Summary of the Science/Religion Divide (ritual, Creator, salvation, beliefs)

[Rolling_Stone]

I thought the last posts in Why the divide between Science and Religion... summarized it pretty well. Fluffy said, “It is not necessary for a scientist to make those assumptions [matter exists and the universe is understandable]. For example, propositions about matter should be phrased ‘If matter exists, then…’ and thus science should be about logical entailment given certain conditions. Similarly, ‘If the universe is understandable, then…’ Science is about understanding the reality that we perceive and does not, and should not, make any claim as to the truth of the conditions upon which such a perception is granted.”

I said this is sophistry. Fluffy (probably inadvertently) gave a very good accounting of the way faith works and why it is “the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.” Science works because scientists make assumptions— which is the way faith works. Faith is the common motivator; it motivates both science and religion in their respective pursuits for understanding. Science ends its search with the hypothesis of a first cause (Big Bang, quantum flux, etc.). Religion continues its pursuit of felt value-meanings until it finds a God of salvation. Science suggests the reality and existence of an Absolute or Ground, but makes no value-claims about it; religion fosters belief in a reality that affords a conceptual frame for experiential values and the promise of personality survival.

Thoughts?

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Rolling_Stone

Science works because scientists make assumptions— which is the way faith works. Faith is the common motivator; it motivates both science and religion in their respective pursuits for understanding.

I disagree.

Both science and religion make assumptions, but are all assumptions equally warranted? Is assuming the Sun will rise tomorrow just as faith-based as assuming that there's life after death? Does assuming that the universe was around before people were here to perceive it involve just as much faith as assuming that a Creator God spoke reality into existence at His mere whim?

I dispute your assertion that science and religion are both in search of understanding. Science is an attempt to remove the subjective element from inquiry: ideally, the seeker should arrive at the same empirical conclusions regardless of his or her personal prejudices. Regardless of their religious or political beliefs, those involved in objective inquiry should achieve the same results concerning natural phenomena. Truth is merely the best theory at the moment, and one that is bound to be superseded by a theory that systematizes more of the available evidence than the current one.

Religion, on the other hand, is about reinforcing subjective beliefs. Its adherents insist that personal experiences and wishful thinking be accepted as evidence to validate its claims. Any disconfirming evidence is either ignored or explained away as sacred mystery.

In essence, the difference is the recognition of common human biases and the approach to understanding. Science takes into account the limited perception and cognitive biases of humanity and defines them as obstacles to honest inquiry. So tools such as double-blind testing and repeatable experiments serve to correct human error. Religion defines objectivity and logic as threats to honest understanding, and as a result emphasizes blind faith and personal spiritual experience to compensate for its shortcomings as a mode of rational inquiry.

[Rolling_Stone]

Welcome to RF.

Everything you say has been said before and addressed, but since you are new to RF I will go over points made in the original and lengthy thread.

Originally Posted by Escéptico

I disagree.

Cool.

Both science and religion make assumptions, but are all assumptions equally warranted? Is assuming the Sun will rise tomorrow just as faith-based as assuming that there's life after death? Does assuming that the universe was around before people were here to perceive it involve just as much faith as assuming that a Creator God spoke reality into existence at His mere whim?

Life must be met on its own terms. Everything we know and everything we experience is realized in the subjective mind. Inside and outside are equally real, equally valid. We cannot dismiss the inside just because it is not subject to consensus or public examination.

I dispute your assertion that science and religion are both in search of understanding. Science is an attempt to remove the subjective element from inquiry: ideally, the seeker should arrive at the same empirical conclusions regardless of his or her personal prejudices. Regardless of their religious or political beliefs, those involved in objective inquiry should achieve the same results concerning natural phenomena. Truth is merely the best theory at the moment, and one that is bound to be superseded by a theory that systematizes more of the available evidence than the current one.

Ironically, it was science that discovered that the subjective element cannot be removed from the object of inquiry.

Religion, on the other hand, is about reinforcing subjective beliefs. Its adherents insist that personal experiences and wishful thinking be accepted as evidence to validate its claims. Any disconfirming evidence is either ignored or explained away as sacred mystery.

"When theology masters religion, religion dies; it becomes a doctrine instead of a life. The mission of theology is merely to facilitate the self-consciousness of personal spiritual experience. Theology constitutes the religious effort to define, clarify, expound, and justify the experiential claims of religion, which, in the last analysis, can be validated only by living faith. In the higher philosophy of the universe, wisdom, like reason, becomes allied to faith. Reason, wisdom, and faith are man's highest human attainments. Reason introduces man to the world of facts, to things; wisdom introduces him to a world of truth, to relationships; faith initiates him into a world of divinity, spiritual experience." (UB)

In essence, the difference is the recognition of common human biases and the approach to understanding. Science takes into account the limited perception and cognitive biases of humanity and defines them as obstacles to honest inquiry. So tools such as double-blind testing and repeatable experiments serve to correct human error.

Religion has no problem with this.

Religion defines objectivity and logic as threats to honest understanding, and as a result emphasizes blind faith and personal spiritual experience to compensate for its shortcomings as a mode of rational inquiry.

This is proof that religion is not alone in tending toward being biased and dogmatic. Everything you said collapses under the weight of this one statement.

[Escéptico]

Rolling Stone,

Since I'm new here, I might be unfamiliar with your mode of discourse. It seems to me that you either missed the points I was making or deliberately ignored them.

I was taking issue with this assertion of yours: science and religion are equally faith-based endeavors, since they both involve some sort of assumptions. What I was trying to point out is that there's a difference between rational assumptions based on assessment of empirical data and the type of assumptions that are based on wishful thinking. I indicated examples of each kind of assumption to illustrate the difference between them.

I think we should be careful what we say we know. Our subjective experience is not a reliable tool in providing us an honest understanding of our world and universe. Science is a cumulative, collective endeavor that recognizes the limitations and biases of the individual perspective. Religion is an endeavor that encourages credulity, magical thinking, and indulgence of the very cognitive biases that compromise our objectivity.

I hope you'll reconsider your decision to insult me as biased and dogmatic. All I pointed out was that religion puts blind faith and subjective experience above logic and rationality. Didn't Paul say that 'the Lord hath made folly of the wisdom of this world'? Isn't John 3:16 the defining cant of 21st-century Christians? Didn't you yourself claim that the claims of religion can only be validated by living faith?

In no way do I intend this to mean that God does not exist or that religious belief is wrong. All I want to point out is the distinction between the assumptions of empirical evidential inquiry and those of religious belief. I look forward to a dialogue on this point if you're interested in answering it.

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

Our subjective experience is not a reliable tool in providing us an honest understanding of our world and universe.

Maybe not, but when push comes to shove, it's the only one we've got.

[Escéptico]

Originally Posted by Storm

Maybe not, but when push comes to shove, it's the only one we've got.

And empirical evidential inquiry?

[Storm]

Originally Posted by Escéptico

And empirical evidential inquiry?

Don't get me wrong, science is a powerful and valuable tool. But it still ultimately comes down to people's experiences and ideas.

[Popeyesays]

We have two eyes, one for the material world and one for the spiritual world. To close one is make one's self half-blind.

Regards,
Scott