We do not read Galileo, Copernicus and Keppler because we know it has been done to dead by others before and most people know the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that it is not flat without refering directly to the people that first discovered this.
You could not have offered a more perfect example of exactly what is wrong with the current state of science if I had sent you the lines to write myself. The irony here is truly exquisite.
You think that by accepting the conclusions of Galileo, Copernicus, and Keppler you are accepting their heritage I contend, however, that the heritage of these great men of science was not the scientific facts they left behind. No - the greatness of these men was not in the conclusions they reached but in that essential act of unbridled questioning.
The impending failure of science - if is it come - will be precisely because people like you utterly and completely fail to recognize that even in the very acceptence of the conclusions of the geniuses who went before you betray their legacy if you let those facts become dogma.
If you were ever able to stand before these men now you imagine they would be on your side, smiling and nodding that you had accepted their teachings. But it is no great thing to accept the teachings which - though they once shook the high places of authority - are now the soul of establishment. It takes no courage, no honesty, and no independence to stand among scientists and embrace evolution. That is about as much in the heritage of Galileo as those men who sought to condemn him. They too accepted as "settled" the fact that sun revolved around the earth. They didn't need to read his charts, familiarize themsleves with his reasoning, or open their minds to his possibilities. In their day of enlightenment from God Himself it was "no longer necessary to go and read all those books you are mentioning".
You dream of the day when one dogma - materialism - wins out against another - blind faith. Persist in that dream if you will, but I dream of something grander. I dream of a day when dogma itself will be abolished. When the atheists, the religious, and the agnostics of the world can hold each other in high esteem because none of them persist in the utterly decrepit tradition of relying on "what has been settled".
Galileo is praised today in textbooks - but when he lived he was a heretic. He was a heretic not primarily for what he said about astronomy - but primarily for his act of questioning authority. And here you stand ready to replace one authority with another.
Everything that goes on in our brains is the result of interactions in the brain matter. I will concede this when it has been proven. But you are jumping way ahead of what any reputable neurologist would be willing to say is "settled".
I don't think you want to start getting into a free-will debate with me here, however. I think I'm generally fairly well-informed on most scientific, theological, and philosophical issues, but free-will is my hobby-horse. From your balant materialism and mention of causality I'm going to guess that you've read Dennet - probably "Elbow Room" or maybe some of his other texts. If that's the case, you shouldn't jump in hook, line and sinker. His case for freedom inside a causative framework is "thin soup at best" to quote my philosophy professor from my free will seminar.
I don't think you understand what "quantifiable" means either. Even when you can prove something is physical that doesn't make it quantifiable. Quantifiable specifically means measureable. Even if we concede your materialism (although we really shouldn't - since that's begging the question in the worst possible way) that doesn't grant us quantifiability.
But I like your sunset example. You say "scientific prose can't convey the beauty of a sunset, but it can still say in fine detail why clouds happen to be that particular color this evening." What I would like to know, however, is can science explain why we interpret the state of the clouds to be beautiful? The fact that science can explain the external state of nature is not sufficient to say that science can explain the entire state of reality. The fact that science can explain the clouds - but not our reaction to them - is the precise example of the current limit of science.
It does not prove that science will never be able to quantify our reations to sunsets. Maybe that day will come. But until that day comes you are in fact exhibiting an utterly religious tendency: a faith that your particular viewpoint (materailism) will turn out to be true. Even in the very act of denying religious faith you're engaging most poignantly in that very act you seek to deny: the human capacity to affirm as true what it only suspects and wishes to be so.
He has to pick because, as Blaise Pascal pointed out, his life depends on it. According to many religious people, the nature of my relationship with God is what determines the course of my afterlife.
You just contradicted yourself. He has to make the choice because many religious people think so? Clearly at least some religions - Mormonism is one of those - do not think that your position in the after life depends on your relationship with God in this life. If you don't know that much about Mormonism, it makes me question why you later refer to Mormons as "us". You may have been overly influenced by Mormon people as opposed to actual Mormon doctrine.
With regards to the study, it was considered interesting precisely because it broke with the traditional negative correlation between education and religiousity. I don't have the specifics available to rebutt your self-selection alternative hypothesis, but I'm reasonably certain it was designed to exclude that possibility. I think your theory is not very likely, however, as Mormons do not have a problem with dissident members failing to self-identify. If anything, there are a lot of members who have no faith in the religion but insist on identifying themselves as "cultural" Mormons nonetheless.
Finally, I did see a correlation between success in material pursuits and success in the Church. Utah has a lot of problems, in my opinion. I'd rather live about any where in the world besides Utah. There are way too many of the "religious nutjob" type Mormons there, in my opinion. I think you'll find that religious uniformity breeds religious bigotry and snobbishness. It's no wonder to me that, as a Mormon growing up in Utah, you grew disaffected with the Church. Combined with the fact that you have such an apparently fragile grasp on some elements of Mormon theology (your understanding of faith seems to be far better thought out than average) it seems to me that you are another sad case of a thinking, intelligent, and honest Mormon more or less quashed by the weight of Mormon decadence out there. The sad fact is that Mormons do far better - if not in outright opression - than at least when they are a minority.
Thanks for the post though, I especially liked what you wrote about faith.
I've certainly never had any sort of supernatural experience, and neither has anyone else.
I'm not going to tell you whether or not you've had any sort of supernatural experience, but I'm impressed that you can tell me whether or not I have. Not only that - but you can tell what sorts of experiences everyone who's ever lived has - or has not had.
Tell me, is that a proposition for which you have scientific proof - or are you just espousing a theory on blind faith?;-)
And you have to pick between the two because? I mean, let's be honest - do you really live your life based solely on evidence and never on faith? Let's say I'm just a bit skeptical of that.
Are you seriously maintaining that in order to be a scientist you must refrain from believing anything in any aspect of your life that's non-scientific? 'Cause we can have some fun with that.
That's exactly what I'm saying
OK, then next time you decide whether or not to aks a girl out, go ahead and use the scientific method. Seriously. And when you decide what CD to listen to, what book to read, or what movie is your favorite - use the scientific method.
What I'm getting with this is that the scientific method is inapplicable to most of our actual lives. But logic and reason are still applicable. I can argue happily about my favorite books forever - but that doesn't make it scientific.
Belief in an all-powerful undetectable superior being is illogical, irrational, and unscientific (even if those who believe are rational, logical or scientific in other matters).
No one said God was undetectable. If I thought I couldn't detect Him and I still did believe him, then I WOULD be irrational. But I don't believe that about God - I don't think any religious person does. So your counter-argument doesn't work all that well. I have reasons for believing in God - and many religious people do. Reasons that may not be quantifiable (and thus scientific) but reasons that are genuine and logical nonetheless. Literary criticism and philosophy may not be "scientific" but you don't get anywhere in either field without strict adherence to logic and reason. The same is true of theology - even the personal variety.
So what? No one ever said that being an atheist means you're not bigotted or are totally logical.
Actually, a few posters have more or less said just that. If you have no problem accepting it - then fine. I wasn't committing the logical fallacy you accused me of. I was just stating something that's obvious to you and I, but not everyone.
Prayer, like most spiritual things, is difficult to quantify or directly observe and so the proper scientific default position on prayer should be utter neutrality: neither for nor against.
My statement was not intended to be anti-atheist. By "default" I meant, "with no other consdierations". So you see, an atheist could bring a lot to the table to justify disbelief. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify the meaning of "default" in that partiular statement better.
I used to think that atheism was itself a positive assertion
It IS a positive assertion. It's an assertion in the non-existence of God. The hardest thing to prove is the non-existence of something. For this reason atheism is essentially a religion.
What you are doing with this argument is sneaking the line of reasonableness closer to the religious side, to give the religious argument the edge and make the counter-argument look less reasonable.
Now I know you completely misunderstand what I'm writing. I'm not arguing in favor of religion, I'm arguing against the religion vs. science dichotomy.
Look, we more or less agree with each other on the essentials. So I'll make you a deal. I'll do what I can with the religious nuts. Although I've got to be honest. As a Mormon, they like me about as much as they like you (an atheist). But I'll do what I can - and you talk to your fellow materialists/atheist buddies and get them to knock of the dogmatic rejection of religion. If they want to reject it - as you do - based on specific reasons and convictions than that's a whole different matter. I'm just annoyed with the dogmatics - religious OR other.
I resent the fact that I exists as a second class citizen in a world where any belief system, no matter how ridiculous and baseless, takes legal and social prescendence over any modern enlightened values or outlooks
What are you talking about?
But I draw the line when people leave behind reason, rationality, tolerance, humanity and every other value of the Enlightenment, and descend into dogma, believing outlandish tales and holding them above every value of rational thinking, and them hefting these beliefs, many of which are fundamentally opposed to out free society, on everyone and everything around them.
Where are these straw men you are on about again? If you had any sense for these Enlightenment virtues you pretend to espouse you'd realize that judging beliefs as dogmatic or not based on content makes no sense. And yet here you stand, decrying organized religion as dogmatic based on it's content - without providing any logic for why these concepts are illogical. A lot of quantum physics sounds utterly stupid if you approach it without any understanding of the context. That doesn't make quantum mechanics dogmatic. Beliefs are dogmatic based on WHY they are held - not WHAT they are.
Where's my freedom from religion? Why should I have to suffer the institutionalised nonsense I see about me everyday? Why should some have the right to ride roughshod over the rule of law, yet if I so much as try to object, I'm the villian? Why should young children be made to suffer the wrongs of religion hoisted on them? Why should religious canon and dogma be codified into law? Why should religion be privilaged in this way? What good does it serve, except to calm the bleating cries of those already under its nepenthine grip?... what are you on about? Where do you live? I'm in America, where are you?
I don't take this as a flame, but I think there's a lot you could learn about what it means to be "devout". First off, there are many intelligent, rational people who are devout despite a lack of faith in God. Secondly, when you talk about the trade off implicit in following all the beliefs of religion I think you are - in a sense - right. The trade off is to live with a kind of constant tension. Some religious beliefs do seem harder to swallow than others, and there may be a kind of intellectual dissonance when you're espousing beliefs that don't seem exactly right to you.
I would go so far as to say that this very dissonance may be part of the design of organized religion. You don't turn off the logical, or rational part of your life, but you do have to hold apparently contradictory viewpoints in your mind from time to time.
You see I'm not trying not to convince people that being religious is intellectually superior or better than being non-religious. My major point is not to propound any particular viewpoint whatsoever. I'm simply criticizing those who would irrationally dismiss religion because of their methodology - not their conclusions. If you actually study the intersection of religion and logic I'm not saying that everything will suddenly becomem clear. But you will find that their a lot of very thoughtful people who have a lot of interesting things to say about what it means to be scientific and religious.
There's a lot going on there, I'm just sorry that those on the outside feel so confident about dismissing the entire discussion without ever learning enough to join in.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The existence of a god is not falsifiable.
So? I'm not saying you can be religious and scientific about the same things at the same time. Just that it's possible to believe in God and also be a good scientist. It's not that hard to realize that belief in God is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific and yet espouse the believe anyway.
Are you seriously maintaining that in order to be a scientist you must refrain from believing anything in any aspect of your life that's non-scientific? 'Cause we can have some fun with that.
It's a good thing you quoted "scientific", because a person who is actually scientific is not illogical.
Uhh... I agree. A person who is actually scientific is not illogical. But a lot of the "scientific" people are illogical about their anti-religion bigotry. Indicating to me that they are probably not really all that scientific. Hence they are "scientific" people and not scientific people. Furthermore, a lot of people who are and have been scientists historically are/were not very scientific either. Just as a lot of religious people were not really all that religious. This should not be news to anyone out there.
Couple of things. First off, I'm not opposed to your take on religious institutions or your argument that people need to fend for themselves. God, if he exists, clearly expects us to get our own shit together. Religious groups that believe that by insulating themselves from the world they can escape it are, in a sense, traitors to the cause of humanity. I'm OK with that. I disagree with your humanist stance, but I have a great deal of respect for it. I'm not really attacking you - or any other atheists - so much as I'm just attempting to counter-attack the overwhelming anti-religion mentality that I find on slashdot.
Religion is the belief in in the supernatural. Science only only concerns itself with demonstratable conjecture to describe a natural phenomenon.
The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is artificial. The argument between science and religion (if you've been following these debates at all) really comes down to choosing terminology. Please tell me your definitions for supernatural vs. natural and we'll see if you even have workable definitions or if this is just a case of you applying definitions in such a way that you're begging the question even before you get started actually using your definitions to argue something.
If your willing to accept the supernatural -- what purpose does reason and logic have in the pursuit of science
You've posed the question, but failed to indicate that there's an actual problem here. What is illogical about believing that there are unquantifiable elements to human existence that are nonetheless important? I hate to be overly cheesey here - but you can't quantify 'love' and yet most of us believe in it in some fashion. Does that make us unfit to be scientists? In my opinion 'love' is no more supernatural than God. We can't really fully explain or prove the existence of either one - but we find that both can enrich (or destroy) our lives.
Finally the point you should remember, is that someone who beleives in logic and religion is always going to be ready to concede to science when science comes out with an experiment that impinges on what was once religious territory. In the past the planets and stars were the domain of religion. But scientists figured out how to measure their movements and astronomy became a science. Initially religion resisted, but eventually had to capitulate.
Whenever science learns how to measure what has not been measured it expands the domain of what is "science". I'm OK with that - and I believe that scientific measurements need to be given the respect they deserve. I used to beleive in strict creationism. It was incompatible with science and as I educated myself I had to acquiesce to the logic. Science won. Someone can have religious inclinations and still be intellectually honest enough to follow the data.
I haven't read your whole post. I will read it later. For now let me just point out that judging by this: Calling atheists fanatical dogmatists is not as good an argument as you think. you either have not read or have not understood what I've written.
Not only have I never claimed atheists are fanaticl dommaticsists, I've used atheists as examples more than once of world-views that are valuable and insightful.
My problem (for like the 10th time) is not with WHAT people believe but with WHY they believe. Atheists can be anti-religious bigots, or they can be intellectually honest. Christians (or any other religions denominations) can be anti-science bigots, or they can be intellectually honest.
I'm arguing that people of many worldviews can be rational - not trying to elevate religion over science. I'll read the rest of the post and respond after work.
Any system of belief that one maintains which puts provable truth alongside contradictory unprovable belief is simply false.
This is a nice text-book dichotomy but I maintain that it is simply a false one. Science does not actually "prove" anything. You merely continue to either accept (which is not the same as prove) or reject hypotheses. This whole idea that science can "prove" things in general - that anything can be proven with certainty is a fairy tale that should be left behind with 7th grade earth science and high school "there-is-no-wind-resistance" physics.
Scientists are generally very good with facts, figures and theories, but when it comes to interpreting their results into the real world (e.g. understanding what it means to "prove" a theory) they tend to fall flat for the simple reason that you need a good grounding in philosophy to make that transition. A careful scientist will substitute "verify" or some other verb instead of prove precisely to avoid the falsehood you are subscribing too.
As far as your miracle stuff goes, I don't know why you bother with that. What are you trying to say? That science does not provide a way for these miracles to occur? So what? It didn't provide for flight either for most of our history. Who knows what it will explain in another century?
We just keep coming back to the same point. If you want to create a dichotomy between the scientific methodology and the methodology of philosophy/theology at a high level - you are going to fail. The distinctions between science and theology (and there are many) are a product of the objects they study and the tools they study them with. But the rules of logic and reason apply to each equally.
No wait. You didn't go far enough. You can't juts call bullshit. You have to call bullshit AND argument from authority.
Next time someone quotes a study at your, or references a published article, just go "way to go with that argument from authority". Because we all know that any referrence to any institution or establishment nullifies the argument by committing the logical fallacy of argument from authority. In fact - the more respeted the institution the more of an argument from authority it is to reference it. Besides, it's cool to call Harvard bullshit. That takes big kahonas.
Now you're an unstoppable internet arguing juggernaut of doom. One day maybe I can be too.
I'm getting overwhelmed responding to the posts I feel are most misguided, so I skipped this email for a while.
What makes you think this (religious texts) is any different?
First of all, I think you qualms regarding hiostry being written by the victor are very well-founded. I can answer this question from at least 3 perspectives, and I'll try to hit all 3 quickly. If you want more detail, I urge you to email me. I promise I won't try to evangelize you, but I will be able to take more time to give you a thorough response with some links to various (non-religious) articles.
1. Historically
Starting in the 1940s there's been a flood of ancient manuscripts (e.g. nag hammadi library from Egypt, more famous dead sea scrolls as well) that have started to illuminate both ancient judaism and nascent Christianity. Reading articles from scholars like Hugh Nibly (Mormon) and Margaret Barker (nonMormon) has done much to shore up my opinion that beneath all the confusion and warped doctrine the original intent of the sacred texts (Bible, Book of Mormon, and non-Biblical texts) can be discerned.
2. Intellectually
The beliefs in the texts I believe to be sacred (which is pretty much all texts I've read but to varying degrees) make a lot more sense than the beliefs of some of the more recent theological glosses. Take, as an example, infant baptism. If baptism is necessary for infants - does that mean that infants who are not baptized go to Hell? This doesn't make sense to me - it seems unfair. But the teaching is non-existent in the Bible. Seperate the Bible from the groups that espouse is and the Bible starts to make a lot more sense.
3. Spiritually
I'm brave enough to stick my neck out and call it like it is as far as so-called scientists sneering at religion, but I'm just not quite willing to go the distance and start getting into my own spiritual motivations for belief. Suffice it to say that that what James wrotein the New Testament rings true to me today: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not" (James 1:5, King James Version) I believe that when people ask God he answer. Maybe not all at once, maybe not even exactly the question we asked. But it's been my experience that if you ask sincerely and wait patiently - you'll get your answer. I know exactly how this will be interpreted by the "scientists" among us, but I'm confident that I know myself well enough to differentiate between wishful thinking and something else.
I won't attempt to prove this to anyone. I'll simply state that in my experience, that's what has happened. And I encourage anyone who's earnest to take the time to keep studying what the Bible itself says, what other sacred works say (everything from the Koran to the Book of Mormon to the newly discovered scrolls), and keep an open mind and an open heart.
What you don't seem to understand is that the less you know about something the easier it is to write it off as "bullshit". You know squat about theology. Therefore it's easy to write it off as "bullshit". Are you willing to write off all of philosophy as bullshit too? For all I know - you are. And I don't have the time to waste convincing you that would be stupid. How about mathematics?
Then I reply by pointing out that the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who pioneered math and geometry ALSO pioneered philosophy and theology. From Aristotle to Leibniz you simply can not seperate mathematics, philosophy, and theology. As time goes on each becomes increasingly more specialized and remote from the other. It's been said Guass was the last known man to be the master of the entire discipline of mathematics. Not because we're stupid now, but because the topic is simply too vast to be covered by one man now. As a result if you specialize in one field you may get the erroneous impression that you're field is distinct.
What I'm trying to educate you people on is that at the root mathematics, physics, geometry, theology, philosophy, etc are all the same tree - the thirst to apply the human intellect to the world around us in order to harvest wisdom from it. The tools are different. Mathematicians have very strict rules to follow. Physcists (and chemists, etc,) are even more limited by the fact they must have physical phenomena to observer. Philosophers are more diverse in that they have more lax rules and no specific tools. That's why philosophy today looks a lot more lke philosophy 2,000 years ago then (for example) physics today looks to physics 2,000 years ago. The discipline is shaped by the tools.
But theology is just an aspect of philosophy that deals with human questions about God. These questions are no less pressing to some of us then quantum mechanics are to others. And while physics got men to the moon and theology has gotten a bunch of people killed - physics has helped to kill a lot of them. And just because theology can't get us from NY to Tokyo in a few hours doesn't mean it's not worth studying.
The men and women who study theology are bound by the same fundamental rules of logic, reason, and intellectual honesty that those who study phsyics are. The truly sad thing is that the physicist - trapped in an ivory tower of tools and instruments - has come to believe that intellectual endeavor itself should be constrained to the reach of those tools.
But human intellect will not be relegated to human tools. If you have chosen the path of studying only that to which you can apply a number, I congratulate you. You guys make lives better. But quantifiability does not define legitimacy.
I'm in argument. I tell someone they are an idiot. And they say "yeah - well the entire intellectual establishment of the West implicitly agrees with me". I probably want to come up with something better than "oh - that's an appeal to authority".
Everyone can go look up "fallacies logical" on Google and respond as you did. But what I'd like to point out is the sheer weight of intellectual arrogance that goes into assuming that an entire class of human knowledge is worthless when you haven't even been seriously exposed to it.
Think about it - that's like me saying "sociology is a bunch of crap". You respond "guess all the sociology PhDs should hand in their degrees". If could say "ooh! ooh! appeal to authority". And if my goal is win points and sound cool on the internet, than good for me. But if I'm intellectually honest then I'll probably come up with an actual response to the fact that several thousand people have dedicated their professional lives to the study of something I claim is nothing but guess work.
You can call it an appeal to authority if you like. But if you're more than a superficial internet troll you may realize that it's also an appeal to the life work of thousands of scholars who you've just dismissed in utter ignorance of what they study, how they study, etc.
I'm going to assume that your question is actually honest and not rhetorical.
First of all, let's discuss the notion of "proof". There's no such thing as certainty. I take that as a given. Descartes pointed this out most eloquently: the human capacity to doubt is infinite. If you don't remember Descartes "Meditations" then try this on for size: Science is based on observation. Observation is based on the assumed premise that causality exists. There's no actual a priori reason to believe in causality - it's just how our minds are wired. Thus there's no a priori reason to believe that observations about the world can tell us anything about the world. But we engage in those observations in order to find evidence of causality. In other words, we assume (for the sake of argument) that our observations will reveal something about the nature of the universe, make the observations, make predictions based on those observations, conduct experiments, and certify that our observations seem to be true.
Two things to realize: 1 - we had to (logically, not temporally) assume the conclusion in order to test it and 2 - even after testing we're not 100% certain in our conclusion.
All I'm saying is that we need to realize that science has a bit of an image problem. People believe it "proves" things without realizing that "proof" doesn't mean certainty, and that science itself relies to some extent on assuming conclusions before testing them.
Now let's take a look at religion. You say there is "no evidence" for God. How do you come to this conclusion? Many people claim to have seen him. Or her. Or it. There are many books that claim to be about him. Or her. Or it. This, I would argue, is evidence. Not sufficient to provide certainty - no. Especially since a lot of it is contradictory. But it's more than 0. Furthermore the same types of experiments that work in science don't work in religion. You can't quantify spirituality. So you shouldn't expect to be able to craft a God-O-Meter.
But this doesn't mean there's no reason to believe. Just that it's a different kind of belief. You believe first in science. Then you experiment. You gather evidence. You publish results. And you convince others. You believe first in religion. Then you experiment. You gather evidence. But the evidence you gather can't be published. It's evidence like "I prayed, and I felt I got an answer" or "I lived according to religious principles, and felt my life improve". These are personal experiences that don't admit themselves to statistical analysis. But that doesn't mean they are not real.
And so I would say that genuine religious belief is founded on sincere searching that is less precise, and less reliable than science but that answers questions science can not answer. And it is certainly not blind in the complete sense.
Why is it that scientists - who really should know better - insist on acting as though they understand religion?
Let's just be clear. You're not religious. You have probably never seriously studied religion (accept those anti-religion fun-sites on the internet). You have probably never taken college-level courses in the philosophy of religion. In basically every way that matters, you are more or less completely ignorant of what religion is. I can think of no one less-qualified than you to tell the general public what religion is in "its purest essence".
The fact that you think religion has to do with the assertion of unsubstantiated claims shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Go read C.S. Lewis. Go read Kierkegaard. Go take a class.
What you will learn is simply this. Science is confined to the realm of the quantifiable and reproducible. Science can not answer some compelling questions. Science can not answer any teleological questions. Science can inform - and does inform - questions like "why do bad things happen to good people" or "is free will an illusion" but it can never provide answers. And if you don't care about those questions - that's fine.
But the greatest minds in the history of intellectual thought have been pre-occupied or even obsessed with questions that are inextricably tied to religion and which science can NOT answer. The fact is that the human inquisitiveness will not be restrained by the human capacity to build tools to measure. And as long as there are those aspects to the human experience that are unquantifiable then honest men and women will apply their logic, reason, and passion to the investigation of those questions that fall outside the pale of scientific research. And some of that investigation will fall into the realm of theology.
I fear the kind of disgusting barren wastelend you would create for us. Where anyone that can run an experiment is ashamed to read Kant. Anyone that conducts research should hide their books by Descartes. Anyone who wants to study physics should lock Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in the trunk.
Nothing could possibly have conveyed to me the utter intellecual shallowness of the present scientific establishment in America if it weren't for these mind-numbing posts coming one after another on Slashdot. You are standing on the shoulders of scientific giants - and some of those scientists were also believers in God. I'm utterly aghast that you think such a clinical line can be drawn throughout our common intellectual heritage to distangle the "scientific" from the "religious" and make the one honorable and the other despised.
Only someone truly and utterly ignorant of their own intellectual heritage could ever conceive of this. I have no illusion that there aren't also some incredible atheist scientists. And I don't think science necessitates religion. But to think that it obviates religion? No one who truly understands science or religion could think such a thing.
theology is not and has never been anything more than guesswork
Do you have any actual substance to back this assertion up? I'd point out that historically a lot of the best philosophers have also been the greatest mathematicians. I'd also point out that the majority of these philosophers have worked with philosophical issues (e.g. proof for or against God) that could be termed theology. Logic and thinking were the common thread that led great minds to engage themselves with interests from the formation of calculus to arguments against God. In fact many of the fathers of statistics were fascinated with the use of statistics to formulate new proofs for God. Now would that be math, philosophy, or theology? Since clearly these things fit into seperate containers according to you.
I guess I'll just go tell the Harvard School of Divinity to shut down now because the geniuses on Slashdot have confirmed that theology is, in fact, just guesswork. If all the theologians could quiety turn your PhDs back in - it turns out there was nothing to study. You're all just basically like psychics on the hotline. And I'm afraid all those existentialism courses that involve works by Kierkegaard will just have to excise those manuscripts from the text. And all that stuff Socrates and Plato said about God? Yeah - we're going to have to ask students to just mark out those sections of the text. Those sentences are theology. The other stuff is philosophy though, so that can stay.
And for those numerous philosophers of religion or atheist theologians - I'm afraid that according to slashdot posters - philosophy and theology are actually two distinct entites. So if you could just stop existing now, that'd be great.
One of the main points I'm trying to make is to get people (such as yourself) to realize the importance of making distinctions between the object of people's belief and their method of belief.
I criticized religious people who believe in the utter absence of reason and/or logic. I have the exact same criticism for scientists - or anyone else - who believes in that way regardless of what they believe.
If you actually understood this point you'd realize how silly your counter-accusation is. After I get through explaining that my beef is with the method and not the object, you accuse me of judging people based on the object of their beliefs. But this is an entirely different form of disagreement.
It's really simple. I can easily run into another Mormon who believes the same things (so we're talking about the object of belief) and yet come to the conclusion that this particular Mormon believes for utterly irrational reasons - or in other words has no reason for his/her faith whatsoever. That would make this Mormon a dogmatcisst in my view, and I'd be as annoyed with him/her as I am with these scientific know-nothings on Slashdot. This isn't hypothetical - I know many such Mormons and they piss me off to no end (especially because they can give the rest of us such a bad name when they get loose in public).
I could just as easily come across a Muslim (in fact, my best friend is Muslim so this isn't really hypothetical) who has different beleifs (objects of belief) but believes with intellectual honesty (method of believing). I believe the Muslim is in error about some points of theology (object of belief) but I have the utmost respect for this particular Muslims reasons for believing (methodology). Am I getting through to you yet?
What seems to be difficult for you some of these "science" types who are obsessed with what people believe and have never thought about why or how they believe is that I - as a religious person with a particular theology - have no problem with diverse beliefs. I have no problem with atheists, baptists, catholics, muslims, mormons, hindus, buddhists, wiccans, mystics, etc. I think the world is better for this diversity of belief. And I also earnestly believe that people from ALL corners of the world know certain things better than I do. I can learn about courage from a humanist who believes in ethical action with no motivation of a happy after life. I can learn about peaceful acceptance and control of self from a zen buddhist (who also happened to teach some kickin' zen judo). I don't have to pretend to respect these viewpoints while secretly thinking they are all going to Hell. I can honestly say "I disagree with your viewpoint about x" and we can discuss it as friends with mutual respect.
But the reason we can have understanding across different belief systems is because we're all logical and rational people. As long as everyone at the table is being intellectually honest - diversity of opinion can exist in a genuinely accepting environment.
So hopefully now you understand that your attack: You think it's unacceptable for atheists to reject your view of religion but at the same time it's OK for you to reject other religious viewpoints. is the only thing that's logically void. I have a beef with people who believe ANYTHING illogically, but I have no problem with disagreements about particularities of belief among honest people.
There's no self-inconsistency here whatsoever. I'll give you a final metaphor: Mathemeticians can debate ways to solve problems because they all know the rules of math. They can stand around a blackboard and argue conceptualizations of the problem at hand and have differing opinions about how to solve the problem. That's like me and people of other beliefs (from atheism to Mormonism). But if someone comes into the room and starts simplifying equations by converting x^5 to 5x then it's a different matter entirely. You're saying that the mathematician either has to accept everyone's argument (from the fellow mathematicians to the random crazy) or he has to reject them all.
Slashdot Mirror
Judging by your sig, you're not one to talk about what's in the Bible. You either haven't read it, haven't understood it, or just don't care.
-stormin
We do not read Galileo, Copernicus and Keppler because we know it has been done to dead by others before and most people know the Earth is not the center of the Universe and that it is not flat without refering directly to the people that first discovered this.
You could not have offered a more perfect example of exactly what is wrong with the current state of science if I had sent you the lines to write myself. The irony here is truly exquisite.
You think that by accepting the conclusions of Galileo, Copernicus, and Keppler you are accepting their heritage I contend, however, that the heritage of these great men of science was not the scientific facts they left behind. No - the greatness of these men was not in the conclusions they reached but in that essential act of unbridled questioning.
The impending failure of science - if is it come - will be precisely because people like you utterly and completely fail to recognize that even in the very acceptence of the conclusions of the geniuses who went before you betray their legacy if you let those facts become dogma.
If you were ever able to stand before these men now you imagine they would be on your side, smiling and nodding that you had accepted their teachings. But it is no great thing to accept the teachings which - though they once shook the high places of authority - are now the soul of establishment. It takes no courage, no honesty, and no independence to stand among scientists and embrace evolution. That is about as much in the heritage of Galileo as those men who sought to condemn him. They too accepted as "settled" the fact that sun revolved around the earth. They didn't need to read his charts, familiarize themsleves with his reasoning, or open their minds to his possibilities. In their day of enlightenment from God Himself it was "no longer necessary to go and read all those books you are mentioning".
You dream of the day when one dogma - materialism - wins out against another - blind faith. Persist in that dream if you will, but I dream of something grander. I dream of a day when dogma itself will be abolished. When the atheists, the religious, and the agnostics of the world can hold each other in high esteem because none of them persist in the utterly decrepit tradition of relying on "what has been settled".
Galileo is praised today in textbooks - but when he lived he was a heretic. He was a heretic not primarily for what he said about astronomy - but primarily for his act of questioning authority. And here you stand ready to replace one authority with another.
That is not a legacy - that is a betrayal.
-stormin
Everything that goes on in our brains is the result of interactions in the brain matter. I will concede this when it has been proven. But you are jumping way ahead of what any reputable neurologist would be willing to say is "settled".
I don't think you want to start getting into a free-will debate with me here, however. I think I'm generally fairly well-informed on most scientific, theological, and philosophical issues, but free-will is my hobby-horse. From your balant materialism and mention of causality I'm going to guess that you've read Dennet - probably "Elbow Room" or maybe some of his other texts. If that's the case, you shouldn't jump in hook, line and sinker. His case for freedom inside a causative framework is "thin soup at best" to quote my philosophy professor from my free will seminar.
I don't think you understand what "quantifiable" means either. Even when you can prove something is physical that doesn't make it quantifiable. Quantifiable specifically means measureable. Even if we concede your materialism (although we really shouldn't - since that's begging the question in the worst possible way) that doesn't grant us quantifiability.
But I like your sunset example. You say "scientific prose can't convey the beauty of a sunset, but it can still say in fine detail why clouds happen to be that particular color this evening." What I would like to know, however, is can science explain why we interpret the state of the clouds to be beautiful? The fact that science can explain the external state of nature is not sufficient to say that science can explain the entire state of reality. The fact that science can explain the clouds - but not our reaction to them - is the precise example of the current limit of science.
It does not prove that science will never be able to quantify our reations to sunsets. Maybe that day will come. But until that day comes you are in fact exhibiting an utterly religious tendency: a faith that your particular viewpoint (materailism) will turn out to be true. Even in the very act of denying religious faith you're engaging most poignantly in that very act you seek to deny: the human capacity to affirm as true what it only suspects and wishes to be so.
-stormin
He has to pick because, as Blaise Pascal pointed out, his life depends on it. According to many religious people, the nature of my relationship with God is what determines the course of my afterlife.
You just contradicted yourself. He has to make the choice because many religious people think so? Clearly at least some religions - Mormonism is one of those - do not think that your position in the after life depends on your relationship with God in this life. If you don't know that much about Mormonism, it makes me question why you later refer to Mormons as "us". You may have been overly influenced by Mormon people as opposed to actual Mormon doctrine.
With regards to the study, it was considered interesting precisely because it broke with the traditional negative correlation between education and religiousity. I don't have the specifics available to rebutt your self-selection alternative hypothesis, but I'm reasonably certain it was designed to exclude that possibility. I think your theory is not very likely, however, as Mormons do not have a problem with dissident members failing to self-identify. If anything, there are a lot of members who have no faith in the religion but insist on identifying themselves as "cultural" Mormons nonetheless.
Finally, I did see a correlation between success in material pursuits and success in the Church. Utah has a lot of problems, in my opinion. I'd rather live about any where in the world besides Utah. There are way too many of the "religious nutjob" type Mormons there, in my opinion. I think you'll find that religious uniformity breeds religious bigotry and snobbishness. It's no wonder to me that, as a Mormon growing up in Utah, you grew disaffected with the Church. Combined with the fact that you have such an apparently fragile grasp on some elements of Mormon theology (your understanding of faith seems to be far better thought out than average) it seems to me that you are another sad case of a thinking, intelligent, and honest Mormon more or less quashed by the weight of Mormon decadence out there. The sad fact is that Mormons do far better - if not in outright opression - than at least when they are a minority.
Thanks for the post though, I especially liked what you wrote about faith.
-stormin
I've certainly never had any sort of supernatural experience, and neither has anyone else.
;-)
I'm not going to tell you whether or not you've had any sort of supernatural experience, but I'm impressed that you can tell me whether or not I have. Not only that - but you can tell what sorts of experiences everyone who's ever lived has - or has not had.
Tell me, is that a proposition for which you have scientific proof - or are you just espousing a theory on blind faith?
-stormin
i know which i'd rather trust.
And you have to pick between the two because? I mean, let's be honest - do you really live your life based solely on evidence and never on faith? Let's say I'm just a bit skeptical of that.
-stormin
That's exactly what I'm saying
OK, then next time you decide whether or not to aks a girl out, go ahead and use the scientific method. Seriously. And when you decide what CD to listen to, what book to read, or what movie is your favorite - use the scientific method.
What I'm getting with this is that the scientific method is inapplicable to most of our actual lives. But logic and reason are still applicable. I can argue happily about my favorite books forever - but that doesn't make it scientific.
-stormin
Belief in an all-powerful undetectable superior being is illogical, irrational, and unscientific (even if those who believe are rational, logical or scientific in other matters).
No one said God was undetectable. If I thought I couldn't detect Him and I still did believe him, then I WOULD be irrational. But I don't believe that about God - I don't think any religious person does. So your counter-argument doesn't work all that well. I have reasons for believing in God - and many religious people do. Reasons that may not be quantifiable (and thus scientific) but reasons that are genuine and logical nonetheless. Literary criticism and philosophy may not be "scientific" but you don't get anywhere in either field without strict adherence to logic and reason. The same is true of theology - even the personal variety.
So what? No one ever said that being an atheist means you're not bigotted or are totally logical.
Actually, a few posters have more or less said just that. If you have no problem accepting it - then fine. I wasn't committing the logical fallacy you accused me of. I was just stating something that's obvious to you and I, but not everyone.
-stormin
Prayer, like most spiritual things, is difficult to quantify or directly observe and so the proper scientific default position on prayer should be utter neutrality: neither for nor against.
My statement was not intended to be anti-atheist. By "default" I meant, "with no other consdierations". So you see, an atheist could bring a lot to the table to justify disbelief. I'm sorry if I didn't clarify the meaning of "default" in that partiular statement better.
I used to think that atheism was itself a positive assertion
It IS a positive assertion. It's an assertion in the non-existence of God. The hardest thing to prove is the non-existence of something. For this reason atheism is essentially a religion.
What you are doing with this argument is sneaking the line of reasonableness closer to the religious side, to give the religious argument the edge and make the counter-argument look less reasonable.
Now I know you completely misunderstand what I'm writing. I'm not arguing in favor of religion, I'm arguing against the religion vs. science dichotomy.
Look, we more or less agree with each other on the essentials. So I'll make you a deal. I'll do what I can with the religious nuts. Although I've got to be honest. As a Mormon, they like me about as much as they like you (an atheist). But I'll do what I can - and you talk to your fellow materialists/atheist buddies and get them to knock of the dogmatic rejection of religion. If they want to reject it - as you do - based on specific reasons and convictions than that's a whole different matter. I'm just annoyed with the dogmatics - religious OR other.
-stormin
Hahahahaha.
You are joking, right?
-stormin
I resent the fact that I exists as a second class citizen in a world where any belief system, no matter how ridiculous and baseless, takes legal and social prescendence over any modern enlightened values or outlooks
... what are you on about? Where do you live? I'm in America, where are you?
What are you talking about?
But I draw the line when people leave behind reason, rationality, tolerance, humanity and every other value of the Enlightenment, and descend into dogma, believing outlandish tales and holding them above every value of rational thinking, and them hefting these beliefs, many of which are fundamentally opposed to out free society, on everyone and everything around them.
Where are these straw men you are on about again? If you had any sense for these Enlightenment virtues you pretend to espouse you'd realize that judging beliefs as dogmatic or not based on content makes no sense. And yet here you stand, decrying organized religion as dogmatic based on it's content - without providing any logic for why these concepts are illogical. A lot of quantum physics sounds utterly stupid if you approach it without any understanding of the context. That doesn't make quantum mechanics dogmatic. Beliefs are dogmatic based on WHY they are held - not WHAT they are.
Where's my freedom from religion? Why should I have to suffer the institutionalised nonsense I see about me everyday? Why should some have the right to ride roughshod over the rule of law, yet if I so much as try to object, I'm the villian? Why should young children be made to suffer the wrongs of religion hoisted on them? Why should religious canon and dogma be codified into law? Why should religion be privilaged in this way? What good does it serve, except to calm the bleating cries of those already under its nepenthine grip?
-stormin
Someone PLEASE mod this up as insightful. Thanks for that comment.
-stormin
I don't take this as a flame, but I think there's a lot you could learn about what it means to be "devout". First off, there are many intelligent, rational people who are devout despite a lack of faith in God. Secondly, when you talk about the trade off implicit in following all the beliefs of religion I think you are - in a sense - right. The trade off is to live with a kind of constant tension. Some religious beliefs do seem harder to swallow than others, and there may be a kind of intellectual dissonance when you're espousing beliefs that don't seem exactly right to you.
I would go so far as to say that this very dissonance may be part of the design of organized religion. You don't turn off the logical, or rational part of your life, but you do have to hold apparently contradictory viewpoints in your mind from time to time.
You see I'm not trying not to convince people that being religious is intellectually superior or better than being non-religious. My major point is not to propound any particular viewpoint whatsoever. I'm simply criticizing those who would irrationally dismiss religion because of their methodology - not their conclusions. If you actually study the intersection of religion and logic I'm not saying that everything will suddenly becomem clear. But you will find that their a lot of very thoughtful people who have a lot of interesting things to say about what it means to be scientific and religious.
There's a lot going on there, I'm just sorry that those on the outside feel so confident about dismissing the entire discussion without ever learning enough to join in.
-stormin
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The existence of a god is not falsifiable.
So? I'm not saying you can be religious and scientific about the same things at the same time. Just that it's possible to believe in God and also be a good scientist. It's not that hard to realize that belief in God is non-falsifiable and therefore non-scientific and yet espouse the believe anyway.
Are you seriously maintaining that in order to be a scientist you must refrain from believing anything in any aspect of your life that's non-scientific? 'Cause we can have some fun with that.
It's a good thing you quoted "scientific", because a person who is actually scientific is not illogical.
Uhh... I agree. A person who is actually scientific is not illogical. But a lot of the "scientific" people are illogical about their anti-religion bigotry. Indicating to me that they are probably not really all that scientific. Hence they are "scientific" people and not scientific people. Furthermore, a lot of people who are and have been scientists historically are/were not very scientific either. Just as a lot of religious people were not really all that religious. This should not be news to anyone out there.
-stormin
Couple of things. First off, I'm not opposed to your take on religious institutions or your argument that people need to fend for themselves. God, if he exists, clearly expects us to get our own shit together. Religious groups that believe that by insulating themselves from the world they can escape it are, in a sense, traitors to the cause of humanity. I'm OK with that. I disagree with your humanist stance, but I have a great deal of respect for it. I'm not really attacking you - or any other atheists - so much as I'm just attempting to counter-attack the overwhelming anti-religion mentality that I find on slashdot.
Religion is the belief in in the supernatural.
Science only only concerns itself with demonstratable conjecture to describe a natural phenomenon.
The distinction between "natural" and "supernatural" is artificial. The argument between science and religion (if you've been following these debates at all) really comes down to choosing terminology. Please tell me your definitions for supernatural vs. natural and we'll see if you even have workable definitions or if this is just a case of you applying definitions in such a way that you're begging the question even before you get started actually using your definitions to argue something.
If your willing to accept the supernatural -- what purpose does reason and logic have in the pursuit of science
You've posed the question, but failed to indicate that there's an actual problem here. What is illogical about believing that there are unquantifiable elements to human existence that are nonetheless important? I hate to be overly cheesey here - but you can't quantify 'love' and yet most of us believe in it in some fashion. Does that make us unfit to be scientists? In my opinion 'love' is no more supernatural than God. We can't really fully explain or prove the existence of either one - but we find that both can enrich (or destroy) our lives.
Finally the point you should remember, is that someone who beleives in logic and religion is always going to be ready to concede to science when science comes out with an experiment that impinges on what was once religious territory. In the past the planets and stars were the domain of religion. But scientists figured out how to measure their movements and astronomy became a science. Initially religion resisted, but eventually had to capitulate.
Whenever science learns how to measure what has not been measured it expands the domain of what is "science". I'm OK with that - and I believe that scientific measurements need to be given the respect they deserve. I used to beleive in strict creationism. It was incompatible with science and as I educated myself I had to acquiesce to the logic. Science won. Someone can have religious inclinations and still be intellectually honest enough to follow the data.
-stormin
I haven't read your whole post. I will read it later. For now let me just point out that judging by this: Calling atheists fanatical dogmatists is not as good an argument as you think. you either have not read or have not understood what I've written.
Not only have I never claimed atheists are fanaticl dommaticsists, I've used atheists as examples more than once of world-views that are valuable and insightful.
My problem (for like the 10th time) is not with WHAT people believe but with WHY they believe. Atheists can be anti-religious bigots, or they can be intellectually honest. Christians (or any other religions denominations) can be anti-science bigots, or they can be intellectually honest.
I'm arguing that people of many worldviews can be rational - not trying to elevate religion over science. I'll read the rest of the post and respond after work.
-stormin
Any system of belief that one maintains which puts provable truth alongside contradictory unprovable belief is simply false.
This is a nice text-book dichotomy but I maintain that it is simply a false one. Science does not actually "prove" anything. You merely continue to either accept (which is not the same as prove) or reject hypotheses. This whole idea that science can "prove" things in general - that anything can be proven with certainty is a fairy tale that should be left behind with 7th grade earth science and high school "there-is-no-wind-resistance" physics.
Scientists are generally very good with facts, figures and theories, but when it comes to interpreting their results into the real world (e.g. understanding what it means to "prove" a theory) they tend to fall flat for the simple reason that you need a good grounding in philosophy to make that transition. A careful scientist will substitute "verify" or some other verb instead of prove precisely to avoid the falsehood you are subscribing too.
As far as your miracle stuff goes, I don't know why you bother with that. What are you trying to say? That science does not provide a way for these miracles to occur? So what? It didn't provide for flight either for most of our history. Who knows what it will explain in another century?
We just keep coming back to the same point. If you want to create a dichotomy between the scientific methodology and the methodology of philosophy/theology at a high level - you are going to fail. The distinctions between science and theology (and there are many) are a product of the objects they study and the tools they study them with. But the rules of logic and reason apply to each equally.
-stormin
No wait. You didn't go far enough. You can't juts call bullshit. You have to call bullshit AND argument from authority.
Next time someone quotes a study at your, or references a published article, just go "way to go with that argument from authority". Because we all know that any referrence to any institution or establishment nullifies the argument by committing the logical fallacy of argument from authority. In fact - the more respeted the institution the more of an argument from authority it is to reference it. Besides, it's cool to call Harvard bullshit. That takes big kahonas.
Now you're an unstoppable internet arguing juggernaut of doom. One day maybe I can be too.
-stormin
I'm getting overwhelmed responding to the posts I feel are most misguided, so I skipped this email for a while.
What makes you think this (religious texts) is any different?
First of all, I think you qualms regarding hiostry being written by the victor are very well-founded. I can answer this question from at least 3 perspectives, and I'll try to hit all 3 quickly. If you want more detail, I urge you to email me. I promise I won't try to evangelize you, but I will be able to take more time to give you a thorough response with some links to various (non-religious) articles.
1. Historically
Starting in the 1940s there's been a flood of ancient manuscripts (e.g. nag hammadi library from Egypt, more famous dead sea scrolls as well) that have started to illuminate both ancient judaism and nascent Christianity. Reading articles from scholars like Hugh Nibly (Mormon) and Margaret Barker (nonMormon) has done much to shore up my opinion that beneath all the confusion and warped doctrine the original intent of the sacred texts (Bible, Book of Mormon, and non-Biblical texts) can be discerned.
2. Intellectually
The beliefs in the texts I believe to be sacred (which is pretty much all texts I've read but to varying degrees) make a lot more sense than the beliefs of some of the more recent theological glosses. Take, as an example, infant baptism. If baptism is necessary for infants - does that mean that infants who are not baptized go to Hell? This doesn't make sense to me - it seems unfair. But the teaching is non-existent in the Bible. Seperate the Bible from the groups that espouse is and the Bible starts to make a lot more sense.
3. Spiritually
I'm brave enough to stick my neck out and call it like it is as far as so-called scientists sneering at religion, but I'm just not quite willing to go the distance and start getting into my own spiritual motivations for belief. Suffice it to say that that what James wrotein the New Testament rings true to me today: "If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally and upbraideth not" (James 1:5, King James Version) I believe that when people ask God he answer. Maybe not all at once, maybe not even exactly the question we asked. But it's been my experience that if you ask sincerely and wait patiently - you'll get your answer. I know exactly how this will be interpreted by the "scientists" among us, but I'm confident that I know myself well enough to differentiate between wishful thinking and something else.
I won't attempt to prove this to anyone. I'll simply state that in my experience, that's what has happened. And I encourage anyone who's earnest to take the time to keep studying what the Bible itself says, what other sacred works say (everything from the Koran to the Book of Mormon to the newly discovered scrolls), and keep an open mind and an open heart.
-stormin
What you don't seem to understand is that the less you know about something the easier it is to write it off as "bullshit". You know squat about theology. Therefore it's easy to write it off as "bullshit". Are you willing to write off all of philosophy as bullshit too? For all I know - you are. And I don't have the time to waste convincing you that would be stupid. How about mathematics?
Then I reply by pointing out that the EXACT SAME PEOPLE who pioneered math and geometry ALSO pioneered philosophy and theology. From Aristotle to Leibniz you simply can not seperate mathematics, philosophy, and theology. As time goes on each becomes increasingly more specialized and remote from the other. It's been said Guass was the last known man to be the master of the entire discipline of mathematics. Not because we're stupid now, but because the topic is simply too vast to be covered by one man now. As a result if you specialize in one field you may get the erroneous impression that you're field is distinct.
What I'm trying to educate you people on is that at the root mathematics, physics, geometry, theology, philosophy, etc are all the same tree - the thirst to apply the human intellect to the world around us in order to harvest wisdom from it. The tools are different. Mathematicians have very strict rules to follow. Physcists (and chemists, etc,) are even more limited by the fact they must have physical phenomena to observer. Philosophers are more diverse in that they have more lax rules and no specific tools. That's why philosophy today looks a lot more lke philosophy 2,000 years ago then (for example) physics today looks to physics 2,000 years ago. The discipline is shaped by the tools.
But theology is just an aspect of philosophy that deals with human questions about God. These questions are no less pressing to some of us then quantum mechanics are to others. And while physics got men to the moon and theology has gotten a bunch of people killed - physics has helped to kill a lot of them. And just because theology can't get us from NY to Tokyo in a few hours doesn't mean it's not worth studying.
The men and women who study theology are bound by the same fundamental rules of logic, reason, and intellectual honesty that those who study phsyics are. The truly sad thing is that the physicist - trapped in an ivory tower of tools and instruments - has come to believe that intellectual endeavor itself should be constrained to the reach of those tools.
But human intellect will not be relegated to human tools. If you have chosen the path of studying only that to which you can apply a number, I congratulate you. You guys make lives better. But quantifiability does not define legitimacy.
-stormin
Let me put it this way.
I'm in argument. I tell someone they are an idiot. And they say "yeah - well the entire intellectual establishment of the West implicitly agrees with me". I probably want to come up with something better than "oh - that's an appeal to authority".
Everyone can go look up "fallacies logical" on Google and respond as you did. But what I'd like to point out is the sheer weight of intellectual arrogance that goes into assuming that an entire class of human knowledge is worthless when you haven't even been seriously exposed to it.
Think about it - that's like me saying "sociology is a bunch of crap". You respond "guess all the sociology PhDs should hand in their degrees". If could say "ooh! ooh! appeal to authority". And if my goal is win points and sound cool on the internet, than good for me. But if I'm intellectually honest then I'll probably come up with an actual response to the fact that several thousand people have dedicated their professional lives to the study of something I claim is nothing but guess work.
You can call it an appeal to authority if you like. But if you're more than a superficial internet troll you may realize that it's also an appeal to the life work of thousands of scholars who you've just dismissed in utter ignorance of what they study, how they study, etc.
-stormin
I'm going to assume that your question is actually honest and not rhetorical.
First of all, let's discuss the notion of "proof". There's no such thing as certainty. I take that as a given. Descartes pointed this out most eloquently: the human capacity to doubt is infinite. If you don't remember Descartes "Meditations" then try this on for size: Science is based on observation. Observation is based on the assumed premise that causality exists. There's no actual a priori reason to believe in causality - it's just how our minds are wired. Thus there's no a priori reason to believe that observations about the world can tell us anything about the world. But we engage in those observations in order to find evidence of causality. In other words, we assume (for the sake of argument) that our observations will reveal something about the nature of the universe, make the observations, make predictions based on those observations, conduct experiments, and certify that our observations seem to be true.
Two things to realize: 1 - we had to (logically, not temporally) assume the conclusion in order to test it and 2 - even after testing we're not 100% certain in our conclusion.
All I'm saying is that we need to realize that science has a bit of an image problem. People believe it "proves" things without realizing that "proof" doesn't mean certainty, and that science itself relies to some extent on assuming conclusions before testing them.
Now let's take a look at religion. You say there is "no evidence" for God. How do you come to this conclusion? Many people claim to have seen him. Or her. Or it. There are many books that claim to be about him. Or her. Or it. This, I would argue, is evidence. Not sufficient to provide certainty - no. Especially since a lot of it is contradictory. But it's more than 0. Furthermore the same types of experiments that work in science don't work in religion. You can't quantify spirituality. So you shouldn't expect to be able to craft a God-O-Meter.
But this doesn't mean there's no reason to believe. Just that it's a different kind of belief. You believe first in science. Then you experiment. You gather evidence. You publish results. And you convince others. You believe first in religion. Then you experiment. You gather evidence. But the evidence you gather can't be published. It's evidence like "I prayed, and I felt I got an answer" or "I lived according to religious principles, and felt my life improve". These are personal experiences that don't admit themselves to statistical analysis. But that doesn't mean they are not real.
And so I would say that genuine religious belief is founded on sincere searching that is less precise, and less reliable than science but that answers questions science can not answer. And it is certainly not blind in the complete sense.
-stormin
Why is it that scientists - who really should know better - insist on acting as though they understand religion?
Let's just be clear. You're not religious. You have probably never seriously studied religion (accept those anti-religion fun-sites on the internet). You have probably never taken college-level courses in the philosophy of religion. In basically every way that matters, you are more or less completely ignorant of what religion is. I can think of no one less-qualified than you to tell the general public what religion is in "its purest essence".
The fact that you think religion has to do with the assertion of unsubstantiated claims shows you have no idea what you're talking about. Go read C.S. Lewis. Go read Kierkegaard. Go take a class.
What you will learn is simply this. Science is confined to the realm of the quantifiable and reproducible. Science can not answer some compelling questions. Science can not answer any teleological questions. Science can inform - and does inform - questions like "why do bad things happen to good people" or "is free will an illusion" but it can never provide answers. And if you don't care about those questions - that's fine.
But the greatest minds in the history of intellectual thought have been pre-occupied or even obsessed with questions that are inextricably tied to religion and which science can NOT answer. The fact is that the human inquisitiveness will not be restrained by the human capacity to build tools to measure. And as long as there are those aspects to the human experience that are unquantifiable then honest men and women will apply their logic, reason, and passion to the investigation of those questions that fall outside the pale of scientific research. And some of that investigation will fall into the realm of theology.
I fear the kind of disgusting barren wastelend you would create for us. Where anyone that can run an experiment is ashamed to read Kant. Anyone that conducts research should hide their books by Descartes. Anyone who wants to study physics should lock Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle in the trunk.
Nothing could possibly have conveyed to me the utter intellecual shallowness of the present scientific establishment in America if it weren't for these mind-numbing posts coming one after another on Slashdot. You are standing on the shoulders of scientific giants - and some of those scientists were also believers in God. I'm utterly aghast that you think such a clinical line can be drawn throughout our common intellectual heritage to distangle the "scientific" from the "religious" and make the one honorable and the other despised.
Only someone truly and utterly ignorant of their own intellectual heritage could ever conceive of this. I have no illusion that there aren't also some incredible atheist scientists. And I don't think science necessitates religion. But to think that it obviates religion? No one who truly understands science or religion could think such a thing.
-stormin
theology is not and has never been anything more than guesswork
Do you have any actual substance to back this assertion up? I'd point out that historically a lot of the best philosophers have also been the greatest mathematicians. I'd also point out that the majority of these philosophers have worked with philosophical issues (e.g. proof for or against God) that could be termed theology. Logic and thinking were the common thread that led great minds to engage themselves with interests from the formation of calculus to arguments against God. In fact many of the fathers of statistics were fascinated with the use of statistics to formulate new proofs for God. Now would that be math, philosophy, or theology? Since clearly these things fit into seperate containers according to you.
I guess I'll just go tell the Harvard School of Divinity to shut down now because the geniuses on Slashdot have confirmed that theology is, in fact, just guesswork. If all the theologians could quiety turn your PhDs back in - it turns out there was nothing to study. You're all just basically like psychics on the hotline. And I'm afraid all those existentialism courses that involve works by Kierkegaard will just have to excise those manuscripts from the text. And all that stuff Socrates and Plato said about God? Yeah - we're going to have to ask students to just mark out those sections of the text. Those sentences are theology. The other stuff is philosophy though, so that can stay.
And for those numerous philosophers of religion or atheist theologians - I'm afraid that according to slashdot posters - philosophy and theology are actually two distinct entites. So if you could just stop existing now, that'd be great.
Thanks.
-stormin
One of the main points I'm trying to make is to get people (such as yourself) to realize the importance of making distinctions between the object of people's belief and their method of belief.
I criticized religious people who believe in the utter absence of reason and/or logic. I have the exact same criticism for scientists - or anyone else - who believes in that way regardless of what they believe.
If you actually understood this point you'd realize how silly your counter-accusation is. After I get through explaining that my beef is with the method and not the object, you accuse me of judging people based on the object of their beliefs. But this is an entirely different form of disagreement.
It's really simple. I can easily run into another Mormon who believes the same things (so we're talking about the object of belief) and yet come to the conclusion that this particular Mormon believes for utterly irrational reasons - or in other words has no reason for his/her faith whatsoever. That would make this Mormon a dogmatcisst in my view, and I'd be as annoyed with him/her as I am with these scientific know-nothings on Slashdot. This isn't hypothetical - I know many such Mormons and they piss me off to no end (especially because they can give the rest of us such a bad name when they get loose in public).
I could just as easily come across a Muslim (in fact, my best friend is Muslim so this isn't really hypothetical) who has different beleifs (objects of belief) but believes with intellectual honesty (method of believing). I believe the Muslim is in error about some points of theology (object of belief) but I have the utmost respect for this particular Muslims reasons for believing (methodology). Am I getting through to you yet?
What seems to be difficult for you some of these "science" types who are obsessed with what people believe and have never thought about why or how they believe is that I - as a religious person with a particular theology - have no problem with diverse beliefs. I have no problem with atheists, baptists, catholics, muslims, mormons, hindus, buddhists, wiccans, mystics, etc. I think the world is better for this diversity of belief. And I also earnestly believe that people from ALL corners of the world know certain things better than I do. I can learn about courage from a humanist who believes in ethical action with no motivation of a happy after life. I can learn about peaceful acceptance and control of self from a zen buddhist (who also happened to teach some kickin' zen judo). I don't have to pretend to respect these viewpoints while secretly thinking they are all going to Hell. I can honestly say "I disagree with your viewpoint about x" and we can discuss it as friends with mutual respect.
But the reason we can have understanding across different belief systems is because we're all logical and rational people. As long as everyone at the table is being intellectually honest - diversity of opinion can exist in a genuinely accepting environment.
So hopefully now you understand that your attack: You think it's unacceptable for atheists to reject your view of religion but at the same time it's OK for you to reject other religious viewpoints. is the only thing that's logically void. I have a beef with people who believe ANYTHING illogically, but I have no problem with disagreements about particularities of belief among honest people.
There's no self-inconsistency here whatsoever. I'll give you a final metaphor: Mathemeticians can debate ways to solve problems because they all know the rules of math. They can stand around a blackboard and argue conceptualizations of the problem at hand and have differing opinions about how to solve the problem. That's like me and people of other beliefs (from atheism to Mormonism). But if someone comes into the room and starts simplifying equations by converting x^5 to 5x then it's a different matter entirely. You're saying that the mathematician either has to accept everyone's argument (from the fellow mathematicians to the random crazy) or he has to reject them all.
-stormin