Science and Faith

Shazzy · Post by **Shazzy** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:34 pm

Semantics. Occam's razor is specifically the statement:

"Entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

Which, of course, we tend to translate as "simplest solution is best." A multiverse is pretty much the definition of violating Occam's razor. Perhaps you could argue that a god that transcends all universes is somehow messier, but eh.

Curious, though. What specific aspects of (presumably Western) religion "blinds" people? For argument's sake, let's exclude instances of corrupt people abusing power in religious institutions, since power is abused in ALL institutions. If we're looking at religious tenets and beliefs, which are bad for society?

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:40 pm

Creationism? The oppression of women? Intolerance of other religions and/or unbelievers?

Any portion which makes an objective reality claim, too. Any reality claim is subject to potential disproof, setting the stage for a messy fight which the religious will only lose.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:42 pm

Shazzy wrote: Curious, though. What specific aspects of (presumably Western) religion "blinds" people? For argument's sake, let's exclude instances of corrupt people abusing power in religious institutions, since power is abused in ALL institutions. If we're looking at religious tenets and beliefs, which are bad for society?

The post with which this thread started explains it.

Religion presupposes a constant and unalterable truth that is not responsive and not responsible. Following religious ideology to a T automatically has other social implications of lack of responsiveness and responsibility.

The point I'm trying to make here is that science should help us define the universe. Faith should help us define ourselves.

I think 'help' is good. I should like to note that there is a lot that can be gained from old sources, traditional sources even.

I disagree that either science in the strictly modern interpretation or faith in the strictly traditional interpretation should be anything but 'help' however. In my case, an uninhibited, critical attitude that takes no presuppositions that cannot hold up to evidence is what is key. In other words, I suggest that personal pragmatism should override everything, faith and 'science' (whatever is meant by this) included.

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:47 pm

requiett wrote:The point I'm trying to make here is that science should help us define the universe. Faith should help us define ourselves.

We are part of the universe. Therefore, science also helps us define ourselves.

Beyond that, what kind of weak personality needs to define itself in terms of what it takes completely without evidence?

That was a rhetorical question.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:47 pm

Before we go any further, I should note that I accept Christian philosophy (but not religion) to a large extent (or at least have learned a lot from it); even more so Buddhist philosophy.

Spiritually, the most influential figure in my case in Gurjieff who both believed in the existence of god and a measure of immortality (via astral bodies).

I drew what I found matching my experience and self observation (which is Gurjieff's primary push), dismissed what I didn't, and moved on.

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:48 pm

Faith should not be perceived as some kind of threat to logic. The outright denial of faith in favor of a wholly materialistic belief is just fucking depressing. The ultimate purpose of science seems to be eliminating all uncertainty. Imagine what sort of world that would be.

Shazzy · Post by **Shazzy** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:53 pm

Kalium wrote:Creationism? The oppression of women? Intolerance of other religions and/or unbelievers?

Any portion which makes an objective reality claim, too. Any reality claim is subject to potential disproof, setting the stage for a messy fight which the religious will only lose.

1. Creationism

What are you saying here? Creationism is bad because _____? Because it conflicts with evolution? Because it conflicts with science? Is the assumption then that anything that conflicts with science is bad and should be discarded?

2. Oppression of women

Iffy. Humans tend to like power, and if that means oppressing those weaker than themselves, that's what they'll do. Women are raped, abused, and oppressed all the time by non-religious men. Some oppression can be traced to religious customs, certainly. Oppression can also be traced to pure atheists. Believing in a God is not a direct correlation to female oppression. Oppression of women has been a global standard since antiquity, in and out of religion.

3. Intolerance of other religions and/or unbelievers

Probably the strongest point. Religion is, unfortunately, rife with instances of cruel intolerance toward others. Unfortunately, intolerance is also prevalent anytime anyone believes in anything. You claim that religion "blinds" people and should be discarded. Is that not intolerance of those who don't believe your "scientific" worldview?

And for the last, define "objective reality claim"?

Kalium · Post by **Kalium** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:54 pm

requiett wrote:Faith should not be perceived as some kind of threat to logic. The outright denial of faith in favor of a wholly materialistic belief is just fucking depressing. The ultimate purpose of science seems to be eliminating all uncertainty. Imagine what sort of world that would be.

Faith is by definition illogical. Given how frequently it is used to lend false credence to faulty logic or held up as logic itself, it's no stretch to draw the implication that faith replaces logic for many.

I don't see what's so depressing about the lack of an invisible sky friend. I find it rather liberating to know that this is the only life I get - so I have to make it count. None of this 'what you do here will be judged for the next life' crap bogging me and everyone else in this world down.

I'm alive. What more do I need for hope? I'm alive, and that's enough.

Org Profile · Post by **Otohiko** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:55 pm

The ultimate point of modern science, yes, but science has moved on by this point.

Frankly, I don't want to make any particularly mean points here, but I'm pretty fine with (material) reality you know. I don't see why I need to turn somewhere else for answers. Probability works fine for everything I don't know and is ultimately fair.

requiett · Post by **requiett** » Sat Feb 17, 2007 9:01 pm

I won't argue that most of the people who have very heavy faith aren't fucktards. I just don't see the need to criticize the concept of faith itself.