Subject:
|
Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 18 Jan 2001 21:51:52 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1385 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > 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.
I'll see your Ponty and raise you some PK Dick; reality is that which,
when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. Okay, that's not a
conclusive answer, but it entertains me.
Once again I think the essence in our difference lies in how we
compartmentalize faith vs Faith. Faith in mundane things, such as those
which I am programmed by instinct to accept, or which I am conditioned to
accept due to a lifetime of experience, is categorically different from
faith in that with which I have no tangible experience. The nature of faith
in each case is different because the nature of each case is different.
> 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?
What would be the value of such an inversion? Are you asserting obliquely
that--for the Faithful--everyday life is a "shared metaphysical experience"?
If you're simply substituting one primary experience for
another--metaphysical for physical--then little is gained or lost. One
world would become primary and the other secondary, and faith in one would
be subordinate to the reality of the other.
> 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?
Not entirely, and in any case our "definition of reality" is subordinate
to reality itself (I recognize that quantum theory identifies the perception
of an event as integral to the event, but in the macroscopic world things
are somewhat different). If a caveman didn't "believe" in the handgun I
killed him with, he'd still be dead. The bubonic plague victim of the 14th
century died of the plague, even if he "believed" it to be the work of the
Devil. You're brushing up against the Postmodernist notion that a thing
cannot exist unless that thing is named/described/identified by the cultural
consciousness. If one accepts this notion (which I do not), then one can
claim with impunity pretty much anything about anything.
My belief, for what it's worth, is that "reality" exists. Ultimately it
exists independent of our attempts to describe it, and it exists whether we
believe in it or not. It need not be unchanging (quite the opposite, I
think), nor must it be fundamentably comprehensible. This is faith of a
sort, I admit, but it's a much smaller leap of faith than, say, believing in
a belevolent, intelligent, infinite being who rules over the endless
universe he created.
> 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.
Once again, your definition of faith here is more broad than the
definition I'm addressing. Our physical perceptions are more primary to us
because they are more primary in everyday dealings, and because of the
structure of our brain, and because they're the result of billions of years
of evolution.
> 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.
Well, all right, but I must underscore again that the type of faith you're
indicating differs at its core from the type of faith that allows one to say
"the universe was created 6000 years ago, and God just made it *look* like
it's billions of years old." To equate the two dilutes both to the point of
worthlessness. The "faith" of science, if such it may indeed be termed, is
based on a simple, basic assumption, and science uses this assumption as its
starting point. "Faith" in the religious sense yields not the assumption
but the conclusion.
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
|
|
|
|
