Reconciling reason and faith

infornography said:
I both agree and disagree.

I agree that working honestly with people who are strong willed enough to handle the sense of responsibility that comes with atheism or agnosticism is a good thing and is probably for the benefit of the subject in question.

However I disagree in that there are a lot of people who really can not handle that responsibility and that sense of ... for lack of a better term, freedom. It removes the ability to throw blame elsewhere (god or satan for instance) and it removes the percieved safety net of an all loving diety. Some people have grown so dependant on those things that without them they are miserable. I have no desire to inflict this upon those who are not ready for it. I have done so in the past and regretted it.

If you do pursue the path of converting the heathen believers, I highly reccomend discrimination in your targets. And good luck.
Click to expand...
Oh no question, my wife and children are the only atheists in two very large extended Mormon families. I don't make it a point to discuss my beliefs with anyone unless they are interested in discussing them. I don't see myself as a savior or missionary to the believers. I'm perfectly happy to live and let live. But to those who want to engage in discussion I'm happy to discuss and or debate. I don't shrug my shoulders and walk away but I go into the discussion with eyes open. I know that the chance of success is low.

Good points.
 
jraw said:
What I don't understand is why the people on the other side keep trying to outreason the pro-God folks, when it's evident from a quick review of the situation at hand that reason will never trump faith.
Click to expand...

Because the extremists on the atheist side of the debate think that belief in God is disastrous for humanity.

I suspect the scientific mindset is just as fundamentally ingrained as the religious mindset, and that although either of these is changeable, the process of evoking change is a little more subtle than just pitting one against the other.
Click to expand...

I suspect you are right.

So from a rational standpoint, the situation at hand is that the schism between reason and faith appears to be insurmountable using our current methods.
Click to expand...

Only in the western world. The Chinese and Indians never ended up in this mess because they didn't invent western theology and they didn't invent western science.

Assuming that humanity isn't doomed to rehash the same arguments for the next two to three millennia (a serious assumption, to be sure, but let's work from it, just for fun and because the alternative sucks), can new methods be proposed?
Click to expand...

New methods of what? Debate?
 
RandFan said:
I was a Mormon missionary. I grew up in the Mormon church and was a true believer. One event in my life that led me to atheism was a debate with an atheist. It was more like a discussion. He was extremely patient with me and very disarming. He asked me some very good questions and in a tone and manner that lacked any condescension explained to me some basic facts.

I'm glad he out-reasoned me.

It can happen.

ETA: Damn why can't I be like him?
Click to expand...

I think if you are ever going to convince somebody to change their belief system you first have to show them that you really do understand the belief system they currently hold. The most extreme scientistic atheists and the most extreme religious fundamentalists spend their entire time talking past each other. They try to argue with each other but each is taking a different set of assumptions to the debate and each has a rather simplistic understanding of the others position. It is all too easy to see the holes in other people's belief systems. It is very hard to see the holes in your own. This problem is particularly acute for the scientistic folks, who more often than not will emphatically deny that they have any beliefs at all. At least the religious fundamentalists recognise that their belief system hinges on faith.
 
jraw said:
Thank you! Well, when I speak of "objective reality," I'm talking about the reality of observable empirical phenomena. When I speak of "subjective reality," I mean those phenomena which are clearly real but not provable empirically. And the only two I can think of (but what a two they are) are emotions and thoughts. I mean that if I'm thinking of an apple, then the reality is that I'm thinking of an apple. But as real as it is, there's no way to prove it objectively.*

Obviously, phenomena on the subjective plane can't be subject to scientific inquiry. Which of course means it's a convenient place for me to keep God. ;) It would be fair for me to disclose now that I do believe in God, that I have no problems with Him existing beyond the realm of the empirically definable, and that to get further into it here would take us beyond the realm of this thread. I did mention "subjective reality" in my original post just to see if it got a reaction, and I would now move that that comment and all comments relating to it be stricken from the record, so as not to distract from the topic of discussion. I would be more than happy to discuss it later, but it's hard enough to stay on point on the Web as it is.



Oh, no, I would totally agree with you about the weird and counterintuitive. Here's a quote I have loved since I ran across it a year or so ago, from someone who knew from logic:

"In the study of ideas, it is necessary to remember that insistence on hard-headed clarity issues from sentimental feelings, as it were a mist, cloaking the perplexities of fact. Insistence on clarity at all costs is based on sheer superstition as to the mode in which human intelligence functions. Our reasonings grasp at straws for premises and float on gossamers for deductions."

Anyway, I am concerned that at times the scientific method is used to dismiss things where it has no bearing.** I mean, I'm no theologian, but I've devoted a big chunk of my whole life, even since I was a kid, to thinking about religion. I've tried to think as critically as possible, and to run things by critical thinkers I trust; and I cannot help but conclude that there may be more Out There, and while there also may not, that it's not the place of science to say, "No, not possible" (and not just in the case of religion, but any case).

It is of course the place of science to say, "That seems highly unlikely, given what we know." But that's a small but enormous distinction.



I will check it out, Keith. Actually, I feel a little foolish, because I started this thread last night, and in about six hours I'll be on a plane that will take me to a cabin in the middle of the woods, where for a week I'll be without online access. It's going to be great, but I completely apologize to everyone who reads this thread for dropping out immediately after it started to get good. I just completely spaced. I will, however, be talking to you all again, I hope.

*At least not yet.
**At least not yet.
Click to expand...


Sounds like bliss. Have a good time there, and contact me when you get back. I had not realized from your initial post here that you are religious. I would say that I am too, but in such an attenuated sense that I doubt it would qualify under most people's understanding of the term. It seems to me to be a lot closer to Zen and Taoism then to any of our western theisms. Plenty to say on this, but let us talk when you return.

BR,

Keith
 
jraw said:
Thank you! Well, when I speak of "objective reality," I'm talking about the reality of observable empirical phenomena. When I speak of "subjective reality," I mean those phenomena which are clearly real but not provable empirically.
Click to expand...

The most extreme scientistic atheists deny any such phenomena are real. Minds don't exist.

Obviously, phenomena on the subjective plane can't be subject to scientific inquiry.
Click to expand...

It's obvious to me, but I've been here for several years and some people still don't seem to understand this basic fact. It's not that it hasn't been explained. Science/materialism has no idea how to deal with subjectivity, which isn't very surprising when you consider that science is a deliberate attempt to eliminate subjectivity.
 
jraw said:
I think you just claimed to be sure of the nonexistence of something, which is still not allowed, unless something changed and I didn't get the email. Watch yo'self! :)
Click to expand...
No, no there are lots of things that don't exist. For sure.
 
Though not a "person of faith", I think some questionable assumptions have been brought forth in this thread. First, the notion of a "schism" between science and religion generally is almost certainly false. Second, the notion of some fundamental incompatibility between reason and faith seems difficult to maintain in the light of the course of western philosophy, at least from the Scholastics onward.
 
infornography said:
The problem arose when I discovered that some (actually most) of the people I completely converted resented it. I had dispelled their beutiful fantasy and now they had no crutch with which to handle several of their emotional problems.QUOTE]

I hardly think you are to blame for their misery. If they've come to believe that the truth is something other than what they've previously thought then their failure to find wonder and beauty in the universe is their own fault. I find that most believers have the notion that atheists are bitter, angry people as though religion truly is the only source of happiness. Let's call it the Argument From Touched By An Angel. They seem to confuse skepticism with cynicism. One of the first writers to illuminate the issue for me when I was a young Christian was Carl Sagan. I was struck by his sense of wonder and joy at the universe that scientific inquiry had revealed to him and I realized that the things my religious mentors had told me about "atheists and secular humanists", the "bad guys" of their world, were untrue. They were just making straw men for their flocks. Now I make it a point never to be an 'evangelist for atheism'. I simply don't bring it up. If someone asks I simply say "I'm an atheist" and if they want to leave it at that I let them. On occasion people have given me dirty looks and walked away. One woman said "Your kind should be locked up like the sodomites and evolutionists!" (I live near Bob Jones University) but that was a unique incident. Many are shocked and want to know why I don't believe in the obvious "one true god" and in that case I'm certainly willing to discuss it but I warn them that It's not something I can elaborate in a couple of minutes. Some have sought to "witness" to me about the "true faith" which usually ends in their extreme frustration (I tried to warn them) and on a couple of occasions someone has said that our discussion has made them consider things they've never thought of before. I suggest when we discuss matters of religion with such people we make sure to emphasize that wonder, joy and love need not be abandoned with their old religious beliefs.

Steven
Click to expand...
 
mercuryturrent said:
we can demonstrate that the brain is one's consciousness;
Click to expand...
I find that subject fascinating.
Could you point me to recent threads on this forum dealing with that subject, or some well regarded literature I could have a look at?
It would be greatly appreciated.
 
JustGeoff said:
ceo_esq said:
First, the notion of a "schism" between science and religion generally is almost certainly false.
Click to expand...
So what was that business with Galileo and Catholicism then?
Click to expand...

Even if "that business" actually constituted an instance of genuine conflict between science and religion, which is by no means the consensus among historians, it would hardly be enough to establish a general schism between science and religion. Despite its notoriety, the Galileo affair involved, in fairness, just one particular religion at one particular time over one particular controversy. It's not a very representative sample of the overall relationship between religion and science. It's not even typical of the historical relationship between Catholicism and Copernican astronomy, when you think about it.

Cambridge science historian Colin Russell said it far better than I in his article "The Conflict of Science and Religion", published in The History of Science and Religion in the Western Tradition: An Encyclopedia (Garland, 2000):

The history of science has often been regarded as a series of conflicts between science and religion (usually Christianity), of which the cases of Galileo Galilei (1564-1642) and Charles Darwin (1809-82) are merely the most celebrated examples. ... Such a view of the relations between science and religion has been variously described as a "conflict thesis," a "military metaphor," or simply a "warfare model."

The considerable literature on this subject began with two famous works of the nineteenth century: John William Draper's History of the Conflict Between Religion and Science (1874) and Andrew Dickson White's A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom (1896). ... For nearly a century, the notion of mutual hostility (the Draper-White thesis) has been routinely employed in popular science writing, by the media, and in a few older histories of science. Deeply embedded in the culture of the West, it has proven extremely hard to dislodge. Only in the last thirty years of the twentieth century have historians of science mounted a sustained attack on the thesis and only gradually has a wider public begun to recognize its deficiencies. ...

The conflict thesis, at least in its simple form, is now widely perceived as a wholly inadequate intellectual framework within which to construct a sensitive and realistic historiography of Western science. ... The shortcomings of the conflict thesis arise from a multiplicity of reasons, some of which may be briefly summarized as follows.

First, the conflict thesis hinders the recognition of other relationships between science and religion. At different phases of their history, they were not so much at war as largely independent, mutually encouraging, or even symbiotic. Certainly there are well-documented cases, such as those of Galileo and Darwin, in which science and religion seemed to wage open war with each other. But recent scholarship has demonstrated the complexity of the issues at stake in even these cases, with ecclesiastical politics, social change, and personal circumstances as relevant as questions of science and religion. Quite apart from those considerations, such cases have been too often taken as typical, and, consequently, a generalized conflict thesis has been erected on insubstantial grounds. ...

Second, and more specific, the conflict thesis ignores the many documented examples of science and religion operating in close alliance. ...

Third, the conflict thesis enshrines a flawed view of history in which "progress" or (in this case) "victory" has been portrayed as inevitable. There appears to be no inherent reason why this should be so, though it is readily understandable why some should wish it to be the case. This approach represents and embraces a long demolished tradition of positivist, Whiggish historiography.

Fourth, the conflict thesis obscures the rich diversity of ideas in both science and religion. Neither of these has ever been monolithic, and there was seldom a unified reaction from either. ...

Fifth, the conflict thesis engenders a distorted view of disputes resulting from other causes than those of religion versus science. Given this expectation, conflict is not difficult to find in every circumstance, whether or not justified by the available historical evidence. ...

Finally, the conflict thesis exalts minor squabbles, or even differences of opinion, to the status of major conflicts. ...

Given then, that the warfare model is so inaccurate, one may wonder why it has lasted so long. This is, indeed, a major question for historians. The explanation may lie at least partly in the celebrated controversy of Huxley and his friends with the Anglican and Roman Catholic churches. By establishing the conflict thesis, they could perpetuate a myth as part of their strategy to enhance the public appreciation of science. ... The Huxleyite warriors were outstandingly successful in this respect, and their ideals were enshrined in the works of Draper and White, best understood as polemical tracts that advanced the same cause. Yet, Draper takes such liberty with history, perpetuating legends as fact, that he is rightly avoided today in serious historical study. The same is nearly as true of White, though his prominent apparatus of prolific footnotes may create a misleading impression of meticulous scholarship.

...

The remarkable thing about the whole conflict thesis is how readily the Victorian propaganda in all of its varied forms has become unconsciously assimilated as part of the received wisdom of our own day. However, it is salutary to note that serious historical scholarship has revealed the conflict thesis as, at best, an oversimplification and, at worst, a deception.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
ceo_esq said:
Even if "that business" actually constituted an instance of genuine conflict between science and religion, which is by no means the consensus among historians, it would hardly be enough to establish a general schism between science and religion. Despite its notoriety, the Galileo affair involved, in fairness, just one particular religion at one particular time over one particular controversy. It's not a very representative sample of the overall relationship between religion and science.
Click to expand...

Sure, the schism is a western schism. It never applied to the Indians and Chinese. But that is because the Indians and Chinese never invented western theology or western science.

There need be no schism. The schism is maintained by extremists on both sides of the fence, some of whom inhabit the JREF. It's maintained because both sets of extremists want to maintain it.
 
JustGeoff said:
Science/materialism has no idea how to deal with subjectivity, which isn't very surprising when you consider that science is a deliberate attempt to eliminate subjectivity.
Click to expand...

True it can't deal with and account for all phenomena completely but science has it place since it can observe and explain it in a provable physically empirical view.

So if someone is having a religious or spiritual experience then there is a physical thing happening inside the brain of the person causing that experience, that much is true and you can make an assertion that it is the sole factor in A(x) the universe of all known phenoma. However to make an assertion that it is the only factor that accounts for A(x) the universe of all phenomena is a leap of faith.

If you do pursue the path of converting the heathen believers, I highly reccomend discrimination in your targets. And good luck.
Click to expand...

It is better to have people come to that position through their own intelligence and innate intuition, instead of forcible conversion and persuasion, because if they are persuaded they are in effect the same believers as they were before. No difference.
 
JustGeoff said:
Sure, the schism is a western schism. It never applied to the Indians and Chinese. But that is because the Indians and Chinese never invented western theology or western science.
Click to expand...

A number of historians and philosophers of science have argued that the Indians and Chinese never developed science in the Western sense partly because they had non-Western theologies.


JustGeoff said:
There need be no schism. The schism is maintained by extremists on both sides of the fence, some of whom inhabit the JREF. It's maintained because both sets of extremists want to maintain it.
Click to expand...

Well put.
 
I don't know if I'd call it a schism, but there is a pretty clear dividing line between those who believe in supernatural entities and those who don't. You don't have to be any kind of extremist to see that.
 
chriswl said:
I don't know if I'd call it a schism, but there is a pretty clear dividing line between those who believe in supernatural entities and those who don't. You don't have to be any kind of extremist to see that.
Click to expand...

Where am I on your scale?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom