Subject:
|
Re: God and the Devil and forgiveness (was Re: POV-RAY orange color)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 2 Sep 1999 16:52:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1397 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
>
> David:
>
> One could say that the essence of a religion is to take something on
> faith (else it is a philosophy or moral code... such as Confucianism or
> Taoism, IIRC). A supreme being is not required (the Druids didn't have
> one), and I am not sure that ANY deity-set (even a set of limited power
> but still supernatural ones) is required.
Ok, so it sounds like your definition of religion is something along the lines
of: "a set of beliefs which are taken as true by faith, where these beliefs
are not submitted as needing any sort of verification"
Does that sound ok?
> While you could argue that science requires taking things on faith. I
> don't feel it is required, and I argue against that.
Well, my issue was more of a faith in standing science, rather than faith in
particular aspects of science. As you basically say later, you have faith in
the reality that your senses present you with. If you see a rock, feel a rock,
smell a rock, etc., you have faith that the rock exists. Maybe it doesn't
"really" exist in and of itself, but for all intents and purposes, that rock
exists. It doesn't do me any good to disbelieve or doubt the rock's existence,
because then there is no trustable data. In other words, why bother being
existentialist? Anyway, the faith of the scientific method was to what I was
referring. Science has faith in its method. It assumes that if a theorem is
sufficiently tested, and shown to be accurate, that the theorem is correct.
Science does not deny that it can be wrong, but that it can only be disproved
by the scientific method, since it has faith that the scientific method is the
only "ultimate" way of determining an effective truth. Science has faith in
nothing else. Science, as a faith, will not accept beliefs (which it calls
facts) that have not been presented according to the method. And that's really
how I was comparing it to a religion. The idea is that science has an a priori
belief that the method will produce truth. I happen to agree. But the
possibility that truth is defined in a different way is concievable, and
certainly arguable. I just think that anyone going in that direction (like
saying "God defines truth, not the scientific method") is going towards a dead
end. After all, senses are the base for scientific fact, rather than emotions
or other 'extra-sensory' senses. To say that the rock doesn't exist in the
"real" universe because God says it doesn't exist won't take the "imaginary"
scar off your forhead that you get when the "imaginary" rock gets thrown at
you. You have to deal with the reality that is presented by your senses. And
the other issue is that determining the truth through alternate means is, as
far as I'm concerned, guesswork. You can't verify the word of God... Christians
say He says one thing, Hindus say something else, Islam says something else,
etc., etc... None are easily verifiable. That's why faith in these things
doesn't work as well as faith in science. Science bases itself in a universal
reality that we all share: the rock exists in SOME form for EVERYONE on Earth.
In order to disprove Science, one would need to show that reality differs from
person to person, and that sensory perception is untrustworthy. But then again,
showing this via the Scientific method assumes a universal standard to judge
THAT by, so it won't happen easily if at all. At any rate, that was my thought
as to science as a religion. It has faith in the scientific method to deliver
truth. Does it deliver "truth"? Who is to say? It certainly has delivered what
everyone on earth has accepted as truth for the most part. (You may not buy the
big bang, but you can't deny everyday science like gravity and general physics)
Assuming (very presumptious of me) that my definition of religion matches yours
(at least fairly well), Science takes as its belief that the scientific method
produces truth, and it needs no proof of this... it believes that people shown
the method will agree (and they do!, unless they're existentialist or
something)
Anyway, that's really the only way I can see science as a religion... as for
the presentation of an ethical code that I mentioned earlier, I guess that's
more of a product of the scientific community... I don't think that's
necessarily dictated by science itself.
As for science vs. religion being distinct, I'd say that it's concievable to
put a religion together that science would agree to. Not just 'not be able to
disprove', but actually agree to. (you can't prove or disprove God via science,
so it can't ARGUE, but it won't concede that God exists). But I think that it
needs a similar indesputable base in the ethical area, like science's virtually
indesputable method. To present an ethical base, it needs to do something like
what Utilitarianism does: "what is good is that which makes people happy" It
doesn't need to do that per se, but something similar, that defines 'good'
indisputably. Certainly it would be difficult... I'd argue that the form of
definition would vary greatly from any moral code previously tried, but I'd
concede that it could be possible†.
Dave Eaton
† - If you want to dispute its format, see other ongoing thread under the
'infinites' title of this HUGE thread.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
277 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
