Balancing Skepticism and Faith

[ynot]

Yes, ignoring my arguments is the adult way of handling them ...

Good we agree on that at least.

 

[GDon]

I don't see your point. Does it comfort you to know that you've given them a nickname?

It's more convenience than comfort. When the topic of "science conflicts with religion" comes up, evolution and heliocentrism are always the go-to examples. However, science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, so if that idea is true, we should see such conflicts escalate. Yet we don't. Thus people have to "round up the usual" (with a nod to the movie 'Casablanca') two examples each time.

What examples have there been from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history?

 

[Beelzebuddy]

When the topic of "science conflicts with religion" comes up, evolution and heliocentrism are always the go-to examples. However, science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, so if that idea is true, we should see such conflicts escalate. Yet we don't.

Because religion lost and got left behind. There's no conflict because there's no comparison. Take, for example, all of modern medicine. Prior to a century ago the typical treatment for anything was to get it blessed/make a sacrifice, and then drink heavily until you got better or died happy. Now people actually survive instead. Is that a conflict? Basic germ theory would have been easy to insert in any holy scripture among the tirades about braided hair. Why isn't it there? Wouldn't god's chosen people have gotten by a lot better if he'd told them to boil their water before drinking it? That's not conflicting explanations, that's a total failure because religion didn't even know there was something to explain.

 

[Thor 2]

It's more convenience than comfort. When the topic of "science conflicts with religion" comes up, evolution and heliocentrism are always the go-to examples. However, science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, so if that idea is true, we should see such conflicts escalate. Yet we don't. Thus people have to "round up the usual" (with a nod to the movie 'Casablanca') two examples each time.

What examples have there been from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history?

Could the answer to this question be, that all the popular claims made by the religious referring to their scripture, have already been soundly refuted? Religious utterances are finite, unlike scientific endeavour. There may be some claims made in religious scripture, and perhaps embellished by modern theologians, no one has seriously sought to refute, being so ludicrous. The scouring out of the Grand Canyon by the receding waters of Noah's flood comes to mind.

 

[dann]

It's more convenience than comfort. When the topic of "science conflicts with religion" comes up, evolution and heliocentrism are always the go-to examples. However, science has advanced dramatically in the last hundred years, so if that idea is true, we should see such conflicts escalate. Yet we don't. Thus people have to "round up the usual" (with a nod to the movie 'Casablanca') two examples each time.

What examples have there been from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history?

Are you seriously asking that question? The examples are that ordinary people are not only beginning to understand both heliocentrism and evolution, and in many countries they've achieved levels of prosperity and health care where they no longer have to live in constant fear of losing their lives to diseases and starvation, which means that they now feel so safe and secure that they are leaving religion behind:

most Christians (at least in my part of the world) don't believe in life after death: Only 25% of Danes believe in life after death, 20% believe in JC's resurrection, 48% are non-believers, but 75% are members of the state church!

And people are not only leaving organized religion behind: The institutions of organized religion themselves are being secularized. These are some of the examples "from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history."

 

[dann]

Religious utterances are finite, unlike scientific endeavour.

No, they aren't. You can make up as many as you want to. And believers do. All the time.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Mutually exclusive means two things that can’t be true at the same time. Are you claiming that science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive?

Yes.

Mortality and immortality are both true at the same time?

No.

How about consciousness being purely brain created as well as being cosmic and eternal at the same time?

Obviously not.

Are theistic magic and miracles mutually compatible with science?

Quite possibly.

The fact that science and religion are mutually exclusive is the very reason for this thread!

No.

...


OK, let me explain. Science does not, as a matter of definition, make negative claims, so science cannot claim that religion is untrue.

Science is not a religion, or even an opinion. Science is a method for discovering facts.

Science is also the recognition that a fact is only a fact pending contrary evidence.

Religion is faith. It can make any claim, and it does not need evidence, only faith.

So, obviously, you can do science, and have faith in something, at the same time. Even the basic faith that science will eventually explain all.

Hans

 

[ynot]

OK, let me explain. Science does not, as a matter of definition, make negative claims, so science cannot claim that religion is untrue.

Science is not a religion, or even an opinion. Science is a method for discovering facts.

Science is also the recognition that a fact is only a fact pending contrary evidence.

Religion is faith. It can make any claim, and it does not need evidence, only faith.

So, obviously, you can do science, and have faith in something, at the same time. Even the basic faith that science will eventually explain all.

Hans

Science is only a method. It's the method of science and the method of religion that are in conflict and are mutually exclusive.

To use your own words . . .

Science method - "Science is not a religion, or even an opinion. Science is a method for discovering facts."

Religion method - "Religion is faith. It can make any claim, and it does not need evidence, only faith."

Diametrically opposed and mutually exclusive methods.

Applying the scientific method and the religious method to the same thing at the same time results in cognitive dissonance.

 

[ynot]

I don’t know why some theists are so keen to “buddy-up” with science. Don’t they realise they already have the “winning” formula with magic, miracles, mysterious ways and "ours is not to question why"? This formula means anything is possible, nothing is impossible, nothing needs to be explained or justified, and nothing can be disproved.

 

[Thor 2]

No, they aren't. You can make up as many as you want to. And believers do. All the time.

Perhaps you don't know what finite means or is it you have not been following the conversation?

I was replying to a post by GDon where he was suggesting that scientific refutations of things religious was pretty much confined to the evolution and heliocentric topics. My post was suggesting the number of religious utterances were finite, (talking about the past here ...... get it?), and many so ridiculous nobody would feel compelled to refute them.

 

[GDon]

Could the answer to this question be, that all the popular claims made by the religious referring to their scripture, have already been soundly refuted?

Well, yes and no. Most claims in the Bible aren't refutable by science, because they don't intersect with it. What tests would you run to confirm a Psalm or a Proverb is true? What about Ecclesiastes?

Most of the issues come from Genesis, with describing the creation of the world and man. Even then, once those stories are treated as metaphor (which has been done for thousands of years), what then? How does science disprove a metaphor?

There may be some claims made in religious scripture, and perhaps embellished by modern theologians, no one has seriously sought to refute, being so ludicrous. The scouring out of the Grand Canyon by the receding waters of Noah's flood comes to mind.

Yes, that's more along the lines of the sort of example I had in mind, though even here there is no religious dogma around the Grand Canyon. Young Earth Creationists want to believe in a young earth with a world-wide flood, but YECism is a modern phenomenon, for what that's worth.

 

[GDon]

What examples have there been from the last 100 years, the period with the most dramatic growth in scientific knowledge in history?

Are you seriously asking that question?

Yes, I am seriously asking that question. "In the last 100 years, science says X, which conflicts with religion that says Y." If increasing science leads to increasing conflict, then you should be able to find examples, with more recent examples given that science grows exponentially.

The examples are that ordinary people are not only beginning to understand both heliocentrism and evolution, and in many countries they've achieved levels of prosperity and health care where they no longer have to live in constant fear of losing their lives to diseases and starvation, which means that they now feel so safe and secure that they are leaving religion behind:

From a 2013 study of world wide religion trends, comparing 1910 to 2010:
https://web.archive.org/web/2013092...t_data/excerpt/47/04706745/0470674547-196.pdf

... the world as a whole now has more people with traditional religious views than ever before – and they constitute a growing proportion of the world’s population.”​

 

[GDon]

Take, for example, all of modern medicine. Prior to a century ago the typical treatment for anything was to get it blessed/make a sacrifice, and then drink heavily until you got better or died happy.

Oh c'mon. I don't mind a little hyperbole at times, but that is ridiculous. I'm sure the physician Galen, living two thousand years ago, would disagree with you there.

And that's why I get sucked into these threads. By making such ridiculous statements you are basically crapping on the history of the development of ideas by mankind.

Basic germ theory would have been easy to insert in any holy scripture among the tirades about braided hair. Why isn't it there? Wouldn't god's chosen people have gotten by a lot better if he'd told them to boil their water before drinking it? That's not conflicting explanations, that's a total failure because religion didn't even know there was something to explain.

Exactly. Religious doctrine isn't refuted by cloning, nuclear power and other things developed in the last 100 years, because religion has absolutely nothing to say about such matters. (I'm not trying to defend religion here, but history.)

 

[Marcus]

That two things can't be true at the same time doesn't mean that one individual can't consider both true, some of them without feeling much cognitive dissonance (Wikipedia). See Bob Bakker (Wikipedia).
You seem to consider that science represents the belief in mortality and religion represents the belief in immortality, but nowadays some (too many!) believers in science hope that science will bring them immortality. There's a lucrative market for this kind of belief, which tends to be much more expensive than the religious belief in eternal life after death; look at these jerks (Wikipedia), for instance, and most Christians (at least in my part of the world) don't believe in life after death: Only 25% of Danes believe in life after death, 20% believe in JC's resurrection, 48% are non-believers, but 75% are members of the state church! (The last three links to news media in Danish)
Cosmic and eternal consciousness is probably a new-age idea and not theistic, but you are right about science not supporting the idea.
Nor are theistic magic and miracles compatible with science, which is the reason why many people of faith no longer believe in them.

We are making serious strides here in the US in terms of fewer people believing in Sky Daddy, however, 62% still believe in life after death.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._2017/most_americans_believe_in_the_afterlife

 

[attempt5001]

Hi attempt5001,

Let me add my belated welcome to the forum and my own input such as it is and although much of it repeats what others have said. To give you some background, I grew up in a nominally Christian household, went to an explicitly Christian school where the Bible was taught as fact (although to be fair evolution wasn't denied, contradictions simply weren't mentioned), daily religious assemblies, hymns and prayer etc. By the time I was eight I knew I didn't believe, but my older brother wound up very religious.


I also read your post as effectively saying that you've known really nice people of your religion and consider this evidence the religion is true, as others have said I too have known fantastic people from various religions and none, some of the nicest people I've known have been religious, so too have many of the most unpleasant (anecdotally the two most criminal people I've known are regular church goers who define themselves very much by their religion). Your belief that religion keeps you consistent in behaving in a moral manner strikes me as cultural rather than divine. You obviously live in a community with strong social ties, rules that you consider positive and good role models, definitely important for society but not intrinsicly divine!

With regard the use of terms like 'myth' and 'fairy tale', sometimes yes they are a dig, sometimes they're appropriate, sometimes it's because we're trying to get across that to people outside of a religion there are aspects that are completely unbelievable, completely, utterly, Jesus walking on water, Mohammed flying to Heaven on a winged horse with a human face, Joseph Smith transcribing the golden plates, Xenu. Chances are you don't believe in any but one of them yourself, we don't believe any of them at all, honestly, the difference between the Pope and that guy who calls himself 'Arthur Pendragon' and claims to be leader of the druids is numbers, social acceptance and wealth.

I would be interested to hear what it is that you feel is the dividing line between your belief and your scepticism? What is it that you believe but don't think is true?

Hi P.J. Thanks for the welcome and the response, including the synopsis of your own background.

I realize my OP came across like "my experience is good, so it must be true", as you and others have understandably interpreted. I meant it more as an explanation of why it's very hard for me to simply discount it all, and why the process of re-evaluating my faith and experiences more critically is something I am doing carefully and gradually.

You're spot-on on your assertion though that I have historically believed Christian accounts of miracles, while discounting those of other religions. And I've even been more readily skeptical of Christians from other denominations than of my immediate community. Some other recent events have helped me recognize, and begin to change this way of thinking and I'm making progress. As others have pointed out in this thread, it's not easy to recognize, let alone change, all of one's own prejudices, whether religious or other. (I could make a dig at the politics of my beloved neighbours to the south here, but I'll refrain).

Regarding dividing lines, those are in flux at present, and I wouldn't say there are things I believe that I don't think are true, so much as things things I recognize I cannot prove, or even test in a meaningful way, which I've tried to express as best I can throughout the thread. Sorry, that's not a thorough response to a very good question and I'll try to articulate more later if I can.

 

[attempt5001]

Hello again attempt5001 and thanks for your detailed response.

Unlike yourself I do want to discourage, and damage the faith of others, if I can see that faith impacting the lives of others directly, or indirectly by propping up institutions involved in doing just this. Note the emphasis is on attacking the faith, not the faithful, who I see as victims themselves.

From what you write I get the impression that your grip on faith is tenuous. Certainly many of the words attributed to Christ are inspiring, but it is well known they are not unique and most have been borrowed from other sources, before his time. If you are hoping that Christianity will help mankind overcome hatred, selfishness and greed, history would seem to contradict you. Christianity must hold the record as the most fragmented religion of all time with its 40,000 different versions, some of whom dislike each other intensely. If I may introduce a note of levity into this discussion you may enjoy the following:



You will note a certain large canine is trying to divert this discussion into one about peripheral issues, like how offensive it is to use certain descriptive language. This is a common tactic of his that can be irritating. Best to just ignore the posts as the bulk of us do.

Hi Thor 2. The last bit first. I don't know if it's his original joke (likely much older), but I heard that years ago in a stand up routine by a comedian named Emo Philips (he had a bit part as "the clumsy table saw operator" in Weird Al Yankovic's classic film "UHF" I believe). It brought back memories of the rest of the routine as well, which was hilarious (or struck me as such ~25 years ago, not sure if it would hold up now.) Anyway, thanks for the laugh and the trip down memory lane. Also, he makes a good point.

As for the wanting to tear down faith, I understand what you are saying and have had several atheist friends who have felt similarly. I can empathize too, having attempted for example to dissuade other friends from taking/promoting homeopathic remedies to treat cancer or instead of vaccines. I appreciate your emphasis of attacking the faith, not the faithful, but I'm sure you've found it a hard line to walk, with the faithful sometimes (possibly always) feeling attacked whether it was your intention or not. It's pretty similar to the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach, which is similarly not well received by most "sinners" I think. I won't try to dissuade you from it, but I would encourage you to critically evaluate whether it's effective (you pick the metric ).

Interestingly, it does remind me of another historical figure who aggressively worked to tear down misplaced faith and the institutions that surrounded it, so maybe you're being more Christ-like than you know Thanks for the good dialogue.

 

[GDon]

As such, there is inevitable (and increasing over the last number of years) tension/conflict between my faith and my skepticism.

Attempt5001, if you have time, I'd love to understand what are the more major tensions/conflicts between your faith and skepticism. Also, is there anything in particular that you have learned recently that is contributing to that conflict?

 

[Egg]

...

You're spot-on on your assertion though that I have historically believed Christian accounts of miracles, while discounting those of other religions. And I've even been more readily skeptical of Christians from other denominations than of my immediate community. Some other recent events have helped me recognize, and begin to change this way of thinking and I'm making progress. As others have pointed out in this thread, it's not easy to recognize, let alone change, all of one's own prejudices, whether religious or other. (I could make a dig at the politics of my beloved neighbours to the south here, but I'll refrain).
...

Hi attempt5001, welcome to the forum.

On the issue of miracles, I don't share the position that they are incompatible with scientific understanding (although perhaps incompatible with the assumptions required for science). I have more of a problem with their compatibility with a just and loving god.

I'd be interested in what denomination and beliefs you have been associated with. Christianity is pretty broad and there are definitely some approaches that conflict with sceptical thinking more than others.

Are you familiar with some of the progressive Christian writers and their approach to faith?

 

[The Big Dog]

We are making serious strides here in the US in terms of fewer people believing in Sky Daddy, however, 62% still believe in life after death.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub..._2017/most_americans_believe_in_the_afterlife

I don't know anyone who believes in "sky daddy," Islam is growing like crazy and atheists are by far and away the worst monsters in the last 100 years.

most atheism is the antithesis of skepticism because they are sneering bigots.

 

[dann]

62% still believe in life after death.

And 77% of Americans believe that Jesus rose from the dead: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...of_americans_believe_jesus_rose_from_the_dead
I wonder what caused the discrepancy between the two numbers. Did the respondents think of the question as Biblical in one case? 'According to the Bible, did Jesus Christ rise from the dead?' but more 'real-world-like' in the other? 'Considering what I know about what happens when people die, is it very likely that there is life after death?'

Americans appear to be as divided about the question of religion as they are about Trump's presidency. Still, there must be whole communities where almost 100% are believers, and (a few) others where a majority aren't.
Since I'm aware that a large majority of Americans are religious, I'm sometimes surprised by the response of audiences to stand-up comedians' jokes about religion, but I guess that these comedians may cater to the 23% minority.