Are you a secularist

[Jono]

The idea that "morality" can't operate under a scientific, rational and/or logical mindset is one of Woo's most cherished falsehoods.

Yes, though morality itself as a phenomena can be (and has), to an extent, be explained/clarified by scientific, rational/logical discourse.

 

[Beth]

Still, while we rightly reject a religious test for public office, should we also reject a test of rationality for scientific office? I don't think that's clear at all.

A test for rationality? Do you have one? Does it discriminate against religious believers? If so, then I think it would be unconstitutional.

Logically, a 'good' scientist shouldn't have a religious belief.

I don't follow your logic. What prevents a 'good' scientist from having a religious belief? I can understand some religious beliefs being incompatible with some scientific endeavors, but as a general logical rule, I don't follow this.

Not to mention the belief that Jesus came back from the dead. Every Christian, other than atheist Christians, takes some part of the Bible literally.

What do you consider an atheist Christian? A closeted atheist? Or would a member of a creedless Christian church (they do exist) that believes the entire bible to be a collection of myths from early human societies be an atheist in your opinion?

 

[godless dave]

I don't follow your logic. What prevents a 'good' scientist from having a religious belief?

Rational thought and the scientific method.

What do you consider an atheist Christian? A closeted atheist? Or would a member of a creedless Christian church (they do exist) that believes the entire bible to be a collection of myths from early human societies be an atheist in your opinion?

I've run into a few atheists who self-identify as atheist Christians. They don't believe in a god at all, but still call themselves Christian.

 

[Ethan Thane Athen]

I don't follow your logic. What prevents a 'good' scientist from having a religious belief? I can understand some religious beliefs being incompatible with some scientific endeavors, but as a general logical rule, I don't follow this.

Well I would expect a 'good' scientist to use the scientific method and rely on facts and logic, both of which fail when it comes to religion. In other words, since religious belief is at odds with science it is hard (other than via the logical disconnect of compartmentalisation) to see how one can be both a good scientist and be religious - one logically doesn't fit with the other and people only try to make it so because of brainwashing and social pressure. As my post went on to say, plenty seem to manage it but only by granting a special pass to religion.

 

[Craig4]

Harris needs to pull his head out of his ass and get a lot more practical. Would I prefer a candidate that wasn't superstitious? Yes. However, when I look at the way we struggle to do obvious things like not say "so help me god" in oaths, keep creationism out of schools and generally not be second class citizens for not believing the absurd, dude pick you battles.

 

[Correa Neto]

Not to mention the belief that Jesus came back from the dead. Every Christian, other than atheist Christians, takes some part of the Bible literally.

Yes, the undead Jesus and Lazarus. I kept them out of that list because I usually do not bring them to the table in some discussions. Any geologist or paleontologist worthy of his/hers diploma will have to acknowledge, for example, that when it comes down to things like the universal flood, its not just about being impossible, its especialy because there are no evidences of it and if it were real, there should be plenty. A roughly similar reasoning is valid for the Exodus, but focused on archeologic data.

Now, zombie Jesus has a huge maneauvering space. It was a single guy and his miraculous ressurection (as well as Lazarus') would be something extremelly difficult to find scientific evidence of.

 

[dudalb]

I think we really have to define secularist. That word can cover a lot of different opinions.

I am a secularist in I feel that government should be completly neutral in matters of religious belief or non belief, but I do not share the basic hostility toward religons that a lot of people who call themselves Secularists have.

 

[Beth]

What prevents a 'good' scientist from having a religious belief?

Rational thought and the scientific method.

? I'm not following. Why do you think rational thought and the scientific method imply or prevent scientists from having beliefs about religion/gods other than agnosticism or weak atheism? Particularly given that there exists plenty of evidence against that hypothesis - i.e. plenty of good scientists who do hold such beliefs?

Well I would expect a 'good' scientist to use the scientific method and rely on facts and logic, both of which fail when it comes to religion.
In other words, since religious belief is at odds with science it is hard (other than via the logical disconnect of compartmentalisation) to see how one can be both a good scientist and be religious - one logically doesn't fit with the other and people only try to make it so because of brainwashing and social pressure. As my post went on to say, plenty seem to manage it but only by granting a special pass to religion.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your effort to explain. However, I don't see this as being any more of an issue with religion than the fact that one cannot rely on facts logic and the scientific method to various other aspects of being human, like making art or loving others. Do you belief that 'good' scientists cannot also be artists? Or love others? If so, what is the distinction you are making between religion and art such that a good scientist can practice one but not the other?

 

[godless dave]

? I'm not following. Why do you think rational thought and the scientific method imply or prevent scientists from having beliefs about religion/gods other than agnosticism or weak atheism?

Because they don't arrive at those beliefs using rational thought and the scientific method.

Thanks for the response. I appreciate your effort to explain. However, I don't see this as being any more of an issue with religion than the fact that one cannot rely on facts logic and the scientific method to various other aspects of being human, like making art or loving others. Do you belief that 'good' scientists cannot also be artists? Or love others? If so, what is the distinction you are making between religion and art such that a good scientist can practice one but not the other?

Religion requires beliefs about facts. Art does not. (That's not entirely true, to properly execute a work of art, you do need to know some facts about the techniques used to create it.)

 

[Beth]

Because they don't arrive at those beliefs using rational thought and the scientific method.

That only means they hold some beliefs that aren't based on the scientific method, as all humans do. It doesn't make them incapable of using rational thought and the scientific method. So why do you think they can't be good scientists when the evidence indicates the otherwise?

Do you belief that 'good' scientists cannot also be artists? Or love others? If so, what is the distinction you are making between religion and art such that a good scientist can practice one but not the other?

Religion requires beliefs about facts. Art does not. (That's not entirely true, to properly execute a work of art, you do need to know some facts about the techniques used to create it.)

Since you acknowledge your response regarding facts is not an actual difference, what is the distinction between art and religion such that a good scientist could also be an artist but not be religious.

 

[godless dave]

That only means they hold some beliefs that aren't based on the scientific method,

Exactly.

as all humans do.

Speak for yourself.

It doesn't make them incapable of using rational thought and the scientific method. So why do you think they can't be good scientists when the evidence indicates the otherwise?

I don't think they can't be good scientists. I would suspect that they couldn't, but the evidence, as you say, shows that they can.

Since you acknowledge your response regarding facts is not an actual difference, what is the distinction between art and religion such that a good scientist could also be an artist but not be religious.

They are still different regarding facts. Religions make claims about facts and require beliefs about facts. Art doesn't make any claims about facts. Art doesn't even necessarily communicate the artist's beliefs about facts, although it can.

 

[Beth]

I don't think they can't be good scientists. I would suspect that they couldn't, but the evidence, as you say, shows that they can.

Okay. Earlier you said that rational thought and the scientific method would prevent a good scientist from holding a religious belief. That was hyperbole then?

They are still different regarding facts. Religions make claims about facts and require beliefs about facts. Art doesn't make any claims about facts. Art doesn't even necessarily communicate the artist's beliefs about facts, although it can.

I'm still not understanding the difference you are distinguishing.

Religions do make claims about facts, but they aren't all making the same claims. Some can be established as true, some as false, and most are not verifiable one way or the other. There isn't any single belief that all religious believers hold.

Art can certainly make claims about facts as well, but they aren't all the same claims. Some can be established as true, some as false and most are not verifiable one way or the other. There isn't any single belief that all artists hold.

What is the difference such that you see a conflict between religion in general for scientists and not art in general for scientists?

 

[godless dave]

Okay. Earlier you said that rational thought and the scientific method would prevent a good scientist from holding a religious belief. That was hyperbole then?

Not at all. I'm saying that if they applied rational thought and the scientific method to their religious beliefs, they would stop holding them.

I'm still not understanding the difference you are distinguishing.

Religions do make claims about facts, but they aren't all making the same claims. Some can be established as true, some as false, and most are not verifiable one way or the other. There isn't any single belief that all religious believers hold.

Art can certainly make claims about facts as well, but they aren't all the same claims. Some can be established as true, some as false and most are not verifiable one way or the other. There isn't any single belief that all artists hold.

What is the difference such that you see a conflict between religion in general for scientists and not art in general for scientists?

Islam claims that a god exists, that he communicated to prophets, and that Mohammed was his last and greatest prophet.

Monet's "Water Lilies" is a painting of water lilies. It does not make any claims about water lilies. It does not even claim that water lilies exist.

Do you see the distinction?

 

[Beth]

Not at all. I'm saying that if they applied rational thought and the scientific method to their religious beliefs, they would stop holding them.

Thanks for the clarification. I think that is true for many religious beliefs, but not all. I don't think it implies the scientist would no longer be religious, although I think that is your assumption.

If a scientist applied the scientific method to artistic claims of fact, do you think would they stop being an artist? Or no longer appreciate works of fiction? Why do you think they would give up religion if they applied the scientific method to their religious beliefs?

Islam claims that a god exists, that he communicated to prophets, and that Mohammed was his last and greatest prophet.

Monet's "Water Lilies" is a painting of water lilies. It does not make any claims about water lilies. It does not even claim that water lilies exist.

Do you see the distinction?

Not in the same way you do. The Islam claims you mention are not verifiable as true or false. You (I think) are assuming them false because you belief that no god exists, but this is an assumption on your part, not an established fact.

Individual works of art may or may not make claims of fact and Water Lilies is an example that does not. So how does this illustrate a distinction between religious claims of fact and artistic claims of fact?

Consider this work of art: (I just googled message art and found it, it has no particular significant to me)

http://www.ourhenhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/0000s_0007_2011_10_10_art_with_a-353x210.jpg

It's clearly making a statement, primarily about ethics but there are facts being claimed as well. Can you articulate the difference you feel exists between this type of artistic claim of fact and religious claims of fact?

 

[godless dave]

Thanks for the clarification. I think that is true for many religious beliefs, but not all. I don't think it implies the scientist would no longer be religious, although I think that is your assumption.

If a scientist applied the scientific method to artistic claims of fact,
do you think would they stop being an artist? Or no longer appreciate works of fiction?

The whole point of fiction is that you know it isn't a factual account.

Why do you think they would give up religion if they applied the scientific method to their religious beliefs?

Because religious beliefs aren't supported by empirical evidence. Many believers freely admit this.

Not in the same way you do. The Islam claims you mention are not verifiable as true or false.

Which is why it is irrational to believe they are true. The fact that its claims are not verifiable as true is what tells you they are false.

You (I think) are assuming them false because you belief that no god exists, but this is an assumption on your part, not an established fact.

No, I'm assuming them false because there is no evidence they are true.

Individual works of art may or may not make claims of fact and Water Lilies is an example that does not. So how does this illustrate a distinction between religious claims of fact and artistic claims of fact?

Appreciating and enjoying a work of art does not depend on accepting as true any factual claims it might make. Belonging to a religion requires accepting as true any factual claims it might make.

Further, some works of art may make claims of fact, but that is not required of a work of art. All religions make claims of fact; that's what makes them religions.

Consider this work of art: (I just googled message art and found it, it has no particular significant to me)

http://www.ourhenhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/0000s_0007_2011_10_10_art_with_a-353x210.jpg

It's clearly making a statement, primarily about ethics but there are facts being claimed as well. Can you articulate the difference you feel exists between this type of artistic claim of fact and religious claims of fact?

I don't see any factual claims in that work.

 

[MG1962]

The whole point of fiction is that you know it isn't a factual account.

Nice side step of Beth's point

 

[tsig]

Thanks for the clarification. I think that is true for many religious beliefs, but not all. I don't think it implies the scientist would no longer be religious, although I think that is your assumption.

If a scientist applied the scientific method to artistic claims of fact, do you think would they stop being an artist? Or no longer appreciate works of fiction? Why do you think they would give up religion if they applied the scientific method to their religious beliefs?



Not in the same way you do. The Islam claims you mention are not verifiable as true or false. You (I think) are assuming them false because you belief that no god exists, but this is an assumption on your part, not an established fact.

Individual works of art may or may not make claims of fact and Water Lilies is an example that does not. So how does this illustrate a distinction between religious claims of fact and artistic claims of fact?

Consider this work of art: (I just googled message art and found it, it has no particular significant to me)

http://www.ourhenhouse.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/0000s_0007_2011_10_10_art_with_a-353x210.jpg

It's clearly making a statement, primarily about ethics but there are facts being claimed as well. Can you articulate the difference you feel exists between this type of artistic claim of fact and religious claims of fact?

Works of art are tangible things they exist outside of our minds, there's no evidence that gods do.

 

[MG1962]

Works of art are tangible things they exist outside of our minds, there's no evidence that gods do.

Show me the science and logic behind a good piece of art and a bad one

 

[Tommy Jeppesen]

The problem is that if you go for strong logic, rationality and objective evidence(empirical facts as by the scientific method) then all morality and ethics are irrational as you can't do normative claims using science. I.e. anyone who makes moral and ethical claims are irrational as he/she can't give evidence for these using the scientific method. So if you hold any moral or ethical claims you are irrational and shouldn't do science.

What we are always doing in these kinds of threads is a variant of scientism, i.e. science can give evidence for all of reality including the right moral and ethical claims. Science can't do that, but that is not a specific problem of science. The problem is that you can't make moral and ethical claims using objective evidence, neither using science or any other method, which involves objective evidence. You can explain morality and ethics as a natural phenomenon using science, but you can't do normative claims using the scientific method.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"There's no morality without Woo!"

"Why?"

"Because I'm defining morality as needing Woo!"

Yes because there's no logical reason for not murdering, raping, or stealing. Totally impossible to dislike those things without the giant invisible sky wizard ordering us to.