Subject:
|
Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 20:53:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1220 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.)
Nevertheless, it IS what I was aiming at-- we do have faith when we see a
coke can that it exists. The question is whether that existence is (as Ponty
might say) an existence in itself or an existence as we see it. Basically,
defining that which is 'reality'. And while I agree that the assuption
you're making (that reality is DEFINED by our perceptions) is a good one, I
think it an important side note to acknowledge such.
> 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.
Hmm... the more I think about this, the more I think I disagree in theory...
(not in practice)
If we make the jump to defining reality by our perceptions (for without such
we can say nothing useful), then we must observe our perceptions with
scrutiny. In practice, certainly, one can say that one trusts phsyical
perception (sight, sound, etc) with more voracity than metaphysical
perception (emotion, thought, memory, etc). But why do we do so?
I think the reason why is that we find confirmation in others, thanks to our
ability to communicate. I say I saw the rock fall, and you agree. I say I
feel happy, but you may NOT agree. But what if it were reversed? What if all
your life, people shared your metaphysical experiences, but not necessarily
your physical ones? Would you then not have more faith in metaphysical
experience than physical experience as dictated by your interaction with
others for verification? And if you then metaphysically experienced God,
would you not place a good amount of faith in that experience?
In essence, is it not our society which in turn defines our faith in our
perception? And if our faith in our perception defines reality, does not our
society completely affect our definition of reality?
So now the question changes-- if a different society existed like this one,
is reality different? DOES God exist? Or are we to assume that we're right
by necessity? That physical perception is ALWAYS more reputable than
metaphysical experience?
I'm not disagreeing with the conclusion that for US, physical perceptions
are more reliable than metaphysical ones, I'm just saying that it MAY not be
so for ALL things, and that such a clarification is one we should make. It
IS "faith" in the fact that our physical perceptions are more primary than
our metaphysical ones that defines the groundwork for finding scientific
evidence (although I might argue that the METHOD would still hold true even
if our faith were reversed.... dunno, haven't thought that one through yet).
And as such, science IS grounded on faith. But that faith is so fundamental
to us that we take it for granted, as perhaps we should. But I do feel it an
important point to make.
DaveE
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
