Subject:
|
Re: Science is not a religion, and religion is not a science.
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Jan 2001 14:10:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1313 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
> 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.
I think that while I agree with that, I'll point out the clarification I'd
make (more Ponty, actually, IIRC). Reality is, in *whole* or in *part*, that
which is unignorable-- I.E. that which doesn't go away without you believing
in it, as you said... HOWEVER, there MAY be more to reality to which we
don't have access. Hence, the question is whether we allow for that
possibility or not. To say that reality is such in *whole* is to define
reality by your perceptions. To say that reality is such in *part* is what
I'd like to acknowledge as possibility, even though I'm perfectly happy to
accept the former-- because the later actually accomplishes nothing except
accounting for outside possibility.
> 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.
Exactly. My question, then, is do you assume that humans ALWAYS, no matter
WHAT, have (or 'should' have) a supreme faith in the physical and a
secondary, far weaker faith in the metaphysical experience? You seem to
acknowledge the assertion that these faiths can differ, at least minimally
in strength, but do you suggest that for ALL humans, the faith in the
metaphysical event is of insufficient strength to have faith in a God?
> 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.
Ah, but if sucha substitution WERE made, would it be invalid for some
reason? Or only invalid for you? DOES God 'exist'? Certainly, accepting such
a substitution would allow for a faith in God which would be as hard to
dispute as a rock falling to Earth for us... In such a society, couldn't the
event of God be that which you could NOT ignore? And as such, doesn't God
exist, if only for THEM? And wouldn't they have more faith in things like
creationism rather than a ludicrous theory of evolution? Wouldn't evolution
seem completely stupid to them? Can they TRULY make valid conclusions about
that which their access to is limited? For them, which theory is 'right'?
Important note here, though, which is that while I allow this, the common
mistake for those who believe in God is that EVERYONE will (or should)
believe in Him, no matter who they are, etc. In essence they believe that
God is in all ways universal, without stopping to think of things like this
first. For us to promote the physical event as primary and supreme, and the
metaphysical event as lesser, and potentially completely non-credible, is
for us to make the same grievous mistake. HOWEVER, if we can show that for
ALL humans, that such is true, THEN we can get somewhere. I just don't know
if that's been shown true....
> > 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,
Most definitely. Actually I changed the wording of that sentence after I
caught myself almost making that mistake-- still should be worded
differently, I spose, though... :)
> 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.
Most certainly. BUT, let's look more closely. If the caveman didn't believe
in the handgun, does he experience that handgun, or does he experience the
getting shot? Or does he only experience the death? If the caveman CAN'T
experience such an event, what good will come of his theorizations about
such? There may be some interdimentional being about to shoot your head off
with an interdimentional ray gun, but does it actually EXIST, for YOU? Would
it do you ANY good to theorize about that? The only way in which that being
has any apparent effect on you is in some way that you can't see. Hence, I
would argue, that for YOU, it doesn't exist. Does that mean it 'really'
doesn't exist? No. And actually, isn't this more of my point? That the
'real' reality may be quite beyond our grasp, and we must account for that
possibility?
> 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.
And thus I would point out that you can only say with certainty that your
leap of faith is only smaller for you. What we REALLY should be arguing here
is whether that leap of faith is smaller for EVERYONE (all humans, that is).
> > 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.
Ah, and here comes that exact arguement-- that for humans, faith in the
physical is ALWAYS more prevalent than the metaphsysical. And I'd agree,
actually. However, again, I feel it an important distinction to say that
such is only true for humans, and that I concede that I may in fact be wrong.
> > 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.
Very much so indeed. But that's the point. As they say "all things being
equal", which do you opt for? And if you opt for primacy of the physical,
then science as we come to call it, is the more valuable.
> 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.
Certainly I agree that that's the way it's been. But I would argue that it
would be possible given the choice of primacy of the metaphysical event.
However, even so, the evidence of the Bible is not something discussed by
Christians often, or in the Bible itself, and hence it is merely the
conclusion presented without evidence-- not to say that the evidence would
not be there (given Christianity's history), but that it would have merely
gone unstated.
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
|
|
|
|
