Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker.
Options
Comments
-
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not saying reality should align with what satisfies me most.
[SNIP]
personal satisfaction that what I perceive is reality is the highest court in the land.
Yeah, those two sentences amount to the same thing. You accept claims about reality based on what personally satisfies you above all else. Why do you think your personal satisfaction is unassailable?antiskeptic wrote: »By satisfaction, I don't mean things I like. I also mean things I might not like. I am satisfied that I can be very arrogant, for example. If someone else tells me I am arrogant, it will only matter if I am satisfied that they are right.
So, by satisfaction you just mean acceptance. So when you said that your worldview "satisfies me the most" then you just mean that your worldview is what you accept the most? So you were saying nothing?antiskeptic wrote: »You appear satisfied that it is appropriate to remove the ego. You, the highest court. I'd drop the "we" bit since the value of "we" as opposed to "me" is something decided in your courtroom. It might be appropriate to do it at times. But it is you who is satisfied when it's appropriate.
Again, as reality as a whole clearly doesn't align with what makes anyone (perfectly and permanently) happy, someone's subjective satisfaction is not a measure of reality. Reality clearly doesn't care about what satisfies anyone.antiskeptic wrote: »I am not disagreeing with you, where you are satisfied it's appropriate to remove it. If you were not satisfied that empiricism was the best way to explain the reality you perceive, what would you do then?
Find another way.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »The 0 (lets call them the Christian) doesn't need the answer. He knows it himself already.
The 1 (lets call them the blind) won't understand the answer. He's blind.
Its the same words, there is no different answer.
(You might have read that Jonathan Edwards quote I posted to Fourier. If not scroll up a few posts). Same words on a page. Completely different result.
Which just brings us back to the same points you've failed to address before:
1) You are saying that you can't believe in god without already believing in god
2) You are not still not explaining why you believe you are right to believe in your god when there are people who are equally confident in believing in contradictory gods.
To every onlooker, you and the other equally confident (but contradictory) believers look fundamentally the same. And before you can label away these onlookers as "1"s or "0"s, to say it doesn't matter because they are "blind" you need to answer the question of why your belief is right (to justify "blindness" being a thing), otherwise you are starting with the conclusion that your are right in order to conclude that you are right.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote:But if you don't engage with people who think they have the high ground then your stalemate just leaves them having thinking they have the high ground.
But I am engaging with people who think they hold the high ground. I'm just not engaging by charging up their imaginary hill.it will only make them feel more secure as you flee from point raised after point raised.
The only point I could be said to flee from is engaging with partial onlookers. 'Flee' would be an unusual take, given the thread title. Indeed the shift to imploring me to abandon the thread title and engage partial onlookers instead is a precise defintion of flight, carried out by those doing the imploring. Including yourself ironically.
I haven't fled from establishing the impossibility of an impartial onlooker. They need to be born again .. with empiricial experience?? Or they need to be empirically sighted but spiritually blind?? I think we can conclude not all hypotheticals make sense. The bald insistence that they all nonetheless do .. is also an example of flight.
I haven't fled from the ultimate nature of knowledge. Little response to that.
What other little flight of mine had you in mind?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »But I am engaging with people who think they hold the high ground. I'm just not engaging by charging up their imaginary hill.
Engaging doesn't just mean saying anything to a question, it means attempting to answer the question. You specifically have not done that. You have prided yourself on not doing that.antiskeptic wrote: »The only point I could be said to flee from is engaging with partial onlookers. 'Flee' would be an unusual take, given the thread title. Indeed the shift to imploring me to abandon the thread title and engage partial onlookers instead is a precise defintion of flight, carried out by those doing the imploring. Including yourself ironically.
I haven't fled from establishing the impossibility of an impartial onlooker. They need to be born again .. with empiricial experience?? Or they need to be empirically sighted but spiritually blind?? I think we can conclude not all hypotheticals make sense. The bald insistence that they all nonetheless do .. is also an example of flight.
You can't have it both ways. You cant on the one hand say that you are engaging but then say that you are stalemating on purpose. You can't say that you aren't fleeing from points while at the same time making up strawmen and fallacies to pretend the question is unanswerable, even though another theists managed to answer it.antiskeptic wrote: »I haven't fled from the ultimate nature of knowledge. Little response to that.
What's this now?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote:
Engaging doesn't just mean saying anything to a question,
So name them. Give 4 specific, succintly worded significant questions that you take issue with. Forget justification to partial onlookers - this is not a thread for that. Eg
1. How do you know your god is the true god?You can't have it both ways. You cant on the one hand say that you are engaging but then say that you are stalemating on purpose.
Stalemating merely highlights deficiency in the ability of either argument obtaining the higher ground.
Whether I do it deliberately or not matters not a jot. If the opposing argument can't rise above stalemate then that is the opposing arguments problem.
By engage I mean consider others arguments and construct my own counters in a logical, reasoned manner (such that weaknesses in them can be identified and things progress)
I'm not engaging with a view to having my mind changed. My mind is made up and I have my own agenda. As I am entitled to have.You can't say that you aren't fleeing from points while at the same time making up strawmen and fallacies to pretend the question is unanswerable, even though another theists managed to answer it.
Again you have to be specific. I couldn't give a fig what other theists say. It's your argument vs my argument.
I would add another item I haven't fled from. The notion of societies "onwards and upwards" trajectory out of which so much is made. Progress. Human Rights. "We have moved on"
Global climate catastrophe looming, global ecoside, credit card amounts of plastic consumed by each of us each week, our food denuded of nutrients and contaminated by chemicals, 70,000,000 refugees - the highest number ever recorded, perma-war ("conflicts aren't resolved anymore" the UN Commissioner of Refugees on why there are 70 million (and climbing) refugees currently wandering the globe), rape of the planets resources on a never before seen scale, potential for nuclear annihilation, 2 then-thirteen year olds convicted of rape and murder with hardcore porn and photo's of their murder kit dressing a mannequin (wonder which progressive stone they 3 clicked their way to those ideas from), Italy passing laws to make it illegal to rescue migrants in the med.
Oh, and we're extending old age. Your 80's will become the new 50' ). Three cheers from the bulk of world who can't afford the luxury of advanced old age
What wonderful progress can begin to compete with this unmitigated disaster.
(Ripe for a stalemate this onwards and upwards one. One mans progress and all. Still, I'd love to hear some the wonderful things we've progressed with which hasn't got an obvious downside. If only the planet wasn't giving us unmistakable signs regarding the cost that all this progress comes at)0 -
Advertisement
-
1) You are saying that you can't believe in god without already believing in god
Although I'm not saying that, it is self evident. I can't be Irish without already being Irish. To be Irish means you must be Irish.
???
I said there is no possibility of there being an impartial onlooker, hypo or otherwise (from the Christian perspective).
I've explained why and your attempt to say what I'm saying falls miles from the mark2) You are not still not explaining why you believe you are right to believe in your god when there are people who are equally confident in believing in contradictory gods.
I haven't explained (in the sense of laying out all the bits which led to my knowing God exists). There wouldn't be any point - you're blind and antagonistic so would just argue this way and that. I couldn't begin to see that.point in going down that track. Who needs the headache?
Instead, I just cut to 'I know' pointing out that statement can't be beaten by anyone elses contra-knowledge. It can only be stalemated.
Its a choice: try to get a blind man to see what he can't see. Or obtain a stalemate.
(No insult with the use of the world blind. I mean it in the technical rather than personal sense)To every onlooker,
Partial onlooker you meant to say.you and the other equally confident (but contradictory) believers look fundamentally the same.
At this point you need to do what you persistently forget to do: include your own belief system in the mix.
When you do, you'll find that all the beliefs look funfamentally the same to you except for yours. What a surprise.
News for you. All beliefs, bar 'born again' believers look fundamentally the same to me.And before you can label away these onlookers as "1"s or "0"s, to say it doesn't matter because they are "blind" you need to answer the question of why your belief is right (to justify "blindness" being a thing), otherwise you are starting with the conclusion that your are right in order to conclude that you are right.
Self satisfaction, to which you too are subject for your knowledge, has no external reference. Only you can conclude you are right. There is no other to refer to. If you do refer to something external, it's becauses it increases your self-satisfaction to do so. It all terminates with the self. Everyman is an island, afterall0 -
A+A is a discussion forum where each poster should, at the very least, entertain the possibility, however remote, that they might change their mind.antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not engaging with a view to having my mind changed.
A poster who says their mind can never be changed is a poster who remains as closed to discussion as they are open to sermonizing and A+A - above all places - is not a forum where sermonizing one's fellow-posters will neither be enjoyed, nor tolerated by your friendly forum mods.0 -
As I thought, you're basically just referring to old well known problems/paradoxes in epistemology.
You're literally stating that you don't care about debate and only about "forcing" a well known philosophical conversation stopper.
I don't know what you gain by this. It would be like showing up to a site for discussing music and simply forcing the "It's all subjective anyway man" view or heading to a science forum and talking about "Yeah it matches evidence, but how do you know that isn't just a coincidence?"
My only comment would be for others that there is nothing interesting here. Antiskeptic believes himself to be on a different plane of thought and all attempts to disprove it are just alternate subjective viewpoints with no additional merit. Except that they lack the awakened truth he possesses. There is nothing of worth for anybody who doesn't think "Yeah well it looks like a duck, but how do you know it's a duck? Uh?" is a deep statement.
EDIT: Crossed with robindch0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »A+A is a discussion forum where each poster should, at the very least, entertain the possibility, however remote, that they might change their mind.
Is that last bit in the charter. Because if it's not, I'll be led by the definition of the word 'discussion' thanks.A poster who says their mind can never be changed is a poster who remains as closed to discussion as they are open to sermonizing and A+A - above all places - is not a forum where sermonizing one's fellow-posters will neither be enjoyed, nor tolerated by your friendly forum mods.
Non sequitur. Just because my mind isn't open to change on the matter of my knowing God exists doesn't mean what I write is sermonising.
Smacl cites wonderful progress, I'll cite not so wonderful progress. Someone says how do you know, I'll remind them how it is we all know.
Point for point. It's always going.to end in stalemate - but thats the nature of the things. And not my fault per se.0 -
As I thought, you're basically just referring to old well known problems/paradoxes in epistemology.
You're literally stating that you don't care about debate and only about "forcing" a well known philosophical conversation stopper.
You appear to be presuming a debate can continue perpetually and never reach an end (it can, of course, if you go around in circles. But I don't mean that. I mean go on progressing and expanding indefinitely but never reach a conclusion.)
Or, if it does reach a conclusion, one or other side must prevail?
If reason leads you to conclude that the conversation must stalemate then why is there a problem? Is stalemate an invalid conclusion?I don't know what you gain by this. It would be like showing up to a site for discussing music and simply forcing the "It's all subjective anyway man" view or heading to a science forum and talking about "Yeah it matches evidence, but how do you know that isn't just a coincidence?"
The counter for, for example, the oft repeated belief that mankind is on an onwards and upwards progressive trajectory has been detailed more comprehensively by me than your caricature suggests.
I recall very little by way of response to the impossibility of the hypothetical onlooker - other than to insist sticking the word 'hypothetical' onto nonsense renders it other than nonsense.
Do you think an impartial onlooker ought be equipped to appreciate what he is being asked to assess?Antiskeptic believes himself to be on a different plane of thought
Not so thought. The thought processes are the same, the sight enhanced leading to additional information to compute.
To sneer that 'I believe' turns out to rest on the somewhat underwhelming argument that... you don't believe.
Why not? Is it because you haven't evidence of the type you believe is the best route to assess truth/reality? Does that belief rest on yet more beliefs? Is it beliefs all the way down. Until conversation stopper?
Its not so much that I drive to this stalemate. Stalemate follows as soon as someone figures to query and question the beliefs you are convinced are true.
God forbid anyone could operate on a different plane. But if they did actually and you didn't, wouldn't you expect yourself to be blind.Except that they lack the awakened truth he possesses.
What they lack is something other than their own bootstraps to hold their beliefs up.
Tell me, was the paradox of mans knowledge resting in himself ever resolved?
I'm guessing the solution is to keep calm, sweep it under the carpet and forget the bootstraps. How is one to get on with the business of keeping God firmly out of the way otherwise?
My conversation stopper turns out to be your conversation stopper!0 -
Advertisement
-
I'm not assuming debate must play out in a certain fashion, I'm saying you're invoking an old argument that halts discussion at a trivial level.antiskeptic wrote: »You appear to be presuming a debate can continue perpetually and never reach an end (it can, of course, if you go around in circles. But I don't mean that. I mean go on progressing and expanding indefinitely but never reach a conclusion.)
Or, if it does reach a conclusion, one or other side must prevail?
If reason leads you to conclude that the conversation must stalemate then why is there a problem? Is stalemate an invalid conclusion?
For example two biologists might argue over how the stomach of an animal functions. Given current observational evidence a stalemate might be the only possible resolution to their debate. However this is a very different sort of stalemate to somebody saying "Yeah, but how can you even know anything. Maybe it doesn't even have a stomach and it's all a hallucination man".
One is an interesting stalemate. The other is "Hey, I just read epistomology 101".
I wasn't referring to your discussion with smacl.The counter for, for example, the oft repeated belief that mankind is on an onwards and upwards progressive trajectory has been detailed more comprehensively by me than your caricature suggests.
What paradox is this? There might be a problem in the grounding of epistemology, but I'm not aware of a paradox.Tell me, was the paradox of mans knowledge resting in himself ever resolved?
Issues with the grounding of epistomology imply the Christian conception of God? How is that?How is one to get on with the business of keeping God firmly out of the way otherwise?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Although I'm not saying that, it is self evident. I can't be Irish without already being Irish. To be Irish means you must be Irish.
Your entire argument is limited to a single similar tautology. God exists therefore your believe in him. However, that God exists is no more than your belief.(No insult with the use of the world blind. I mean it in the technical rather than personal sense)
That is not technically what it means to be blind, it is a religious metaphor. Metaphorically, your belief has blinded you to any meaningful discussion that your belief is simply a belief. This is evidenced by your refusal to accept, even at a totally hypothetical level, that your belief might be ill-founded while asking others, who clearly think your belief is baloney, to share that belief.
That isn't meaningful discussion.0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »You appear to be presuming a debate can continue perpetually and never reach an end (it can, of course, if you go around in circles. But I don't mean that. I mean go on progressing and expanding indefinitely but never reach a conclusion.)
Or, if it does reach a conclusion, one or other side must prevail?
If reason leads you to conclude that the conversation must stalemate then why is there a problem? Is stalemate an invalid conclusion?
The counter for, for example, the oft repeated belief that mankind is on an onwards and upwards progressive trajectory has been detailed more comprehensively by me than your caricature suggests.
I recall very little by way of response to the impossibility of the hypothetical onlooker - other than to insist sticking the word 'hypothetical' onto nonsense renders it other than nonsense.
Do you think an impartial onlooker ought be equipped to appreciate what he is being asked to assess?
Not so thought. The thought processes are the same, the sight enhanced leading to additional information to compute.
To sneer that 'I believe' turns out to rest on the somewhat underwhelming argument that... you don't believe.
Why not? Is it because you haven't evidence of the type you believe is the best route to assess truth/reality? Does that belief rest on yet more beliefs? Is it beliefs all the way down. Until conversation stopper?
Its not so much that I drive to this stalemate. Stalemate follows as soon as someone figures to query and question the beliefs you are convinced are true.
God forbid anyone could operate on a different plane. But if they did actually and you didn't, wouldn't you expect yourself to be blind.
What they lack is something other than their own bootstraps to hold their beliefs up.
Tell me, was the paradox of mans knowledge resting in himself ever resolved?
I'm guessing the solution is to keep calm, sweep it under the carpet and forget the bootstraps. How is one to get on with the business of keeping God firmly out of the way otherwise?
My conversation stopper turns out to be your conversation stopper!
Do you believe in the fall? As in the battle in heaven and Lucifer etc?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »I'm not engaging with a view to having my mind changed.
Why are you engaging then?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »So name them. Give 4 specific, succintly worded significant questions that you take issue with. Forget justification to partial onlookers - this is not a thread for that. Eg
1. How do you know your god is the true god?
What does this even mean?antiskeptic wrote: »Stalemating merely highlights deficiency in the ability of either argument obtaining the higher ground.
But that doesn't work because any argument can be stalemated if you simple will not respond to it. But putting your fingers in your eyes and saying "la la la I'm not listening" doesn't somehow put your argument on the same level as someone who is actually willing to engage and answer questions.antiskeptic wrote: »Again you have to be specific. I couldn't give a fig what other theists say. It's your argument vs my argument.
Again with the strawmanning to flee from a point. It's not my argument vs yours, it's everyone's arguments vs yours. So the fact that another theist can answer the question is very relevant.antiskeptic wrote: »I would add another item I haven't fled from. The notion of societies "onwards and upwards" trajectory out of which so much is made.
[SNIP]
Ripe for a stalemate this onwards and upwards one. One mans progress and all.
You can't see the irony in claiming that you haven't fled from arguments for societies "onwards and upwards" trajectory while at the same time being proud that you will stalemate the hell out of it?0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Although I'm not saying that, it is self evident. I can't be Irish without already being Irish. To be Irish means you must be Irish.
You can become Irish by applying for Irish citizenship. Can you not believe in god by becoming convinced of it?antiskeptic wrote: »I haven't explained (in the sense of laying out all the bits which led to my knowing God exists). There wouldn't be any point - you're blind and antagonistic so would just argue this way and that. I couldn't begin to see that.point in going down that track. Who needs the headache?
Instead, I just cut to 'I know' pointing out that statement can't be beaten by anyone elses contra-knowledge. It can only be stalemated.
But how do you know that I'm blind and antagonistic to your god and not that we are blind and antagonistic to someone else's god? It's a very crass way to pretend that your argument is above reproach, by just claiming that everyone who disagrees is inherently ill-equipped to understand. How can anyone distinguish between two people claiming it about contradictory beliefs?antiskeptic wrote: »Partial onlooker you meant to say.
Are you asking me to strawman myself?antiskeptic wrote: »At this point you need to do what you persistently forget to do: include your own belief system in the mix.
But I am comparing your beliefs to others who also stalemate the question. You don't look fundamentally the same to me or the likes of realitykeeper, who earlier gave an answer to the questions I posed, as we can give our reasoning and distinguish ourselves from each other and you on some level.antiskeptic wrote: »Self satisfaction, to which you too are subject for your knowledge, has no external reference. Only you can conclude you are right. There is no other to refer to. If you do refer to something external, it's becauses it increases your self-satisfaction to do so. It all terminates with the self. Everyman is an island, afterall
And we are back to "self satisfaction", which I question you on here but you seemed to have missed and not responded to, so would you like to respond now?0 -
Your entire argument is limited to a single similar tautology. God exists therefore your believe in him. However, that God exists is no more than your belief.
My hypothesis is that antiskeptic at some point experienced a "road to Damascus" moment where his/her eyes were "opened" (i.e. no longer blind) and s/he was "born again" into knowledge of God. S/He cannot explain this knowledge as it came to him/her in a flash of divine inspiration as it were.
Of course, such a divine inspiration would be highly personal and subjective and as such impossible to explain in any objective, rational, way.
Now, I admit this is not a perfect hypothesis as antiskeptic's own words throw a few spanners in the works.
He/she said when his/her (I'm going with male pronouns from now on as I can't be asked typing fe/male ones all the time) mother became born again he was hostile - was he blind then? Did he have knowledge of god? If no - why was he hostile? Surely he was ripe for "awakening"...
If he was blind and had no knowledge of god then doesn't that contradict some of his statements here and make his awakening impossible as they are prerequisites?0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »Why are you engaging then?
Like they said, stalemating and proselytising.Do you believe in the fall?
Yes, of course I do!
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Bannasidhe wrote: »If he was blind and had no knowledge of god then doesn't that contradict some of his statement's here and make his awakening impossible as they are prerequisites?
The implication I take from this is that you can be 'born again' and see God but having done so there is no going back. Of course we in the A&A forum regularly see people who claim the reverse journey, but then I'm guessing that they wouldn't be considered 'real Christians' by Antiskeptic.
Either way, in my opinion it remains a tautological position that brooks no argument.0 -
I'm not qualified for in depth discussion on this debate, but was it nicely summed up by Augustine (I think)
For those who believe proof is not necessary , for those who don't believe proof is not possible.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
You feels it in your blood-pumping organ, silly.
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »But how do you arrive at that belief without proof?
Therein lies the crux - or the stalemate as some would have it.
To those who believe that have been awakened ('born again'/'filled with the Holy Spirit'/'Sanctified'/'Justified' - it has been called a number of different terms by different people) it is (or my understanding of it is...) a profoundly intense, but personal, moment of 'divine' inspiration where suddenly they understand.It simply cannot be explained.
It cannot be comprehended by those who have not experienced it.
To those for whom it makes no sense - it will never make sense. It isn't based on some theology as such but on what Luther called 'Faith' - you believe or you do not. And if you do not believe you cannot understand.
So, I think it's a case of for those who have been 'born again' - a person may claim to be a Christian (or Muslim/or whatever depending on which religion/version of God they feel has filled them) but aren't really because they have not experienced this 'divine awakening'.
To those who doubt/disbelieve in the existence of god(s) it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever because it defies logic and reason.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »But how do you arrive at that belief without proof?
Well it has to be taught to you or you are exposed to the belief from society in general.
We believe things all the time without actual proof. We have trust in the person or institution whatever.
I believe that science is the best way to understand our world, but I still depend on a certain level of trust that the information provided is correct.0 -
Well it has to be taught to you or you are exposed to the belief from society in general.
We believe things all the time without actual proof. We have trust in the person or institution whatever.
I believe that science is the best way to understand our world, but I still depend on a certain level of trust that the information provided is correct.
The trust put in science is not the same as the trust put in religion, despite how often theists like to pretend it is.
Science has impartial systems for checking it's claims and criteria for examining evidence. When someone says that they trust that scientific claim is true, the evidence is there for them to see if they want, they just trust that the system has been applied properly so they don't need to go through it all again on a personal level. But they can if they wish.
When someone says they trust in a religious claim (i.e. believe in it), it's essentially the opposite, there isn't expected to be any evidence and they are not expected to be able to go looking for any. In many religions, looking is considered bad ("doubting Thomas" and "faith is a virtue" etc)0 -
Well it has to be taught to you or you are exposed to the belief from society in general.
We believe things all the time without actual proof. We have trust in the person or institution whatever.
I believe that science is the best way to understand our world, but I still depend on a certain level of trust that the information provided is correct.
Indeed but I think you need to distinguish between reasoned trust and blind faith. There's friends that I would trust to back me up in pretty much any kind of crisis for example, but that is based on knowing those people. I've also gone paragliding on a number of occasions which basically involves jumping off a cliff with somebody I've never met before, based on making a value judgement of the person involved. Quite literally a leap of faith. While advocating that we should wear sunscreen, Baz Luhrman also suggested that you should do one thing everyday that scares you and I wholeheartedly agree. The only certainty about life is that it is finite.
What probably irks me most about religious faith is that it can devalue life, encouraging people to live their life as if they're going to get a second bite of the cherry. In this regard I consider it not just blind faith but also blinding faith. For some no doubt it enriches their lives and inspires them to be better people but for others it seems to leave them mean spirited, bitter and pushy. Just my 2c.0 -
Mark Hamill wrote: »The trust put in science is not the same as the trust put in religion, despite how often theists like to pretend it is.
Science has impartial systems for checking it's claims and criteria for examining evidence. When someone says that they trust that scientific claim is true, the evidence is there for them to see if they want, they just trust that the system has been applied properly so they don't need to go through it all again on a personal level. But they can if they wish.
When someone says they trust in a religious claim (i.e. believe in it), it's essentially the opposite, there isn't expected to be any evidence and they are not expected to be able to go looking for any. In many religions, looking is considered bad ("doubting Thomas" and "faith is a virtue" etc)
Yeah I agree with. I was just making the point that science is so complex that no one has full knowledge so trust is necessary.
I teach science in a secondary school so often get asked the question how do you know?
I tell kids atoms are made tiny particles called protons neutrons and electrons. There is no short easy answer to how do you know?
They have to just accept this to a certain degree.
A pupil once said that is just like religion believing without proof.
My answer was all the technology that we use and take for granted is based on this science and application of science. Everyone uses mobile phones without knowledge of how exactly they work but we know they are man made. The result of human understanding so proof that science is real.
Religion on the other hand requires faith, the less proof the better since more faith is required.
So for a religious person lack of proof is not a problem.0 -
Indeed but I think you need to distinguish between reasoned trust and blind faith. There's friends that I would trust to back me up in pretty much any kind of crisis for example, but that is based on knowing those people. I've also gone paragliding on a number of occasions which basically involves jumping off a cliff with somebody I've never met before, based on making a value judgement of the person involved. Quite literally a leap of faith. While advocating that we should wear sunscreen, Baz Luhrman also suggested that you should do one thing everyday that scares you and I wholeheartedly agree. The only certainty about life is that it is finite.
What probably irks me most about religious faith is that it can devalue life, encouraging people to live their life as if they're going to get a second bite of the cherry. In this regard I consider it not just blind faith but also blinding faith. For some no doubt it enriches their lives and inspires them to be better people but for others it seems to leave them mean spirited, bitter and pushy. Just my 2c.
Interesting points. I have seen religion been a great comfort for people especially elderly people, but maybe it does prevent some from really appreciating just been alive in this moment in time.
I don't think religion is necessary to live a moral life and try to be helpful and do good. Religious people would despair at the idea of no afterlife but maybe it is liberating. If this is the only life you have make it count.0 -
Yeah I agree with. I was just making the point that science is so complex that no one has full knowledge so trust is necessary.
I teach science in a secondary school so often get asked the question how do you know?
I tell kids atoms are made tiny particles called protons neutrons and electrons. There is no short easy answer to how do you know?
They have to just accept this to a certain degree.
A pupil once said that is just like religion believing without proof.
My answer was all the technology that we use and take for granted is based on this science and application of science. Everyone uses mobile phones without knowledge of how exactly they work but we know they are man made. The result of human understanding so proof that science is real.
Religion on the other hand requires faith, the less proof the better since more faith is required.
So for a religious person lack of proof is not a problem.
I agree with this, but the big difference with science is while most people take the vast majority of it on trust most of the time, the intricate details that form the foundations of that trust are available for in-depth investigation for those that wish to take that path. Coming from a technical background myself, I'm always dropping back to first principals for my own narrow area of expertise and find it quite rewarding to do so. The sheer volume of human knowledge is so vast at this point in time that any one person can only do this for a tiny fraction of that knowledge, but across the entire population the larger part of that knowledge is understood in depth. That which isn't is mostly documented do a degree where it can be taken up again.0 -
Advertisement
-
I agree with this, but the big difference with science is while most people take the vast majority of it on trust most of the time, the intricate details that form the foundations of that trust are available for in-depth investigation for those that wish to take that path. Coming from a technical background myself, I'm always dropping back to first principals for my own narrow area of expertise and find it quite rewarding to do so. The sheer volume of human knowledge is so vast at this point in time that any one person can only do this for a tiny fraction of that knowledge, but across the entire population the larger part of that knowledge is understood in depth. That which isn't is mostly documented do a degree where it can be taken up again.
Absolutely. Trust in science, or rather trust in the scientific method is totally different from faith in something, although at times it may appear the same.
A religious dogma by definition cannot be wrong,
A scientific theory is always up for debate or change as more evidence becomes available.0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InXwZc4RS7M
Advertisement