| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/01/2011 04:54:49 PM · #1026 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll argue with one point though. The scientific-based crews do no better navigating the "uncharted regions" than anybody else. Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. |
I would argue that the scientific-based crews are the only ones with tools that provide a reliable method for decreasing the "uncharted regions." The faith-based crews purport to provide maps to these regions, but the maps are contradictory and based on nothing more than guesswork and wishful thinking.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 05:25:50 PM · #1027 |
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll argue with one point though. The scientific-based crews do no better navigating the "uncharted regions" than anybody else. Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. |
I would argue that the scientific-based crews are the only ones with tools that provide a reliable method for decreasing the "uncharted regions." The faith-based crews purport to provide maps to these regions, but the maps are contradictory and based on nothing more than guesswork and wishful thinking. |
But the real Scientist will also admit that there are points which they cannot reduce beyond. Science has a region it cannot move beyond and that this region is not inconsequential to our lives.
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 17:27:26. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 05:33:55 PM · #1028 |
"Hey, why are we in a hand basket and where are we going?"
I'd rather be in the boat powered by faith and reason. Yes, they can co-exist.
(Oops...this can has worms in it...where did that lid go?) |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 06:48:51 PM · #1029 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll argue with one point though. The scientific-based crews do no better navigating the "uncharted regions" than anybody else. Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. |
I would argue that the scientific-based crews are the only ones with tools that provide a reliable method for decreasing the "uncharted regions." The faith-based crews purport to provide maps to these regions, but the maps are contradictory and based on nothing more than guesswork and wishful thinking. |
But the real Scientist will also admit that there are points which they cannot reduce beyond. Science has a region it cannot move beyond and that this region is not inconsequential to our lives. |
That's not entirely true. Sam Harris is a "real scientist", a neuroscientist in fact, and his book is about the proposition that science can and should address moral issues, and is the only arena well positioned to ultimately answer all the big questions. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 06:53:48 PM · #1030 |
| So, Sam Harris is your god? |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 06:55:42 PM · #1031 |
Didn't we discuss Harris' TED talk (about his book) on another thread at another time? It's smoke and mirrors from what I remember, but maybe I'll revisit the talk.
Indeed, it was discussed in this thread around post #1705. I don't think it needs to be gone over again. The talk is quite light on substance.
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 19:21:31. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 07:43:11 PM · #1032 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I'll argue with one point though. The scientific-based crews do no better navigating the "uncharted regions" than anybody else. Science isn't even set up to answer the "big" questions of life. |
I would argue that the scientific-based crews are the only ones with tools that provide a reliable method for decreasing the "uncharted regions." The faith-based crews purport to provide maps to these regions, but the maps are contradictory and based on nothing more than guesswork and wishful thinking. |
But the real Scientist will also admit that there are points which they cannot reduce beyond. Science has a region it cannot move beyond and that this region is not inconsequential to our lives. |
This is well-trod philosophical ground between us - it all depends on what you mean by "science" (you appear to want a narrow, "reproducible in a lab" definition, and I mean a more broad set of methods for inquiry, analysis and hypothesis correction, aka, an extended version of the scientific method), whether you think that things that are currently unknown are actually "unknowable," and whether you think that the potentially "unknowable things" provide room for non-naturalistic explanations (or are even truly "consequential to our lives").
For example, we've had long discussions as to what it means that there is a possibility that we may never be able to truly know what happened before the "big bang" - you think this is a trump card; I don't see the problem and wonder how you get from "some thing/person/???? got it all started" to Christ on the cross and a dogmatic assertion that faith trumps works any day of the week.
Believers, you included Doc, want to wall off certain truth claims and say - "well science really can't say anything about this, so you can't criticize my belief." But the problem is that if you are saying anything worth saying on this topic, then you are necessarily making truth claims about the way the world works, which are open to evaluation on a scientific/evidence-based level (which is the ONLY method that had proven reliable in evaluating and distinguishing between competing truth claims).
You are right that "science" cannot evaluate a claim like "faith is the way to heaven," but you are misguided as to why science is useless for such a claim. Science cannot evaluate whether faith is the way to heaven, because simply to make or accept the validity of such a claim is to come to the discussion with a raft (or perhaps a well-loved, but leaky barge) of pre-adopted assumptions (god exists, heaven exists, my particular flavor of god/heaven exists, "faith" is superior to "doubt," etc.), none of which can be "scientifically" evaluated, because none of which are falsifiable.
If your claim is not potentially falsifiable, you are right, "science" is not equipped to evaluate it. But if your claim is not potentially falsifiable, then it is also, at a fundamental level, completely meaningless.
I already know you won't accept that distinction. Like I said, this is well-traveled ground.
In the end, I have come to the conclusion that "our" two camps really are not speaking the same language when the discussion gets down to this level of abstraction. And, even though I made the trip across that linguistic/cultural divide myself at one point, I have yet been able to figure out how to conversationally bridge the gap. When the discussions reach that level - which they rarely do, except between people who are engaging in the conversation in good faith - then it is probably time to engage that spirit of good faith, shake hands and call it a day.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 07:58:34 PM · #1033 |
You are probably right SP. The conversation can be difficult if baseline definitions are different, or worse, change as the conversation continues (which I find to often be the case). Personally I get frustrated when the term "science" gets expanded when it suits the argument and then is quickly contracted to prevent unwanted discussion or conclusions.
Take, for example, the question, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" Is that a question your expanded Science can get at? We don't have a way back machine so we aren't going to get traditional empiric evidence, but perhaps we can have a "method for inquiry, analysis and hypothesis correction" based on written accounts or historical data or even philosophical thought experiment. The problem, of course, is even with this inquiry the evidence is going to be light enough that it may be possible to reasonably arrive at either answer. So, if that is so, can I say I've used Science to conclude that its reasonable to say Jesus rose from the dead? I doubt you'd agree with this conclusion (that I've used "Science" in this process) although I seem to have followed your directions.
Anyway, it's fine that we disagree. I don't mind and enjoy the conversation. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 08:34:53 PM · #1034 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Didn't we discuss Harris' TED talk (about his book) on another thread at another time? It's smoke and mirrors from what I remember, but maybe I'll revisit the talk.
Indeed, it was discussed in this thread around post #1705. I don't think it needs to be gone over again. The talk is quite light on substance. |
Good thing I was talking about his book, not the ten minute abstract of its introduction. "Real" scientists are positing that science can answer moral questions. That reality doesn't disappear when you close your eyes. |
|
|
|
02/01/2011 08:38:13 PM · #1035 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Take, for example, the question, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" Is that a question your expanded Science can get at? |
Absolutely, at least to the extent of giving us insight as to how probable such an event would be (extremely unlikely); providing us with a scientific baseline for what level of evidence would need to be present before we could say that it was reasonable to believe that such an event actually occurred (extremely persuasive); and providing us with methods for evaluating the credibility and persuasiveness of the available evidence (extremely poor).
Message edited by author 2011-02-01 20:39:27.
|
|
|
|
02/01/2011 09:47:02 PM · #1036 |
Originally posted by Louis:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Didn't we discuss Harris' TED talk (about his book) on another thread at another time? It's smoke and mirrors from what I remember, but maybe I'll revisit the talk.
Indeed, it was discussed in this thread around post #1705. I don't think it needs to be gone over again. The talk is quite light on substance. |
Good thing I was talking about his book, not the ten minute abstract of its introduction. "Real" scientists are positing that science can answer moral questions. That reality doesn't disappear when you close your eyes. |
Did he save all the good stuff for the book? Man, the guy IS a marketing genius! I'm open to the cliff notes if you want. |
|
|
|
02/02/2011 07:03:38 AM · #1037 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I think one can view the tenets of other faiths as potentially having truth within them or at their root. I can appreciate a Jew not eating pork for their piety. Piety is something to be cherished and respected. I can appreciate a Mormon's devotion to their family. Such values are also to be cherished and respected. Of course, if a faith's tenets are in contradiction to Christianity, I must side with Christianity. There is no way around that. But that does not mean there cannot be bridges of respect and understanding for the values and tenets that are commonly shared, even if their expression differs.
I do not view the things you mentioned as "superstitions" but Christianity is unique among religions in that such things do not get you closer to God. Your road to Him is not one of works and merit but rather one of grace and faith. So if a Jewish person is not eating pork out of respect and love for God, I can agree with that, but if he is not eating pork in order to earn his salvation and curry favor with God, I think he is misguided.
Is that understandable from the outside? |
So, stripping out some of the pleasantries, is it fair to say that:
(a) You share with many other religious people the way in which you believe and submit to a god-figure.
(b) There are a number of shared goals between religions, though they may differ in the detail.
(c) Where you share a method or goal of worship with another religious person, then you appreciate/respect their belief.
(d) Where you differ (in method or goal), then you think that the other person is misguided because they believe in a method or goal of worship that is false (it is not required by God and so does not exist as a requirement).
Would you accept that, when assessed objectively, your conflicting belief carries the same weight as the belief that you regard as being misguided?
As an aside, I'd challenge you on the "unique" qualities of Christianity. There are many Christians who don't ascribe to the "unique" qualities you describe, and instead believe in the value of behaviour over faith - e.g. in the power of good deeds and confession, and in the existence of irredeemable sins (e.g. speaking against God). It is also questionable whether a religion that demands nothing more than belief can be the positive moral influence it is often held out to be.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2011 10:58:07 AM · #1038 |
That's not too far off Matthew for a general sense. I'm sure there are exceptions that can be explained differently, but there always are. I bet you can appreciate someone's skeptical and questioning nature while totally disagreeing with where that nature led the person.
I obviously do not believe that two conflicting beliefs carry the same weight. I would have internal reasons to favor one over the other. It is not arbitrary and random. When two beliefs are conflicting, at best only one is right.
As to your last sentence, try to divorce the idea of salvation and "demands". Christianity obviously has things to say about moral questions, sometimes strongly. However, salvation is not tied to them. But I think that history makes it obviously clear that such a faith can be a positive moral influence so that line of reasoning is theoretical at best.
Message edited by author 2011-02-02 11:00:11. |
|
|
|
02/02/2011 12:40:02 PM · #1039 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
In short, "you" are sitting in your well-loved, well-populated, but ultimately leaky, underpowered and increasingly decrepit barge yelling out "we're all in this together" as the modern power-liners pass you by. |
Yeah, but HIS barge will still be piddling around when the full-speed-ahead liners fall off the edge of the world :-)
(Runs for shelter)
R. |
 |
|
|
|
02/02/2011 08:04:47 PM · #1040 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I obviously do not believe that two conflicting beliefs carry the same weight. I would have internal reasons to favor one over the other. It is not arbitrary and random. When two beliefs are conflicting, at best only one is right. |
But when it comes to two conflicting beliefs, when one person says "my god says X, not Y" and the other says "my god says Y, not X", you'd accept that given we're talking comparative beliefs (by definition unsubstantiated) and that neither position carries more weight than the other?
Obviously each person has a subjective preference for their own belief, and I'm sure that both X and Y each seems far more weighty than the other in the context of its respective belief system - but we should be able to rationalise this.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2011 08:29:10 PM · #1041 |
Originally posted by Matthew:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I obviously do not believe that two conflicting beliefs carry the same weight. I would have internal reasons to favor one over the other. It is not arbitrary and random. When two beliefs are conflicting, at best only one is right. |
But when it comes to two conflicting beliefs, when one person says "my god says X, not Y" and the other says "my god says Y, not X", you'd accept that given we're talking comparative beliefs (by definition unsubstantiated) and that neither position carries more weight than the other?
Obviously each person has a subjective preference for their own belief, and I'm sure that both X and Y each seems far more weighty than the other in the context of its respective belief system - but we should be able to rationalise this. |
Well, let me ask you, when one person says "my faith says X, not Y" and the other says "my lack of faith says Y, not X" are they of equal weight? If your generalization can accept that scenario, then I guess, but otherwise it seems like we are painting with far too broad a brush.
Often I see people outside a faith structure come from the attitude that it really doesn't matter because it's all poppycock anyway. You believe this. He believes that. Who cares? But this fails to consider that one of the opinions may represent the truth. In my own case, I can have such a theoretical conversation and understand that in a world of relative truth X has no leverage over Y and vice versa. But, if you get down to a practical conversation I will tell you that actually X represents the truth and Y does not. Sometimes the reasoning will be a rational argument, other times it will be an axiomatic statement of faith.
How do you consider your own beliefs? Surely you hold to precepts which do not have empiric evidence to back them up because they are philosophical in nature. Do you view them as merely your own relative construction of the truth which is no more right or wrong than a differing opinion, or would you defend them when confronted with an antithetical view? |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 12:52:53 AM · #1042 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Take, for example, the question, "Did Jesus rise from the dead?" Is that a question your expanded Science can get at? We don't have a way back machine so we aren't going to get traditional empiric evidence, but perhaps we can have a "method for inquiry, analysis and hypothesis correction" based on written accounts or historical data or even philosophical thought experiment. The problem, of course, is even with this inquiry the evidence is going to be light enough that it may be possible to reasonably arrive at either answer. So, if that is so, can I say I've used Science to conclude that its reasonable to say Jesus rose from the dead? I doubt you'd agree with this conclusion (that I've used "Science" in this process) although I seem to have followed your directions.
Anyway, it's fine that we disagree. I don't mind and enjoy the conversation. |
If the evidence is light (i.e. there is some actual evidence) then the reasonable thing to do is to reserve judgement. If there's no actual evidence, such as "Jesus's rise from the dead" then the reasonable thing to do is to dismiss it entirely. The only reason why you don't is because you have a vested interest in it being true and is critical to your world view. When that's absent and the issue is of no threat to your world view your demand for scientific proof rises to that of shutterpuppy's, Louis' and everyone else. "Philosophical thought experiments" need not apply.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 00:57:11. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 01:11:59 AM · #1043 |
I don't disagree with you Richard, but donĂ¢€™t think I am the only one that does this. We all give easier passage to things that agree with our worldview. We also all make judgements when the evidence is light. Moral quandries are the perfect example as the "evidence" in these cases is often light or even absent (regardless of what Harris says).
Even your decision to withold judgement is a choice. By doing so you have decided it is not important to make a decision (which is, in and of itself, a choice based on limited "evidence"). Personally, I have decided it is important to make that choice even if the overwhelming evidence is lacking one way or another. This can be perfectly reasonable. If the president is required to make a decision about national security and it is based on limited evidence, making a decision anyway may be the reasonable thing to do. Of course we've seen it go both ways. GWB, not so good concerning weapons of mass destruction. Kennedy, pretty great in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would you have been yelling at Kennedy, "we need to reserve judgement!" until the missiles were fully functional and it may have been too late?
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 01:23:35. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 02:48:24 AM · #1044 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the president is required to make a decision about national security and it is based on limited evidence, making a decision anyway may be the reasonable thing to do. Of course we've seen it go both ways. GWB, not so good concerning weapons of mass destruction. Kennedy, pretty great in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would you have been yelling at Kennedy, "we need to reserve judgement!" until the missiles were fully functional and it may have been too late? |
But there's no urgency here unless you count the imminent return of Jesus... should that happen I'll have all the evidence I need! No need to guess. :)
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 02:51:18.
|
|
|
|
02/03/2011 10:02:24 AM · #1045 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Personally, I have decided it is important to make that choice even if the overwhelming evidence is lacking one way or another. This can be perfectly reasonable. |
I can be, but it's not, in the case of accepting any of religion's truth claims. Not a one. You can't reasonably compare a real-world scenario like the president having to make a decision with scant evidence in times of crisis, with having to decide whether or not some Israelite bodily rose into the heavens a couple of millennia ago with nobody around to record it. When your "decision" hinges on your entire cultural and personal history, let alone your psychological makeup and your capacity for credulity -- that is, when your decision is less about facts and more about what you are -- you are not comparing anything close to the same thing.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 10:04:03. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 10:56:28 AM · #1046 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If the president is required to make a decision about national security and it is based on limited evidence, making a decision anyway may be the reasonable thing to do. Of course we've seen it go both ways. GWB, not so good concerning weapons of mass destruction. Kennedy, pretty great in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Would you have been yelling at Kennedy, "we need to reserve judgement!" until the missiles were fully functional and it may have been too late? |
But there's no urgency here unless you count the imminent return of Jesus... should that happen I'll have all the evidence I need! No need to guess. :) |
But of course there are bigger question. "Who is God?" "Does he exist?". If you decide those questions are not important enough that you can afford to reserve judgement until we have more evidence, then you've already come to some conclusions concerning the answer, haven't you? I'm not saying you are being irrational or even that you are making wrong decisions, I'm just alerting you to the fact that you have already decided some things based on little evidence. Your worldview hangs upon those decisions. Mine does too. Louis' does. Everybody has basic assumptions they do not have an airtight case about and constructs their worldview upon them. I've said that many, many times, but I'm never sure if you guys agree with me or you actually think your personal worldview is actually supported by strong facts all the way down.
Message edited by author 2011-02-03 10:57:19. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 11:29:36 AM · #1047 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
But of course there are bigger question. "Who is God?" "Does he exist?"....I'm just alerting you to the fact that you have already decided some things based on little evidence. |
We've decided there is no god based on little evidence? Actually, it's the other way around. And those decisions we've made based on scant evidence are not unreasonable, and do not rely on an unlimited supply of supernatural claims.
The question, "is there a god" becomes very small indeed on the barest, most honest examination. For many people, it's along the lines of the old horse, "Who is Zeus? What is Santa Claus? Where is the orbiting teapot? What of angels, what of fairies?"
Ho-hum. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 11:37:54 AM · #1048 |
I think you are confusing the subject Louis. You HAVE made a decision, as far as I know, based on your line of reasoning. Yanko arrives from a more agnostic point of view and seems to claim that the best thing is to make NO decision. I'm arguing back that I think he's made more of a decision than he thinks.
I don't have a large beef with your position, although I obviously disagree with it. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 11:42:14 AM · #1049 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... Where is the orbiting teapot?... |
I have faith it is there, we just cannot comprehend it. |
|
|
|
02/03/2011 11:56:48 AM · #1050 |
Switch the question to something a little less charged.
Is there life elsewhere in the universe?
I know people who say there is bound to be life on other planets, though we have no evidence of it. Their argument is philosophical ("We have life here. The universe is big. There is bound to be life elsewhere.") I know people who say there is no life elsewhere and point to the fact we have no evidence of it. Once evidence arises, they will change their mind. There may be a third group which says, "I do not know." and honestly means it. They don't have a hunch, they don't want to have a hunch.
Are any of these positions unreasonable? |
|
