Subject:
|
Perceptions and Reality (was Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Jan 2001 05:54:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1458 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
>
> > The point I'm pretty sure you're trying to avoid getting me to talk you
> > into, though, is that science==faith, religion==faith, and therefore
> > science==religion, yes? Well, I'm not about to say that exactly.
>
> That IS exactly what you are trying to say. You are welcome to correct me,
> but then explain what you are trying to do, since your initial point was
> that science is based on faith (at some point) and religion is based on
> faith, so they aren't that different.
The inherent difference in the two ('science' vs. 'religion') is that for
you, me, and I would argue, most, if not all humans, 'science' proves itself
more worthy of faith. I.E. to argue against true 'science' is to look
absurd, but to argue against religion is not, necessarily. For me. For you
(I'm assuming). For most humans (I'm pretty sure). For all humans (I think).
The scientific method-- also under the guise of 'logic' is not what is in
question here. It is not my intent to say that the scientific method is that
which we have 'faith' in. Perception is. Big difference. And although I
MIGHT argue that we have faith in logic, I'm not so sure I'd do that... to
argue that logic is not logical is... difficult, and potentially absurd.
Hmm... I'll have to think on that one... Anyway, the SUBJECT of logic is
that which I'm bringing into question.
Let's talk about perceptions for a minute then. I'd categorize them into two
major areas. Physical and metaphysical. Physical? Sight, hearing, touch,
taste, smell. Metaphysical? Emotion, memory, thought, ethics and, well,
anything else we think of as typically being personal and 'non-verifiable'.
Now. Why do you trust your physical senses more than your metaphysical ones?
Consistancy. Predictability. You can apply logic to that which is
predictable, and thus understand it and use it to your advantage. Things
that appear without order or predictibility we can't work with logically.
Right? And how do you verify that? Easy. Within your own experience, some
perceptions are consistant. Some aren't. And what's more-- what's REALLY
more, is that beyond that, humans have the remarkable gift of communication.
You can talk to other people ABOUT your perceptions and verify your
perceptions a LOT more.
-"Hey Bob! I just saw that rock fly through the air when you threw it! Did
you see that too?"
-"Yeah!"
-"Hey Bob! I feel really mad at you 'cause you threw a rock at me! Do you
feel mad at you too?"
-"Uh... no..."
And in so doing we gain a phenomenal wealth of experience from interacting
with others. And part of that interaction has shown us that no matter how
consistent our metaphysical perceptions are to OURSELVES (which is often
pretty inconsistent), metaphysical perceptions are very rarely ever
consistant between different people. And what's more, PHYSICAL perceptions
are VERY constistant-- not only for ourselves, but between people as well.
But now let's pose the absurd. What if (for someone out there, and
especially for a GROUP of someones) the opposite were true? What if
metaphysical perceptions were more consistant than physical ones? If you see
a rock, do you think there's a rock there? Do you have 'faith' in that
perception? Probably not a lot, since sight (in this example) is very
inconsistant for you. But you also feel happy. Do you have faith that such a
happiness is real? Sure. And to continue, what if you metaphysically
experienced God? And what if everyone else did too? Wouldn't you have a
whole heck of a lot more faith in God than in that rock being there that you
saw with your inconsistant sight?
Now that's obviously absurd (as stated). But I would argue *CONCEIVABLE*,
and *LOGICAL*. However, the fact of the matter is that it DOESN'T happen
that way. Metaphysical events really AREN'T very consistant, and as a
result, we don't often try apply logic to them, nor do we have faith that
what they tell us is true-- at least not insofar as we trust our physical
perceptions.
But now there's two questions, assuming the above. 1st off, is it
NECESSARILY so that physical sensations are ALWAYS consistant and
metaphysical sensations are NEVER 100% consistant? And 2nd, if it's NOT
necessarily so, what levels of consistancy are possible in humans?
Personally, I think it's always within pretty general levels for humans--
kinda like random fractal generated trees or some such. While the levels are
certainly under no actual 'boundary' to develop with more metaphysical
consistancy, the human systems just DON'T do that. An oak tree just WON'T
look like a pine tree, even though their branch placement is 'random', the
branch thickness is 'random', the exact locations of slits in the bark is
'random', etc.
But the point I'm trying to get across is that according to the 'absolute',
science is simply putting faith into the physical and not the metaphysical
(as indeed it should, I think), but it doesn't NEED to. IF (and this is not
an 'if' which I think will or has happened) metaphysical events proved
themselves consistant, then science would be wrong to acknowledge them. And
the reverse is also true.
And specifically, I'm saying that it is faith which is the basis for
scientific evidence. Faith in the consistancy of the physical, and the
inconsistancy of the metaphysical. BUT, should the tables of consistancy be
changed, the scientific method would be wrong to not alter with it.
Religion, on the other hand, examines and applies logic to both. Because in
some places, the metaphysical really DOES seem consistant. Take theft for
example. Everyone around seems to all 'feel' (metaphysically of course) that
theft is wrong. So, "cool!" says everyone-- we can say theft is wrong,
right? And on a side note, religions also base themselves on politics as
well. "My God will smite you if you don't do as I say," and so forth-- only
a lot more subtlely. But basically, religions examine the metaphysical event
alone, OR, along WITH the physical event, depending on the religion. SHOULD
it do so? Sure, but only if it acknowledges the degree of inconsistancy that
DOES exist within the perceptions of metaphysical events.
Hence, I'm not really saying that science==religion exactly. I'm saying that
IF the situation were different, it COULD be so. The possibility exists. Not
that it IS, but that it COULD be.
Does that clear it up at all?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity and Darwinism
|
| (...) That IS exactly what you are trying to say. You are welcome to correct me, but then explain what you are trying to do, since your initial point was that science is based on faith (at some point) and religion is based on faith, so they aren't (...) (23 years ago, 21-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
|
|
|
|
