Science & Christianity- debate over everything

[RobQel-Droma]

God is the default answer when science can't explain something (yet).

 

And yet, can you prove that that isn't true for the opposite side? "God is automatically wrong"?

[mur'phon]

And yet, can you prove that that isn't true for the opposite side? "God is automatically wrong"?

 

Not sure I'm understanding you corectly, but as far as I know, most scientist would accept "God" as an explanation if evidence show that there is a a god, and it is the christian one.

[jonathan7]

Not sure I'm understanding you corectly' date=' but as far as I know, most scientist would accept "God" as an explanation if evidence show that there is a a god, and it is the christian one.[/quote']

 

I'm a Christian, Jesus is my saviour, but in matters of logic and faith the below is imperetive if you actually want to believe what is true...

 

"While spiritual insight or faith is one valid measure in spiritual matters, true spiritual insight never directly contradicts valid intellectual insight or facts in the physical world. Faith may go beyond reason, but does not go against it. It never blatantly contradicts the facts which we perceive with our God-given common sense. Faith and fact point in a single direction. Whey they do not, something is seriously wrong…A willingness to accept facts as they exist, and to learn to use them to test the views one holds rather than falling back on subjective experience or rationalizations, is the first step towards discovering genuine truth." (Charles Larson, By His Own Hand Upon Papyrus, pp. 177-178)

 

It has been my experiance as a Christian, that my any of my scientific friends make more logical deductions about how we are here as they examine the evidence in front of them, instead of examining the evidence with a pre-exsisting supposition. That is to say; if you have already decided the answer on illogical grounds; no ammount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.

[MJ-W4]

It has been my experience as a Christian, that my any of my scientific friends make more logical deductions about how we are here as they examine the evidence in front of them, instead of examining the evidence with a pre-exsisting supposition. That is to say; if you have already decided the answer on illogical grounds; no ammount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.

Quoted For Truth. Believing in God in itself is no reason not to be a capable scientist. It is fanatism, religious or otherwise, that clouds the view and incapacitates people's minds.

[RobQel-Droma]

I'm a Christian, Jesus is my saviour, but in matters of logic and faith the below is imperetive if you actually want to believe what is true...

 

I believe in God, and Jesus, I've devoted my life to him as well. So, when something in our world appears that has no known explanation, yes, I do suppose I say "God." After all, I believe in Him. That is my faith, my belief system. Some may see that as irrational, but when I believe in a supreme Creator of the universe.... yes: I do look to Him as having all the answers, instead of me.

 

It has been my experiance as a Christian, that my any of my scientific friends make more logical deductions about how we are here as they examine the evidence in front of them, instead of examining the evidence with a pre-exsisting supposition. That is to say; if you have already decided the answer on illogical grounds; no ammount of evidence to the contrary will change your mind.

 

That is all well and good (and I totally agree with you). However, simply by professing your faith in a divine being, you have made this "assumption" of something with no evidence (at least according to some atheists in this thread). So you have just now believed in something with no logic or rational that others can agree with.

[jonathan7]

That is all well and good (and I totally agree with you). However, simply by professing your faith in a divine being, you have made this "assumption" of something with no evidence (at least according to some atheists in this thread). So you have just now believed in something with no logic or rational that others can agree with.

 

Having not head my reasons for belief in God; you and they cannot really attribute if I have used logic or not in my beliefs; and have come to a rational conclusion from the evidence. Suffice to say my best friend is an atheist and considers me the most rational thinker he knows; he doesn't consider my arguments for why I am a Christian either illogical or irrational.

[RobQel-Droma]

Having not head my reasons for belief in God; you and they cannot really attribute if I have used logic or not in my beliefs; and have come to a rational conclusion from the evidence. Suffice to say my best friend is an atheist and considers me the most rational thinker he knows; he doesn't consider my arguments for why I am a Christian either illogical or irrational.

 

Well, not having heard your reasons isn't going to stop people who don't believe what you do. Just because your atheist friend consideres you a rational thinker and/or accept your reasons doesn't mean most atheists will. That was my point.

[Samuel Dravis]

Quite... if your friend thinks your reasons are good yet still finds them inadequate for himself, they must only apply to yourself or your situation (here I imagine you had an entirely genuine spiritual experience).

 

This kind of justification does indeed seem interesting, given your other comment about faith and (material) facts 'pulling' the same direction - if this true faith never makes statements about material things, then of course it will never contradict scientific theory (although it might violate some axioms that science uses).

 

Given this is true, I'm not sure how it can be said that faith 'pulls' in the same direction as facts do, since they have apparently little to do with each other. Faith may accommodate facts in order to increase credibility, but even that doesn't seem necessary.

 

Needless to say, this system of faith lacks any criterion for revision or correction. "Private revelation" and similar reasons are completely devoid of objectivity and therefore intelligibility, regardless of how genuine a feeling you might have while experiencing it. Suppose another of your buddies had a revelation and converted, but his experience convinced him that your church is wrong (although, of course, his reasons for this are inexpressible). How to fix this?--- Establish another church. Any disagreement arising from this kind of revelation is inherently unsolvable given the complete and total lack of objectivity involved; it's hard to believe that any god would make faith caused by subjective feelings when he could just as easily throw a lightning bolt at the heretic (and so lend objectivity to faith).

 

So although it may look better on the surface, it's not difficult to see why many would object to a faith that necessarily agrees with science-- It seems to completely rule out objective criteria for conversion and belief by making any objective standard irrelevant...

[tk102]

Given this is true, I'm not sure how it can be said that faith 'pulls' in the same direction as facts do, since they have apparently little to do with each other. Faith may accommodate facts in order to increase credibility, but even that doesn't seem necessary.

On their own, I would agree that faith and science have little to do with each other, but these two realms of thought and experience never do exist in and of themselves. Instead they reside within the human mind which has the capacity to partake in both. The idea of 'pulling' in a direction implies a subject that is so pulled. If the mind of this subject finds agreement in the co-partaking of faith and science, it is satisfactory to say that they both pull him in the same direction.

 

Yet of course there is a difference between science and faith. The former can be communicated in terms and conditions that describe phenomenon objectively and predictably. The latter fills in the gaps beyond the borders of what can be described in such terms and as such is not directly communicative. If it were so, it would be science. Instead it the experience of faith can only be implied from one person to another through allegory and anecdote.

 

Human beings have the capacity for both, just as we have the capacity for mathematics and art. It is wise to realize the limits of each. Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things, while faith can explain all things but cannot be communicated objectively.

[Achilles]

Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things,

Due to a fundamental flaw with the process or...?

 

...while faith can explain all things but cannot be communicated objectively.

Faith (in the context being used) explains nothing. Saying that something happened "by magic" is not explanation at all, let alone a powerful explanation capable of explaining all things.

[Samuel Dravis]

On their own, I would agree that faith and science have little to do with each other, but these two realms of thought and experience never do exist in and of themselves. Instead they reside within the human mind which has the capacity to partake in both. The idea of 'pulling' in a direction implies a subject that is so pulled. If the mind of this subject finds agreement in the co-partaking of faith and science, it is satisfactory to say that they both pull him in the same direction.

I would agree with you but for one problem: the faith here is being defined as in accord with science. It is meaningless talking of the direction of pull when there is only one direction possible; because of this, simply incorporating facts into belief lends it no greater credibility than it had in the first place (i.e., it stays personal and private). Like I said at the end of my last post, when faith necessarily agrees with science, any meaning the association would have had is lost. At that point one really has to question what purpose including facts into belief has, since faith doesn't consist of anything objective. Note that if this was not the case, it would be true that science could support a particular faith.

 

Yet of course there is a difference between science and faith. The former can be communicated in terms and conditions that describe phenomenon objectively and predictably. The latter fills in the gaps beyond the borders of what can be described in such terms and as such is not directly communicative. If it were so, it would be science. Instead it the experience of faith can only be implied from one person to another through allegory and anecdote.

Yet I wonder how it could be expressed in that way, since it is by definition inexpressible. No one else can possibly know what you feel during a spiritual experience. The most you could say is, "I feel good" (but there are many things that make you feel good), or "I feel like I have to change my life!" (certainly there are objective criteria for that decision) or "I felt connected with the universe" (but what, exactly, does that mean?).

 

Going with the last example, how would it be possible to express "feeling connected" with the universe? Surely you couldn't show someone the feeling itself, because that is subjective. Instead you might tell someone "I was at peace" - but then you've just defined your state objectively; that is, "when I have this feeling I behave this way." - and I know what peaceful behavior looks like, because I have used and seen the same words employed in association with my own experiences.

 

It really doesn't matter what you feel, only how you act, for in no other way can meaning be communicated.... If you were trying to teach a baby to stay away from hot things, would you simply tell him "Stay away from hot things, they're bad for you."? Of course not. You'd show them examples of hot things, and you'd lead them away if they got too close, while saying "hot" and using various other objective gestures...

 

I don't find that there is anything in human experience beyond discussion for this reason: we never talk about anything but objective things, and the things that are subjective, like the feeling of heat, we show the meaning of through objective action - but we never talk about the feeling itself, only what actions occur when it is felt.

 

If there is something that lies outside of objective expression like described in the above, then there simply is no way to talk about it or its attributes (if it has any) because it would necessarily lack any distinguishing characteristics. If faith is of this type then it truly cannot be expressed in any intelligible way, much less by anecdotes or anything else.

 

Human beings have the capacity for both, just as we have the capacity for mathematics and art. It is wise to realize the limits of each. Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things, while faith can explain all things but cannot be communicated objectively.

I think I answered this in the above. Meaning is action; action is objective; words gain their meaning through how they are used; everything objective can be said with words and anything else simply can't be talked about.

 

Interestingly, since words like "explain" only have an objective meaning, they cannot be used in conjunction with subjective. Faith really can't explain anything because there are no circumstances with which one can differentiate a true explanation from a falsehood, an inherently objective concept.

[tk102]

Due to a fundamental flaw with the process or...?

No, due to our own limits in understanding and perhaps also limits of the finite to describe the infinite.

Faith (in the context being used) explains nothing. Saying that something happened "by magic" is not explanation at all, let alone a powerful explanation capable of explaining all things.

Substitute the word intuition for faith if you like. It means the same to me in the subjective context I was meant to convey.

[Achilles]

No, due to our own limits in understanding and perhaps also limits of the finite to describe the infinite.

Ok, so science itself is not at fault for that for which is has not posited an explanation.

 

Substitute the word intuition for faith if you like. It means the same to me in the subjective context I was meant to convey.

Intuition is not a powerful explanation either. It might sometime be part of a process which eventually leads to an explanation (via a rigorous process of ruling out other possible explanations), but in and of itself it's mostly useless.

 

We can use a hundred different fuzzy terms, but at the end of the day, there is only one institution that I am familiar with that is in the business of providing explanations.

[tk102]

I would agree with you but for one problem: the faith here is being defined as in accord with science.

That's not how I subjectively understood the argument. I read Jonathon's post as a person describing how his own faith agrees with science. -- not intending to state all faith agrees with science.

 

The most you could say is, "I feel good"

Yes I would agree.

how would it be possible to express "feeling connected" with the universe?

That's about as far as you can go. Such inner experiences always warrant an ellipses at the tail end of their description because the description itself is limited by the words used.

 

I don't find that there is anything in human experience beyond discussion for this reason: we never talk about anything but objective things, and the things that are subjective, like the feeling of heat, we show the meaning of through objective action.

Only the part after the colon I agree with. In using words to describe inner experiences, you make a leap of faith the other person will know the meaning in the way you mean. External perceptions, measurements, things we call objective -- these things we can speak of and can finish each other's sentences in describing. I measure a table, you measure the table, and we both come up with the same number. It is reasonable to believe that our perceptions of the external experience are ver nearly identical.

 

With internal experiences however, descriptions will fall short for lack of external criteria on which we can both agree. In trying to describe my experience, I must attempt to elicit empathies in you in the hopes that you will find meaning in my words. But of course I cannot know your internal experience of my words. Thus we just have to settle on the limit of words. (In re-reading this, maybe that doesn't put internal experiences "beyond discussion" exactly, but I think you get my point that some experiences cannot be conveyed accurately through discussion.)

 

If there is something that lies outside of objective expression like described in the above, then there simply is no way to talk about it or its attributes (if it has any) because it would necessarily lack any distinguishing characteristics. If faith is of this type then it truly cannot be expressed in any intelligible way, much less by anecdotes or anything else.

Therefore internal experiences such as faith or intuition is objective because words can be ascribed to them? The words themselves may be objective, but how well they represent the experience is subjective to speaker and listener.

 

If we are both listening to the same music, we could objectively describe the pitch, tempo, lyrics, etc. But the fact that I heard this music while camping with friends during the summer before going to college would make the experience I had hearing that music something quite different than yours. Likewise, if I choose certain words to describe an internal experience, you can objectively describe the words I've used, but you may take a different meaning from those words than I intended.

 

Giving words to the experience does not make the experience objective, nor does our failure to know each other's experience mean that the experience cannot be described at all.

 

since words like "explain" only have an objective meaning, they cannot be used in conjunction with subjective

You're absolutely right. I did take some liberty with constructing that last parallelism. The phrase "Faith can explain all things," could have been written "Faith can quiet the internal questioning of all things."

 

Ok, so science itself is not at fault for that for which is has not posited an explanation.

Just because science as a tool is not at fault does not necessarily mean we will be able to deduce all things in the universe if the universe is infinitely complex and our minds our finite. In other words, even as the light of science shines more and more broadly, there will always be room for imagination, intuition, and even faith for what lies beyond the shadow.

 

 

Intuition is not a powerful explanation either. It might sometime be part of a process which eventually leads to an explanation (via a rigorous process of ruling out other possible explanations), but in and of itself it's mostly useless.

Whether or not an explanation is powerful or not depends on how you define powerful. If you mean powerful as in powerfully convincing to others, I'd agree. If you mean powerfully convincing to oneself... well that's subjective.

 

I wouldn't say intuition is mostly useless however. Many times in our lives we have to make decisions for which there is no possible way for us to know the outcome and it comes to a flip of a coin. Maybe it's a snap decision based on a hunch or getting a bad feeling about someone for no obvious reason. Intuition helps make decisions when there is no other logic to go by.

 

We can use a hundred different fuzzy terms, but at the end of the day, there is only one institution that I am familiar with that is in the business of providing explanations.

And it's a powerful one (as in powerfully convincing to others). I didn't mean to imply that faith or intuition should be used in place of science. As Samuel pointed out, the word "explain" can't really be used by intuition or faith.

[jonathan7]

This will be a lengthy responce;

 

Firstly I would like to quote this;

 

That's not how I subjectively understood the argument. I read Jonathon's post as a person describing how his own faith agrees with science. -- not intending to state all faith agrees with science.

 

Well, not having heard your reasons isn't going to stop people who don't believe what you do. Just because your atheist friend consideres you a rational thinker and/or accept your reasons doesn't mean most atheists will. That was my point.

 

That of course is their perogative. I would dispute the old adage that 'Great minds think alike' and instead say that great minds can have an appritiation of great minds; but rarely do they think a like. As Aristotle said; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” If you consider any of us great minds if for you to decide; I don't expect to change anyones opinions however I hope that people may have a respect and understand why I believe what I do; while they may not agree with my conclusions.

 

Quite... if your friend thinks your reasons are good yet still finds them inadequate for himself, they must only apply to yourself or your situation (here I imagine you had an entirely genuine spiritual experience).

 

In answer to your latter point I have been healed on several occasions; once minutes from going into the operating theatre for appendicitus.

 

Both me and him have an appritiation of the below Russell quote;

“If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.” From a collection of his essays entitled 'Why I'm not a Christian'

 

As such we are both pulled in a certain direction; so something we often muse is having read the same book we will have very different thoughts about it. A intruiging question does then need to be asked; what was the author trying to convay?

 

This kind of justification does indeed seem interesting, given your other comment about faith and (material) facts 'pulling' the same direction - if this true faith never makes statements about material things, then of course it will never contradict scientific theory (although it might violate some axioms that science uses).

 

The question is are you allow your own biases inherrant within you influence your thinking? i.e. Suppose there is a God, would science not point in that direction? Something I am always reminded of is none of us truly have an 'open' mind, as we are all prisoners so to speak of our own learning and expierance.

 

This maybe of help, its an essay entitled; How to Seek the Truth; it reflects my own methods of reasoning and has alot of my rather random reading in it; As it is not an academic work I haven't bothered with citations. However if people so wish for a source for the Quotes PM me and I will provide a list of the books they come from.

 

I apologise for length, but given some of what has been said I feel this is relevant with regards my perceptions of the World.

 

This is to aid all those who really want to seek the truth, this is my personal way of deciding what is true.

 

I think it would be best to use the quotes which most reflect my thinking and where my reasoning comes from. They are from minds, far more reasoned and intelligent than my own; firstly as a member of the intellegencia I would have to agree with Bertrand Russell that “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.” I fully concur with this statement as I believe the search for absolute truths misunderstands the nature of the human mind; there is absolute truth, but can any human ever be in possession of it? All we can really do is seek truth with all our hearts and minds, to constantly test what we believe against facts, to be in a constant state of a reformation of our thought. As such I think it is far better for us to attach a percentage value to how sure we are of things we have investigated. The real question is do you want to seek the truth, or be comfortable in what you believe? If you really want to find the truth read on, if not I would advise you stop reading shortly; I say this because the search for truth can be uncomfortable, it could mean having to throw out an entire set of beliefs you have had for most of your life. Stop reading now, if you would rather believe lies than to search for truth. It is my belief most people don’t really seek truth as they tend to only ever read things which back up pre-existing suppositions; instead of reading both sides of an argument then coming to a reasoned and logical conclusion.

 

Albert Einstein said “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 marvellous structure of reality. It is enough if one tries merely to comprehend a little of this mystery every day. Never lose a holy curiosity.”

 

The philosopher William Godwin said; “I will follow truth wherever she leads.” (I think Plato said something along these lines as well but I couldn’t find the quote). I would concur with Rene Descartes when he said "If you would be a real seeker after truth, it is necessary that at least once in your life you doubt, as far as possible, all things". This quote from Descartes is highly important; as Sherlock Holmes said; "I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts". If you have already decided on an answer; not matter what evidence is given to the contrary having already decided not on logical grounds; logic will have no impact on your ‘reasoning’. Bertrand Russell pointed out; “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason to act in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence”. We must find out where our natural biases are, as we will all have them, and indeed what we believe must be what we test most verdantly to make sure we are correct. Here is a great quote from my favourite Philosopher and in my opinion that greatest mind of the last millennia; Nietzsche, he said; “At every step one has to wrestle for truth; one has to surrender for it almost everything to which the heart, to which our love, our trust in life, cling otherwise. That requires greatness of soul: the service of truth is the hardest service. What does it mean, after all, to have integrity in matters of the spirit? That one is severe against one's heart...that one makes of every Yes and No a matter of conscience.”

 

It is my belief that in seeking truth we should work in a somewhat scientific manner that is to say that we should hypothesize then test our hypothesis. The Atheist philosopher David Hume said “A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence”.

I would have to argue that we should always believe what we believe based on the evidence that we have gathered.

 

Now intellectually if we are constantly testing what we believe and as we can never 100% rule something out, this means we should allow others their opinions no matter how illogical they may seem on the small chance we are wrong. Protagoras said; “There are two sides to every question.” Following that I would quote one of the great Greeks; “It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” (Aristotle). Bertrand Russell has produce an awesome quote which I have taken from a collection of his essays published as a book 'Why I am not a Christian' “The fundamental difference between the liberal and illiberal outlook is that the former regards all questions as open to discussion and all opinions as open to a greater or less measure of doubt, while the latter holds in advance that certain opinions are absolutely unquestionable, and that no argument against them must be allowed to be heard. What is curious about this position is the belief that if impartial investigation were permitted it would lead men to the wrong conclusion, and that ignorance, therefore, the only safeguard against error. This point of view is one which cannot be accepted by any man who wishes reason rather than prejudice to govern human action.” Personally when teaching I will present both sides of an argument and let the student decide the correct answers for themselves, unless of course I am presented with a polemic, in which case I will respond with a polemic from the contrary position to provoke thought. Nietzsche said "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently."

 

Perhaps the most important questions are ‘Why are we here?’ and ‘Is there a God’ as the answers to these questions define our existence. Even here to be a seeker of truth I think we should base what we believe on evidence, Nietzsche said; "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." To often people of religious backgrounds make appeals to emotion and feeling over what is logical deductive reason of the facts. Charles Larson produced a simply wonderful quote; "While spiritual insight or faith is one valid measure in spiritual matters, true spiritual insight never directly contradicts valid intellectual insight or facts in the physical world. Faith may go beyond reason, but does not go against it. It never blatantly contradicts the facts which we perceive with our God-given common sense. Faith and fact point in a single direction. When they do not, something is seriously wrong…A willingness to accept facts as they exist, and to learn to use them to test the views one holds rather than falling back on subjective experience or rationalizations, is the first step towards discovering genuine truth."

 

I wish you luck on your search for truth, and will end with this quote from Rabindranath Tagore; "Truth comes as conqueror only to those who have lost the art of receiving it as friend."

 

Needless to say, this system of faith lacks any criterion for revision or correction. "Private revelation" and similar reasons are completely devoid of objectivity and therefore intelligibility, regardless of how genuine a feeling you might have while experiencing it. Suppose another of your buddies had a revelation and converted, but his experience convinced him that your church is wrong (although, of course, his reasons for this are inexpressible). How to fix this?--- Establish another church. Any disagreement arising from this kind of revelation is inherently unsolvable given the complete and total lack of objectivity involved; it's hard to believe that any god would make faith caused by subjective feelings when he could just as easily throw a lightning bolt at the heretic (and so lend objectivity to faith).

 

I would again advise caution, with hypothesing what I think. If I am nothing else I am an enigma and extremley contradictory. Personally I sit on the fence on with regards most Christian issues; I have me personal beliefs, but I happy to agree to disagree. That is to say I consider a Christian to be someone who loves and trusts in Jesus for their salvation; everything else is secondary to that. (For the atheists; watch as I now recieve a fair ammount of heat for that statement).

 

So although it may look better on the surface, it's not difficult to see why many would object to a faith that necessarily agrees with science-- It seems to completely rule out objective criteria for conversion and belief by making any objective standard irrelevant...

 

That is not something you can yet judge with any fairness; at the moment you risk fundemental attribution bias...

 

Science can communicate objectively but cannot not explain all things,

 

Due to a fundamental flaw with the process or...?

 

I would argue a difference in Question.

 

Science asks how?

 

Philosophy asks why?

 

I would agree with you but for one problem: the faith here is being defined as in accord with science. It is meaningless talking of the direction of pull when there is only one direction possible; because of this, simply incorporating facts into belief lends it no greater credibility than it had in the first place (i.e., it stays personal and private). Like I said at the end of my last post, when faith necessarily agrees with science, any meaning the association would have had is lost. At that point one really has to question what purpose including facts into belief has, since faith doesn't consist of anything objective. Note that if this was not the case, it would be true that science could support a particular faith.

 

I would make two points.

 

A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything.

 

You have already assumed of course that Atheism is true and science points in that direction, which begs a question, did you decide on atheism then research the science? Or did you become an atheist because of the science?

 

Whether or not an explanation is powerful or not depends on how you define powerful. If you mean powerful as in powerfully convincing to others, I'd agree. If you mean powerfully convincing to oneself... well that's subjective.

 

I wouldn't say intuition is mostly useless however. Many times in our lives we have to make decisions for which there is no possible way for us to know the outcome and it comes to a flip of a coin. Maybe it's a snap decision based on a hunch or getting a bad feeling about someone for no obvious reason. Intuition helps make decisions when there is no other logic to go by.

 

My friend Mike (a Forensic Scientis) told me something intruiging the other day; An interesting phenomena is that Forensic Psychologists are statistically ineffectual in the UK. There is no evidence that they help in the solving of crimes, however top of the field Psychiatrists are of great help. I would argue the former use deductive reason and the latter inductive; but that induction comes with a profound knowledge of the human mind.

 

Sorry for the long post, I hope it was of some interest.

[Samuel Dravis]

That's not how I subjectively understood the argument. I read Jonathon's post as a person describing how his own faith agrees with science. -- not intending to state all faith agrees with science.

I agree, of course. I was trying to show that a faith that necessarily incorporates scientific facts must also throw away any objective criteria for evaluating that faith, something which I think is (or at least should be) abhorrent to anyone rational. For example, jonathan's healings that he spoke of are objective and can be evaluated... but if faith does not depend on anything external whatever, it is wholly subjective and there is literally no way to talk about it.

 

Only the part after the colon I agree with. In using words to describe inner experiences, you make a leap of faith the other person will know the meaning in the way you mean. External perceptions, measurements, things we call objective -- these things we can speak of and can finish each other's sentences in describing. I measure a table, you measure the table, and we both come up with the same number. It is reasonable to believe that our perceptions of the external experience are very nearly identical.

 

With internal experiences however, descriptions will fall short for lack of external criteria on which we can both agree. In trying to describe my experience, I must attempt to elicit empathies in you in the hopes that you will find meaning in my words. But of course I cannot know your internal experience of my words. Thus we just have to settle on the limit of words. (In re-reading this, maybe that doesn't put internal experiences "beyond discussion" exactly, but I think you get my point that some experiences cannot be conveyed accurately through discussion.)

I admit I was probably slightly hasty with the first sentence there. I meant that there is nothing that can be talked about that we aren't already able to convey.

 

No meaning is certain, at least in the sense that a word always means something and you can guarantee what the other person thinks when he hears it - but then you look to his actions to see if he knows what the word means.

 

If the baby stays away from hot things and can identify them with the word "hot", then he knows what hot means, regardless of any specific subjective meaning it may have to him... even if the feeling the baby has when approaching something hot is what we feel when approaching something cold.

 

So to give others an idea of what you mean, you simply act a certain way, say certain things that are associated with "feeling at peace." No, no one knows exactly what you feel, but since "exactly what you feel" is irrelevant to the meaning of the word, it doesn't matter.

 

Therefore internal experiences such as faith or intuition is objective because words can be ascribed to them? The words themselves may be objective, but how well they represent the experience is subjective to speakerand listener.

Suppose I said:

 

I feel orange.

I feel 7354.

I feel banana.

I feel wood.

I feel blue.

 

What meaning do these sentences have? None, save for the last one. Why? Because it is used in conjunction with a certain objective state. When you feel blue it means you're depressed or sad, so you mope around and generally act depressed.

 

I suppose if I said "I feel 7354" every time I acted in a specific way, then it could gain meaning-- but only to people who know what actions the sentence refers to. Simply saying, "I have decided to call feeling X joy" does not lend understanding to anyone else about what you mean, and indeed, since you lack any criteria for deciding what exact feeling is "joy" it doesn't mean much to you either. You'd simply decide what seems right, and that is no definition at all. Because of this, the words are objective and mean objective things. There is absolutely no discussion of anything subjective.

 

If we are both listening to the same music, we could objectively describe the pitch, tempo, lyrics, etc. But the fact that I heard this music while camping with friends during the summer before going to college would make the experience I had hearing that music something quite different than yours. Likewise, if I choose certain words to describe an internal experience, you can objectively describe the words I've used, but you may take a different meaning from those words than I intended.

I agree with this except for the last "likewise" and on. What meaning is supposed to be conveyed by the words which do not have an objective definition? I might construe it to be something good, since you are excited about it and seem happy, but other than that there is no way to know what you're talking about.

 

Giving words to the experience does not make the experience objective, nor does our failure to know each other's experience mean that the experience cannot be described at all.

I think I responded to this in the two above replies.

 

You're absolutely right. I did take some liberty with constructing that last parallism. The phrase "Faith can explain all things," could have been written "Faith can quiet the internal questioning of all things."

I have to agree with you there, tk.

 

--------------------------------

In answer to your latter point I have been healed on several occasions; once minutes from going into the operating theatre for appendicitis.

I see. Now you've made me curious... did you believe before or after these occurrences, and what connects these healings with anything other than the fact of the happening itself?

 

Both me and him have an apparition of the below Russell quote;

 

As such we are both pulled in a certain direction; so something we often muse is having read the same book we will have very different thoughts about it. A intriguingly question does then need to be asked; what was the author trying to convey?

I do agree with the quote, and it is certainly worthy of careful consideration whenever a judgment is necessary.

 

What does an author intend to convey? I suppose that depends on what the book's topic is. If it's nonfiction then it should be absolutely clear what it is about, or the author has not done his job... if it's fiction and/or has subjective elements, then it really doesn't matter what the author "intended" to convey, since there is no correct interpretation.

 

The question is are you allow your own biases inherent within you influence your thinking? i.e. Suppose there is a God, would science not point in that direction? Something I am always reminded of is none of us truly have an 'open' mind, as we are all prisoners so to speak of our own learning and experience.

Certainly my biases will influence my thinking. I am biased into thinking that some people are more trustworthy than others. I'm biased into thinking that some statements are more true than others... and although those biases have an objective reason, they are not a guarantee they will be right.

 

Supposing there is a God would require me to know what god would do in order to make an intelligible statement on the subject of whether the facts would reflect him. Since I don't have any objective experience with god, and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless.

 

Note that this does not discount interesting items such as your healings, which are objective. It simply means that since it is not possible to objectively know that god did it, those healings do not serve as viable information in knowing god's will. We can speculate, of course, but since there is no way to correct such speculation I don't think that an attribution of wrong or right is applicable. Perhaps it could be nonsense, but nothing more.

 

 

This maybe of help, its an essay entitled; How to Seek the Truth; it reflects my own methods of reasoning and has alot of my rather random reading in it; As it is not an academic work I haven't bothered with citations. However if people so wish for a source for the Quotes PM me and I will provide a list of the books they come from.

 

I apologise for length, but given some of what has been said I feel this is relevant with regards my perceptions of the World.

I do appreciate those quotes, I like several already.

 

I would again advise caution, with hypothesizing what I think. If I am nothing else I am an enigma and extremely contradictory. Personally I sit on the fence on with regards most Christian issues; I have me personal beliefs, but I happy to agree to disagree. That is to say I consider a Christian to be someone who loves and trusts in Jesus for their salvation; everything else is secondary to that. (For the atheists; watch as I now receive a fair amount of heat for that statement).

As I'm fairly sure that you do not depend on faith alone given your previous comments, I don't think it would apply to you. You've averted an anti-irrationalist beatdown (at least from me, anyway).

 

That is not something you can yet judge with any fairness; at the moment you risk fundamental attribution bias...

It is difficult to think of another objective standard apart from the world, and I believe my statement is true as far as it applies to faiths that necessarily include scientific facts.

 

Regardless, if that is not what you believe, then I am sorry if I have implied that it is your faith specifically.

 

I would argue a difference in Question.

 

Science asks how?

 

Philosophy asks why?

I would say that philosophy asks "how?" just as science does. Philosophy, however, is usually constrained to linguistic problems. "How is this problem resolved?" By finding the fault in our use of language... as such, philosophy is entirely descriptive, a tool for grammatical correction and nothing more.

 

You have already assumed of course that Atheism is true and science points in that direction, which begs a question, did you decide on atheism then research the science? Or did you become an atheist because of the science?

I had previously been a catholic, but fell away when I realized I had no reason to believe as I did... At best, my explanation for why I was religious is because I was brought up that way. I had no spiritual experiences, and I haven't had one yet (feelings of awe when looking at the galaxy and such I don't count here). Faith had accorded me no greater explanations than I could obtain simply from looking at the world, so it was discarded as useless.

 

Yes, I did want faith to give me explanations and understanding. Some might consider that the wrong way to have faith, but I think it is a fairly reasonable expectation that should be required for any justification.

 

 

My friend Mike (a Forensic Scientist) told me something intriguing the other day; An interesting phenomena is that Forensic Psychologists are statistically ineffectual in the UK. There is no evidence that they help in the solving of crimes, however top of the field Psychiatrists are of great help. I would argue the former use deductive reason and the latter inductive; but that induction comes with a profound knowledge of the human mind.

 

Sorry for the long post, I hope it was of some interest.

That is interesting about Mike, and it was quite an interesting post. Thank you.

[Achilles]

And it's a powerful one (as in powerfully convincing to others). I didn't mean to imply that faith or intuition should be used in place of science. As Samuel pointed out, the word "explain" can't really be used by intuition or faith.

Well, when you say things like, "science can't explain stuff and faith can explain everything", it kinda makes me nervous.

[tk102]

Call it philosophizing rather than advocating. The extent to which one listens to their own internal, non-rational, and subjective experience is up to the individual.

 

Thanks for the posts Jonathan, Samuel Dravis, and Achilles.

[jonathan7]

Call it philosophizing rather than advocating. The extent to which one listens to their own internal/non-rational experience is up to the individual.

 

Thanks for the posts Jonathon, Samuel Dravis, and Achilles.

 

Hehe, thanks to you as well tk102; I have most enjoyed reading you as well as Samuel Dravis and Achilles

 

I agree, of course. I was trying to show that a faith that necessarily incorporates scientific facts must also throw away any objective criteria for evaluating that faith, something which I think is (or at least should be) abhorrent to anyone rational. For example, jonathan's healings that he spoke of are objective and can be evaluated... but if faith does not depend on anything external whatever, it is wholly subjective and there is literally no way to talk about it.

 

Agreed; of course from a Christian perspective;

1 Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.

 

While I cannot speak for other faiths, or perhaps many Christians; I think when asked questions you should be able to give a tangible reason for thinking why you do.

 

 

You're absolutely right. I did take some liberty with constructing that last parallism. The phrase "Faith can explain all things," could have been written "Faith can quiet the internal questioning of all things."

 

I have to agree with you there, tk.

 

As do I, it is most disturbing to me how often Religion is used as a tool to stem questions. If something is the truth it can answer all pertinant questions regarding it; indeed I think all questions must be allowed to be asked. Personally I take it as a sign of a cult if you ever receive the answer; 'you should just believe'. I would also refer back to Russell's quote on 'the illeberal and liberal'.

 

I see. Now you've made me curious... did you believe before or after these occurrences, and what connects these healings with anything other than the fact of the happening itself?

 

Well; I was a Christian before the heelings; twice it has involved appendecitus the second was most amusing as the Consultant was most confused by the whole affair; as apparently you shouldnt get better from appendecitus on your own. (I would like to point out that and I quote "it can't of been appendicitus; it most have been something else, even though all my symptoms pointed towards appendicitus"). Conclude what you wish. In the grander scheme (and connection) of things this was just a few days before the Christian camp I lead on; so I would have missed that had I gone into theatre, so a prayer request was sent out to my fellow leaders. Divine intervention or sheer fluke? I suppose that depends on our natural biases (On perhaps a larger scale; I am of course aware that prayer studies have revealed very little of scientific evidence.)

 

I do agree with the quote, and it is certainly worthy of careful consideration whenever a judgment is necessary.

 

What does an author intend to convey? I suppose that depends on what the book's topic is. If it's nonfiction then it should be absolutely clear what it is about, or the author has not done his job... if it's fiction and/or has subjective elements, then it really doesn't matter what the author "intended" to convey, since there is no correct interpretation.

 

Ahh the death of the author; something some Christians feel the need to strongly argue against. I agree to a point; in that all texts (religious or other) have multiple interpretations; in terms of human works their will be as you put "intended" interpretation. I would concur that if there is no God there is no correct interpretion; perhaps however say Allah is the true God; does he not have an intended/correct interpretation of that script?

 

Certainly my biases will influence my thinking. I am biased into thinking that some people are more trustworthy than others. I'm biased into thinking that some statements are more true than others... and although those biases have an objective reason, they are not a guarantee they will be right.

 

The constrains of being human are sometimes frustrating (at least in my opinion).

 

Supposing there is a God would require me to know what god would do in order to make an intelligible statement on the subject of whether the facts would reflect him. Since I don't have any objective experience with god, and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless.

 

I conceed most but not all; I think I would questions this "and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless."

 

Note that this does not discount interesting items such as your healings, which are objective. It simply means that since it is not possible to objectively know that god did it, those healings do not serve as viable information in knowing god's will. We can speculate, of course, but since there is no way to correct such speculation I don't think that an attribution of wrong or right is applicable. Perhaps it could be nonsense, but nothing more.

 

Speculation; If there is a God and there is an afterlife, would it not be logical that he would leave at least some evidence for us? Would you like me to kill a meatbag now master?

 

Musing; In machine heaven will I still be able to blast meatbags?

 

On a more serious note perhaps a rephrasing of the question would be helpful?

 

 

I do appreciate those quotes, I like several already.

 

I'm glad you enjoyed them

 

 

As I'm fairly sure that you do not depend on faith alone given your previous comments, I don't think it would apply to you. You've averted an anti-irrationalist beatdown (at least from me, anyway).

 

Haha, thanks.

 

It is difficult to think of another objective standard apart from the world, and I believe my statement is true as far as it applies to faiths that necessarily include scientific facts.

 

Regardless, if that is not what you believe, then I am sorry if I have implied that it is your faith specifically.

 

No worries; perhaps you would to exapnd on what you mean by "faiths that necessarily include scientific facts."

 

To aid you with regards understanding me I wille xpand and give you an example; I'm a Christian for what I think about Jesus and events around his time. However I don't beleive the Bible is infallible or inerrant because I dont believe that is a logical conclusion from the data (nor a necessary or needed one). I would also sooner believe science than a 7day interpretation of Genesis and the creation of the world; as if the world was created in 7 days the science would show that; needless to say it doesn't (I think websites such as AiG to be psuedo science). Indeed, nowadays I have one foot in the evolution camp; so I would accept that as well; because I think thats where the evidence leads me and it does raise some interesting and difficult questions.

 

I would say that philosophy asks "how?" just as science does. Philosophy, however, is usually constrained to linguistic problems. "How is this problem resolved?" By finding the fault in our use of language... as such, philosophy is entirely descriptive, a tool for grammatical correction and nothing more.

 

Fair enough; I would probably disagree with you on this point. Although some philosophy (such as does a tree make a noise in a forest when no-one is around) seems to be involve alot of pointless conversing about a subject that I don't think is too important.

 

Our friend Russell has this to say;

 

“The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.” (The Philosophy of Logical Atomism)

 

I had previously been a catholic, but fell away when I realized I had no reason to believe as I did... At best, my explanation for why I was religious is because I was brought up that way. I had no spiritual experiences, and I haven't had one yet (feelings of awe when looking at the galaxy and such I don't count here). Faith had accorded me no greater explanations than I could obtain simply from looking at the world, so it was discarded as useless.

 

Well; I think you are far more interesting for having broken away from the 'herd' as it were. As I posted elsewhere I believe majority is just another word for mediocrity; I suppose I will have to quote 'Bert' again...

 

“The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.” (Marriage and Morals, Chapter 5)

 

Yes, I did want faith to give me explanations and understanding. Some might consider that the wrong way to have faith, but I think it is a fairly reasonable expectation that should be required for any justification.

 

That to me sounds like entirely sound and fair expectations.

 

That is interesting about Mike, and it was quite an interesting post. Thank you.

 

Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it and look foward to your reply Take Care.

[Samuel Dravis]

Thanks for the posts Jonathan, Samuel Dravis, and Achilles.

Same to you, tk. You always have something interesting to say about rivers.

 

Agreed; of course from a Christian perspective;

 

While I cannot speak for other faiths, or perhaps many Christians; I think when asked questions you should be able to give a tangible reason for thinking why you do.

I appreciate this understanding on your part.

 

 

As do I, it is most disturbing to me how often Religion is used as a tool to stem questions. If something is the truth it can answer all pertinent questions regarding it; indeed I think all questions must be allowed to be asked. Personally I take it as a sign of a cult if you ever receive the answer; 'you should just believe'. I would also refer back to Russell's quote on 'the illiberal and liberal'.

Certainly a good thing in my view.

 

Well; I was a Christian before the heelings; twice it has involved appendecitus the second was most amusing as the Consultant was most confused by the whole affair; as apparently you shouldnt get better from appendecitus on your own. (I would like to point out that and I quote "it can't of been appendicitus; it most have been something else, even though all my symptoms pointed towards appendicitus"). Conclude what you wish. In the grander scheme (and connection) of things this was just a few days before the Christian camp I lead on; so I would have missed that had I gone into theatre, so a prayer request was sent out to my fellow leaders. Divine intervention or sheer fluke? I suppose that depends on our natural biases (On perhaps a larger scale; I am of course aware that prayer studies have revealed very little of scientific evidence.)

I imagine that would be surprising.

I appreciate your explanation, although I can't say I am convinced that it indicates anything other than you getting well spontaneously.

 

Ahh the death of the author; something some Christians feel the need to strongly argue against. I agree to a point; in that all texts (religious or other) have multiple interpretations; in terms of human works their will be as you put "intended" interpretation. I would concur that if there is no God there is no correct interpretion; perhaps however say Allah is the true God; does he not have an intended/correct interpretation of that script?

As I find that any objective truth can be spoken, interpretations are either flaws in understanding an objective sentence or the result of the sentence not making sense in the first place. The first can come about when we are unfamiliar with the use of the word in the context in which it is written. If the disagreement cannot be resolved by a close examination of the text the author may have intended this unfamiliarity, in which case he's simply not trying to communicate. The second case is that he may have been trying to talk about something subjective himself without realizing how meaning is given to words (and clearly failing to communicate). I'm not sure how god would have trouble understanding how words are used, and I have no explanation why a god would purposefully be opaque in his use of them.

 

In this case, I can see no justification behind a god allowing multiple interpretations unless this ambiguity (and its consequences) was exactly his intention.

 

The constrains of being human are sometimes frustrating (at least in my opinion).

Indeed.

 

I concede most but not all; I think I would questions this "and no one else seems to have any objective experience with god, I fear this question is meaningless."

I say that in reference to my only objective criteria: the world. No one else has ever shown or even demonstrated the theoretical capability of showing me god, ergo my statement. If it is subjective then they simply can't; if it is objective then how come no one can prove it?

 

I of course speak only from my own experience of looking for this kind of answer for several years, but nothing I have seen indicates that anyone's faith can be shown to be true in an objective way.

 

Speculation; If there is a God and there is an afterlife, would it not be logical that he would leave at least some evidence for us? Would you like me to kill a meatbag now master?

 

Musing; In machine heaven will I still be able to blast meatbags?

 

On a more serious note perhaps a rephrasing of the question would be helpful?

A rephrasing may indeed help... as it is, I have exactly one example of the universe, and that is the one in question. Drawing a conclusion from such a limited dataset, especially without any more information on what god wants, is impossible. I can't draw a predictive conclusion - "God WOULD do this" without 1) knowing what the concept of God consists of (i.e., is it objective or not, what boundaries are to be put on it, etc); and 2) having more experience with what God does (to find out what sort of actions he takes and whether those correspond with good, evil, or something else).

 

Some faiths hold that god is not constrained by logic, such as Allah. In that case I wouldn't be able to answer even if I knew what god usually does. If that's true then there isn't any point to the question at all.

 

No worries; perhaps you would to expand on what you mean by "faiths that necessarily include scientific facts."

By that I simply mean faiths that do not require objective criteria for belief. For example, someone who simply says "I have faith in certain things about the metaphysical only" would be a culprit of this. While they certainly can accept every scientific fact, the only reason that there wouldn't be a direct contradiction between facts and faith is because they are kept very, very far away from each other. Because that is so, there is no objective criteria that can be established to verify the accuracy of such faith; it cannot be said to be anything other than completely lacking in justification, reason or rationality.

 

Of course, if the belief were inspired by some objective facts, that would be a different story. It could be discussed and the objective consequences of that faith could be evaluated. An example of a thing that would qualify a faith for this is a (specific) prophecy coming true. This would allow people to compare something they could look at, something objective, with what faith tells them. As it is, there is very little of this comparison going on - and this simply means that by design there are no standards to critically evaluate the faith...

 

One might look at the body of scientific theory as a massive collection of such prophecies. And in nearly all cases, the events predicted come true.

 

 

edit: perhaps I could make this a little clearer. For a belief to be justifiable, it has to be based on objective facts. For example, a justified belief would be to think that the sun will rise again in the morning. This belief is based on the totality of previous experience regarding the sun. Yes, the sun does go down, but it always comes up again. A strictly logical connection is unnecessary since there is no logical way to go from past experience to future prediction, but the concept of justification clearly exists (we speak of someone being justified in belief if there are past events that have led to a similar conclusion).

 

How about, for example, someone took one day starting at noon to make their predictions and ignored all other days? Wouldn't they find that the sun went down.... and there is no reason to suppose it will come up again?

 

But all they have to do is wait a while before they're shown to be wrong, of course. The sun will rise again in the morning - but that is a specific criterion to prove or disprove the claim.

 

Is a faith that started out as a justified belief believes - regardless of whether their claim has any ability to be shown wrong - based on the facts, or just some of them? Is there any instance in which god healing you could be shown to be an incorrect hypothesis? Can the sun rise, even in theory? Surely the healing is based on reality, and thus the faith can be justified; but what else has not been included in this judgment? The uncountable millions of people who have not been so healed; those ones that have been healed regardless of their belief; etc. Why should these factors be left out? What may be extraordinary in a specific case may be fairly ordinary in humanity as a whole, even though the incident rate is fairly low.

 

Any faith that does not contain the ability to prove it wrong contains no meaning or justification (at least not any more). Accepting scientific facts as givens simply means that the faith is based on something that is not (at least any longer) affected by objective facts... and thus it must be unjustified.

 

To aid you with regards understanding me I while expand and give you an example; I'm a Christian for what I think about Jesus and events around his time. However I don't believe the Bible is infallible or inerrant because I don't believe that is a logical conclusion from the data (nor a necessary or needed one). I would also sooner believe science than a 7day interpretation of Genesis and the creation of the world; as if the world was created in 7 days the science would show that; needless to say it doesn't (I think websites such as AiG to be pseudo science). Indeed, nowadays I have one foot in the evolution camp; so I would accept that as well; because I think thats where the evidence leads me and it does raise some interesting and difficult questions.

A moderate then. I appreciate your quest to understand the world rationally; I can relate.

 

Fair enough; I would probably disagree with you on this point. Although some philosophy (such as does a tree make a noise in a forest when no-one is around) seems to be involve alot of pointless conversing about a subject that I don't think is too important.

Alright.

My current position stems from the philosophy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, which I have only recently been introduced to in the past months... I have to admit that his explanations of language and how it is used are incredibly seductive to someone who hates intractable philosophical problems (like me! ). If you're interested, I recommend his Philosophical Investigations, as it contains much of what I have discussed (the "Private Language Argument"). I agree this attraction may be a "pull" in the direction of linguistic philosophy, but I have not stopped looking for good objections to him just yet-- it seems too good to be true.

 

Fair enough; I would probably disagree with you on this point. Although some philosophy (such as does a tree make a noise in a forest when no-one is around) seems to be involve a lot of pointless conversing about a subject that I don't think is too important.

edit: I was reading some of the Investigations today and came across this quote which may help address your disagreement: "471. It often happens that we become aware of the most important facts, if we suppress the question "why?"; and then in the course of our investigations those facts lead us to an answer."

 

It is very difficult to stop thinking about the "why?" or "what?" in questions, which is part of the reason problems arise; we tend to think of words as denoting something specific and subjective, but when we look at how we actually use the words we find that view becomes untenable. Often the problem is different then we perceive it to be in the first place; by examination of the facts we can avoid making the problem any harder than it actually is.

 

Our friend Russell has this to say;

My friend Wittgenstein also has something similarly interesting to say: "What we cannot speak of we must pass over in silence. "

 

[JediMaster12]

As do I, it is most disturbing to me how often Religion is used as a tool to stem questions. If something is the truth it can answer all pertinent questions regarding it; indeed I think all questions must be allowed to be asked. Personally I take it as a sign of a cult if you ever receive the answer; 'you should just believe'. I would also refer back to Russell's quote on 'the illiberal and liberal'.

Then I guess science can be construed as a religion itself since it stems questions. The reason I say this is that under Clifford Geertz's definition of religion, science would fit in that realm. The actual definition is this:

"Religion is defined as (1) a system of symbols which acts to (2) establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods and motivations in men by (3) formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and (4) clothing these conceptions with such an aura of factuality that (5) the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic."

 

If you think about it, science is exactly the same way.

[Achilles]

I certainly acknowledge that arbitrarily redefining terms is one way to make one's point, but I wonder what the rest of us gain.

 

I really have to wonder what people hope to accomplish by arguing that science is a religion? Religion is such an awesome thing until we try to denigrate something else. Then we say "_____ is just like religion". So is religion something good or isn't it?