HOME | DD
jackcomstock — Understanding
by-nc-sa
Published: 2011-05-18 18:10:26 +0000 UTC; Views: 4781; Favourites: 225; Downloads: 59
Redirect to original
Description
[link]Believe nothing (but understand as much as you can)
I was inspired by this video
[link]
Jack Namaste : [link]
Related content
Comments: 77
I disagree with your assertions in the first part of your first paragraph. I do not believe that religion and morals have anything to do with the subject at hand. This subject matter has been discussed at least since David Hume's days, when atheism was not a common practice anywhere in the western world.
The key issue is the clear and apparent contrast between the success and reliability of scientific knowledge as opposed to incapability of religious beliefs to produce the same results.
If you concede to the fact that scientific knowledge is in the end just a set of beliefs, you loose the ability to differentiate between scientific 'beliefs' (knowledge) and religious beliefs. This of course stands in stark contrast with experience which shows science to be much more reliable and productive in explaining natural phenomena.
This problem drives many people to adopt the extreme -and in my opinion wrong- position that science does not include beliefs.
Instead, the question should be what constitutes a justified belief. Once this question is the one at hand, I believe that there are ample arguments for why scientific beliefs are justified in certain cases and what differentiates them from religious beliefs which are not justified.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I do have to add, though, that religion and science do not serve the same purpose and as such shouldn't be treated or doubted in the same manner. Neither does mankind's reliance on god's intervention or various theories about his being (which is what religions are) deny his existence.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree, though it should be noted that the separation of scientific knowledge from religion is a new phenomena historically speaking. In many ways our modern treatment of religion is a result of the success of science in explaining natural phenomena without the need to invoke god. Religion was once the ultimate source of knowledge on all matters.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
People still had knowledge separate from religion, for example they made tools which required no belief in god. It's simply that as they understood more about the world, that knowledge expanded, and the image of god changed to something more abstract.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
True enough, but in the western world (which is our main source for documented history of philosophy and science) natural phenomena was almost exclusively explained by Christianity since ancient Rome.
I stand corrected, though I think you must take the historical context into consideration. This is especially true when the source of the problem -as I see it- is deeply rooted in language which is bound to be tied to the historical progress of society and culture.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ceirtanly, all cultures, not just western ones explained the world in some way through religion. Sometimes it was natural phenomena, sometimes it was realms beyond what we can constantly perceive. Religion has been used to explain science at times although at others it was also used as motivation to progress it.
Historical context? What do you mean by this?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm not knowledgeable enough about other cultures, but in the history of western civilization the notion of belief is deeply associated with religion and is sometimes blurred and confused with the notion of faith. This fact has had a strong effect on the desire of the scientific community to distance itself from the notion of belief.
That is what I mean by historical context.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I actually didn't mean to bring religion into this, sorry if it sounded that way. I have meant to say that, in my experience, many people who see science as pure, unmistakable facts are motivated to do so because religion can't give them answers, yet they need to believe in some sort of ultimate truth or follow what someone says. They simply switched mediums through which they're trying to feel like they have all the answers without giving certain things such as this much thought or realizing what long road lies ahead for science. The uncertainty of everything is not easy for many people to handle.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Perhaps this is true, and as science progresses and becomes more complex it becomes more and more like faith for the common man, based on the belief in the words authority figures (aka. scientists), which is very similar to religion in many ways. Most people I know don't even know how the microwave oven in their home works.
I don't understand 'relative quantum field theory', for example, and I'm not even sure that I'm capable of understanding it. Even if I can, it will take me about 5 years to achieve even the most basic level of understanding in this field. So, I have to be 'believe' in the accuracy and truth of this field based on the words of physicists.
I do believe however that the need to separate science from belief stems from a different place. I believe that this is the result of the basic intuition that scientific knowledge is somehow different than knowledge based on religion. This is the result of the history of religion and its role in our society. This then leads, to the best of my understanding, to something like the following logical deduction:
1. religion is based on belief
2. religion is not a reliable source of knowledge about the world
3. science is a reliable source of knowledge about the world
--------------------------------------------------------------
4. science is not based on belief (conclusion)
Of course I'm probably oversimplifying here, and I'm also completely ignoring the 'scientific method of inquiry'. Nonetheless, I do believe this is the core intuition behind the desire to claim that science is not based on belief. The deduction itself is a complete non-sequitur given that something can be based on belief and be reliable at the same time.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What you said in the first two paragraphs is exactly what I mean.
Religion should stay in the realm of philosophy and it is as reliable or factual as other philosophical ideas. If god created this world as it is, if we ignore the common assumption that he interferes and cares for people, then the only way to prove his existence by scientific method is if he somehow changes the status quo. Given that this world operates by certain rules (or, from a religious point of view, was made to be as such), it's doubtful that'll happen.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I see, now I understand your original reply better.
Unlike you, I actually do not find religion to fall within the realm of philosophy. Perhaps when I'll see a philosophical argument that actually converts people either to monotheism or from it I might change my mind, but since I believe that you can neither prove or disprove god's existence even in the philosophical sense I do not find the subject to be a truly philosophical one. You can discuss god and religion philosophically, but this will not accurately represent or relate to the experience that makes a religious man believe in god.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not sure why you mentioned monotheism, it's only one of several beliefs about the quantity of god(s), assuming such a thing could even apply to a divine being.
We'll have to disagree on that, then. Just as there is no one true religion, no single philosophy is accepted as true. There are certain scientific methods used to make some appear more valid than others, but it is, in the end, guesswork about the world around us since both our missing knowledge and human bias are far too great to proclaim a single truth. I think the only way to disprove of a religion is if it's self-defeating (for instance, the assumption that god is all that is good, and yet he punishes people or allows the world to suffer).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Monotheism is just an easy example on the most common type of theism in the world. If you want a test about the relevance of philosophy to the discussion about religion it's the most comfortable test you have.
My statement wasn't meant as a philosophical one but rather as a meta-philosophical one. You can discuss any subject in philosophy, it doesn't mean that philosophy is helpful in any way at either clarifying or explaining the state of things. Take math for example: you can discuss "Goldbach's conjecture" as much as you want philosophically that will never prove or disprove the conjecture, thus math itself does not reside within the scope of philosophy. Likewise, philosophy cannot show that Newtonian mechanics are wrong, only physical experiments can do that.
In a similar manner since I do not believe that any philosophical argument can convert a 'true believer' religion lies outside of the scope philosophy. This doesn't mean that you cannot discuss religion philosophically. You can and it might even prove fruitful in many ways it simply doesn't affect religion per se.
As for your self-defeating argument, both Leibniz and Alvin Plantinga gave philosophical defenses of how god can be wholly good and evil can exist at the same time. The field itself is called Theodicy. (this by itself should show you that Christianity wasn't disproved by this argument)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, as I said, we'll just have to disagree on that.
I don't have anything else to add, so that'd be that. Thanks for the conversation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
As highbrow as the vocabulary is, I agree very much with this point XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Thank you for the response.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I do apologize for the highbrow quality of the text, it sometimes happens to me when I need to construct a proper logical argument. I trace it back mainly to the vocabulary used when writing mathematical proofs.
You know what they say: old habits die hard.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh, I totally understand that problem, I'm a.. very.. English-y person and the same sort of thing can happen. I understood it well enough, I would just worry about using it in arguments where the other party hasn't demonstrated fairly equal vocabulary XD;
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I need to print this out and paste it EVERYWHERE in my country.
Absolutely love it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That would be awesome! Thanks
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Indeed so.
Also. This reminds me of a football jersey for some reason.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Probably the font xD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
This should the goal of any human being, yet it is the most condemned.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev |