One of the most galling tendencies of Religionists is the constant conflation of Atheists belief in science with the Religionists belief in revealed knowledge and faith in God. Religionists claim that Atheists actually engage in 'Scientism,' that we have elevated science to a religion, that we have 'Faith' in science and that therefore we are just as guilty as they are of belief, that their belief in God is no different than our belief in science.
This proposition could not possibly be more misguided and wrong. As a threshold matter, Science and Faith are not remotely similar. Faith, as I have discussed here and here is a belief in an unrealized proposition despite the complete absence of any evidence to support belief in said proposition or despite abundant evidence in opposition to said proposition. Faith is, by its very nature, irrational, because if one had a rational evidentiary basis to believe, Faith would be ipso facto unnecessary.
Science, on the other hand, is a TOOL, a METHOD by which the truth of falsity of an unrealized proposition (a hypothesis) can be analyzed, studied, replicated, accepted or rejected. Science is not a BELIEF
in anything at all, it is merely a means of analyzing whether a belief is valid. The only way in which science and Faith even intersect is that science can be used to as a tool to measure the evidentiary basis for an unrealized proposition thereby rendering a specific proposition as either a matter of reasoned belief, or a matter of faith. Science merely serves as a marker between which unrealized propositions are a matter of reasoned understanding and those which are not.
To illustrate, let us take the example of Noah's Ark. The truth or falsity of the tale of Noah's Ark is a hypothesis. Indeed, the truth or falsity of the tale of Noah's Ark is a testable hypothesis in that a worldwide flood 6000 to 8000 years ago would have left incredibly vivid signs in the geological record. It is a testable hypothesis in that we have the measurements of the vessel and can make calculations of the amount of space needed to house every species on Earth, the amount of food needed to sustain them, the amount of waste generated by the volume of animals, the amount of work necessary for the crew to feed and dispose of waste. We can bring the tools of science to bear on the truth or falsity of the tale of Noah's Ark, just as we can for every other Religionist claim.
When one does this, the tale of Noah's Ark clearly cannot fall within the realm of reasoned belief because 1) There is no geological evidence whatsoever to support the idea of a worldwide flood. 2) The dimensions of the Ark given in the Bible are barely enough to house the tiniest fraction of the species on Earth or even the species indigenous to the Middle East, even setting aside questions of how they would have gotten species from Europe, Asia, North America, Australia, etc. 3) The amount of food necessary to feed the biomass the Ark would hold for 40 days would have filled numerous other Arks. 4) The amount of waste generated by the biomass aboard the Ark would have taken hundreds of hours a day to remove. Nothing about the tale of Noah's Ark comports with any of the geological, biological, paleontological, physical or mathematical understanding of the Universe. Therefore the tale of Noah's Ark MUST fall outside the realm of rational belief. To say that Noah's Ark is a rational belief is utterly false.
One can still CHOOSE to believe in the truth of the tale of Noah's Ark, but their belief is irrational, and requires Faith because ALL available evidence militates against its truth. It requires that one assume things like dimensional pockets within the ark to house the animals, or disintegration and de-atomization of feces, or divine rearrangement of the geological record to hide all geological record of the Flood. Once can still have Faith and one can still CHOOSE to believe, but that belief has no basis in rationality, no basis in evidence, no basis in fact. Science is merely the TOOL by which we can draw that line.
Religionists often argue that atheists have Faith in Science, that we have Faith that our senses tell us accurate things about the Universe, that we have Faith that Science can tell us true things about the Universe. Again, while it is philosophically possible that our every sensory input is false, that our every understanding is flawed, that our perceptions, thoughts, feelings, experiences are in fact a delusion and that the Universe is vastly different than we perceive, such a belief still obtains nothing for the proponent of Faith, because if such a scenario is actually true, then their Faith is equally subject to our misguided perceptions.
Setting aside that useless argument, one is left with the simple fact that if indeed our senses do tell us things that are true or truish about the Universe, then using those senses to determine whether an unrealized proposition is established or refuted by the evidence is the most rational course of action. This is the ENTIRE basis of science. This is precisely what distinguishes science from Faith. Science is merely a tool for establishing the plausibility, truth, or falisty of unrealized propositions, not a belief IN them. Faith is the exact opposite.
God's existence is an unrealized proposition in which a great number of people believe place their Faith. Science is a method by which our senses can be used to attempt to understand the Universe and the world around us, not a belief. Only if one assumes that our every sensory input is irreparably flawed can Science be said to be on an equal footing with Faith. And such a belief is utterly useless in any practical sense as it renders all belief in ANYTHING completely suspect.
Faith, as I have discussed here and here is a belief in an unrealized proposition despite the complete absence of any evidence to support belief
ReplyDeleteI suppose then that the vast majority of the biblical characters didn't have faith then since they witnessed various events from God for themselves.
Well, since your criticism doesn't apply to models of faith in scripture since most very well do have evidence for what they believe in, and since scripture is what is authoritative for what Christians believe, I don't seem to have a use for this definition.
Faith is clearly NOT a belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition that is SUPPORTED by the evidence, because if that belief was supported by the evidence, it ipso facto does NOT REQUIRE Faith.
So here, we have you using a word to define a word. In other words, your saying faith can't be thus in such because that would not require faith. This is not very helpful... not that the first definition you are debunking is a good one to begin with.
But yes, religion and science are not the same, though they surely have plenty of common ground, much of that common ground of which would invalidate science when criticisized of religion.
You are absolutely right in your use of the word CHARACTERS in describing protagonists in the Bible because it is a STORY. Even if we were to assume that the Bible is internally consistent, coherent and logically coherent, internally consistency does NOT bequeath external truth. The fact that Harry Potter witnessed an event in the Harry Potter Universe or Achilles witnessed an event in the Iliad does not mean that event actually a happened. External validation is required.
ReplyDeleteI'm not using Faith to define Faith, I used Faith to describe what is NOT Faith.
I defined Faith AS "A belief in an unknown or unrealized proposition either in the absence of in opposition to evidence." The opposite of that, a proposition SUPPORTED by evidence, is logically NOT faith, and is a rational belief as I also defined above.
As far as your contention that Faith and Science have common ground, or that said alleged common ground would invalidate science you could not be more mistaken. Please supply an example.
I'm not using Faith to define Faith, I used Faith to describe what is NOT Faith.
ReplyDeleteDefinition comes through word usage and the way you describe it is not how many if not most christians use it. Thus your criticism is of a strawman.
And while you could say that you defined faith without referring to faith, you offered a counter-definition which violates that rule. You said "Faith is, by its very nature, irrational, because if one had a rational evidentiary basis to believe, Faith would be ipso facto unnecessary." In other words, faith is not... because that's not faith.
You can define the word however you want, but if it is going to be relevant to the discussion, if it is going to involve an actual criticism of what we say, then it will have to pay attention to our actual concept of the thing, and what you insist is not it.
As far as your contention that Faith and Science have common ground, or that said alleged common ground would invalidate science you could not be more mistaken. Please supply an example.
I said Religion (or some religion and some theology) and science have common ground. I really mean Christian theism as there is no reason to defend religion in general. one is the reliance upon vast amounts of information that cannot be personally validated by the person claiming the knowledge (for reasons of lack of time, skills, resources, training, other oportunities, etc). Another is confidence in a belief in spite of the risk of being wrong (which is by the way an actually useful definition of faith, and it is THAT by which we are speaking of when say science takes faith... albeit it is still not exactly what scripture is talking about, but it's still actually useful as opposed to an irrelevant strawman). Another is the scientifically unprovable assumption that the universe is a logical place (definitely not a conclusion of science, you will find no scientific research or paper that explicitely states this as a conclusion after all nor is it the starting hypothesis under scrutiny) and by extension, a place where mathematics may be appropriately supplied. Both may be flexible according to new considerations (course this doesn't fit the stereotype of religious knowledge, a stereotype that is really founded upon religious ignorance). Both Religion and science cannot themselves be scientifically validated (yes, science cannot confirm itself by it's own methods of hypothesis, test, result, revision, etc.)
Indeed. Most Christians use the word Faith to describe what should properly be described as Hope.
ReplyDeleteHope is a desire or disposition towards a particular unrealized event or outcome regardless of the probability and evidentiary support for said event or outcome.
I find your definition of Faith to be completely out of step with that exhibited by Religionsists. They maintain belief in ideas that have been shown to be demonstrably against the weight of evidence on the basis of faith. Please explain how belief in the inerrancy of the Bible or belief in the tale of Noah's Ark is ANYTHING but Belief in a proposition in spite of overwhelming evidence that said belief is false.
With regard to your later contentions.
1. Clearly you have a preference for revelatory knowledge over empirical and experiential knowledge. I can only suppose based on this proposition Bigfoot, Alien Abductions, The Galactic Mother, etc., carry greater importance and validity than empirical observations.
2. I have already dealt with your contention that the Universe is a logical place. Either our senses tell us true things about the Universe or they don't. If our sences DO tell us true things about the Universe, then the OVERWHELMING empirical, observational, experiential data confirms that in fact the Universe IS a logical place governed by gravity, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear and all of the progeny physical laws derived thereof. Our empirical studies and understanding of those laws allows us to actually do useful things with that knowledge, Agriculture, Irrigation, Engineering, Nuclear Fission, Astronomy, Satellites, GPS, Cellular Communication, Healthcare, etc. Our internal knowledge allows us to do real things in the real world. The fact that we are able to use our knowledge to actually DO things in the REAL world provides voluminous validation of the idea that our senses do in fact tell us true things about the Universe.
To be sure, if, as you contend, our senses do not tell us true things about the Universe, then it is possible that all of our knowledge is misguided and that we merely mispercieve the success of our misguided understanding and that in fact, our satellites do not work, GPS is a disaster, the Sun actually rises in the west, Healthcare never saves lives, and we are merely trapped in some funhouse mirrored world where nothing whatsoever is true or knowable.
It should be noted, however, that in such a world, your revelatory knowledge is equally worthless, because it is just as subject to gross misinterpretation as I am about the sun rising. Indeed, the disciples could have misheard, they could have mistranslated, they could have misseen or misspoken and they would never have been the wiser because, afterall, their senses did not tell them true things about the Universe.
Indeed. Most Christians use the word Faith to describe what should properly be described as Hope.
ReplyDeleteAgain, you can define these terms however you want. If you are going to criticize our concepts though, then you have to criticize them as they are, not overly your own definitions.
I find your definition of Faith to be completely out of step with that exhibited by Religionsists.
I am a "religionist" and the idea you are criticizing here, that science takes faith in similar ways that God takes faith is made by people who think along the same terms that I do.
Please explain how belief in the inerrancy of the Bible or belief in the tale of Noah's Ark is ANYTHING but Belief in a proposition in spite of overwhelming evidence that said belief is false.
That the evidence is overwhelming against these ideas wouldn't be agreed upon by those who hold them (I hold inerrency, I do depend upon a literal view of world wide flood, though I am not against it). If I were to believe your claims about the feasibility of the ark story, I would definitely be taking it by faith since you really didn't plug the numbers were yec's have. They would not agree with your assesment of faith either. Now they may be wrong about the evidence. That in no way shape or form implys that they merely have faith against or without evidence.
Evidence isn't clearly for anything anyhow. We are active interpreters. The question isn't what the evidence is for. The question is how the evidence best fits. and that will not be devoid of faith or subjectivity.
1. Clearly you have a preference for revelatory knowledge over empirical and experiential knowledge.
Now, if you want to push your definition of faith, here you exibit it. Nothin I said implies any such thing. I reject the dichotomy. I hold that empirical data is essential. As a matter of fact, I hold to the weslyan quadrilateral which requires that empirical data be taken along side scripture for theological understanding as well as tradition and reason and to ignore any one of these is detrimental.
If our sences DO tell us true things about the Universe, then the OVERWHELMING empirical, observational, experiential data confirms that in fact the Universe IS a logical place governed by gravity,
Have you formally studied metaphysics or logic? Whether or not those laws apply does not confirm whether the universe is a logical place. Logic is still more basic than those things and it is still prior to these considerations.
Our empirical studies and understanding of those laws allows us to actually do useful things with that knowledge,
Same thing, whether or not it is pragmatic is something determined within a logical framework. It assumes it. It does not establish it.
just a correction here:
ReplyDeleteThat in no way shape or form implys that they merely have faith against or without evidence.
What I meant to say is that if what they say does not work with the evidence, it does not imply that they agree with your definition of faith.
1. The Weslyan Quadrilateral is merely an interpretative tool for formulating theology. It's presupposes the literal and inerrant truth of the Bible. It' 'assumes it. It does not establish it.' The WesQuad merely uses a patina of rationality, tradition and experience to attempt to patch over the factual errors, logical inconsistencies, moral inconsistencies and empirical inconsistencies. If one presupposes the inerrancy of the Bible (Revealed Knowledge) as Weslyan does and places rationality and empiricism in a secondary position, one has either knowingly, or unknowingly, decided that Revealed Knowledge is superior to and preferrable to empirical knowledge.
ReplyDelete2. I don't think you understand what logic is. Neither Informal, Formal, Symbolic or Mathematical Logic exist prior to the laws governing the Universe, they arise as a consequence of those laws. Indeed, absent those laws, logic would not exist. Were those laws substantially different, logic would change accordingly. Logic is merely a tool for understanding, a precursor to the scientific method in fact, and one which it employs, a means of separating truth from falsity, not some abstract principle running around in the Universe. When I said that the Universe IS logical, I merely mean that the Universe is subject to an analysis based on logic and that it behaves in ways that are discernable and knowable through logic.
3. That fact that you disagree with my definition of Faith does not mean that the definition is incorrect. It actually fits the facts quite well.
4. The evidence against the Tale of Noah's Ark and the global flood is in fact utterly overwhelming. As my next post was about The Application of Science to Sacred Texts I will be posting about it shortly.
The established school of science has made a habit of throwing out evidence damning to their most accepted theories. This is exactly why people that study formally do not get the whole picture. It would, in fact, require informal study, research, experience and self evaluation. What is emotion - ya just chemicals and electrons yawn? What is unexplained recognition? Luck, coincidence etc....Yawn....no you are not intelligent enough to explain it - no matter how wordy and formally educated you are. I cannot, you cannot. The wisest know that they do not know. Of course, it is an unprovable in it's entirety. It's all a challenge, a test. One of these tests is to be humble.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that we are all free to decide and have control over ourselves. The point is that we are all challenged intrinsically. The point is that we don't know everything.
My point is that you, also, have to communicate too much just to avoid seeming as though you contradict yourself.
"Our inherent quest for knowledge. Our curiosity. Our desire to understand. God creates us with an inherent longing for knowledge and understanding and then damns our ENTIRE species because ONE human had the temerity to act on what God instilled within him? That is deranged."
Have you read scripture? That is not what it says. The Word says that we were damned when we proved that we couldn't be God's drones...when Eve & Adam ate the fruit. Of course, I'm anti-chauvinist and believe that most of todays bible is not the same as it once was. Damned only in that, we were therefore both free and responsible for ourselves - to no longer lean entirely upon God for our livelihood. I don't care if this is grammatically correct. I bet you do. If God were up-in-our-face obvious it would become foolish and deranged to deny Him. He would then control all of those that depend upon mechanical logic to justify and reason with their existence. God actually doesn't want to control us. He wants a give and take relationship with us.
Jesus was a sacrifice, one that simplified and overrided the previous need for multiple sacrifices. This is why Jesus was special, not the only one with the "temerity" to act upon God's will, and the one that did it best. A free gift. The damning was done before. I bet you'll try to come back and say that I didn't read the words in your statement correctly. Well, however you perceive my words you are correct. Multi-dimensional true. It's foolish, profound, provable, unprovable - who cares? Human's are not in control of their own existences. We are in control of our actions and our thoughts, only.
Of course it's Christian belief criticism. Nothing about other religions is poignant enough to peak your interest.
You don't have to believe in God. Simple, you say God doesn't exist because it can't be proved. I say that God exists because it can't be proved. I'm so thankful that no one can prove it without a mistake, shadow or doubt; because then, we would be shell-drones with automatic intelligence. Which is correct?
ReplyDeleteOh BTW God created evil, as well. He created evil to contrast the love. Like artwork, the beauty is found in contrast. He even created some for destruction. He either created or allowed everything that exists. How can God be perfect if he created something imperfect? Because God is perfectly God. What is just is. I have over thought everything, as well.
God doesn't just give me meaning, He gives me existence and wonder. It doesn't matter what I do. It doesn't matter what I am. Meaning not required. Because I know this; I have a soul, period.
Now, what about everything deamed "supernatural"? Perhaps you can perceive it, possibly record it. You cannot explain it's origins, you cannot explain that with measurements. So, therefore the perceived must not be true - I'm sure you'll say that.
Nope, there must not be Ghosts, Aliens, Angels or Demons. There must, certainly not be any childish fairies, trolls, leprechauns, goblins, gremlins, mermaids or elves. That is what I condescend to , childishness. JK, I believe it is all possible.
I believe everything supernatural either is or isn't true. I am excited if it's true, and not disappointed if it isn't. Why know everything? If I figured everything out today I would be bored the rest of my life. What, so I can be perfect at everything and be proud and narcissistic - that's why I need to know? Uncaring, apathetic once again?
BTW, I believe everything falls under the heading of God. God Created or Allowed. Period. Of course Faith in irrational. The point is that human reason still hasn't figured even themselves out. The point is that we don't know EVERYTHING about where we've been or where we're going as a "species". Actually, we're beings. I even believe some animals have souls. I also believe that some humans don't have souls.
All this is much more interesting than being rational, logical and plain-old mechanical.
"The myth of Original Sin is so pernicious and vile because it takes our greatest and most beautiful asset, our desire to understand, and inverts it as our fatal flaw. It debases and denigrates our most precious attribute and uses that to foist onto us the myth of humanity as a fallen, debased, despicable creature. This inversion is unspeakably awful in that it warps and twists the single greatest factor in our advancement and progress as a species and turns it into a weapon against us. We are fallen, wretched, unworthy NOT because of what we do, but because of what we are, because of our inherent desire to understand."
ReplyDeleteI have never heard of this described this way. I'm not that interested in religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin
I like to believe in possibilities. I understand original sin to be selfishness. Also, name me a two-year old that doesn't act aggressive and unfair toward it's protectors at some point. One could argue that this is REMNANTS of ancient survival of the fittest. I bet you will. I don't really feel that's true, it's a personality basis - a forming of a person's understanding of themselves. We really don't need to compete to survive. We'd do better that way if we merely cooperate.
I want to understand, as well. I am curios. That's why I'm at your site. Nice blog, BTW. Very complete and grammatical. The thing is - once you learn something you now understand that you didn't understand before. You also now understand that you understand. Who cares? You can do this to infinity. I feel free to find everything out, free to fail, free to succeed. I don't think and feel compelled to strive. I do think and feel compelled to help and to cooperate. Not everything rides on human being's decisions. Primarily, only the human being's experience does.
"the myth of humanity as a fallen, debased, despicable creature."
ReplyDeleteIf weren't not perfect, then....
If were not the above, then....
Of course we are the above. Name one society that doesn't not need law enforcement. Who cares if God still loves us....
Why have a belief system based upon the understanding and contrast of another? Speaking about being atheist is pointless if you believe in nothing to do with deity. You might as well be talking about economics, weather, science...you should be doing these, or the like, instead - in my opinion. Satanism...based upon the understanding of another religion with it's base to contrast it. That's not ingenious. Why bother?
The problem here is, you claim to know. I don't know and that's why I'll keep learning.