Reason and faith exist separately

[DRMIZER]

There are many in this country who insist that "science needs Jesus, not vice versa." This is the crux of the dichotomy between reason and faith. Reason is in the human mind; faith is in the human feelings. They cannot both be in the mind at the same time, since faith eschews reason, and reason sees nothing to support faith. Religious people have been praying for two millennium and a reasonable look at the world today would support the argument that the results are yet to be seen. Modern science has been around for only two or three hundred years and the results are astounding.

For fundamentalists to argue that science needs Jesus, in other words, that it needs faith, evidences a total misunderstanding of both reason and faith.

Faith may get the faithful to heaven. But I would ask why, if heaven is as good, as positive, as eternal, as certain, as proven to exist as they believe it to be, why are religious fundamentalists not volunteering to go there right now? My feeling is that it is their own lack of faith that heaven really exists that is keeping them from volunteering to go right now. Why, because it's not reasonable to volunteer, since there's no proof that it's there, there's only faith.

Proof is not based on belief or faith, it is based on there being an independent source of verification. They say that the "the answer is in the Bible." Not so, since there is no other independent source of its validity.

[mataj]

William of Ockham resolved this issue once and for all around 1300.

[steveksux]

I disagree, they can coexist quite naturally.

A prime example is a District Attorney. Plenty of crimes go on without a lot of evidence left behind. There is what he believes happened, and what he can prove in court. Faith and reason, side by side. Coexisting harmoniously.

Randy

[burntgorilla]

What's the Protestant view of suicide? I know that they Catholics are pretty against it, but I'm not sure about the Protestant view of it.

[Izdaari]

Reason is in the human mind; faith is in the human feelings. They cannot both be in the mind at the same time, since faith eschews reason, and reason sees nothing to support faith.The Catholic intellectual tradition, which produced many great thinkers, among them Thomas Aquinas and William of Ockham whom Mataj mentioned, and which lives on today in the Jesuit order and others, would seem to prove that it's very possible for a mind to function well with both faith and reason in it.

I disagree, they can coexist quite naturally.

A prime example is a District Attorney. Plenty of crimes go on without a lot of evidence left behind. There is what he believes happened, and what he can prove in court. Faith and reason, side by side. Coexisting harmoniously.I love that example. :flowers:

What's the Protestant view of suicide? I know that they Catholics are pretty against it, but I'm not sure about the Protestant view of it.There is no one Protestant view of suicide, but in general they're all against it. The degree to which they're against it is what varies. Some liberal denominations endorse euthanasia for people who are terminally ill and in pain, though they'd still discourage suicide in general.

But what's this got to do with the faith vs. reason question? There may be a connection, but it isn't obvious.

[Meek Heir]

But what's this got to do with the faith vs. reason question? There may be a connection, but it isn't obvious.

He was talking about the part where Drmizer spoke of volunteering to go right now. Which is difficult without suicide.

[mataj]

. . . it's very possible for a mind to function well with both faith and reason in it.As long as the mind knows exactly which is which.

Mixing this two produces things like aryan physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Physics) , Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism), etc.

[steveksux]

As long as the mind knows exactly which is which.

Mixing this two produces things like aryan physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Physics) , Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism), etc.You forgot the 600 lb gorilla in the room... creation psuedoscience.

Randy

[FlyingGuineapig]

For most faiths (excluding fundamentalist fringes), science and religion are orthogonal to each other. Science concerns itself with the "how" of the universe, whereas religion addresses the "why". While some might argue that religion is unnecessary, many great scientists still find themselves also deeply curious in the "why" as well as the "how" - you'll have Hawkins speaking of wanting to know the thoughts of God, and Einstein's frequent comments about God spinkle his writings (and popular quotes).

Even today, #7 on the Amazon.com bestseller list is "The Language of God", in which the scientist who headed the Human Genome Project writes about how science and spirituality are intwined. Clearly, we, as a species, are still deeply curious in both (at least curious enough to spend $15.60). More people will buy (and possibly even read) that book, compared to "The Art of Electronics" or "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"

People need spirituality - it's one of the very few anthropological constants that you'll find in every human society, going back 20,000+ years (assuming you believe we've been around that long :) ). There has never been an enduring society which doesn't provide for spirituality or religion, and if you look at the writings & teachings which have endured for thousands of years, most are religious. Likewise, the great monuments which serve as markers for civilizations are as well - the pyramids, temples, churches, cathedrals, etc are what remain.

Religions such as Christianity, Judiasm, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zorastianism, Islam, and Taoism have endured for 1,500-3,000 years and spread across the globe, touching billions of people.

The results of religion have been, admittedly, far from perfect - but explaining and forgiving (while striving to improve) that lack of perfection is just one of the reasons why faith endures. Science's results have also been less than perfect - however, that tends to be an issue more with the lack of wisdom and judgement in it's uses, rather than in science itself. One needs both the "how" and "why"; the knowledge and the wisdom.

[steveksux]

People need spirituality - it's one of the very few anthropological constants that you'll find in every human society, going back 20,000+ years (assuming you believe we've been around that long :) ). .That's pretty interesting. I would have guessed hookers rather than spirituality.... ;)

Randy

[Strel]

What's the Protestant view of suicide? I know that they Catholics are pretty against it, but I'm not sure about the Protestant view of it.


I believe it is generally viewed as a sin but no automatic Hell or being buried without your head or anything.

[FlyingGuineapig]

That's pretty interesting. I would have guessed hookers rather than spirituality.... ;)

Randy
Hehe - well, I used to have a reference to the list somewhere on the web - I don't recall if hookers are on the list. I've always found it fascinating that there are certain beliefs/behaviors that are common to almost every human society.

[mataj]

You forgot the 600 lb gorilla in the room... creation psuedoscience.

RandyCreationism is not enough of a science even to be called "pseudoscience". It's a religion in disguise.

[mataj]

For most faiths (excluding fundamentalist fringes), science and religion are orthogonal to each other. Science concerns itself with the "how" of the universe, whereas religion addresses the "why".Not quite true. The question of "why", IOW "what's the purpose", is not answered by religion, but politics. Religion's task is to induce the thralls to accept the answers, not to give the answers.

[burntgorilla]

So really, if you truly believed in an afterlife, you would kill yourself, since the punishment is relatively small compared to the benefits?

[FlyingGuineapig]

Not quite true. The question of "why", IOW "what's the purpose", is not answered by religion, but politics. Religion's task is to induce the thralls to accept the answers, not to give the answers.
Politics seeks to answer why we were created and what our purpose is? That's not been my experience.

Politics seems more concerned with imposing laws controlling what we can/can't do, and providing the infrastructure of society in exchange for that control. In some countries, there's a close relationship between politics and religion (with religion doctrine providing the basis for determining what the laws are). In the USA, of the hundreds of thousands of laws passed by Congress, how many have a basis in religion? Very, very few.

In some cases (say, gay marriage or stem cell research), there's often lip service paid to religion, but the same politican advocating an end to stem cell research on religious ground will also push for capital punishment (generally dissapproved of by most religions, although folks typically turn a blind eye to it).

[FlyingGuineapig]

So really, if you truly believed in an afterlife, you would kill yourself, since the punishment is relatively small compared to the benefits?
Most religions believe that God created us and the universe for a purpose - it would be rather rude to prematurely walk out on the show that He went through all this trouble to put on for our benefit.

Besides, you might even enjoy it.

[Dutch]

Hehe - well, I used to have a reference to the list somewhere on the web - I don't recall if hookers are on the list. I've always found it fascinating that there are certain beliefs/behaviors that are common to almost every human society.

In randy's case, hookers, for the rest of us a hereafter. ;)

[DRMIZER]

I'll stick with my basic premise though that science does not need Jesus. I'm certain that both science and religion will continue to coexist for some time to come.

I just "believe" it is not an ultimate benefit to society for "faith" to attempt to dictate morality in scientific matters and humanity must continue to strive for a better way of life. I do believe the scientific method trumps faith.

[burntgorilla]

Most religions believe that God created us and the universe for a purpose - it would be rather rude to prematurely walk out on the show that He went through all this trouble to put on for our benefit.

Besides, you might even enjoy it.

Well, that's kind of the problem with free choice, isn't it?

[DRMIZER]

In randy's case, hookers, for the rest of us a hereafter. ;)(Ahem) I thought they were supposed to be virgins!!!!!

[DRMIZER]

Politics seeks to answer why we were created and what our purpose is? That's not been my experience.

Politics seems more concerned with imposing laws controlling what we can/can't do, and providing the infrastructure of society in exchange for that control. In some countries, there's a close relationship between politics and religion (with religion doctrine providing the basis for determining what the laws are). In the USA, of the hundreds of thousands of laws passed by Congress, how many have a basis in religion? Very, very few.

In some cases (say, gay marriage or stem cell research), there's often lip service paid to religion, but the same politican advocating an end to stem cell research on religious ground will also push for capital punishment (generally dissapproved of by most religions, although folks typically turn a blind eye to it).Good points. Where I see the conflict is when political decisions become religion-based and an entire society must be subject to beliefs and faith as opposed to what is right there in our faces. Hence the dangerous triangle. . . .politics - religion - science.

[steveksux]

So really, if you truly believed in an afterlife, you would kill yourself, since the punishment is relatively small compared to the benefits?I thought suicide was a "Get out of paradise free" card? So committing suicide prevents you from going to heaven. The one sin you can't repent and ask forgiveness for cause you're dead before you can ask...

That's the theory anyway. You could always kill yourself slowly and have plenty of time to regret it. Alcoholics and smokers do it all the time... ;)

Randy

[steveksux]

In randy's case, hookers, for the rest of us a hereafter. ;)Ha! Suckers! :D

Randy

[mataj]

Politics seeks to answer why we were created and what our purpose is?Politics does not seek the answer, it already knows it: Your purpose is to serve the interests of whomever is in power.

If you presume, that everything was created, you owe the Creator your gratitude. Him, as well as His self declared representatives, as well as His personifications- kings, emperors, dictators, and so on.

Have you noticed, that answer about your purpose is always intrusively offered to you by someone else? Don't you think, that your purpose should be your business? Yet, you are not supposed to seek the answer for yourself.

And, for that matter, is seeking the answer to "why" your idea in the 1st place? Would you seek it, if somebody wouldn't aggresivelly put this question to you sometime in the past?

That's not been my experience.Of course not. Interests you are supposed to serve come nicely wrapped in the cellophane of ideas, ideals, morality, and religious truths. You are not supposed to unwrap the cellophane, you are not supposed to see things the way described above.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Good points. Where I see the conflict is when political decisions become religion-based and an entire society must be subject to beliefs and faith as opposed to what is right there in our faces. Hence the dangerous triangle. . . .politics - religion - science.
Well, if youve got an elected government, you do get to vote for your political leaders. Your guy/gal may not win (as a libertarian, I don't see my favorites elected very often), but you've got the opportunity.

Likewise, in a country with "modern" freedoms, you choose your own religion (probably with your parents guiding you initially).

You may not like who other folks vote for or worship, but, well, that's the way life goes. They probably don't like your choices either. :)

Attempts to guide societies based purely on science haven't been too successful - maybe someday, someone will make a decent go of it, but so far they've been disasters worse than what the past 3000+ years have done. Maybe someday "political science" won't be an oxymoron, but I don't think we've had any breakthroughs in thought about it yet.

[Lumpen Prole]

Politics seeks to answer why we were created and what our purpose is? That's not been my experience.


Religion doesn't seek to answer why we were created and for what purpose. Religion simply assumes an answer to those questions and doesn't leave any room for opposing viewpoints. That isn't reason; it's dogmatism. Philosophy seeks to answer such questions, and it does so in a reasonable fashion. Science does as well. The difference is that nothing is accepted on faith. If science operated the same way as religion, the world would still be flat. However, science, since it operates in a reasonable fashion, is open to change. That's why we now know the world is not flat.

That said, I have no problem with people who believe faith is a better means of acquiring knowledge than reason. That's at least consistent. But when fundamentalists and the like try to argue that their beliefs are rationally justifiable, it gets irritating.

[Izdaari]

As long as the mind knows exactly which is which.

Mixing this two produces things like aryan physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Physics) , Lysenkoism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism), etc.That's very true and very important. It's hard to think clearly unless you know what you believe and why, and what your premises are. Faith and reason are both useful tools, but for different jobs. And, as in the Catholic intellectual tradition, I believe my faith is all the stronger for applying reason to it as much as possible.

Politics does not seek the answer, it already knows it: Your purpose is to serve the interests of whomever is in power.That's why I'm a libertarian: I know politicians see it that way, and I don't want to go along with the program. Government is like fire, a good servant and a bad master.

[burntgorilla]

I think it would work if you have faith "on top of" your reason. For example, a scientist who believes in God, yet follows what reason tells him. Then you have a person who puts reason on top of faith. They believe in God, but look to the Bible to find scientific answers.

[FlyingGuineapig]

Religion doesn't seek to answer why we were created and for what purpose. Religion simply assumes an answer to those questions and doesn't leave any room for opposing viewpoints..
Well, I'd respectfully disagree. Most religions (at least the ones I'm familar with) provide a framework for the purpose of why we were created, and how we should be living. I won't claim that morals are the exclusive domain of religion - atheists can certainly live moral lives, but from a historic perspective, the morals that societies follow are based on religious teachings.

You're probably right in that religion doesn't emphasize man's purpose enough. Since everyone needs to interpret what that means in their own life, religions offer more of an outline, leaving each of us to apply it to our lives.

In Christianity (and I think Judaism as well), man was created to give glory to God. God established a covenant with man, and we're to honor that covenant. For Christians, Jesus summarizes it as "Love God, and Love your neighbor as yourself" [Luke 10:27].

In Buddhism, we're eternal (through reincarnation) so there is no creation, but our ultimate purpose is to attain enlightment which allows us to escape the wheel of suffering (or, in the case of Bodhisattvas, remaining behind to in life to help others escape). The Four Noble Truths explain why we're suffering, and the Eightfold Path explains how it can be overcome.

In Hinduism, we're likewise eternal, but man's purpose is to understand and obey dharma ("way of life" or "natural rule of the universe"). We seek a relationship with Brahman, and leading a virtuous life (in line with dharma) takes one to a higher form of consciousness - as our soul (atman) is-part-of/becomes-part-of Brahman.

While it's certainly true that many religions don't tolerate other viewpoints (especially in the past, or with more fundamentalist faiths), there's been a movement towards embracing their commonalities rather than differences (of course, I'd argue politics is more interested in exaggerating these differences for their gain - it's just religion being used as an excuse).


For example, the "Golden Rule" is taught by almost all religions:
Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. [Matthew 7:1] (also Luke 10:27)

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. [Udana-Varga 5,1]

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary. [Talmud, Shabbat 3id]

Hinduism: This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you. [Mahabharata 5,1517]

It's interesting (to me, anyways) that Judaism's statement of "this is the entire Law, all the rest is commentary" is echoed in Hinduism's "This is the sum of duty".


I'd also respectfully disagree that philosophy attempts to answer the question of purpose - with the exception of existentialism and pragmatism, most of philosophy addresses other concerns. And in existentialism (at least with the readings of Kierkegaard and Nietzsche that I've done), you're pretty much back to religion (even Sarte seemed to have to keep returning to it). And with pragmatism, William James seems to embrace the value of religion - "In order to usefully interpret the realm of common, shared experience and history, we must each make certain "over-beliefs" in things which, while they cannot be proven on the basis of experience, help us to live fuller and better lives." (summary stolen from Wikipedia's entry on William James)

[mataj]

That's why I'm a libertarian: I know politicians see it that way, and I don't want to go along with the program. Government is like fire, a good servant and a bad master.I said "whoever is in power", and that is not necessarily a government.

Nature abhors vacuum, especially the power vacuum. If a government is weak or even absent, somebody else will take it's place- gangs, warlords, robber barons, corporations, etc. This is the reason I'm not a libertian. Strong, democratically elected government is the least bad option of all.

[Izdaari]

I said "whoever is in power", and that is not necessarily a government.

Nature abhors vacuum, especially the power vacuum. If a government is weak or even absent, somebody else will take it's place- gangs, warlords, robber barons, corporations, etc. This is the reason I'm not a libertian. Strong, democratically elected government is the least bad option of all.That's a fair point, but I'm not for weak government. I'm for a limited constitutional republic that does act strongly and decisively within its appointed role, but doesn't expand beyond that. It's possible to be small and very strong. Just ask this guy: http://www.giftofstrength.com/chris_thomas_natural_bodybuilder.htm

[JoeR]

Ugh, bodybuilders are so gross. Moreso least when greased up like that. He's not as bad as the guys that are decidedly unnatural though.

[DRMIZER]

I think it would work if you have faith "on top of" your reason. For example, a scientist who believes in God, yet follows what reason tells him. Then you have a person who puts reason on top of faith. They believe in God, but look to the Bible to find scientific answers.I'm not sure I am familiar with any scientific outcomes from the scriptures. How they could be used for scientific purposes is beyond my understanding.

[burntgorilla]

I'm not sure I am familiar with any scientific outcomes from the scriptures. How they could be used for scientific purposes is beyond my understanding.

Creationism.

[FlyingGuineapig]

I'm not sure I am familiar with any scientific outcomes from the scriptures. How they could be used for scientific purposes is beyond my understanding.

Creationism.
I'd strongly disagree.

Although I suspect buntgorilla is just making a joke (or trying to drag this thread into yet another of the endless evolution/creationism arguments), I take offense at the casual blurring of boundaries between religion and science.

Scripture is NOT part of the scientific method, no more than a Harry Potter book is. Scripture is NOT intended to be part of science. A scientist might read the scriptures for prayer/reflection/insight (just like someone in any profession might), but the scientific method relies on hypotheses, experimentation, and peer reviews whereas religion relies more on divine revelation (which is a bit hard to reproduce in the lab :) ).

As an example pushing religious concepts like "intelligent design" into science is an insult to both religion and science. If intelligent design proponents can answer questions like:
- What testable predictions does ID make?
- What observation could, in principle, falsify ID?
- What technological advances might come out of ID?
- Are there any practical applications of ID theory?
- What experiments have been performed to test ID?
- What experiments could be performed to test ID, if adequate funding and/or equipment were available? What would be required to perform these experiments?
- What experiments could, in principle, be performed to test ID, but cannot, because of technological limitations? What technology would be required to carry them out?
then intelligent design could be considered as part of science. However, at this point, it can't. This doesn't mean that the concepts behind intelligent design are wrong - it just means that they're not part of science.

Claiming that science and religion are mutually exclusive and "only one can survive" is nonsense, and ignores the billions of people who have no difficulties accepting both. Folks need to understand what each is, and simply slurrnig the one your disagree with does no good to anyone.

[burntgorilla]

I was giving creationism as an example of science based in scripture. However, I apologise since it could possibly drag this thread down into a circular debate, which should be avoided.