Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Exactly the same way that Santa Claus is true to children, but false to adults.
<snip>
Except not many would choose to die for Santa Claus. History is replete with individuals and groups dying for their faith in God rather than rejecting Him.
At the root of this tendency is a (now outdated) belief system referred to as Verificationism, the influence of which filtered down to the lower rungs of academia in the 1950s and 1960s. You can still find it persisting today in popular-level claims such as "one should only believe what is verifiable through physical evidence", "science is the only way to know", or "anything not verifiable or falsifiable through the senses is meaningless".
As an atheist I have never participated in the reductionist fantasies of scientism, nor have I advanced the idea that anything can be known / proven with total certainty. Science gets by fine on the principle of falsifiability (aka testability) and does not attempt to ascribe meaning, only to provide explanations.
While nothing (including the [non]existence of god[s]) can be [dis]proven in the absolute sense, many things can be known with a high degree of confidence, enough to build very useful technologies or to guide personal decisions. Many theists cannot even agree on the tenets of their own religion; meanwhile, scientists are sending robots to Mars and building out cellular networks. You decide which source of information is more useful and reliable.
What is really going on in all these debates is obvious when you consider that, apart from some edge cases like the Amish, theists have little issue with science so long as it does not conflict, or appear to conflict, with dogma. Christians use phones, airplanes, televisions, automobiles, central heating, and seem to have no real issue with relativity, string theory, etc., because these things do not conflict with the teachings and practice of the church, or at most, they have some potential for misuse, but are widely seen as more beneficial than not -- or it is necessary to use those technologies to even function in society anymore.
The problem is only in areas like evolution that get directly at teachings a particular religion considers crucial. Evolution is a problem for literalists because they are not nearly as willing as a liberal to appreciate the creation story as metaphor; it had to literally have happened in a literal week in that literal order.
I don't blame scientists for not feeling particularly responsible how some folks feel threatened by what is, to them, simply the outworkings of a framework for understanding empirical evidence. The question is, does dogma arbitrate reality or does reality arbitrate dogma? The answer should be obvious; if it's not, then nothing I can say about it will probably help someone who really wants to conform reality to the Bible.
As true as the Hellenism. Oh, wait, they're basically the same thing. Paul and his Hellenistic theology. I don't think Christian mythology is any more true that any other ancient mythology. Actually, there are a number of mythologies I prefer over Christian mythology. Hello, handsome, sexy Thor.
Except not many would choose to die for Santa Claus. History is replete with individuals and groups dying for their faith in God rather than rejecting Him.
Faith in gods. Practitioners of varying mythologies die for their gods. Those who wish to sacrifice their life for El/Yahweh, Yeshua and Holy Spirit are no more special or different than the thousands of others who have died for their beliefs.
Faith in gods. Practitioners of varying mythologies die for their gods. Those who wish to sacrifice their life for El/Yahweh, Yeshua and Holy Spirit are no more special or different than the thousands of others who have died for their beliefs.
An atheist has no deity to die for. Those who die for their beliefs believe they're commanded to by their gods. If not commanded, then highly encouraged and rewarded in the hereafter. Their dogma dictates such.
How many would die for their deities if there were no hereafter?
An atheist could conceivably die defending their family or their country... you know, real life things.
But to die for an for unseen, unknown, imaginary being? Probably not so much. Then again, it is entirely possible for an atheist to have other kinds of irrational beliefs not involving gods - humans being what they are.
As an atheist I have never participated in the reductionist fantasies of scientism, nor have I advanced the idea that anything can be known / proven with total certainty. Science gets by fine on the principle of falsifiability (aka testability) and does not attempt to ascribe meaning, only to provide explanations.
While nothing (including the [non]existence of god[s]) can be [dis]proven in the absolute sense, many things can be known with a high degree of confidence, enough to build very useful technologies or to guide personal decisions. Many theists cannot even agree on the tenets of their own religion; meanwhile, scientists are sending robots to Mars and building out cellular networks. You decide which source of information is more useful and reliable.
What is really going on in all these debates is obvious when you consider that, apart from some edge cases like the Amish, theists have little issue with science so long as it does not conflict, or appear to conflict, with dogma. Christians use phones, airplanes, televisions, automobiles, central heating, and seem to have no real issue with relativity, string theory, etc., because these things do not conflict with the teachings and practice of the church, or at most, they have some potential for misuse, but are widely seen as more beneficial than not -- or it is necessary to use those technologies to even function in society anymore.
The problem is only in areas like evolution that get directly at teachings a particular religion considers crucial. Evolution is a problem for literalists because they are not nearly as willing as a liberal to appreciate the creation story as metaphor; it had to literally have happened in a literal week in that literal order.
I don't blame scientists for not feeling particularly responsible how some folks feel threatened by what is, to them, simply the outworkings of a framework for understanding empirical evidence. The question is, does dogma arbitrate reality or does reality arbitrate dogma? The answer should be obvious; if it's not, then nothing I can say about it will probably help someone who really wants to conform reality to the Bible.
It seems you may be a philosophical pragmatist. You assert the 'natural world utility' of science in terms of its explanatory power and predictive capability (a position referred to as 'instrumentalism'). From that basis, you then make a vague inference to the position of scientific realism (the view that the world described by science is the correct world). Though this may not be barn-door Verificationism, it still falls under the banner of the logical positivist type of scientism that collapsed in the 1960s.
All of this is very familiar to me, given that I come from a scientific background. It is, for the most part, an epistemic illusion:
1. Instrumentalism uses science as a basis to determine the meaningful utility of science, meaning that its justification is tautological.
2. Meaningful utility and truth value have correlated poorly in the history of science.
3. The standard of 'natural world utility' is necessarily a poor standard when it is used to evaluate the truth value of causal interrelationships beyond the natural world.
I agree that science and religion are not a dichotomy. However, you go on to identify Christian dogma (in essence, metaphysical foundational beliefs) as an epistemic standard apart from the scientific method, unaware that science itself is founded upon a panoply of metaphysical assumptions. By their nature, these assumptions cannot be verified evidentially, at the risk of circular reasoning, and their existence is among the many reasons why logical positivism collapsed 70 years ago.
I've written about the interrelationship between science, metaphysics and religion in previous posts:
Quote:
1. Scientific beliefs do not replace or compete with philosophical and theological beliefs, in an epistemic sense, because they operate at fundamentally different levels. They answer different questions, using different methods of inquiry, using different theories of knowledge and apply them to different levels of the experience of reality.
2. Those areas in which science and religion seem to conflict (for example in the discourse on the origins of life), ultimately regress to a discord between two unfalsifiable metaphysical positions. The scientific method of inquiry is essentially metaphysically neutral as to the truth of theism or atheism, hence the preponderance of prominent theistic scientists throughout history.
3. The scientific method itself appeals to a system of first principles; a set of metaphysical laws regarding reality and the nature of knowledge. This, by definition, cannot be established by science, but can only be provided by philosophy and theology. If you do away with this metaphysical framework, by inference, you do away with science.
4. The epistemic foundations (the theories of knowledge, standards of critical reasoning) necessary for science arose from an historical basis of theistic realism. The fathers of Rationalism, such as Kant, Descartes, Leibniz et al., were not only theists, but regarded theism to be both an epistemic necessity and a logical conclusion of reasonable thought.
5. The logistics/infrastructure for what we now call science arose, historically, in large part due to massive investments of manpower, financing, facilities, instruments, training, political support by religious institutions. This is discussed by James Hannam below.
Last edited by MissionIMPOSSIBRU; 01-03-2014 at 11:03 PM..
It seems you may be a philosophical pragmatist. You assert the 'natural world utility' of science in terms of its explanatory power and predictive capability (a position referred to as 'instrumentalism'). From that basis, you then make a vague inference to the position of scientific realism (the view that the world described by science is the correct world). Though this may not be barn-door Verificationism, it still falls under the banner of the logical positivist type of scientism that collapsed in the 1960s.
All of this is very familiar to me, given that I come from a scientific background. It is, for the most part, an epistemic illusion:
1. Instrumentalism uses science as a basis to determine the meaningful utility of science, meaning that its justification is tautological.
Using observation to gain knowledge isn't a tautology, no matter how many big words philosophers want to wrap the concept in.
Quote:
2. Meaningful utility and truth value have correlated poorly in the history of science.
Depends on what you mean by truth here.
Quote:
3. The standard of 'natural world utility' is necessarily a poor standard when it is used to evaluate the truth value of causal interrelationships beyond the natural world.
Many would consider being poor at providing information about stuff which, as far as we can see, doesn't actually exist a pro, not a con.
Quote:
I agree that science and religion are not a dichotomy. However, you go on to identify Christian dogma (in essence, metaphysical foundational beliefs) as an epistemic standard apart from the scientific method, unaware that science itself is founded upon a panoply of metaphysical assumptions.
Christianity uses a superset of these assumptions, so if an empirical outlook fails philosophically, so do Christian beliefs. That is, unless you're asserting that Christianity rejects the idea that there's an observable reality and that we can learn about it, but I think that's a pretty daft idea.
More simply, there's a huge difference between assuming reality exists and assuming that God sent his only begotten son who was also himself to sort of but not really die as a sacrifice to himself for screwing up when he created humans. One's a reasonable jump necessary to get anything done, the other is a bald assertion of faith backed by nothing but wishful thinking. Playing philosophy word games to try and pretend these assumptions make both views equally weak isn't going to get very far considering their relative accomplishments. Just because we all have to make assumptions doesn't mean we get to make up anything we want.
Quote:
1. Scientific beliefs do not replace or compete with philosophical and theological beliefs, in an epistemic sense, because they operate at fundamentally different levels.
Maybe, but empirical evidence can certainly invalidate certain philosophical or theological positions.
Quote:
2. Those areas in which science and religion seem to conflict (for example in the discourse on the origins of life), ultimately regress to a discord between two unfalsifiable metaphysical positions.
Not always. In many cases, it is simply the fact that one or the other is empirically incorrect.
Quote:
3. The scientific method itself appeals to a system of first principles; a set of metaphysical laws regarding reality and the nature of knowledge. This, by definition, cannot be established by science, but can only be provided by philosophy and theology. If you do away with this metaphysical framework, by inference, you do away with science.
So?
Quote:
4. The epistemic foundations (the theories of knowledge, standards of critical reasoning) necessary for science arose from an historical basis of theistic realism.
So?
Quote:
5. The logistics/infrastructure for what we now call science arose, historically, in large part due to massive investments of manpower, financing, facilities, instruments, training, political support by religious institutions. This is discussed by James Hannam below.
So?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
