasoning involve something akin to the faith that Christians are employing in their faith in God. I explained the nature of that faith more fully. Tried not to use any quotes because I know how much that freaks you all here at LT.

You jumped in at 199 with the comment “You're asking us to equate the faith that if enough reliable people say that something is true that it probably is with the faith in God, however you define it. The English language may use the same word for both but they are not the same in any meaningful sense.”

I said truth wasn’t a part of the original discussion between myself and dchaiken (recall Tina Turner:What’s truth got to do, got to do with it?) but posted a couple of comments concerning your worry that I was going to hijack the argument into something that I argued on another forum. Kindly, I might add, always anxious to please.You’ve kept that up here saying you didn’t understand at all what I wrote in 194 and have demanded to know what my “purpose” is. Hmm.

You could just continue answering any of my questions in 194 on the nature of faith. As to what my purpose is, beyond having a discussion about the nature of faith, I can’t really answer you. I know what I believe about the nature of faith and have written a few things about that. Still don’t know what you think, except that you are very timid about sharing any of it without knowing what I’m going to say in reply. Don’t know what THAT will be but I’m sure I will say something horribly Catholic, something medieval no doubt. Shall I apologize for my stupidity in advance? Would that put your fears to rest?

It seems to me you have a couple directions to go here, namely that faith for believers and faith for scientific materialists/atheists is the same or that faith for scientific materialists/atheists is totally different. So a believer who is a scientist will tell you what I think about faith in the lab is completely different from what I think about faith when speaking to my priest. Or then you have your current position which is “I have no idea what you are talking about until I see the reply to what I’m not going to say.” Make yourself happy, friend.

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 8:52pm.

constraints DO EXIST on what can be believed within a theological framework.

Well, yeah. But the constraints, and the framework, are themselves a matter of faith. There are a lot of steps in there from the actual "starting point".

Starting point: Accept on faith that there is a supernatural entity.

Then, a few of the many steps after that:

Decide that the entity takes an interest in the goings-on of humans.

Decide that the entity is identifiable with one described in the bible.

Decide that the entity in fact inspired the bible.

Argue about Leviticus.

None of these necessarily follows from the first any more than to decide that the entity is indifferent to human concerns, or that the entity is Astarte, or that the entity never inspired any writings, or whatever you want to pick.

It's a helluva long way from the starting point to the framework and then to the details -- from "There is a divine or transcendent being" to a particular religion to "God hates fags" or "God gave Joseph Smith the Urim and Thummim to translate Reformed Egyptian" or "God doesn't want you to eat bacon" or "The Pope is (on certain occasions) infallible" or "You get 72 virgins if you die a martyr."

P.S. Of course the theological response would be to disagree. No surprise there. Try to tell a Fox commentator that there is no plan to kill grandma. :-)

209: says, "Of course the theological response would be to disagree. No surprise there. Try to tell a Fox commentator that there is no plan to kill grandma. :-)"

LOL. Maybe that would be the response. Maybe the theological response would be to say that it's not THAT many steps to go from the general belief "The Bible is an accurate representation of the word of God" to "God doesn't want you to eat bacon".

Or maybe the theological response would be to say that the same thing goes on in science (something like my argument in #204/#207).

I mean, take one of the more SPECIFIC hypotheses in a particular field of science. Something like: "Chromosomal telomere length is a major factor in symptoms of aging." Do you have any idea how many assumptions and "steps" it takes to get from the "basic assumptions" of genetics down to that specific hypothesis?

Neither do I. I bet it's lots, though.

#205 Greg It isn't a "we're just going to make things up willy-nilly" kind of thing.

funny, I was just having a discussion on Joseph Smith the other day...

#211: That's funny. I'm not sure if you're trying to imply some kind of point, though....? Are you implying that the existence of loony-toon sects like the mormons somehow discredits any and all theological thinking? Or are you implying that there are not loony-toon fringe groups in the sciences? Or.....?

dchaiken: Everything on faith or doubt to some degree. I have to have faith my life isn't a complete delusional experience, and that my senses give some real information, and that the processing my brain does makes some sense. But, sometimes I doubt that is true. And, if I heard a good argument why it wasn't true, I would listen carefully.
-------
191: A good argument meaning the doctor telling you your wife isn't nutz, it's really you kind-of-thing? Or a good argument that in the world of quarks and gluons there is next to no relationality to our macro world -- hence everything you think you know is tossed into an asymptotic soup -- what you thought was safe and godless is now... but I digress. (Just joking there)
----
So is the hebrews 11 quote apply in any way to how scientific materialists regard faith? Or do you use another meaning for faith as jjwilson sugggested earlier?

208> I don't have a lot of time to post, but I'm getting hung up where you say you haven't been discussing truth. You were discussing faith, but aren't they inextricably entwined? You have faith in something and that is something that you believe to be the truth. Right? You could also have faith that something isn't the truth, but that's still about the truth. Is it possible to have faith in something that you don't know is true or not? I don't think so.

214: Is it possible to have faith in something that you don't know is true or not? I don't think so.
-------
And you are speaking both for what you regard as the Christian notion of faith and for what the scientist brings to his idea of faith? I was intriqued earlier by your seeming to have a two tier system for faith -- one for the religious another for the scientist or the atheist who bases his faith (or lack of it) on scientific materialism.

I understand what it is like not to have time so you can pick this up whenever.

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 2, 2009, 11:23pm.

#210

You left out all the steps needed to get TO ""The Bible is an accurate representation of the word of God." You seem to have a little bias in favor of that story.

#211/212

loony-toon sects like the mormons

Some of the LDS doctrines don't pass my giggle test, any more than many doctrines of Jews or Muslims or Baptists or Catholics or Calvinists or others do. But I find the LDS beliefs no more loony-toon than those of any other religion (bar Scientology, if that's a religion) that you might name. I've also seen much that is admirable about many Mormons I've met, at least as much as with members of religions which teach differing impossible stories, and I haven't found them to be less intelligent or more gullible than the members of other flocks.

It bothers me that people feel free to single Mormons out for attack, where they'll tread carefully about offending members of "mainstream" sects who cherish silly beliefs and customs. There is at least certainty that Smith existed --- which is more than you can say for Moses or other figures --- and that he convinced a lot of people that he was telling the truth. Must have been an impressive guy.

If you are an agnostic, I don't see how you get to the point of deciding to whom and about what a hypothetical entity you don't know about might give tablets or messages.

#216 says, "You left out all the steps needed to get TO ""The Bible is an accurate representation of the word of God"."

Hmm.... well, I may not be the best advocate of this position, since it's not one that I hold -- I was merely providing it as an example. But I suppose for many Christians this may not be a derived assumption -- it may be a fundamental one. I honestly don't know.

Just in the interest of full disclosure, and in case my motivations may be mis-interpreted, here's a very short paragraph about me: I don't believe in God. I do believe in morality, although I would love to be able to derive that from physical or formal principals (a la another thread that I'm involved with somewhere...). I wasn't even raised with belief: my father is an outspoken athiest, and a professor of Chemistry. My mom is a Unitarian who was raised in Catholic boarding schools (which, she says jokingly, explains why she is not Catholic any more). I was brought up to respect the role religion plays in society, but I was not brought up with faith. I firmly believe that there are things in this universe that are miraculous in the sense that our current understanding of science can't explain it. But I firmly believe that there is NO ultimate purpose or meaning beyond that which we create for ourselves.

My real point of contention in this kind of debate is that I do not like to see anti-religious people placing science up on some kind of pedestal and pretending that it is IN PRINCIPLE better than religious ideology, or that it is somehow less subject to the more ludicrous aspects of the nature of man. I see people who express the same kind of prejudice against religion that they deride in the religious people they mock -- and I think it's hypocritical.

Do I, ultimately, think that the basic metaphysical premises of religion are wrong? Absolutely. But when I find myself dealing with "matters of faith" in my own scientific inquiry (e.g. "do psychological experiences actually represent objective properties of the world outside?), I'm hesitant to put them in some kind of "other, lower" category.

201> Mark 4:40 And he said unto them, Why are ye so fearful? How is it that ye have no faith?

Matthew 21:21 So Jesus answered and said to them, "Assuredly, I say to you, if you have faith and do not doubt, you will not only do what was done to the fig tree, but also if you say to this mountain, `Be removed and be cast into the sea,' it will be done.

Matt 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marvelled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

John 20:29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Rom 1:17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

I Cor 13:13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (ASV)

Etc., etc. Let me actually quote the Thomas episode in full:

John 20
24 ¶But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe. 26 ¶And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing. 28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

I'm not looking at "the phenomenon of religion at its worst" here; I'm looking at the sole source of dogma (sola scriptura) for most Protestants, and a major source of beliefs for all Christians. Show me equivalent quotes from mainstream science books, quotes that show that scientists consider faith a positive value.

That's my point; that whatever the phenomenon of science is in practice, the philosophy of science as accepted by scientists does not accept faith; in fact, I suspect many scientists have a blind spot about the basic epistemological foundations accepted as a matter of fact. Most philosophies of religion and religious people of various stripes accept faith as a value.

#216 says, "You left out all the steps needed to get TO ""The Bible is an accurate representation of the word of God"."

Hmm.... well, I may not be the best advocate of this position, since it's not one that I hold --
-------------
Just as an aside, Nancy, for anyone reading this forum and has an interest peaked by the exchange here (Gee I wonder how Catholics (for example) understand how God is the source of Scripture) an answer I have scraped together is here:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

jayd
Resident Catholic Nitwit/Moron

PS I do understand neither of you here care a fig so kindly pass on the opportunity here to deride/scorn/insult. I so thank you.

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 8:01am.

To Whom It May Concern:

Dr. Pauline Rudd is a Senior Research Fellow working at the Glycobiology Institute in the Department of Biochemistry in the University of Oxford. Her research deals with problems associated with diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis and hepatitis B. Pauline is also an associate of the Community of St Mary the Virgin in Wantage, Oxfordshire, and feels it is essential to integrate insights from the fields of science and religion in order to achieve maturity in either.

Here she is speaking on scientific discovery and religious insight, the similarities in both and how one can spur the other:

http://www.counterbalance.org/ssq2gr/pru...

Don't listen to this or consider it if you are of the opinion Faith is different for scientists or doesn't exist. Stay pure. Be yourself, a superior atheist.

BTW the page where the interview is has about dozen other scientists speaking to issues that totally fly in the face of what most of the posters here are saying.

-- But what do they know? Just another opinion, right. They don't have any FACTS. There is no EVIDENCE or PROOF. Who cares whether they are scientists?
--I know, I know.
--Get your worthless a$$ out of here jayd. Give us YOUR opinion. Don't you realize this is a conversation? Who asks someone to look at something else in the middle of a conversation? You ingrate. You thankless wretch of a human being.
-- I know, I know, I'm all of that I'm sure.

A cut and paste from my last forum. So spare me here, mydrawers, Nancy et al.

Sorry. Sorry to bring it up and rain on the parade here. I can be such an ill-tempered hopeless curmodgeon. I promise I'll just read.

Love,

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 8:25am.

Two thoughts here I'll try to get at quickly:

Greg - I have trouble viewing religion in it's best light, and science in it's worst light. For me, religion it it's best light is essentially very much like atheism, or at least agnosticism. While, science in it's worst light, is essential corrupted by human failure.

When I say religion - I'm talking about the religious norms. It's only when I say "philosophy" that I look towards some sort of idealistic perfection. When I say science - I am talking about it in it's idealistic perfection. Not a fair playing field, mind you, but that is how my gut instinct sees them.

My other thought was along myshelves post #216. Mormonism should not be discounted as a loony fringe, as it's fully adapted to the rest of society. If I meet a Christian fundamentalist, I get nervous. If I mean a Mormon, to me that's a normal person with an alternate religious view.

IMO the only difference between Mormonism and other major (non-cult) religions is that Mormonism has a recorded historical starting point. It all started with Joseph Smith. He was something like the Mormon equivalent of Paul. In that sense, Mormonism provides an fascinating look at how religions begin.

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 2:28pm.

#221

I think each side wanting to argue with the other sides weaker elements is part of the problem. The level of discussion here is mostly at the higher levels, so isn't the fair thing to limit discussions to the philosophy of science and theology levels? The atheists should take on the theologians not the "fundamentalist in-the-pews" and the theists should take on the philosophers of science not the "atheist who knows a little bit about science". That would be fairest, no?

P.S. I strongly concur with the LDS comments.

For those arguing that belief works the same in both religion and science; even if this is true what point is made? Is religious belief somehow validated by equating it with scientific processes? Or are you trying to illustrate that science is on the same shaky ground as religious belief when trying to explain things?

The intent of Haught's argument, in the OP, is to show that arguments against religious belief of the form "there is no evidence" are unsound. The "there is no evidence" argument, in it's many forms, is pervasive. We have seen a few here including the 'Santa Claus' and 'Russell's Teapot' arguments. They are all unsound, for the same reason.

I, for one, would never mean to imply that there is any more similarity between science and religion other than they both accept as true some things for which there is no evidence and that they both follow some common rules of reasoning. From there they appropriately do their own thing in their own way.

#225

As I said in #63, and in #181, Haught changes "evidence" to "scientific evidence" and proceeds to discuss science.

In discussing his book in response to Dawkins et. al., perhaps he doesn't deal with the requests for evidence from the respectable "old atheists," many of them philosophers.

#224 says, "For those arguing that belief works the same in both religion and science; even if this is true what point is made? Is religious belief somehow validated by equating it with scientific processes? Or are you trying to illustrate that science is on the same shaky ground as religious belief when trying to explain things?"

For me, the point of making this argument is to demonstrate that the notion of having faith is not per se the problem. A lot of people who are anti-religious try to justify this stance by saying that "faith" is inherently irrational or wrong or whatever. I think this is misguided. Usually, when you delve a little deeper, you find that the problem these people have with religion isn't the abstract matter of "faith" per se, but with either the way in which that faith is applied, or the specific content of the beliefs, and so on.

I think it serves to focus the debate more cleanly.

#224, p.s.

I'm sorry, I also want to add something else. I think that when anti-religion people simultaneously put down "faith" as irrational and unneeded, and also then act as if it is something that religious people do that scientists NEVER do, it is setting up a "playing field" that is both inaccurate AND inherently insulting to the other side. It is a very (and pardon this expression, in this context) "holier than thou" rhetorical strategy. Not to mention the fact that it's just wrong.

If you really want a constructive debate between both sides, why not start with admitting the things you have in common. It makes it much easier to find out where the REAL differences lie.

The difference between religion and science isn't whether any assumptions are ever accepted on faith at all. The difference is the content, the method of testing, and the types of conclusions.

At least, that's how I see it.

#226

Yes, Haught does change "evidence" to "scientific evidence" because, I think, he believes that the argument is then harder to refute, not easier as a straw-man. The same argument applies to the much simpler "evidence" version.

#227-228

Greg, well said again.

223> Part of my problem with that is that it's just not interesting. Theology has little to no relevance to my life, and is just something I'm not interested in. Religion, on the other hand, is something that gets bounced off my skull on a regular basis, that intertwines itself around the world and is hard to shake off. I'm more interested in discussing religion than theology in the same way I'm more interested in discussing diet and health than biology.

225> I think you danced away from the key points of Russell's teapot too easily. Yes, it's a hypothetical, but hypotheticals are frequently used because they're less entangled in concrete details. Do you believe that the Queen is a reptiloid? Given that that theory was created in good faith, why not? There's no evidence against it that can't be explained away...

#229

You think so? I'd have said it is the other way round. I find the philosophical arguments to have more weight and relevance. Haught appears to have more respect for them.

#230 says: "Theology has little to no relevance to my life, and is just something I'm not interested in. Religion, on the other hand, is something that gets bounced off my skull on a regular basis, that intertwines itself around the world and is hard to shake off. I'm more interested in discussing religion than theology in the same way I'm more interested in discussing diet and health than biology."

Then be absolutely sure that you state your arguments in that way. The problem you have is not with faith as an abstract thing, it's with the social phenomenon of religion. The issues you have are not with moral theories, the existence of God, or the notion of divinity.... they are with the way that people try to force their view down your throat, or impose them in legislation, or the way the bigoted people use it as a cloak for their bigotry.

When you start saying that Faith is the problem, or that belief in God is the problem, then you are actually straying from your point (as stated in #230). Your real problem is with the bigotry and closed-mindedness of people, or with the imposition of will on others, or whatever else people use their faith as an excuse FOR.

Be precise about what you are objecting to. IT sounds to me like it's not religion-as-belief-structure. It sounds to me like it's religion-as-sociological-phenomenon and religion-as-excuse-for-bad-behavior. That takes the debate in an entirely different direction.

I've been wondering where this leaves one in a discussion - if we buy into greg and rpp arguments. If someone says, "I have faith in a god who will send you hell, therefore..." ...how precisely do you counter that without taking a knock the "faith" bit.

I mean faith in science is used differently then it's used in religion. In science it's used because there is nothing else available. If you don't have faith in the scientific method, then where do go to prove something (non-analytical). In religion it's used because of the lack of available proof in an assumption needed for the religion.

Try in another way: On what grounds can we have faith in the scientific method - the experience that it works. And on what grounds can we have faith in a god - because my bible said so? Because it feels right?

Is this making sense?

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 7:00pm.

#233: I understand what you mean. And I think it makes things difficult when there ARE people out there who use the term "faith" to mean "I refuse to think about this, and I'm using faith as an excuse to stop thinking." Of course there are... but I don't think that's the only way to use "faith".

I've also gotten into very interesting discussions with people that have delved much deeper. Why do you have faith that God will send you to hell for X? Because of this particular passage in scripture. Why do you believe that that passage is really divinely inspired, rather than inserted by malicious people or by mistranslation? Because there is another verse in which they specifically talk about the completeness of scripture. What about the Council of Nicea? What about....? And so on.

And it's possible to really GET INTO THE MEAT OF IT. That is to say: it's possible with someone who is serious about discussing their beliefs, rather than someone who just wants to shout you down for being a heathen.

Yes, but what I'm getting at is faith has different applications. In science, the faith is in the sense that "I can't prove this, but my experience tells me it's probably true. So, I'm going with it." Where is in religion faith is in the sense that "The world is too complex for me to understand everything. I feel there must be a God, even if I can really explain. It's a part of intuition that is beyond my abilities to understand or explain. Therefore I have faith in god."

Do you see what I'm getting at? One is rationally driven - faith because experience; the other is emotionally/intuitively/psychologically driven - faith because I feel it.

In other words they are using "faith" in different ways.

#235. I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. I think you are caricaturing both sides slightly.

I'll try to show you what I mean by applying the same SLIGHT bias in the opposite direction:

In science, the faith is in the sense that "I can't prove this, but I think this theory is really cool, and it's the trendy thing that's getting funding money lately, so I'm going to go with it." Whereas in religion faith is in the sense that "I can't prove this, but it creates such a complete unified view that brings together experience, morality, purpose and meaning that it just makes sense to me that it is true."

To you, the above is OBVIOUSLY slanted, and I'm sure you could point out and quibble with it. But my point is, to someone who has the other opinion, the paragraph you provided is just as slanted.... in the opposite direction.

(I mean, even you should be able to acknowledge that starting off with "The world is too complex for me..." is biased AND disingenuous: most scientists would also agree that the world is too complex for them to understand or explain, why would you pretend that this is the starting point for religious people but not scientists?)

Faith as it appears in science and faith as it appears in religion both can be based on experience (examples in religion include: people who feel they have had mystical experiences, or people whose lived have been improved after gaining faith); and faith as it appears in science and faith as it appears in religion can both be based on emotion (examples in science include: pursuing a particular theory because it is "elegant" or "radically new and interesting".... which happens a lot, by the way). Nobody has a monopoly on either of these motivations.

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 7:36pm.

Only your science side is slanted :). Your religious side is saying about the same thing I said, you just said it better.

yes, I agree both are based on experience, but what I said still applies:

The scientific faith is rationally driven. The motivation may be funding, or coolness, or wonder, but the process is "I can't prove this, but it seems to be working"

The religion faith is emotional/intuitive/psychological - "it just makes sense to me this is true."

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 8:04pm.

Well, there we must agree to disagree.

My experience with scientists tells me that scientific faith is often motivated by emotions, intuitions, and personal psychology. (e.g. the cognitive psychology research who says "viewing the mind as a computational process just makes sense to me")

And my experience with religious people tells me that religious faith is often motivated by their own direct experience of what has worked for them or what they feel is working for their family or that it explains, in fact, their direct experiences with the world. (e.g. a person who's marriage and emotional life improved after he started studying scripture and praying every night).

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 8:11pm.

#238 - now you've crossed my divide (or at least it just clicked)...and you have me thinking.

#237 P.S. if you have not already, please go back and check out my #59. It's kind of annoyingly long, for which I'm sorry, but I spell out a very specific example of a case where scientific method doesn't allow for the decision between two alternatives, so people (in the field) choose one as a matter of faith.

Now, let me tell you something about that particular case. It is 100% and totally based on what particular researchers in the field feel "just makes sense". It has totally to do with a fundamental FEELING that some people have that "the thing that's cool about neural structure is that it CAN process everything continuously... and therefore that's how I think it works." (To take the example of one side.)

I know many of these people, and it has to do with "how they were raised" (i.e. the camp in which their dissertation advisor was LOL) and their ideology ("this is how the brain SHOULD work") and their emotion ("it's really cool to think of functioning in this continuous, distributed way!").

It helps to actually know these people. You learn very quickly how emotional issues in science really are, when you start talking about their basic assumptions.

#238 You've reached my problem in the other thread. When faith becomes a matter of psychology, how do you separate the two out. Religion is a form of therapy based on experience.

It differs from "scientific" psychology, in that the mechanisms are not systematically studied. But, it does not differ that much from the medical applications of psychology - when drugs are not used.

I'm still working on this...

As for #240 - but their ideas must work, or seem to work on some level. And, they must have hypothesis that is based on what is presumably "known" (i.e. scientifically proven). And they must go about "proving" their ideas in some systematic way. And they must allow someone to tell them they are wrong, and why they are wrong; and they must respond to that criticism... this is faith open to peer review.

#241: "Religion is a form of therapy based on experience."

Are you suggesting that this is how religion is used by some people? Or are you offering this as a definition of religion?

If the latter, then I'm sorry: you and I are not actually having a conversation. I'm talking about a system of thought that allows people to understand meaning, purpose, morality and a sense of connection to the universe. Whatever you think of these goals or how religion happens to implement them, you have to at least start by defining religion in a non-prejudiced way.

If you're going to BEGIN the conversation by saying "science is the abstract and noble search for truth!" and "religion is therapy" ... that's insulting, and it shows that you don't really have any interest in understanding what religion strives to be -- and similarly have blinders over what science ACTUALLY is (as opposed to what it strives to be).

Let me put it another way.

You don't appreciate it when anti-science people define science FOR YOU, do you? No,... you want them to use YOUR definition of science. Right?

Extend them the same courtesy. Please?

You will only really understand religion if you are honest enough in the debate to use the same definition of religion that religious people themselves use.

232> But what I'm objecting to is different from what I'm discussion. I'm discussing our relative beliefs and why we feel they're intellectually supportable. Perhaps in a different society, that would be less interesting to me, but as it is, I feel it actively necessary to be able to explicate my beliefs and understand why others hold theirs.

236> "most scientists would also agree that the world is too complex for them to understand or explain,"

Again, I think you're conflating two distinct things. I'm not sure that physicists would agree that the world is innately too complex for them to explain at their level, and indeed try for grand unified theories to explain everything. While biologists would probably agree that the complete comprehension of even one creature's DNA is beyond one mortal's mind, I would expect that many of them believe that with more information gathering, study and computers, that any particular problem should have a clear answer if worked on. Whereas a recent thread quoted Novak as saying that "The true God is beyond human concepts, senses, imagination, memory. On those frequencies, He is not reachable." which I doubt a scientist would admit on any subject.

#243: "Whereas a recent thread quoted Novak as saying that "The true God is beyond human concepts, senses, imagination, memory. On those frequencies, He is not reachable." which I doubt a scientist would admit on any subject."

Well, with that I absolutely agree. I think my reaction (in the posts to which you referred) was more to the deliberate slanting of the tone. To frame the "scientist view" as pragmatic and the "religious view" as inherently emotional is a stereotype, and certainly doesn't reflect anything INTRINSIC to the way either science or religion function in human society.

As to your first point.... I will have to think more about the point you are making, but in the mean time I can only appeal to you to try this exercise: assume, just for the sake of argument, that there exist at least SOME religious people out there who are calm, rational, and who believe in religion because some real experiences in their lives have lead them to conclude that it is the best explanation for their realm of experience. Set aside, for the moment, all of the people who use religion as "therapy" or who use it to mask prejudice or whatever else. Assume just that there EXISTS a religious person who came to that conclusion based on real introspection and experience.

Can you concede, first, that such a person may exist?

And if that person does exist, what do you really see as the fundamental differences between that person's "faith" and the "faith" of a scientist?

#242 I apologize, really. I tripped something without realizing it. I certainly didn't mean any offense. You are right, that is a bad starting point, nor is it where I intended to start. However, I don't think it's as offensive as you see it. Religion is a form of therapy - that is not a definition, and it was not meant to encapsulate all that is religion - I wouldn't presume to do that. But, it is a characteristic. Faith does things that help people, that make them feel better, that gives their life meaning. In part, that is therapy. See your own example in post #238.

But we're off topic, and I still haven't resolved my conflict with your post #238.

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 9:10pm.

#243: prosfilaes "I'm not sure that physicists would agree that the world is innately too complex for them to explain at their level, and indeed try for grand unified theories to explain everything."

Just a side thought, I think at least some physicists would insist the world is infinitely complex.

#244 greg And if that person does exist, what do you really see as the fundamental differences between that person's "faith" and the "faith" of a scientist?

Four things come mind:
- The idea the scientist has faith in must have hypothesis that is based on what is presumably "known" (i.e. scientifically proven).
- The scientist must go about "proving" their ideas in some systematic way.
- And they must allow someone to tell them they are wrong, and why they are wrong
- and they must respond to that criticism with a working hypthothesis... this is faith open to peer review.

ETA typo fixes.

Message edited by its author, Sep 3, 2009, 10:36pm.

244> that there exist at least SOME religious people out there who are calm, rational, and who believe in religion because some real experiences in their lives have lead them to conclude that it is the best explanation for their realm of experience.

Sure, I have no problem accepting that.

On second thought, and I don't have time to purify and clarify and argue with myself, but I'm not sure that person is religious. It probably goes back to my religious background, but my gut feeling is that faith is an essential part of religion; that a carefully reasoned out belief from experience, being it about God or the afterlife or whatever, is not religious until there is trust in the unknown or even unknowable.

> what do you really see as the fundamental differences between that person's "faith" and the "faith" of a scientist?

Process, testability and this last one is more debatable, but externality.

Wow.... I'm really sorry to do this to you guys (specifically especially myshelves, dchaikin and prosfilas).... but I'm going to have to duck away from this thread for a while. I have a flight to London that leaves in the morning, and will only have limited internet access while I'm there.

But this has been a really awesome discussion, and has given me a lot to think about. I really look forward to more discussions like this with all of you.

(I know it probably appears as if I'm ducking responding to the last two comments... which is a shame, because they completely make sense to me and deserve a thought-out answer. I simply am not able to do it right now. I'll see it as a cliff-hanger, at least from my point of view, anticipating when I'm able to come back... :-)

And if that person does exist, what do you really see as the fundamental differences between that person's "faith" and the "faith" of a scientist?

Might I turn the question around and ask the same of you, Greg?

#249

As Greg is away, I'll answer. In my opinion, there is no fundamental differences between that person's "faith" and the "faith" of a scientist". prosfilaes thinks process, testability and externality are differences, but those things are differences after the act of faith, not of it. No one denies that science has proceeds in a very different way to theology, with different goals and different rules for deciding what is true. The question was, at the foundation, is there any difference between acts of accepting as true things for which there is no evidence.

#226, #230

I would gladly return to the "there's no evidence" question and in particular requests for evidence from the respectable "old atheists" . I assume that "Russell's teapot" comes in that category. I didn't think I "danced away" from it at all, but please explain what you think I did in more detail.

I'll try to explain my view of that argument again. There are two propositions "God exists" and "The Teapot exists". Assume that these two propositions are of the same type (jayd and the theologians would disagree, but let's pass over that for now). Assume also that we have no evidence to support either proposition and that no evidence is expected. The argument would be if you reject the proposition "The Teapot exists" you should also reject the proposition "God exists".

What is missing is a hidden assumption. That assumption is that the only grounds for accepting a proposition as true is that there is evidence to support it. That assumption is false so the argument is unsound.

We have several other sources of information that we can use when deciding the truth of these two statements. We have, as given, that there is no evidence but we do have other things. Important ones are the provenance of the concept and how useful it will be. The provenance is very different. One is a very old and revered concept held by millions of people, the other is a concept invented in the 1920's held by no one. The usefulness is also very different. One helps many make sense of existence, the other helps some make a rhetorical point. These differences allow us to treat the two propositions differently.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 9:42am.

#251 - that doesn't handle the Mormon issue. The "invention" of Mormonism is well documented. Does that make it closer to the Teapot, or to the god concepts whose origins are lost to history? I mean just because we don't know the origin of the God concept is not a great argument to give it more validity. What if we didn't know the origin of the Teapot, what if its existence was a long and devoutly held belief?...

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 9:59am.

one problem for me is the large number of religions to choose from.

if i choose five distinctly different religions, i've got to make room in my head for five separate realities, on top of the "regular" reality in the here and now. everybody knows what happens when you have more than one operating system on your harddrive.

this problem of "how many realities can ya handle?" is widely examined in various Phillip K. Dick books.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 11:40am.

250, 251: rrp: No one denies that science has (sic?)proceeds in a very different way to theology, with different goals and different rules for deciding what is true.
----------
However both try to wrest meaning from our seemingly random existence or the random world portrayed by scientific materialism. Theology deals with man confronting his existence. Science deals with the materialism of the world as we find it. Granted we can’t have the same rules for both because they both belong to their own disciplines.

When Science wanders into the discipline of the religious and dresses itself up as a form of atheism known as scientific materialism it not only performs a disservice to theology (bringing that proverbial knife to a gunfight) it actually degrades the wonder and awe of Science itself.

For when we discover that our bodies are literally made of the star dust from the beginnings of time or that we are protoplasmically related to all other forms of life THAT becomes a magical moment IF you have the faith (and grace the Catholic Church would add) that comes from a religious point of view.

My question (which got blown away and distorted on another forum) is if all you can do is subscribe to a world view that only sees billiard balls (the purposeless random matter of the scientific materialist) haven’t you really debunked yourself?

All that grand intellectual adventure of science (star dust and protoplasm) ends with the statement that there is no intellectual adventure. For the mind of man has looked into itself and seen nothing there except complex chemistry, nerve impulses, and synapses firing. That big fat nothing, at least, is what the scientific materialist tells us that science has seen. Ho Hum.

One recalls Chesterton’s reflections on Evolution 100 years ago:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/fr-ri... or

the “Thought To End All Thoughts.”

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/fr-ri...

Now many atheists here subscribe to other intellectual constructs that allow them to generate awe and wonder – it may not be the Christian or Jewish God but it is some kind of power/presence/light/Joseph Campbell force or their life existence/whatever. For your true scientific materialist one would think this impossible. But until I find one I won’t be able to say I heard if from the horses’ mouth.

Then there are the terminally confused who say one thing and mean another (the other end of the horse). Can’t get them to shut up.

One would add here that many Christians (counterparts for the above or those who haven’t read Novak, for example) who lump all atheists in that scientific materialist bag and assume the worst.

It’s unfortunate because I have met many astute atheists who know how to communicate their beliefs. Then there are the goofballs who equate Santa Claus with God and sit around playing meaningless games intending only to scorn and deride people of faith. The smarter more sensitive ones realize that to live in the cosmos one needs to generate some kind of enthusiasm for it which can then become the basis of a moral code.

Care to comment rrp?

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 11:40am.

251>
"That assumption is that the only grounds for accepting a proposition as true is that there is evidence to support it. That assumption is false so the argument is unsound."
Tomás de Torquemada and the folks of Salem, Mass circa 1692 will certainly back you on that assertion. ;)
So if the truth of something can be based on grounds other than evidence should scientists researching the origins of the universe throw in the towel? The answers they seek have been in the nightstand next to their hotel bed for years.
Also, gregstevenstx in post 244 writes: "...assume, just for the sake of argument, that there exist at least SOME religious people out there who are calm, rational, and who believe in religion because some real experiences in their lives have lead them to conclude that it is the best explanation for their realm of experience. Set aside, for the moment, all of the people who use religion as "therapy" or who use it to mask prejudice or whatever else. Assume just that there EXISTS a religious person who came to that conclusion based on real introspection and experience." My question is, for those who have had experiences of this nature, are their religious beliefs based on evidence or faith?

MY experience with scientists (of which I'm one) brings me to conclusions entirely at odds with Greg's (let's assume, although I'm not at all sure it's the best assumption, that there isn't a vast difference in what Greg and I mean by "belief" and "faith).

First of all, it would be necessary, and certainly more to the point, to hear from theist scientists, and how THEY regard their religious faith, vs. their working theories.

I can't speak for that group. If anyone belonging to it sees this post, give us a sign. I can make a guess about some of my close friends and colleagues who are theist scientists, though, and I would bet my last cent that each and any of them would laugh with incredulity at the idea that they "believe" in their science (working theories, hypotheses, what have you) like they believe in their deity.

I don't understand how and why Greg thinks what he thinks (if he indeed thinks what he appears to be thinking! :)), and I dislike the idea of "translating" someone when I'm not sure of their meaning, but, on the chance that we ARE, in fact, on the same ground, here's my view: science is fundamentally opposed to and different from religion in its method. Whatever the attributes of individual scientists, their opinions, beliefs, habits, eccentricities, failings, failures, misunderstandings, talents, abilities etc., modern scientists have been trained to respect the notions of testability, reasonable doubt, evidence, proof etc. Whether we succeed in applying this training or not, whether we become enamoured of pet theories and stake our reputations on concepts that may or may not be true, or are refuted by somebody else's equally passionately sustained theory--that is of no importance whatsoever to the nature of scientific research, to what it ought to be.

A lot of what Greg says strikes me as trivially true. Yes, of course one has to believe that the theoretical framework is correct in order to design experiments within that framework. Although, I prefer to state it with plentiful use of "as ifs": especially in murky waters, it is best to remember that we are, in fact, behaving (and "believing") only "as if" this or that were true. Is this belief just like religious belief? Nonsense. Yes, when applying for grants, debating the merits of our work, we are trying to make the best case for it--we review reviews and criticise criticisms, and try to persuade the audience that the work is good, worthy, whatever--but is this faith-based, cult-building activity? Nonsense. Yes, there are factions in science, there are dogmas (although dogmatic pronouncements are far, far fewer than in the beginnings of the 20th century), there are favoured points of view, theories, powerful labs, and if you like metaphors, you can easily identify the Popes, the anti-Popes, the orthodox, the heretics, and so on. We do it all the time. I used to grumble about being a scientific nun in grad school. Does this mean I had a religious scientific upbringing? :) Nonsense.

If "fervour" is all it takes for a belief to be religious, where does that leave those of us with deep and serious political beliefs? Or any beliefs at all--about art, the weather, sports..?

As I mentioned already--nonsense.

edited for improved clarity... I hope.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 3:59pm.

All that grand intellectual adventure of science (star dust and protoplasm) ends with the statement that there is no intellectual adventure. For the mind of man has looked into itself and seen nothing there except complex chemistry, nerve impulses, and synapses firing. That big fat nothing, at least, is what the scientific materialist tells us that science has seen. Ho Hum.

What I don't understand is how believing that you were created by some guy in the sky changes any of that. Why does complex chemistry equate to ho hum but the same complex chemistry created by a mystical being become something else?

BTW, it's not ho hum to me, but I don't know how to explain that to you.

OK, I'm late to this thread, and I haven't read through all 257 posts, only the first few and the last few. Here's my two pennorth.

First, if you want an example of a theist scientist, they don't come much better (IMO) than Jocelyn Bell Burnell, the Quaker astrophysicist, who is incredibly clear-minded.

For my own views, I'd like to say this :

There need be no conflict between science and faith, outside the USA. We are creatures with a two-sided brain. On the one side, we are scientific - we analyse on the basis of evidence, we demand clarity and explanations, we calculate, and rationalise. This is as it should be, and it is an essential part of our nature which should not be demeaned by anyone, for if they do, they demean themself.

On the other side, we are artistic, intuitive, dreamers. We conceptualise and fantasise using our deepest imagination, and we hold things as a matter of faith. This is the other side of our nature, and to dismiss it is - again - to dismiss a whole part of ourself.

A whole, balanced individual uses both parts of themself. For example we use our rationality to determine exactly what parts of a thing is : proven, provable, or must (at least for now), be accepted on faith. And if something is proven, we often accept as a matter of faith, that that knowledge will be safeguarded for the best use of humanity, and not perverted by obsessives or tyrants.

We make these balanced judgements every day of our lives. It's what makes us human. I wouldn't have it any other way.

257 Well it doesn't, JJ. It's not the source that is the problem nor the construct (complex chemistry) but it is the ultimate nature of the discovery. One is adventure for whatever reasons I tried to indicate (didn't cover the "guy in the sky" option -- I try not to insult people, you see, rather a "people person" as I believe someone called me the other day) the other is meaningless random billiard balls of matter.

Yes, you should at least try to explain it to me. If it is not ho-hum then it has meaning. Right now you are emerging from a roomful of monkeys with the 2nd act of Hamlet. Who cares? Or "So what?" as the Rabbi said the other day. Just effing monkeys. How do you get to meaning from monkeys or billiard balls or whatever. I'm running out of analogies here. Am I getting any clearer?

May I suggest that I think you're not a scientific materialist. I think you are someone who is passionate about science and the scientific narrative, who dreams of unified theories and such and who keeps a closet God but you can't admit that to yourself because you might wind up looking like me, an old geezer santa claus mother goose homophobic wraith of evil. NO WILL ROBINSON NO!! NEVER!!!

Oh the hypocrisy, Will, the hypocrisy. How can you ever forgive yourself? Well, I could suggest a form of Christianity -- not that big a leap now....hehehe

your friend

jayd

258: Ah you're a good lad Tid...bless you.

St. Augustine: You have made us for yourself...Our hearts are restless until they rest in thee... We have been loved into existence.

OK I'll shutup.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 12:48pm.

#258

There's a specific question raised in this thread, about the identity of faith in religion and faith in science, that would need input from a theist scientist. I have quite a few of them around me, but I'm not going to ask them something I consider to be dumb and condescending. However, someone answering to the description of a theist scientist who comes across this thread may want to contribute.

There need be no conflict between science and faith, outside the USA.

There is a fundamental and unsurpassable difference between science and religion in method (this is the minimum difference, other could be added), and this in any geographic location in the world. The two shall never meet--on intellectual grounds. That a person can be religious, and a scientist, is trivially true: humans routinely accommodate conflicting interests and ideas in their heads, not to mention that the two are usually so compartmentalised, the problem of conflict becomes moot.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 1:06pm.

One more thing, Tid:

On the other side, we are artistic, intuitive, dreamers.

The other side of what? Don't be offended, but such cliches are a hallmark of someone who knows nothing about science and scientists. We are not called "artists", and our jargon tries hard to do away with "dreamy" intuitiveness, but intuition, a sense of beauty, and powers of imagination are as essential to scientific creativity as to any other.

I'm sorry if I sound sharp, but these silly artificial divisions, as false as they are noxious, always raise my hackles.

"There is a fundamental and unsurpassable difference between science and religion in method (this is the minimum difference, other could be added), and this in any geographic location in the world. The two shall never meet--on intellectual grounds."

This is the very point I was making!!

The scientific method applies only to science and the material world, but it is the right method for that - it deals with evidence and rational explanations.

Religion has no "method" as such. It is based on belief system(s) and the fact that it is not susceptible to scientific method does not of itself make it invalid. Only exclusively left-brain thinking would think that it does, and that is exactly what I was trying to say.

Intellectual grounds are not the only grounds. That's what makes art criticism so dry and often so empty. Great art must be met on another level. Nor is it trivial to say that someone can be both a scientist and have religious belief.

#260 - lass :-)

and apropos of nothing:

"...owners of dogs will have noticed that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they will think you are god. Whereas owners of cats are compelled to realize that, if you provide them with food and water and shelter and affection, they draw the conclusion that they are gods."
— Christopher Hitchens (The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Non-believer)

"The other side of what? Don't be offended, but such cliches are a hallmark of someone who knows nothing about science and scientists."

No cliché. The "other side" of the brain. Left brain thinking and right brain thinking, to be precise. I would not expect to see right-brain thinking predominate in science, though there have been occasions when intuitive leaps brought new insights (as you acknowledge). But post-insight, the dreary drudge of testing, re-testing, formulating proofs, looking for exceptions, MUST then follow.. as it should.

Religion has no "method" as such. It is based on belief system(s) and the fact that it is not susceptible to scientific method does not of itself make it invalid.

It makes it unscientific. That's the only point I'm interested in making.

Nor is it trivial to say that someone can be both a scientist and have religious belief.

I said this (that there are religious scientists) is trivially true because examples abound around us.

It doesn't make the scientific work of such individuals religious, nor their religion "scientific". I'm an atheist and I like rationalism, but I have a nagging suspicion (nooooo, not a full-blown superstition!) that Wednesdays are my unlucky days. Does this foible cast an astrological pall on all my scientific work, or do my scientific credentials render it scientific? :)

#265

Last I heard, the left side-right side brain thing is a bunch of bunkum. We'll have to ask Greg when he returns.

263: And, lass, if you were to port your scientific method into the religious world and begin pontificating on the nature of God, what happens then?

Would one be sponsoring a closet Science God while denying that such an animal exists? Could we tickle him out from under an atheist's pillow if, while he scorns other Gods, he confesses that his lack of one can still allow him to experience awe and wonder at the universe? If it's all just billiard balls, complex chemistry, nerve impulses, and synapses firing -- what's love got to do, got to do, with it? (cue Tina and the band, I want to go out on a song)

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 1:28pm.

"Religion has no "method" as such. It is based on belief system(s) and the fact that it is not susceptible to scientific method does not of itself make it invalid.

It makes it unscientific. That's the only point I'm interested in making."

I seem to be battling to make you understand my basic point. I'll try a third time : I assume you're not being tautological when you said that? Then you must be implying (why not say right out?) that anything that is not scientific is somehow "lesser" or "unworthy" - did you mean that? If not, what exactly did you mean?

Experiencing the beauty of Bach's B Minor Mass as a listener is not - for the live experience of hearing it - susceptible to scientific method. Nor does a listener to it have to be religious to appreciate the great music. It is what it is - a sublime creation of man, high art, capable of taking us emotionally and mentally, to a different plane.

Something that is "unscientific" is not thereby inferior. Unless of course it is trying to disprove or discredit something that science has satisfactorily proved already (in which case I would endorse the use of the term :-)

ETA italics that the copy and paste somehow lost

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 1:39pm.

>269 Then you must be implying (why not say right out?) that anything that is not scientific is somehow "lesser" or "unworthy" - did you mean that?

She didn't imply that, as far as I can tell. Are you reading your own prejudices into her posting?

and what is more, just because you got a dose of religion stuck in your head, why does that give you a right to go sticking it into other people's heads?

because, i'm not even sure you're happy. and going around replicating that junk like a computer virus...

271: YEAH! That's the spirit! Take that you sickos! Finally someone telling it like it IS. 270 messages of unremitting CRAP and Jen7r finally steps to the plate and takes a real cut.

Lola knows this dude over in England who would be perfect for you...

I'm on YOUR SIDE,

jayd

#269

Tid, apparently you haven't read my posts with much care--you are discussing with something I never said, nor implied. In fact, I've noticed before, in discussions I mostly lurked in, that you seem to have an image of a robotic "scientist", all left-brain and no aesthetics etc. THAT debate hasn't been fresh since the days of C. P. Snow's The two cultures--or come to think of it, since the Baroque-period clashes of Ancients and Moderns.

I'm not addressing the "value" of religion at all. I'm just saying religion isn't scientific. This is important, because the thrust of the thread (and the intention of the person who created it), is to equate religion and science. Most people seem to agree that religion isn't science, so now the agenda is to declare that science is a religion.

I'm quite capable of enjoying Bach on my own, and in religious settings to boot. Analytically and synthetically. ;) Again, your view of scientists and science is dismally reductive and off.

#270

Thanks, mvrdrk, for pointing the obvious.

ooooh the "agenda" word. That's where the innocent truth teller stands naked before powers dark and forboding. See "Conservative" agenda, "Gay" agenda, "Liberal" agenda.

LOL

Jesse I flagged your message as a joke. It was funny, you know.

#274 - I have indeed misinterpreted your posts, I apologise. I'm so used to feeling in the middle of a giant USA war between loony religious fundamentalists on the one hand, and aggressive hard atheists (always plugging the reductionist scientific view) on the other, that yes, I tend to see extremists popping out of the woodwork. I wouldn't want to imply that you are one, sorry if you thought I was.

#271 - who are you talking to, sorry, "at"?

#276: Who knows? I mean who was Jen7r talking to? She sure had a head of steam, though. Gotta love it. Mine was a Dave Letterman outburst, I guess.

I think you let Lola off easy though. My suspicion is that she is one of those hard atheists you were referring to.

She knows what rrp has tried to get people to respond to here but only criticizes it, calls it "word games" and never says why science, when it acts in the role of declaring what the nature of God is, isn't just taking on the role of another religion.

But not wanting to be condescended to, I've refrained from addressing her directly. Anyone who says "I'm a scientist." terrifies me, especially women. Except Bill Murray in Ghostbusters, whom I think captured the meaning of the sentence perfectly ("Back off, I'm a scientist."). I thought your questioning of her was legitimate though.

Regards,

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 5:15pm.

#276

The US is a special place in that sense, indeed (although the debate is becoming increasingly loud and relevant in Eastern Europe too, with the ascent of hard-line conservatives in politics. Hard-line conservatives always were in power in their churches, now they're getting a crack at ruling the whole society.)

A digression, with the mention of Bach--I got to thinking when and where I last heard some Bach live--two years ago, in this place. It is a tiny pre-Romanesque (probably 8th or 9th century, but some scholars think as early 6th century) church, with six semicircular apses, built on a sweet six-sided rosette plan. Bach is way too grand for such places, but a short two-person a capella concert didn't jar with the setting too much.

She knows what rrp has tried to get people to respond to here but only criticizes it, calls it "word games" and never says why religion, when it acts in the role of declaring what the nature of God is, isn't just taking on the role of another religion.

Is it just me, or does this not make any sense whatsoever?

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 5:18pm.

Nothing on 249, Greg?

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 5:20pm.

Oh Jesse, it's you, it's definetly you. You must have copied and pasted wrong.

CTRL_C, CTRL_V my friend -- you rush those finger strokes and you've changed religion to science or vice versa...

It makes baby Jesus's ears bleed when you tell lies, Jayd.

280: He's gone to London to turn the question around. Give the guy a break, will you?

272: Thank you.

276: i was addressing the, well, whoever it was that boldly said, *atheist delusion*. me not believing in Billy the Green God means i'm delusional?? ok...

but i will grant this: there may be something in the idea of people having a spirit (but by that i don't mean to imply that dogs and other creatures "inferior" to people don't also have spirits. my dog is ALL spirit, personality-wise. (sorry, caps)

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 5:50pm.

> 252 The existence or non-existence of the Teapot would have just about no effect on the behavior or attitudes of the believers in said Teapot. People do base some of their behavior, at least, on the religious beliefs they hold. So these beliefs, true or not, are important.

#252

I am sorry, I don't understand your point about "the Mormon issue". What has that to say to the argument that all arguments against belief in God of the form "there is no evidence" are unsound?

#255

It is interesting that you pick cosmology when you question my assertion that there are grounds for accepting a proposition as true other than evidence. Cosmology is one area of physics where such behavior is so common, it's almost the rule. Take string theory for example.

But you miss the point. It is not that we should "throw in the towel" and accept everything the evidence be dammed. It's that we should acknowledge that there are some things we need to believe in that we cannot decide on the basis of evidence. We need other rational methods for those decisions. They don't invalidate the scientific method, they are it's foundation.

#256

it is best to remember that we are, in fact, behaving (and "believing") only "as if" this or that were true. Is this belief just like religious belief? Nonsense.

I think that first part is a good description of much religious belief. Is this belief just like religious belief. It's nonsense to say it's nonsense.

#261

You are right that it needs a theist scientist to answer some of these questions. Many have written good books on the subject. I'd suggest the physicist John Polkinghorne and the mathematician David Berlinski. I am sure other would have others.

The main point I think they and all theist scientists would make is that it is a gross misunderstanding to say that "there is a fundamental and unsurpassable difference between science and religion".

Edited to Add.

Just to be clear, it's the word unsurpassable that's the misunderstanding; we are in complete agreement that there are fundamental differences. And how could I forget Paul Davies and this article.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 10:27pm.

#274

"This is important, because the thrust of the thread (and the intention of the person who created it), is to equate religion and science. Most people seem to agree that religion isn't science, so now the agenda is to declare that science is a religion."

As I created the thread, I can say with certainty that you are wrong. The intent is not and never was to equate religion and science. The original intent of the thread was to discuss Haught's argument against all the "there is no evidence" arguments. Haught's argument relies on the truth that some things in science are believed on the basis of no evidence. That is a point of similarity between science and religion, not a demonstration of their equivalence.

The problem we have is the huge reluctance to acknowledge that there is any point of similarity at all between science and religion. This reluctance seems to me to be mostly an emotional reaction. What ever happened to that great principle of doubt that enthuses science? Why can't you at least admit that there might be some doubt about the existence of a "fundamental and unsurpassable difference between science and religion".

#254

Jayd, I didn't pass over your post, just left it aside for further reflection. I must admit I found Chesterton's Orthodoxy heavy going but it has some good bits. I liked this from your "Thought To End All Thoughts" link

(Reason and Religion) are both methods of proof which cannot themselves be proved.

I have seen somewhere but forgotten where the comment that if you take rationalism and skepticism too far you end up falling into an abyss of madness. You have to be a Nietzsche to be able to to the edge of the abyss and not fall in (though some think he did). The rest of us mortals have to give in and take a few things on faith.

#286 - Ok, I suspect you're being a bit stubborn, maybe your just not seeing the same way I need. Try it this way - If there were a belief in a teapot, or some other tiny floating "celestial" object, one that was very dear to large numbers of people and had great meaning. If it wasn't founded in the 1920's, but the origins of it's importance to humanity were lost to history...It had always been very dear the humans and there were many religions based on praising it. if the existence of such an object were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school

Are you with me so far?

However this object had never been found and there was no evidence of it's existence. I should be careful to add that the object is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful equipment - maybe even out of reach in distance.

Now - we have equal provenance - right. So, we've taken that out of the equation.
Now, potentially, we have equal meaning. At least it's arguable.

Well, goodness, I've practically restated much of the Russel quotation in post #159, go figure.

Anyway, now go back to post #251, and review your last paragraph. The presented examples of "other sources of information" of have now been* nullified - actually they were nullified by the source in post #159. But, anyway, you probably have other examples

I believe the point of this exercise is that we can make up something that is largely analogous to God, and that is based on false pretense. And once we get there, once we know it's possible to come up with something that is god-like and that is treated god-like, but it actually completely drawn up from fiction - well, how does that change to discussion?

Of course, rrp, first you have buy that we can make that do that. So far you've claimed your unconvinced, and that has stalled the discussion. My first questions here are - Are you convinced yet? Why not?

*typo was here, now fixed.

Message edited by its author, Sep 4, 2009, 10:15pm.

287>
"It is not that we should "throw in the towel" and accept everything the evidence be dammed."
But once we establish that something is true via grounds other than evidence, (ae.g. God created the universe), why do we need to analyze it more than that? You made the point that we don't need evidence for this to be true. Any further inquiry into the nature of the universe indicates a lack of faith.

yeah but, why do you care about this so much?

it's not like Christianity invented ethics, nor morality, nor kindness, nor thoughtfulness, nor weddings or marriage, nor funeral rites, nor even God.

it just kinda took over those things - which were already deeply embedded in many cultures since time out of mind. and then it said most other people's ideas about God were wrong.

everybody else's ideas about spirituality are just chickenshit EVIL. (sorry, caps)

Message edited by its author, Sep 5, 2009, 1:59pm.

#293, The fact of the universe is absolute evidence of the existence of God. It is the only evidence we have. If God exists, He created the universe. If He did not, He is not God.

I can't believe this dumb-ass thread has lasted 295 posts. Sheesh!

ah, now we see some teeth from the pro-religion side. not only are everyone else's ideas about about spirituality chickenshit evil, they are also, apparently, sheesh dumb-ass ideas.

you see, your "evidence" is not evidence at all. if i say that my god is Billy the Green God, who are you to say otherwise? have some faith, would ya?

without proof, i can say anything i want about my god, and don't you dare contradict me. uh, he thinks you're a dope, by the way. he told me.

*falls at your knees* kidding! please don't kill me!

Message edited by its author, Sep 5, 2009, 3:42pm.

I think you're misreading #295, Jen.

oh. heh heh.

well, again, i have gone too far. my own best-practices advice to myself regarding this stuff is to keep it to myself, which obviously i didn't do, and no doubt, offended somebody(s).

i withdraw my remarks. i beg your pardons.

#292

I suppose we could go with your thought experiment. Say there was a universe where the Teapot had all the attributes of God and believing in the Teapot had the same function as believing in God, then the Teapot would be just another name for God. What then?

But, of course, as soon as you bring in the fact that the Teapot is known to be a fiction, that changes everything; it shatters the analogy and we are back where we started. You are trying to make an analogy between two things which are very different. The Teapot we know to be a fiction; God, we are no so sure.

"The Teapot we know to be a fiction"

Damn! I wondered why my family all got scalded bad at 4 p.m. this afternoon.

"The Teapot we know to be a fiction"

Uh, no. Not according to any argument that JayD or rrp have proffered so far. While the teapot may have been offered as an allegory, that in no way indicates that the teapot does not actually exist.

Thank Teapot for that! Perhaps they weren't actually scalded at all...

#293

I think you missed the point, I was not saying that God created the Universe. I was not even saying that God exists. All I was saying was that you cannot use the "no evidence" argument against someone who says that God exists, because that argument is bogus.

However, running with your comment a little. Say I someone did believe God created the Universe, say Isaac Newton. Do you think that belief stopped him from analyzing it further? Ask any scientist who believes, and they will tell you of the pleasure and wonder of discovering God's creation.

#301

From #292 to which I was responding, my emphasis

and once we get there, once we know it's possible to come up with something that is god-like and that is treated god-like, but it actually completely drawn up from fiction

If, in that Universe, Teapot was just another name for God, and we didn't know that it was a fiction, then the original argument applies. The "no evidence" argument used against someone who believes in the Teapot is bogus.

ref 239
All I was saying was that you cannot use the "no evidence" argument against someone who says that God exists, because that argument is bogus.

How can that be right? Surely "Extraordinarary claims call for extraordirary evidence" ?

If someone says the world (the earth) was always here or if they say the world wasnt here before some year in the past, we would neither believe nor disbelieve until we had seen or heard some evidence to support the claim?

At least some believers must assent to the proposition that evidence is required because so many have tried to present what they conceive to be evidence.

If one says that the universe and everything in it was created by a powerful intelligence for some divine purpose and that human history has a goal and is guided by that supreme power towards some particularl end; well, why should anyone pay attention to that without evidence?

You may of course believe anything you like, but why should I or how could I take your claim seriously if you admit up front that there's no objective evidence for your claims?

It may depend upon the purpose for using the argument.

You cannot use the "no evidence" argument to convince any and all believers that they are wrong. (Of course, some have been convinced.)

But you can use it if someone maintains that others should believe, or that belief in God is a rational position.

I'm reminded of a revival meeting I attended. The revivalist began with: "Brothers and sisters, do you believe?!" "Yes" shouted many in the crowd. "How dare you?!" responded the preacher, Orson Scott Card. "How dare you say 'yes, I believe', without asking 'In what?'"

The obvious questions are "What is God?" and next "Why should I believe that?"

Message edited by its author, Sep 5, 2009, 6:27pm.

We come back - yet again - to the usually-overlooked mystical tradition. Here there are spiritual practices, e.g. meditation and the like. These may lead nowhere, in which case the practitioner is entitled to say "no evidence" and retreat.

Or they may lead to Zen-like enlightenment, in which case the practitioner is entitled to say "Aha! There's the evidence I wanted / needed / lacked / doubted / (whatever)".

However, the one who experiences enlightenment is not able to convince anyone else, because enlightenment is - by definition - purely subjective. It has to be experienced, not argued.

So with mysticism, there is no argument (what argument can be made?) and there is no evidence outside "what I myself experience".

But as mystical experience provides pretty much the ONLY evidence for religion, or at least, the only evidence that would stand up as empirical and practical, e.g. that a scientist might be happy with, it seems baffling that it is such a neglected art. It makes me wonder if actually, the "average" religious believer really wants evidence, or is simply happy to jog along with a kind of blind unquestioning faith?

Tid,

I agree with that, but would point out that it is not only scientists who require more proof than someone's personal experience.

#299: part of the reason I said you were dancing around the point was because the teapot is a hypothetical, a thought experiment. To some extent, I'll accept #251 as a genuine argument, but I feel you're too quick to dismiss the teapot as fiction. I think the bounds of the discussion of the hypothetical teapot demand you accept there's a serious proposer for the sake of discussion; I think a more interesting question is if it's a matter of provenance, what would it take for you to accept this teapot (in willow pattern, of course) really exists?

If you want to go entirely concrete, do you believe in reincarnation? If so, why not; its provenance is vast and great.

#307: I think you may underestimate the average religious believer. As an eleven-year-old Baptist, there were certainly mystical elements to my belief system; I felt I had personal mystical experience of God.

#310 - Yes, that's the evidence - the general human trend, consistent through time, to "feel" or sense a mystical experience of God. This is somewhat outside the point in the OP, which was carefully directed at the scientific method, and not "for" any religious point-of-view - although the OP may open a door in the "pro-god" argument. This evidence also has a major flaw in that the feeling is only proof of the feeling, not proof of what causes the feeling, and certainly not proof the feeling was actually caused by a mystical experience of God. To use the term batted about above, there is no "scientific evidence" for God (see post #71). But - it's evidence.

It brings up an interesting point - that it's very possible most humans may want, value and/or need something like a mystical experience with god. And it's clear humans can feel or sense the presence, fulfilling that desire. Yet there is not a shred of evidence to show that a real God has anything to do with any of this.

rpp - this is, of course, the point of the teapot argument. I don't recall which point that teapot was making, but your post #304 may close that argument. As the philosophies aren't based on evidence, but only analytical reasoning - God, Science and Teapot stand on equal ground. Except that science has one point for it, namely that we can prove, scientifically, that some value came from the science. We can also prove some value came from religion, but we cannot prove the existence of God had anything to do with it. There is a an argument that God could very well be a fictional teapot.

Have I opened something new up here for Haught? Maybe not.

Question:
"What do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?"

Haught:
"there's no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth..

rpp's first clause:
Science is the only reliable way to truth.

My Response:
Well, that's asking the impossible from science. The word "only" is a killer. Also, you can't prove there is a Truth (If the universe is infinitely complex, there is there a Truth?) so you can't even prove that science is A reliable way to Truth.

But, this doesn't get to the point of the question. If there is no evidence of a transcendent reality, then how is it any better than the teapot?

Message edited by its author, Sep 5, 2009, 10:28pm.

301 Not according to any argument that JayD or rrp have proffered so far. While the teapot may have been offered as an allegory, that in no way indicates that the teapot does not actually exist.
----------

Jesse I have not written one damn thing about the "teapot." Are you substituting for gregstevenstyx while he's gone?

rrp: Hardly drawn up from fiction but from science itself. I'd prefer you say that my religion is drawn up from myth and narrative (Hans Urs von Balthazar) but the debate here is the residents of the forum denying what they are about.

Well there is the physicist on this page,

http://www.counterbalance.org/cqinterv/c...

Steven Weinberg, who presents what many of you advocate here: but when he finishes “What’s wrong with that? My answer is nothing, nothing is wrong with that.

HE is being honest. Because he is taking the soulless monster, waking up and creating his life – it seems to be an accident, but “we have to create meaning out of it.”

So he is creating his religion after the fact. He is doing it “on his own” as he says, he doesn’t “look to the universe for an objective explanation.”

As another says “if you love your physics the way others love God why give it a different name?” Once again Haught’s point that science is a de facto religion and Weinberg admits this (see Rabbi Kushner's piece)-- if the scientific materialists could muster the honesty to look at the horse’s mouth instead of offering the rest of us the other end of the horse maybe we could get a little honesty here instead of the pontificating hypocrisy we have to settle for.

Many here won’t give religion (or my questions) the time of day and absolutely deny that that is what they are doing (“There is no faith", they rail. "OUR FAITH is different." ).

The only thing I’ve figured out so far is that insult, derision, a pompous sense of one’s own superiority must be a part of the liturgy of this religion. ;-)

now that's going too far. pompous?

i reject Christianity on the grounds that i have enough difficulty dealing with reality as it is, without some other system tagging along on my brain paths.

but, anyway, i don't see why you can't just use religion for your own personal salvation, and let other people use whatever methods they prefer.

you believe. fine. why is that a problem? no problem.

i don't believe. fine. no problem there, either.

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 12:51am.

303>
Sorry, I wasn't trying to imply any beliefs on your part. I think modalursine and dchaikin in 305 and 311 responded better than I could. I would like to point out that when you make statements like "All I was saying was that you cannot use the "no evidence" argument against someone who says that God exists, because that argument is bogus." you put God into the category of ideas like leperchauns , Zeus, and Santa Claus(another long thread). Its no argument to compare an idea like "God, the omniscient super-being" to string theory or any other theoretical model. I don't think there are any true believers basing their faith on the "theory of God". "Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name; thy kingdom come; thy will be done, in earth as it is in heaven." does not sound like any physics lecture I've ever been to. No one ever told me that if I don't abide the laws of thermodynamics I'll suffer damnation for eternity. Science is a tool, a means to describe sensory observations. It doesn't make value judgements and it doesn't proclaim any ultimate truths; people do. If people of faith stopped attacking atheism through science we wouldn't keep having these "dumb assed threads". As I understand it, atheism is simply a denial of the existence of gods or a God. None of the definitions of atheism I've read mentioned science. The problem of belief in God vs. atheism is that neither side has proof or disproof. So the only avenue of attack and defense is through something that does rely on proof or evidence, namely science. One side builds it up while the other side tears it down both making claims about it that don't stand up to critical analysis. The argument should remain in the realms of metaphysics and theology.

315: Science is a tool, a means to describe sensory observations. It doesn't make value judgements and it doesn't proclaim any ultimate truths;
-----------
Were that only true, unfortunately the atheist contingent here regularly use it to refute the faith of believers, ridiculing them for lack of proof or evidence etc -- all based on the rigid scientific method.

We have the statement of Steven Weinberg saying that he uses his science to transform the soulless monster, waking up and creating his life – it seems to be an accident, but “we have to create meaning out of it.”

"None of the definitions of atheism I've read mentioned science." Dawkins uses evolutionary biology to discredit the Jewish/Christian gods Dennett other arguments from science. Who are you reading?

Christians do not tear down science. Atheists misuse it to construct their attacks on faith, all the while whistling through the graveyards of their own Gods. Your atheism is as religious as anything Rome offers.

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 1:24am.

HE is being honest. Because he is taking the soulless monster, waking up and creating his life – it seems to be an accident, but “we have to create meaning out of it.”

But that is exactly what several people on this, or maybe it was on the Santa Clause thread, have said already (except possibly for the soulless monster hyperbole).

314:i reject Christianity on the grounds that i have enough difficulty dealing with reality as it is,
----------
A perfectly good reason and I applaud you for it. You are the last one on this forum I would accuse of pompousness.

You're missing the other half of what he says, ...

So he is creating his religion after the fact. He is doing it “on his own” as he says, he doesn’t “look to the universe for an objective explanation.”

As another says “if you love your physics the way others love God why give it a different name?” Once again Haught’s point that science is a de facto religion and Weinberg admits this (see Rabbi Kushner's piece)-- if the scientific materialists could muster the honesty to look at the horse’s mouth instead of offering the rest of us the other end of the horse maybe we could get a little honesty here instead of the pontificating hypocrisy we have to settle for.

No one here has admitted their belief in science is a religion or admitted to Haught's view of the role of science in religion. Weinberg does (once again, listen to the Rabbi Kushner piece), they don't.

jayd

I reject your characterization that finding meaning in life outside of religion is creating your own religion.

>197 In science, perhaps the bedrock matter of faith is that there is order to the world and it can be discovered.

I actually had an “Ah-Haa!” moment when I read this. In general I have an extreme negative response to the use of the words “faith” and “belief” when it pertains to science (As rrp knows as I have argued this with him on other threads in other groups). But if you break it down to fundamental axioms I DO believe that there is “an order to the world and that the (physical mechanisms which define it) can be discovered. To date and to my knowledge it seems as though the “scientific method” is the best way of “discovering” this order - it seems to work, if I find something that works better I will change to that.

On the topic of this group – I would re-phrase 1-5 (as they apply to me personally).

1.) Science is most reliable way of approximating the truth I have encountered.
2.) I can only believe in things for which I have evidence.
3.) There is no scientific evidence for Goddess.
4.) I don’t believe in Goddess.

She may exist. She may have co-authored “The Book.” (whichever one you are partial to). But I, personally, have seen no evidence of such and I have seen no physical phenomena whose explanations are simplified by Her existence.

Having said this – if I die tomorrow and show up at the Pearly Gates (which I don’t believe exist) and shake the hand of Goddess Herself (which I don’t believe exists) --- how upset will I be? I’d think I’d be very surprised but not shaken to the core. I now have scientific evidence (direct observational data obtained by a reliable observer, myself) so no problemo, next question….

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 8:13am.

>59/240

You have brought up a few times now the question of what happens in science when you have two models that both stand up to testing but appear to be mutually exclusive.

In >59 you post (in relation to one of these conundrums) THEY CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT. But scientific method -- at least as it's grown up so far in the field -- can't decide. So how do you decide what to believe?

As far as I am concerned you don’t “believe” either one – you may use either one as a “best-working-hypothesis” for looking into it further. You admit that you don’t have the full picture and you keep working on filling out that picture – i.e. you do more research. (I don’t know that this “perfectly balanced but mutually exclusive” situation arises as often as you feel it does but I am in a different field.) If it is true that, for the example you gave in 59, Every time a "stage-like" model explains some new data that "can't" be explained in a continuous network model, a new network model comes out to explain it.; then what you are watching is that process in motion!

Scientists are always be looking for ways to disprove the current hypothesis and when people come up with new data that refutes it you MUST throw out your hypothesis and come up with a new one (a revised one) to account for the new data. The idea is to gradually approach the “truth” via gradually more and more accurate models – but you must never forget that they are models.

Possibly somewhere down the road a breakthrough will happen and someone will come up with a hypothesis that would bridge the two hypotheses (stage-like and continuous) and create a Unified Theory of Neural Networks.

Reminds me of Feynman’s story about when he was working out his theory on Beta decay. Basically he was working on this theory for a bit and wasn’t getting very far because a lot of stuff didn’t fit. So then he goes to Caltech and is getting caught up with 3 of the guys there about the current research and they say “The situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned – such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. Murray says it might even be V and A, it’s so messed up.”

Well, Feynman is off in a flash to get back to work because if it was V and A and not S and T then they theory could be worked out. So he works it all out and does all these calculations and its ok but not great because but this one thing is off by 9% - so he’s talking about it with they guys the next day and they say “What beta-decay constant did you use?” and they say that the recent measurements have shown that the constant being used was off by 7%! So they all hustle around and do their calculations to see if the 7% pushes it up to 16% (in which case Feynman’s theory is dead in the water) or down to 2% (in which case Feynman may be on to something – which he was).

(Turns out later that it was only off by 1% but for a reason that none of them knew at the time that was understood later by Nicola Cabibbo.)

My point is that the very process of science requires that you keep going back and questioning the things that you think you know – because everyone is working on revising things and winnowing down ideas so that we get a more and more accurate picture of how things work.

The first principle is that you must not fool yourself—and you are the easiest person to fool. So you have to be very careful about that. After you've not fooled yourself, it's easy not to fool other scientists. You just have to be honest in a conventional way after that. -- Richard Feynman

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 8:14am.

321: I reject your characterization that finding meaning in life outside of religion is creating your own religion.
--------
Yes, I know you do. That ain't no newsflash. You're probably the only one in the room (along with the other NW) But pray tell why? I know one of the characteristics of your religion is that "saying makes it so" but most of your inferior fellow men don't accept that. So put up or shut up.

One man creates his meaning by adopting what he feels is an objective view provided by the universe; another takes his view by a subjective view he patches together on his own.

The latter says mine is not a "view," mine is dealing with TRUTH, mine is better than yours because I don't buy into any jive BS, I don't fall for any of that Santa Claus old man in the sky crap.

The objective man says huh? The argument here is not about the state of the universe nor the validity of how you look at it but just the fact that you have a view.

Having a view is called religion. The view validates you, you see. It tells you whether you are dumb/smart, happy or sad. And MAN, do you have one, baby. You're worse than a fundie, in my opinion, when it comes to questioning yourself or others.

BTW What Portia describes above in 322 as method was how my Church developed dogma (but was bloodier.) ;-)

Regards

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 8:58am.

That's a unique definition of religion. Can you get anyone else to buy it?

BTW, I think you reversed who has the objective view and who has the subjective view in the above.

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 10:19am.

Having a view is called religion.

See, now we aren't allowed to hold ANY opinions (and forget about intensity!), without them getting labelled as religious. The more I think, the more I pray! ;)

#307

Tid

But as mystical experience provides pretty much the ONLY evidence for religion, or at least, the only evidence that would stand up as empirical and practical, e.g. that a scientist might be happy with, it seems baffling that it is such a neglected art.

As a matter of fact, I was thinking exactly of mysticism, when underlining the difference between science and religion in method. (As I said above, that is merely a minimal difference, and not very well phrased, but it serves.) In sufism, which interests me greatly, the clash between "the way of knowledge" of philosophers (scientists in our discussion, or anyone who prefers experiment-based, rational knowledge) and the believers (mystics) is a recurrent theme. Al-Ghazali devotes to it his Confessions (in 11th century). Clearly, it's an important problem for people who are intelligent, AND religious: is any mystical experience epistemologically worth a scientific one?

Personally, I would say the question doesn't apply because the two are entirely incommensurable. It's also worth noting that whenever a scientific exploration of mystical/religious claims was undertaken (the efficiency of prayer, the effects of meditation, reincarnation... of those that I recall), the results failed to assign or confirm any value to the religious claim.

As for mystical experiences being "evidence for religion"--I don't see how that may be. Epileptics sometimes have "religious" visions, we can even point out centres in the brain that are responsible for generating them. Scientifically, we cannot say that any and all mysticism isn't a reflection of our neurophysiology, rather than of some ineffable deity "beyond".

But, again--saying that mysticism or religion aren't scientific (science-based), is merely saying that. To some people that is worth a lot, and they will have no use for mysticism and religion; to others it's worth nothing, or nearly nothing, and they will continue to believe however they please.

324:

http://www.allaboutreligion.org/definiti...

Not so unique, there are many but "not one that can be said to be the most accurate." I'm simply saying that religion is a worldview that encapsulates what the person defines as his ultimate truth or standards for defining or judging what that “truth” is. You are the one flapping your ignorant gums judging what I am all the while maintaining this sanctimonious white coated scientist fiction of the “impartial observer” (ironic that your own science debunks this notion with an observer effect – showing you can’t even argue effectively on behalf of what you believe, hehehe)

Santa Claus has never been regarded as a "Truth" and to suggest by way of analogy that the Christian/Jewish/ Muslim God of the Old or New Testaments is equivalent engages the kind of inflammatory and insulting rhetoric that inspires certain Saudis to board planes.

Your religion is fairly easy to include in the umbrella because you are judging other religions to be silly or stupid if they refer to some supernatural being as a ground for their definition of truth. You exclude that from "fact" or "evidence" while you arrive at your precious sacrosanct "truths" and then breezily cite the scientific method as your standard. The hypocrisy comes when you claim that you have no truth or standard when everyone just saw you making your judgments according to such measures. I mean, like, HUH?

Then you wonder why the religious treat you like such a nitwit or a moron. Fear not, I am here to help. You, mydrawers, Jesse, modalursine, loadasalsa – I think of you now as my ministry. I’m here to heal your anger, hatred and rage. I want you to found an Atheist Church – oh wait a minute, you can’t. Any society of men needs to have a shared memory – and atheism can’t generate that for you. Hence the isolation I referred to on another thread.

Ah but perhaps my saving gesture, my reaching out to bless you all in the name of the Church of the Mighty Nitwits – could that be your founding memory? Let me humbly offer myself up as your first Saint. Why not? Joseph Smith could do it on a farm in upstate NY somewhere (or was it Cleveland?) Why not you guys over the internet on LT here? Problem solved. I could make collections through paypal…can’t have a Church without collections now. This IS shaping up splendid.

Objective meaning the cosmos generates an objective standard for belief subjective meaning it originates with man. Weinberg uses the same nomenclature BTW. Have you seen what I'm talking about or are you just yammering on from your own vast knowledge and superlative reasoning abilities?

Lola: If all you are arguing is that religion is unscientific and it ends without any value judgment, I'm fine with that. Couldn't agree with you more.

jayd

ref #306
But you can use it the "no evidence" argument if someone maintains ...SNIP... that belief in God is a rational position.


Omigosh! Is that all there is to it?

Its all a big fat misunderstanding of a very small point.

I have absolutely no beef with anybody who says "Yeah, I believe in (insert the creed of just about any religion) but not to worry, I understand that the belief itself is irrational and has no warrant in logic or fact"

If that's your position, Pax Vobiscum. May you dwell in the joy of the Holy Hippopotamus world without end.

Fear not, I am here to help. You, mydrawers, Jesse, modalursine, loadasalsa – I think of you now as my ministry. I’m here to heal your anger, hatred and rage


Good news! There is no anger, no hatred, no rage.

We all have our ways of coping with "the befuddling, contrary tumult of life, this mad swirling planetary disorganization, the Inevident Welter of fact, event, phenomenon, calamity"

I have chosen the way (so far as it can be named at all) known as "naturalism" "rationalism" and (non radical) skepticism. It seems to me to be a "true way", a "good way" and for me a "natural" way. I prefer to accept things if they appear evident but not otherwise without sufficient reason. My standards for what constitutes evidence are more or less congruent to what's done in the natural sciences. Repeatability, objectivity, falsifiability are the general ideas; but the devil is in the details.

So far, its "worked for me" pretty well. I've achieved a certain degree of ataraxia and hope to do even better as I progress along the path.

"My ways are the ways of pleasantness, and all my paths are peace".

I do of course have certain enemies, and if the universe would like make me happy, it could arrange to have some half dozen or so of them hanging from trees in my back yard.

Failing that "the best revenge is to live well". Take THAT you bastards.

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 6:12pm.

Then you wonder why the religious treat you like such a nitwit or a moron. Fear not, I am here to help. You, mydrawers, Jesse, modalursine, loadasalsa – I think of you now as my ministry. I’m here to heal your anger, hatred and rage. I want you to found an Atheist Church – oh wait a minute, you can’t. Any society of men needs to have a shared memory – and atheism can’t generate that for you. Hence the isolation I referred to on another thread.

If I need fellowship, I'll join a bowling league. I have plenty of shared memory with my fellow man, yet no need of "God".

326> My you do go on and on. I don't think you're even talking about me anymore but some strawman in your head.

#328

Yeah, I believe in (insert the creed of just about any religion) but not to worry, I understand that the belief itself is irrational and has no warrant in logic or fact

As a matter of fact, I was told pretty much that --- that there is no rational argument that will convince someone of the existence of God; it requires "the gift of faith" --- recently. I suppose that the gift arrives in one of those personal transcendental experiences.

If someone wants me to believe, I ask for proof. If you want me to dwell in the joy of the Holy Hippopotamus world without end, I'll want to know a bit about the HH and the evidence for her existence. :-)

Do we have a serious disagreement?

Edited to correct the post #.

Message edited by its author, Sep 6, 2009, 6:58pm.

ref #332

If someone wants me to believe, I ask for proof.

Yes, thats how I operate for myself, but if someone wants to believe something without reasonable warrant and freely admits there's no reasonable warrant, well, to each his own. I think that's foolish, but they think I'm foolish so we're even. Its a difference of opinion what makes a horse race.

Its the characters who have no warrant but want to pretend that they do who "bug" me.

330:I have plenty of shared memory with my fellow man, yet no need of "God".
----------
Shared memory with your family or friends perhaps but what "shared memory" do you have with any of your fellow athiests here, aside from a favorite post you made way back when?

No one is trying to convince you that you need God -- that's your decision, yours alone. As for fellowship, yes many bowling leagues provide more that do Churches (in my thin experience).

jayd

334: Its the characters who have no warrant but want to pretend that they do who "bug" me.
-------
And so that is why you promote scorn and derision of all believers, because a subset of them (fundies you call them) irritate you?

If you could simply say that religion is unscientific and leave it at that, think of how much easier life would be for everyone. This is not a debate about "opinion." "Opinions" are not world views.

When Steven Weinberg says this: "One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment," the accomplishment he speaks of is atheists using Science to promote a worldview. Note the same "intelligent people" condescension you suffer from. I've never heard a Christian say only "intelligent people" believe in Jesus but atheists never stop with the "intelligent" shtick.

Now most people of faith support science. Many don't. There are those who would take a literal view of scripture and use that to force science to be something it isn't. Those people speak of science the way you speak of the religious with your talk of no reasonable warrant or "asking for proof." They are the ones who promote the "warrants" you hate in the same way you promote your "intelligence."

You know damn well there isn't any proof. By restricting "proof" to the confines of the scientific method which bans the supernatural, which limits human reason and rationality to the computational, your argument is won. It's a stupid argument though, as has been pointed out to you numerous times.

Religion is unscientific. Can't it just end there, big mouth?

But NOOOOOOO. You can't acknowledge that religion moves into a realm beyond science, that as a discipline it acts as a cousin of science. You have a choice not to be religious as Dr. Weinberg points out. When you take that choice and smear your fellow man for exercising his choice, that's when you cross the Santa Claus line nitwit. You give atheism a bad name. Shame on you.

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 7, 2009, 8:42am.

331: My you do go on and on. I don't think you're even talking about me anymore but some strawman in your head.
-----------

I do, don't I? No, it's not a strawman but the atheist who can't admit what Dr. Weinberg does, that your science is a worldview, what others call "religion".

You use it to explain the whys in addition to the whats. I use my Catholic faith for the whys and science for the whats. Now fundies use their whys to explain the whats -- a no-no.

Faux atheists like yourselves say my whys are not the truth. How do they know that? Well they use the standards of THEIR truths. I live in a world where there are others who have other truths. Most of us get along through an ecumenical worldview that is part of our faith.

I'm deeply suspicious of those who say they have THE TRUTH. My experience shows Muslim, Christian and Atheist fundamentalism reflect this worldview and are intolerant of others. Many of you here, crossing the Santa Claus line, have demonstrated a fundamentalist mindset.

Message edited by its author, Sep 7, 2009, 12:49pm.

"As for mystical experiences being "evidence for religion"--I don't see how that may be. Epileptics sometimes have "religious" visions, we can even point out centres in the brain that are responsible for generating them. Scientifically, we cannot say that any and all mysticism isn't a reflection of our neurophysiology, rather than of some ineffable deity "beyond"."

Lola, you make some excellent points. And this is a definitely "grey" area, the area of neurophysiology and the precise identification of mystical experience (Karen Armstrong's childhood religious experiences were discovered later in life to be the result of temporal lobe epilepsy).

I'd make one very clear response to begin with : the average mystic (Sufis too, I'd not be surprised to learn) has little truck with an 'ineffable deity beyond'. The point of mystical experience is that it teaches those who experience it, that whatever truth is contained within the experience, it is IMMANENT and not "beyond"; that they are themselves a component part of "it" - whatever "it" is.

The second thing is that mystical experience, when anthologised and recorded (as best as something so beyond words CAN be recorded), there appears to be a common theme being expressed, a theme that transcends any religious system, or even religion itself - these experiences have occurred to people with no religious belief at all. The common theme appears to be one of "unity", i.e. there was very often a "moment out of time" when the one experiencing it described everything "being one, and I was one with it". No mention of God or angels or anything like that, just a temporary gateway or window into another world. Or rather THIS world, transformed.

But as most here seem to agree, science and ?metaphysics? (such a better word than religion!) are two entirely different systems, and neither one excludes the other as they deal with different causes, needs, methodologies, explanations. Science is best at what it does, and metaphysics fulfils something that science not only cannot, but would not.

It is no use though, me trying to promote metaphysical enquiry here, as those who are of a materialist / reductionist bent, will never acknowledge the need for any such thing in a month of First Days. That, of itself, does not invalidate it however.

Tid,

I don't quite see how someone could have arrived at a "materialist bent" without having engaged in metaphysical enquiry.

#339

There may or may not have been any metaphysical enquiry. Those who made such an enquiry and rejected it, will have their own, quite probably, subjective reasons for doing so. "Metaphysics" is something that requires an intellectual assent (or for some, an act of faith, though far less often than with religion, which is why I prefer both the word and the discipline), as without the kind of evidence that science demands, it involves the exercise of reason alone, without proofs.

Those who made no such metaphysical enquiry may have been brought up with "reductionism"; or they may have a dislike or mistrust of religion, which itself could be either rational or irrational. It depends so often on our conditioning, from childhood onwards, as towards what we incline or avoid.

ref #336
And so that is why you promote scorn and derision of all believers, because a subset of them (fundies you call them) irritate you?

Two small points here:
1. We dont scorn and deride believers, we scorn and deride absurd or patently false claims pretending to be
based on sound logic or on valid evidence, when they are not.

2. I understand that there are plenty of posters making similar points and that the various arguments and claims can seem to blend into one undifferentiated mass and that its sometimes hard to remember who said what. But if you can find the word "fundie" in my posts, you get a box of cigars.

oops! Gotta go. Much more coming later

#340

Those who made such an enquiry and rejected it....

I'm finding your use of terminology confusing. To make an enquiry is to investigate, to ask questions. I don't know what you mean by "rejecting it." Some particular result of the inquiry?

I find this definition: Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy concerned with explaining the ultimate nature of reality, being, and the world. More recently, the term "metaphysics" has also been used more loosely to refer to "subjects that are beyond the physical world".

My course in metaphysics was not at all recent, so I'm using the term in the older, non-loose sense.

#341: As far as I know, jayd808 and direct responses to him on the issue have been the only places fundie has been used.

341: "We dont scorn and deride believers, we scorn and deride absurd or patently false claims pretending to be based on sound logic or on valid evidence, when they are not."
-------------

Am I in the presence of the royal “we” here? How pompous. Beginning to sound like “Some of my best friends are black people.”

You initiated a forum that compared all faith to Santa Claus. You base your “sound logic” and “valid evidence” on the scientific method while denying your standards are in any way a creed.

But it is exactly the trap that Haught cited in the OP: You use “a hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It's a deep faith commitment because there's no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It's a creed.”

It's a creed, little one.

You could be like Lola and say "religion is unscientific" and keep your mouth shut. You could be like Steven Weinberg and say "One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from this accomplishment," and admit your science is a religion, a world view.

Hey you want to pat yourself on the back and call yourself the “intelligent people club” (although the brights might have beaten you there), go for it. I won’t hold it against you, in fact, I’ve come to expect it.

What I resent is your snotty, hypocritical, have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too assertion of intellectual purity. You deign to judge but claim you don’t. Please. Such horsesh*t.

“Recently the Templeton Prize, awarded for contributions to "affirming life's spiritual dimension", has been won by French physicist Bernard d'Espagnat, who has worked on quantum physics with some of the most famous names in modern science.

d'Espagnat says a spiritual reality is veiled from us, and science offers a glimpse behind that veil. The bizarre nature of quantum physics has attracted some speculations that are wacky but the theory suggests to some serious scientists that reality, at its most basic, is perfectly compatible with what might be called a spiritual view of things.

Some suggest that observers play a key part in determining the nature of things. Legendary physicist John Wheeler said the cosmos "has not really happened, it is not a phenomenon, until it has been observed to happen."

D'Espagnat worked with Wheeler, though he himself reckons quantum theory suggests something different. For him, quantum physics shows us that reality is ultimately "veiled" from us. The equations and predictions of the science, super-accurate though they are, offer us only a glimpse behind that veil. Moreover, that hidden reality is, in some sense, divine. Along with some philosophers, he has called it ‘Being’” OUCH.

Note that I take NONE OF THAT as the basis of my faith. I cite it to show that even your scientists can’t get on the same page on the ultimate nature of reality. I might draw some comfort from it. But YOU, manny moda, you want your answer as much as the 6000 year old earth fundie wants his. Lola and myself here see Science as Science and keep it where it belongs. Same with religion. Why not get off your high horse, renounce your evil past, embrace Santa as Santa, and play nice.

Jayd
Pastor
Church of the Raving Nitwits

Oh and "May you dwell in the joy of the Holy Hippopotamus world without end."

Pastor Jayd

"I'm finding your use of terminology confusing. To make an enquiry is to investigate, to ask questions. I don't know what you mean by "rejecting it." Some particular result of the inquiry?"

Well, since metaphysics is (mostly) about asking good questions, without hope of much chance of an answer - or at least of a PROOF - then yes, the "enquiry" is pretty much what they are rejecting. The implication of your earlier post seemed to be as much : unless you meant to say that "a materialist bent can only be reached VIA a metaphysical enquiry" ?? (Seems unlikely, but if that's what you really meant, then please say more about it).

ref #344
Am I in the presence of the royal “we” here? How pompous. Beginning to sound like “Some of my best friends are black people.”

Well, I suppose that if you dont like the use of the royal we, you're entitled to your dislike, but somehow the objection, or the expression of the objection, seems tome a bit hyper charged. Verging on argumentum ad hominem are we?

You initiated a forum that compared all faith to Santa Claus.

"All faith" is a bit broad, but yes, since I believe that
the "god of little old ladies" and the god ...I've defined that version of "god" ad nauseum... of those affirming belief in same in the Pew polls, among others,
is as fantastic, living only in our imaginations, as the gods of other now defunct religions or as various mythic folk figures (Santa Claus among them) I mention that, not to "deride" believers but to give those believers who want to know "where I'm coming from" some hint of my concepts along those lines.

Clearly, at least some believers, yourself among them, feel offended by that. I'm sorry to have offended you, but I really dont understand why you have a right to be offended. I havent said anything about you; I've said something about my beliefs. Why you are warranted in being offended by a belief that I hold; Namely that the "bible" god to speak quickly, if imprecisely, is as imaginary as all those other gods, and mythical creatures; quite escapes me.

If you claim to hold you belief on no particular logical or observational evidence, no problem. Go in good health.

But if you hold that your belief is warranted in logic or observation or both, then lets hear your evidence.

If you are saying that belief in the divine doesnt require logic or observation, we'll have to agree to disagree. I dont know how one could resolve that difference of perspective, at least not using logic and observation.

But if you agree that it does, and that we differ only on whether the proferred logic is sound or the alleged observations valid, then there's something to talk about.

Message edited by its author, Sep 7, 2009, 7:20pm.

Religion is unscientific. Can't it just end there, big mouth?

No, not by a long shot.

Literature is not "scientific", nor are the fine arts, nor
is the study of History, though I think the study of history would benefit from a bit more science here and there.

Even engineering, which certainly relies heavily on science for prediction, analysis and validation is not itself a "science" in that its goal is not to advance human knowledge per se but to produce useful artifacts.

So the question is not whether religion is different from science, but is religion nonsense like astrology and phrenology or valid in the way poetry and sculpture are "valid".

Tid,

My course in metaphysics included an examination of metaphysical arguments for the existence of a god or creator, refutations of the arguments, refutations of the refutations, refutations of the refutations of the refutations, ...

I don't know about bents, but I'd say that metaphysical enquiry can lead and has lead some to a conclusion that there is no reason to postulate the existence of anything beyond the material or natural world. Obviously, it has lead some to the opposite conclusion. I can't recall any foregone conclusions being part of the definition of the branch of philosophy. I also can't remember anything about reason alone, without the proofs. Reason is the means by which proofs are formulated, and refuted. Science is the study of nature, I believe --- another discipline.

Perhaps my definitions, and what I learned, are out of date. Fashions change.

#1

yes. you can learn something that way. the process of learning something in the absence of actual data, is described as indoctrination.

because of the absence of actual data, the learning experience for those wishing to be indoctrinated, can vary to a large degree, depending on where you learn.

therefore, those who do not wish to be indoctrinated must be delusional.

347: Religion is unscientific...

So the question is not whether religion is different from science...

---------

I don't think the assertion is "different from" as much as it is a negative.

----------

is religion nonsense like astrology and phrenology or valid in the way poetry and sculpture are "valid".

------------
You're moving the goal posts farther south. Back to Santa, I guess. I'm really not going to engage you in a discussion of my faith and astrology, as it is insulting and demeaning. Maybe you could engage someone else on that or on how black men can sing and dance better than white or how gays have better fabric sense, etc. etc.

Sigh. Poor Mondaslupaline, I guess I've lost you for good. Thanks for trying to keep up, but you've folded the whole thing back in on itself again. One go round was good enough for me. Best of luck jousting with those fundies.

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 8, 2009, 9:40am.

If you claim to hold you belief on no particular logical or observational evidence, no problem. Go in good health.
---------

Ah, dismissed by the master. Most (if not all?) believers hold their beliefs through faith, which is a grace of God.

You are the one who conflates your creed to conflict with the religious beliefs of others. You've yet to answer how you claim any authority in a domain that has nothing to do with the scientific.
------------
I'm sorry to have offended you, but I really dont understand why you have a right to be offended.
-------
Understatement of the thread. One of your most convincing arguments -- the religious have no rights to argue with anyone in a white lab coat. "Back off, I'm a scientist." (Bill Murray in Ghostbusters) LOL

Jayd-
You sorta missed part of my sentence in post 316. It went: "Science is a tool, a means to describe sensory observations. It doesn't make value judgements and it doesn't proclaim any ultimate truths; PEOPLE DO." I put that last in caps so you wouldn't miss it this time. Under the people category, I include Dawkins, Haught, and possibly Santa Claus.
As part of your contrition I want you to recite "Sulfur isotope fractionation experiments on marine and freshwater sulfate reducers, together with the isotope record, imply that oceanic Archean sulfate concentrations were 200 µM, which is less than one-hundredth of present marine sulfate levels and one-fifth of what was previously thought." five times a day for nine straight days.
+edited to add punctuation

Message edited by its author, Sep 7, 2009, 9:52pm.

>338 The common theme appears to be one of "unity", i.e. there was very often a "moment out of time" when the one experiencing it described everything "being one, and I was one with it".

Interesting, Tid - this actually struck a chord for me. I, as an atheist/agnostic (depending on your definition) have experienced something akin to this myself on exactly one occasion. I catalogue it in my mind as being one of the few, as yet, unexplained phenomena of my life - 15 years later.

I can specifically recall it after all this time. I was in college, un-influenced by any outside chemicals, and thinking no "great thoughts", walking through the college campus when for some, not fleeting (i.e more than several seconds), period of time it seems like everything crystallized. I had the sense that every single thing in the universe was exactly where it was supposed to be. Me, the grass, the trees, the buildings, my fellow students traipsing along the path, all the professors in all the labs. Everything, in crystal clarity, was just doing what it had to be doing, being who it had to be being - whether they were aware of it or not. For myself, I had the sensation of "Here is the universe, here is your place in it..." and I was occupying that exact place. It seemed as though my vision were sharper, my hearing was clearer, then it gradually faded away.

I can't say that anything radically changed for me after that - no sudden conversion to one religious sect or another. The concept of God seemed as alien before and after. Recalling the incident I don't have any particular "push" to think one way or another other than some mild residual "reassurance" that the "order" of reality marches on whether we are aware of it or not.

Thank you for recalling it to me (I needed a teensy bit of "reassurance" right now)!

Message edited by its author, Sep 7, 2009, 11:19pm.

Mike: Damn my reply didn't post to you. ANYWAYS: even with the extra clause I agree totally with you (why the contrition?)

Your people category may have Haught but Haught is a Catholic and has a religious worldview and is in no need to press science into that job.

Check out my morning post on quantum theory. A teaser: "The deeper questions in physics are bound to interact with the religious/philosophical assumptions of the physicist. So how do scientists investigating the fundamental nature of the universe assess any role of God? Mark Vernon, who writes science articles, did a little research and came up with the following..."

Five physicists and five approaches to the religious (and yes one is atheism, Steven Weinberg (which is how I found this little gem). But check out the other four.

You can find it here:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

regards,

dj

#354 - Thank you for sharing that experience. It has EXACTLY the hallmarks of what I understand to be a "mystical experience". The fact that there was no conversion to religion after it, doesn't surprise me one little bit. In fact, it tends to validate mysticism (for me). What it seems those experiences are (and yours too by the sound of it) is "a glimpse of underlying reality". Your description was perfect ... "I had the sense that every single thing in the universe was exactly where it was supposed to be. Me, the grass, the trees, the buildings, my fellow students traipsing along the path, all the professors in all the labs. Everything, in crystal clarity, was just doing what it had to be doing, being who it had to be being - whether they were aware of it or not. For myself, I had the sensation of "Here is the universe, here is your place in it..." and I was occupying that exact place. It seemed as though my vision were sharper, my hearing was clearer". (And then it faded away ... which is the usual ending to these accounts).

Why should a glimpse of reality convert anyone to religion? Unless you were to equate reality with God, there would be no reason whatsoever.

#349

" I also can't remember anything about reason alone, without the proofs. Reason is the means by which proofs are formulated, and refuted. Science is the study of nature, I believe --- another discipline."

I was insufficiently clear :

science : requires both the exercise of reason, and proofs

religion : reason is low down on the list of essentials, and proofs are non-existent

metaphysics (and philosophy) : require the keenest use of reason, but proofs cannot be adduced - or else it would be science, not metaphysics ... the grey areas being, e.g. Aristotle (the Father of Science), Bertrand Russell (Principia Mathematica, etc), and other places where philosophy bleeds into science.

>356 - Happy to share!

I'd go along with "glimpse of underlying reality" bit - that certainly is what it felt like - a shift in perspective. (Like when you are looking at those Magic Eye pictures and can't see anything and then suddenly something clicks and things jump out at you in 3D - only ALL OVER and involving EVERYTHING all at once.)

Although I haven't really read much about mystical experiences (and at that point had not read any - nor did the experience cause me to desire to seek them out - the experience required no particular action or explanation) when I was doing some reading on Zen over the last few years and trying to process some of what I was reading I did wonder if perhaps this is the type of thing that is meant by kensho.

As opposed to satori (or enlightenment) which refers to a "deep or lasting realization of the nature of existence", kensho is "not a permanent realization but a clear glimpse of the true nature of existence" which sounds ok but then when you read other descriptions things get wonkier ("a blissful realization where a person's inner nature, the originally pure mind, is directly known as an illuminating emptiness, a thusness which is dynamic and immanent in the world" - er, what?!) so I'm not sure.

Perhaps the difference is the words and concepts that people already have shapes how they describe/interpret such experiences. Perhaps if I'm studying in a Zen monastery I'm expecting a certain type of experience and so that it what it seems to me; If I'm a Christian deep in prayer it seems something else; If I'm an agnostic randomly walking along a college campus on a nice day...(?)

If I ever meet a Zen Master I'm gonna ask. (I'm guessing he'd assure me that it was actually makyo - "hallucinations and perceptual distortions".)

*quotes are from the various wikipedia articles

Sorry to rewind, but I have a lot to catch up on.

#305

Surely "Extraordinarary claims call for extraordirary evidence"?

Belief in God is too common to be classed as an extraordinary claim. It's an ordinary claim, a simple foundation of everyday life. Belief in God is one of a set of foundational beliefs which we have to accept or reject on grounds other than direct physical evidence. Everyone accept some of these, including some that support claims like yours. If you can construct a rational philosophy that logically generates claims like your one above, where every step is supported by evidence, then your claim would be sound. As you can't, it's not.

#306

You are partly right, the OP argument does have a purpose. It is a defense of "belief in God is a rational position". It doesn't prove that belief in God is rational, but does deflect those who would claim it is irrational because there is no evidence. And it isn't particularly useful in support of those who say you should believe in God. Other reasons are required.

#359

does deflect those who would claim it is irrational because there is no evidence.

Sorry, rrp. It doesn't deflect me. I still know of no rational basis for the belief. If you've mentioned one, I missed it.

Btw, saying that there isn't a rational basis for a belief is not the same as saying that everyone who believes it is irrational, in the popular perjorative "lacking powers of understanding" or "call the men in the white coats" senses of the word. Clearly, that is very far from true.

>357 If I ever meet a Zen Master I'm gonna ask.
You may get a koan for an answer, though, if you get an answer at all.

355-
If you're Catholic you must have something to be contrite about or you risk getting the evil eye at Confession.

From your article on quantum physics, from Polkinghorne the believer; “Physics is showing the world to be both more supple and subtle, but you need to be careful,” he says. If you want to understand the meaning of things you have to go beyond science, and the religious direction is, he argues, the best.

The phrase "the meaning of things" is key here. Here's a quote from physicist Heinz Pagels, which I extracted from Wikipedia:

"The capacity to tolerate complexity and welcome contradiction, not the need for simplicity and certainty, is the attribute of an explorer. Centuries ago, when some people suspended their search for absolute truth and began instead to ask how things worked, modern science was born. Curiously, it was by abandoning the search for absolute truth that science began to make progress, opening the material universe to human exploration."
—Perfect Symmetry: The Search for the Beginning of Time

Science is not a religion because it doesn't address the big "Why?". Believers and atheists should shift their argument to a different playing field.

#360

The emphasis is "irrational because there is no evidence". As long as you don't claim that belief is irrational for that reason, I am satisfied. Perhaps you can give the other reasons why you think belief is irrational.

#311

"If there is no evidence of a transcendent reality, then how is it any better than the teapot?"

If by "transcendent reality" we mean God and, by my extended version of the analogy in which "teapot" is just another name for God, then it's equivalent.

If the teapot is just a teapot, then of course God is much better. The teapot does not provide a foundation for understanding or a purpose for reality.

Message edited by its author, Sep 9, 2009, 9:33am.

355: Don't mistake me Mike. I'm not arguing for Science as a religion, far from it.

"Science is not a religion because it doesn't address the big 'Why?'. "

Exactly. The way it oughta be. But for our resident Santa Claus poseurs here, their science IS a religion. As soon as science debunks faith and offers itself up as the ultimate judge of reality, then it ventures into the domain of religion. Best to remain a cousin...

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.

The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. One cannot help but be in awe when he contemplates the mysteries of eternity, of life, of the marvelous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity."
Albert Einstein

The biblical materials for a concept of God do not organize themselves. They do not automatically arrange themselves into a satisfactory form. They achieve that form only when the human mind, seeking to understand its own faith, begins to work on them and to set them out in more intelligible ways.

The reasoning from the Scriptural sources of revelation to the nature of the divine has brought us several approaches to God’s existence. The great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, is famous for his five “proofs” of God’s existence but his proofs are not scientific: there are no calculations or verifiable experiments one can run to establish the existence of the divine. They too are approaches to the divine.

Adrian Nichols provides six approaches to the divine and Derek Jeter, unknown iconic representation of the famed Yankee shortstop, not to be outdone, kicks in a seventh.

More here:

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 9, 2009, 9:58am.

#364 rpp

:)

I wrote it that way for brevity and for effect. I thought the meaning was clear - I thought my definition of the teapot was clear, as was Russell's. The teapot is intended to analogous to God, except that it is a fictional human creation - the fictional part being unprovable.

Maybe I could have written: "If there is no evidence of a God, then how is it any better than something perfectly analogous with the exception that it is a fictional human creation - the fictional part being unprovable?"

(My aesthetic side rebels against that wording; actually I'm not even sure that is readable. I think my first, misunderstood statement was clearer.)

ETA - My point here is that you didn't answer that question because your interpretation of the Teapot as either 1.) God or 2.) just a teapot that does not provide "a foundation for understanding or a purpose for reality" is not correct. The teapot does provide "a foundation for understanding or a purpose for reality" - only it's humanity that unknowingly actually came up with how it provides that "foundation for understanding or a purpose for reality."

Message edited by its author, Sep 9, 2009, 11:10am.

#366

I get a little lost in these analogies occasionally. As I understand it Russell had the teapot as a ceramic object floating out in the solar system somewhere. That concept, as it stands, is clearly not completely analogous to God. The concept of God provides many other attributes that the teapot does not. If the teapot does provide all those attributes, then "teapot" has to be another name for "God". If it does not, then it is not perfectly analogous, and the analogy fails.

I think, to get the analogy to work, we have to agree on those attributes that the teapot and God must share to make it valid. And I'm sorry, but being fictional is not one of those attributes. So where would we go from there?

ETA. If being fictional is an attribute of the teapot but not God, is it possible that they then both share enough attributes to make the analogy valid?

Message edited by its author, Sep 9, 2009, 1:16pm.

367> When I ask the questions about the teapot, I'm not really interested in proving or disproving God, so much as I'm curious about what type of non-evidentiary matters lead you to believe in something. If it's just provenance, then why not reincarnation?

#367 If being fictional is an attribute of the teapot but not God, is it possible that they then both share enough attributes to make the analogy valid?

Yeah, that's what I'm getting at. But first, do you think it's possible to have an analogy to God that is exact in all ways, except that it is fictional? If not, what kills the analogy for you? (For me the teapot gets us most of the way there, but it might not work for you.)

dchaikin & rrp,

As I read the quotation in post #159, Russell did not say that the teapot is analogous to God. The analogy drawn was between belief in the two unprovable concepts.

... nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

#368

Exactly. And why don't you believers also, on the same ground, believe in every other religion in the world, even the ones that contradict your own? Just where do you draw the line?

"... why donʻt you believe . . . in every other religion in the world, even the ones that contradict your own?" -- Jen7r (#371)

Iʻm reminded here of Susan Sontagʻs remark about the only thing that one canNOT be, in religion: a "religionist" !

Upon reading it, I temporarily took her word for it that, in religion, you canʻt be a "religionist", you have to be specifically some faith and denomination. But I mused that, IF you could be a religionist, thatʻs what I would be.

Did I even have to take her word for it? (Unless perhaps, she meant that you CAN"T, but you SHOULD BE ABLE to.) I do belong to a Christian denomination, and I donʻt have a fully developed "religionist" argument, but I think there must be such arguments; consequently that there must be religionists. It would often be, through a liberal-minded pastorʻ point of view in oneʻs own denomination, that one would first put another world religion under consideration.

That's pretty close to the Unitarian Universalist commitment.

Robert

I have a lot of respect for Russell, but to be fair I would think the "Teapot" comes from his journalist side not his philosopher side. His quote demonstrates the weakness of the analogy. The "Teapot" and "God" are analogous because they i) cannot be disproved ii) are affirmed in ancient books iii) taught as the sacred truth every Sunday and iv) instilled into the minds of children at school. Those are clearly not sufficient grounds to make the analogy sound. What kills the analogy is a lack of core things that belief provides, namely a meaning to the experiences of life or "a framework that shapes the entirety of life and thought".

#368

"I'm curious about what type of non-evidentiary matters lead you to believe in something."

That's a very good question and a whole new topic in itself. My answer would be something like -- you have to believe in something just to provide a foundation. As a skeptic you can question every one of your beliefs and reject those that are not supported by evidence and then be left with no foundation. That way madness lies. At some point, you must pull back from the brink and say, OK, I give in, I'll accept these core things are true with no evidence as they provide the foundation for the meaning of existence.

What led you to believe in those things you believe which are not supported by evidence?

Meaning? you go for religion because you want something else (rather than you) to account for something meaningful?

hm.

i guess i can accept that answer.

i don't know why you'd want to do it, really, since you'd be giving up the long search for the meaning of your own life, and handing it over to a nameless entity, which, by its very nature, must differ radically from person to person.

it's very hard to wake up every day and realize you must continue searching for and creating meaning for your life. but that's way better than outsourcing such a personal project to a bunch of church leaders who already have the answers. (i think).

Message edited by its author, Sep 9, 2009, 10:29pm.

376: And if the answer is Matthew 25, where's the foul in that?

http://payingattentiontothesky.com/2009/...

R. R. Reno: “In order to escape the insanity of my slide into self-guidance, I put myself up for reception into the Catholic Church as one might put oneself for adoption. A man can no more guide his spiritual life by his ideas than a child can raise himself on the strength of his native potential.”

Reno quotes Cardinal Newman: “The Church of Rome preoccupies the ground…She is the given, a primary substance within the economy of denominationalism. Thus one could rightly say that I became a Catholic by default, and that possibility is the simple gift I received from the Catholic Church. She needed neither reasons, nor theories, nor ideas from me.”…

The Catholic Church is not about me. She is in her is-ness grandly and blithely indifferent to the tangle that constitutes my state of incurvatus est. Like a mother, she takes me in."

Quite simply, not everything is about you.

With the greatest respect,

jayd

Message edited by its author, Sep 9, 2009, 10:46pm.

gah! i don't know that thingy, and i hope you don't tell me, either. as a Taoist, it is not for me to have expectations for the behavior of others. though, that's a hard rule for me to follow.

>375 We have discussed this a bit in other threads/other groups.

As a skeptic you can question every one of your beliefs and reject those that are not supported by evidence and then be left with no foundation. That way madness lies. At some point, you must pull back from the brink and say, OK, I give in, I'll accept these core things are true with no evidence as they provide the foundation for the meaning of existence.

"That way madness lies. At some point, you must pull back from the brink.."

I don't see that as an obvious conclusion. If I don't know something then I just don't know it. How is it somehow more reassuring to just fill the gap with some other thing just to fill up the void in your understanding? (Anything, grab the first passing goddess and toss her in to fill in the gap).

I am much more comfortable accepting that I don't know something than I am accepting something that strikes me as fiction just so I don't have to face my own ignorance.

(This also gets back to another one of the discussions you've had on LT - can one choose to believe - maybe some people can, I don't think I have that capacity.)

What led you to believe in those things you believe which are not supported by evidence?

Right - you say that a lot. I'm sorry but I have actually, honestly forgotten which things it was that you thought I believe which are not supported by evidence (is it the "you believe the sun will come up tomorrow" one?). Obviously if I think that I only "believe" things that are supported by evidence, then I feel that I have sufficient evidence for all of the things I "believe" in. (The religious also tend to feel their evidence is sufficient - which it may be...to them - I can't replicate it so it doesn't sway me.) (ADDENDUM - Actually, I already admitted to one in this very thread! So these conversations have been enlightening - lets see if we can find any more...)

Feynman addressed the comfort with uncertainty in his lecture on "The Value of Science"

...The scientist has a lot of experience with ignorance and doubt and uncertainty, and this experience is of very great importance, I think. When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is still in some doubt. We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty -- some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.

Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don't know whether everyone realizes this is true. ... Herein lies a responsibility to society.

...It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from a satisfactory philosophy of ignorance, the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how doubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed; and to demand this freedom as our duty to all coming generations.

(Feynman did preface the speech with the thought: "I believe the scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy -- and when he talks about a nonscientific matter, he sounds as naive as anyone untrained in the matter. Since the question of the value of science is not a scientific subject, this talk is dedicated to proving my point -- by example.")

Sorry for the long quote - I hate it when other people do that ...

Scientists are people too and are allowed to have opinions (such as "what is the value of science?") and philosophical discussions like anybody else. As has already been discussed - the existence of God and the meaning of life are not scientific questions. That doesn't mean that a scientist, as a person, can't have an opinion on the matter.

I do think that those of us of an atheist/agnostic bent need to be careful not to put the weight of "science" behind non-scientific inquiry/ discussion. I think that the theist/religious scientists do a better job than the atheist/agnostic scientists do in keeping this distinction clear - perhaps because they have more experience analyzing how they know what they know - contrasting "This I understand because of scientific research" with "This I know because of my religious beliefs."

Message edited by its author, Sep 10, 2009, 12:04am.

Portia,

That's a very good post, with much I agree with, particularly the last two paragraphs. I am also in full agreement with you about the value of doubt.

But you knew there had to be a however...

However,

I'm sorry but I have actually, honestly forgotten which things it was that you thought I believe which are not supported by evidence (is it the "you believe the sun will come up tomorrow" one?).

I think if you try to take apart propositions like "you believe the sun will come up tomorrow" you find that there are parts of your reasoning that you accept as true without evidence, that you take as assumptions, that you have to take to make sense of the evidence, that you take for granted -- things like a belief that reality can be understood, like a belief in continuity, causality, induction and the reliability of memory. Heck, even our hero Feynman took some things for granted.

we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know.

Message edited by its author, Sep 10, 2009, 8:08am.

379: I concur with rrp, very good post.

I think that the theist/religious scientists do a better job than the atheist/agnostic scientists do in keeping this distinction clear - perhaps because they have more experience analyzing how they know what they know - contrasting "This I understand because of scientific research" with "This I know because of my religious beliefs."

-------------

I enjoyed Pauline Rudd contrasting the two here:

http://www.counterbalance.org/ssq2gr/pru...

Particularly the point about a "real commitment," which so many here seem to want to deny the religious this, never realizing what "faith" means.

regards

jayd

374: rrp - What kills the analogy is a lack of core things that belief provides, namely a meaning to the experiences of life or "a framework that shapes the entirety of life and thought".

Maybe we should kill this line in the conversation here. I don't understand this line; I don't see why an analogy of God, exact except fictional - the fictional part being unprovable, cannot provide "a meaning to the experiences of life" or "a framework that shapes the entirety of life and thought" in a manner identical to a real God. That's not a issue for me.

However, it brings up this question: Do you believe that a real God is the only thing that can provide these things? (The question is directed to rpp specifically - to take it or leave it of course - as he (she?) has a unique agnostic perspective here. It's not intended for the general thread.)

Message edited by its author, Sep 10, 2009, 11:28am.

#379: PortiaLong - I'm going to try to stay out of this part of the thread, but I wanted to mention that this was a nice post.

"However, it brings up this question: Do you believe that a real God is the only thing that can provide these things? (The question is directed to rpp specifically - to take it or leave it of course - as he (she?) has a unique agnostic perspective here. It's not intended for the general thread.)"

I'm not rrp (or at least, I wasn't the last time I looked), but your question has me bursting to point out an inconsistency that runs through every single one of these threads. It is this : too many people are equating two distinct things : "religion" and "God"

There are many religions of different types that have little or nothing to do with any kind of God (and let's not forget the Greeks and Romans, whose religion featured a whole pantheon of "gods", most of which we would now think of more as comic-book superheroes). To list a few :

Scientology
Taoism
Buddhism
Advaita
Zen

I do think that - especially the atheist / scientists here - should be very clear whether their points are being made about religion or God. Conflating the two (i.e. making the glib assumption that Western Abrahamic monotheism is what "we mean when we talk about religion") is unhelpful. If there is a God, then any religion existing as a cultural artifact on a tiny pebble orbiting an unimportant star on the outer edge of one average galaxy, compared with a universal creative principle, is like saying that the entire story of football can be found within the David Beckham Fan Club ... except of course that the "reality divide" would be far far more vast than that analogy.

Most of this thread appears to be about science and religion. Let's leave God out of it, or else change the terms of the discussion and consciously bring God in as a THIRD factor.

#384 Tid -That's why the question wasn't directed at you. :) ...Seriously, you're answer is fine, and there are endless other good/interesting NO answers to the question. But rpp has an interesting line of reasoning going so far that, to me, indicates the only consistent answer could be "yes". I'm pursuing rpp's edges. The question hits against rpp's logic for tossing the teapot.

Message edited by its author, Sep 10, 2009, 2:03pm.

#382

Do you believe that a real God is the only thing that can provide these things?

No. I believe that providing those things is a property of belief in God, or as Tid pointed out, belief in a religion. So belief in a real God would provide them. I think what you are getting at is -- is it possible that a fictional God could provide those things. I think it entirely possible if not certain, given that many religions provide those things and they can't all be true. It might even be possible that belief in a God who was known to be fictional could provide those things, but I can't recall meeting anyone who thought so.

#386 - Ok, I agree. Let's see if I can bring this back to Haught and evidence...

Reposting Haught's question/answer from the OP:

What do you say to the atheists who demand evidence or proof of the existence of a transcendent reality?

The hidden assumption behind such a statement is often that faith is belief without evidence. Therefore, since there's no scientific evidence for the divine, we should not believe in God. But that statement itself -- that evidence is necessary -- holds a further hidden premise that all evidence worth examining has to be scientific evidence. And beneath that assumption, there's the deeper worldview -- it's a kind of dogma -- that science is the only reliable way to truth. But that itself is a faith statement. It's a deep faith commitment because there's no way you can set up a series of scientific experiments to prove that science is the only reliable guide to truth. It's a creed.

Essentially, Haught is saying that you can't scientifically prove science that leads to truth; that believing science leads to truth is a faith statement. By implication this is equal to religious belief in the existence of a transcendent reality. Hence science and religion stand on equal ground - they are both faith based.

So then, where does this faith in the scientific method come from? First from analytically working out the logic of the scientific method - that, through rational reasoning, we can show that the scientific method should work. This is a hypothesis. Then we can test. There have been numerous experiments in the use of the scientific method and they often give valuable results. So, in a sense, we can provide scientific evidence that the scientific method provides value. And analytically, we can reason that the scientific method is convincing in a way that no other (known?) method is.

But, can we show that Science leads to Truth? Well how do you define Truth? I don't think there is a good answer to this. Does a Truth exist? We don't know. So the simple answer is: "No."

So, where does the belief in the existence of a transcendent reality come from? This needs to be worded carefully. When it comes down to it, we don't have any reason to think there really is a god. We know it's possible to believe in a fictional god that provides everything a real god actually does. There is no way to differentiate between a real and fictional god. However, that's not the nature of Haught's argument. He seems to be talking about belief in a transcendent reality, or belief in god. This is different, and this is the question. The answer comes down from several posts above; but, to attempt to summarize, we believe in god because we can feel or sense God, or spirituality or, more blandly, the existences of a transcendent reality. And, this belief, by itself, can do good things for us personally. (We can probably prove this scientifically.)

To restate:
We believe in science because we can show it works. There is evidence.
We believe in God because we can show that belief in God works. Here again, there is evidence.

However
We still have no evidence that science leads to Truth.
We still have no evidence that there really is a god.

But - these aren't all equivalent in sense that they don't reflect human relationships to the topic.
Ideally, scientists should not believe that science leads to truth. That's a fallacy.
Ideally, believers should believe there is a god.
And that is the fundamental inequality between the two types of reasoning.

ETA - changes to quotation marks and italics.

Message edited by its author, Sep 11, 2009, 9:51am.

"So, where does the belief in the existence of a transcendent reality come from? This needs to be worded carefully. When it comes down to it, we don't have any reason to think there really is a god."

This is, I'm afraid, a non-sequitur. The assumption being made in connecting that question and that answer, is that "transcendent reality" = "God".

But please, read back to my earlier post about mysticism, and Portia's account of her own actual experience that followed it. This is not "blandness" - far from it. It is empirical data, though untestable because the experience apparently cannot be summoned at will (at least, not at our current level of evolution). And it is experience so vivid, so "transcendental", that it has been described by the majority of those who experienced it as the "most real" experience of their lives.

God can be adduced into this by those of a theist religious bent, but would be rejected out of hand by Zen Buddhists and atheists, among others.

I think your logic is sound chaik, and your conclusions probably beyond reproach. But I repeat : the air needs to be cleared of assumed and unstated definitions, of which the biggest round here appears to be "religion = God", and "transcendence is religious".

387: Essentially, Haught is saying that you can't scientifically prove science that leads to truth; that believing science leads to truth is a faith statement. By implication this is equal to religious belief in the existence of a transcendent reality. Hence science and religion stand on equal ground - they are both faith based.
--------------
If I were to rewrite what I read in the interview:

Essentially, Haught is saying that you can't scientifically prove through science claims leading to religious truth (his statements all concern the divine, not generic truth as you have rewritten here); that believing science leads to religious truth (allows one to comment on scientific evidence for the divine) is a faith statement. By implication this is equal to religious belief in the existence of a transcendent reality. Hence science and religion stand on equal ground when it comes to judging religous truths - they are both faith based.

Since religious claims to science are prima facie invalid (The Bible is not a basis to do science: “God’s Spirit has not spoken through men in order to teach the laws of biology or physics, since these have no relevance to the order of salvation. Augustine, see De Genesi ad litteram L 21, 41: ) there is no reason to bring up religious bloviatings to the contrary.

This is not to invalidate the faith of scientists which may shape their instincts toward doing some kinds of science (physics, cosmology). See statments by Pauline Rudd on the paths of religious contemplative experience and the path followed for a scientific disclosure: (http://www.counterbalance.org/ssq2gr/pru...)

Note that Biblical religion has a great deal to say about the existence of a natural order (which is simply a corollary of its teaching on God and creation), but little to say about the detailed workings of that natural order.

Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus wrote: “They (biblical authors) did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science…”

jayd

#388 - Tid, fair points. I agree that God does not equal transcendent reality and I had trouble where to draw the line. (fyi: by blandness, I meant the phrase "transcendent reality", not the meaning).

There is a middle ground. Your and Portia's experiences and similar ones - that feeling was real, but the cause of the feeling is unknown. It could be something mystical, or some energy that Portia caught, or it could be mental clicking, and "aha!" moment, or it could be a trick of the mind. They are all equally possible, or at least difficult to differentiate. My only point here is we don't know what caused them, and (perhaps?) should hesitate before bringing in a transcendental cause.

new life in the world is considered holy, and the idea that these delicate new lives must be carefully attended to is rather holy.

but the process of creating new life is kinda...unholy.

opposites attract.

but the problems with accepting both good and evil are the domain of Nature, not religion.

Nature gives us all great gifts, on a second by second basis. what we do with those gifts, is pretty much up to us to decide.

the fact that most of our lives are wasted on ridiculous pursuits reflects an actual neglect and incompetence on the part of our Nurturers.

if religion wishes to be taken more seriously, it could try involving itself more with helping young people to thrive and survive, rather than just leaving them to their fate.

however, when churches try to do this, they spend most of their time hyping and hawking their own services. and they generally fail miserably.

therefore we do not trust them.

in the US, those who profess to be religious often are those who want to do the least for young people. and most likely to send them off to war. they are, ironically, very like survival of the fittest Darwinists.

they say the one thing with the book, then they do the opposite.

therefore we do not trust them.

"There is a middle ground. Your and Portia's experiences and similar ones - that feeling was real, but the cause of the feeling is unknown."

Yes that's true enough - hence the word "mystical" (= mystery) I suppose.

"It could be something mystical"

Perhaps we need to remove the religious connotations from that word too?

", or some energy that Portia caught, or it could be mental clicking, and "aha!" moment, or it could be a trick of the mind. They are all equally possible, or at least difficult to differentiate."

I'm not sure I agree there. "Mental clicking" and "aha! moments" are common enough that they don't really have any mystical overtones; I get at least one a year! The kind of experience Portia (and others) describe are pretty much a "once in a lifetime" thing, and therefore a different class category than the former.

" My only point here is we don't know what caused them, and (perhaps?) should hesitate before bringing in a transcendental cause."

Perhaps we should redefine "transcendental" to be akin to the Big Bang? : it occurs / occurred and is in our realm of knowledge and experience, but as yet is totally unexplained, but may be one day when our own mental evolution catches up with what we need answers to. As yet we are comparatively big chimps when it comes to understanding the subtler complexity behind the universe. And yet ... glimpses of "reality" appear unsummoned to some at occasional moments ... why?

"the fact that most of our lives are wasted on ridiculous pursuits"

And this could be the reason why so many of us never get a glimpse of "reality" perhaps? Ridiculous pursuits do have a hypnotic attraction! I speak as an unreformed chocaholic.

#392 Tid - "transcendental" is potentially a problematic word.

On wikipedia I entered "Transcendent reality" and got "Transcendence (religion)"

From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcenden... ) - (Redirected from Transcendent reality)
In religion, transcendence is a condition or state of being that surpasses physical existence and in one form is also independent of it.

This is not a perfect type of definition because it leaves a lot up to personal interpretation. For example, did your (and Portia's) experience "surpass physical existence" or was it, instead, a heightened (and powerful) sense of the physical existence? See, there's not clear line separating transcendence from non-transcendence. I'm stumped.

Message edited by its author, Sep 11, 2009, 4:36pm.

I'm not sure how far I trust Wikipedia, especially when thinking "outside the box". See, Wiki would define Zen Buddhism as a religion, but I'm not sure that I would.

And your phrase "surpass physical existence" is also problematic I believe. Atheist scientists are notorious in defining the world purely in terms of physicality, and some would even dismiss their own minds as just the random firing of nerve endings. Against that kind of reductionist thinking I have no more success in arguing, than against their kindred spirits, the loonie fundamentalists of religion.

But as it's you - I'll try to reason this out. I personally see the world as comprising distinct layers, from the grossest (the physical, and therefore the easiest to measure and seek scientific explanation for), through ever more subtle layers, most of which are mental. In those I would place music, art, literature, philosophy, ethics, discovery, beauty, curiosity, language, religion, love (philo-), love (agape), debate, "enlightenment" (e.g. Zen), perceptions of reality, oh and so much more. I think we live most of the time enmeshed in the physical, but seek higher satisfaction from the various levels of more subtle, i.e. mental, engagement.

Intimations of reality seem to me to be pure perception, thought, whatever you would call it. Even "spirituality", which is not a word that scares me, though it has religious connotations for most. Seeing beyond the physical is an exciting prospect, and realising there is a mighty world of thought, and beyond that ... what? I'll wait to meet a Zen Master and ask that, knowing I will get no easy answer!

"Against that kind of reductionist thinking"

Ok, now I think I see where you're coming from. That is the ultimate complaint against science, from a religious point of view, IMO - the idea that the scientists are missing the point. Or, as I prefer to view it, that the rational thought processes are missing the point. Some things in life are not rational...no, many many things really; and they include your entire list - excepting philosophy, ethics and, possibly, language, which are generally rational.

The original argument here is on a rationalism - and on the idea that religion is completely rational - or at least as rational as science. I totally disagree, but that doesn't make me right. In my opinion religion is, at least in part, not rational, and that the irrational aspects of religion are critical to it's value. God