Subject:
|
Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 19:58:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1323 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > That's because we don't put 'faith' in the scientific method; that is, we
> > don't accept it outright and pretend it's an absolute.
>
> Did you mean to say that we DO accept it outright AS an absolute? I'll most
> definitely agree with that with the addendum that such a thing is STILL
> technically faith, but seeing as nobody has been capable of living WITHOUT
> such assumptions (that we know of), the matter need not really be questioned.
I still don't agree; the true beauty of science is that even the
scientific method itself isn't immutable. If a better, more complete system
comes along, science as a discipline will embrace it. If one says "I have
faith in the scientific method," that's more a figure of speech than an
expression of devotion; if the method is proven incomplete, or if a better
method surfaces, we'll use that. Science is the ultimate (so to speak)
system of "we'll use this for now because it works for now."
> > Religion by definition revolves around the worship or
> > service of either a higher power or a system of beliefs; science does not.
>
> Hmm... I'll have to think on that one-- I've tried to define religion
> several times with no success, and that definition may work... Hmm... Could
> we then say that science is a religion because it revolves around the system
> of beliefs that I stated in my previous post? I.E that we believe that our
> perceptions are accurate, our memory unflawed, and our logic logical? Or is
> such a system of beliefs so fundamental in nature that to acknowledge it
> indicates alternate possibilites (of which there are none we know of), and
> as such, should not be construed as a system of beliefs? Dunno where I stand
> on this one...
That's a fair question, but it runs into the dilution of religion I
mentioned previously. If we ascribe to faith such basic and unavoidable
things as you describe, then faith becomes so widespread and dilute as to be
meaningless. By that yardstick, I have faith that there will be soda when I
open my Coke can. I have faith that when I flush the toilet the water will
vanish in a lovely spiral. These things may require an adherence to
expectations and to predictive sensory experience, but that's different from
blind--that is, empirically non-supportable--faith (in God, for instance.)
> > Religion entails a faith in that belief system, and faith by definition
> > cannot be falsified or proven by empirical evidence (since that would
> > preclude the need for faith);
>
> To beg the question, faith in what?
I was imprecise--sorry. I meant faith in God or a god, since that's the
discussion at hand. If, for instance, God Himself appears to me, I no
longer have need of faith, since I could not (presumably) credibly
disbelieve him in the face of such tangible physical evidence.
> > science entails an examination and description
> > of observed phenomena in the natural world. Science does *not* involve
> > faith; in fact, the opposite is true. The goal of science is to subject
> > observations of the universe to intense and logical scrutiny so that a more
> > complete description of the universe may arise.
>
> Quite agreed. And as such, is it not science's nature to investigate the
> fundamental 'faiths' I described in my last post?
Ah. Here's where we're differing on which type of faith we're discussing.
My post addressed faith in God or gods, that can't be verified empirically
(and if they could, why bother with faith?) You have a point, though;
science is exactly the agency by which we investigate our "secular faith" in
supposed observations of the natural world. Through science we attempt to
discredit spurious observations while supporting the more accurate ones. I
still assert that this is essentially different from "religious faith," however.
> Hence to say that while I accept (on faith in my perceptions) that I see a
> rock falling to the ground, I can also accept (on faith in my perceptions) a
> metaphysical experience like God... However, I would be inclined to draw a
> distinction in the strength of those two faiths, insofar as my experience of
> the metaphysical is less reliable than my perception of the physical.
That's the crux of it! One cannot truly assert that another's metaphysical
experience did or did not happen (or at least one cannot use science to say
that such a thing--beyond the realm of science to explain--did not occur),
but one can assert that such experiences (if metaphysical they are) are not
within the bounds of scientific scrutiny or explanation.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
298 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
