Jan 24 2012, 03:31 AM
In terms of evidence of biblical stories, mostly are environmental (floods, etc, all debatable). Many such stories exist in cultures that seem to be otherwise separated and without any forms of communication between them. Yes, some things can be disproved but I was referring only to these events that may/may not have happened thousands of years ago. These specific events can not be proven/disproven. It is kind of irrelevent to my overall point though. I'm sober today so let me give this a fresh go.
When comparing/contrasting science to religion, we have to be careful in not comparing it to a specific religion. There are religions that exist that do not depend on historical accuracy to maintain their belief structures. There are religions that exist that have no personification of their higher powers, and religions that are able to adapt their belief structures and change over time. There are even religions based on observable data (example, mayans that the sun will rise everyday, grows plants, therefore it takes care of people). Religions can be invented by anyone, and can have any number of people that believe in them. There are religions that do not believe in higher powers at all, but rather the mystical properties of nature itself.
Religions can be very diverse, and boxing all religion into Christianity like concepts makes this conversation very difficult. To me, if you get a group of people together who all share common beliefs about the 'truth' of the world, this implies a structured system of beliefs. If all that defines a religion is any set of structured beliefs that people share, then how can science not be a religion by definition? The belief in logic is a highly structured system, that scientists put their faith in. Sure, it is drastically different from Christianity, but I am not trying to claim that Christianity and science are the same thing, simply that they overlap in the processes that allow for humans to accept any beliefs at all, faith. Without faith, you can have neither science or Christianity.
Concepts such as that we won't walk outside and fall up are not instinctually ingrained into us at birth. In small children (sometimes adults even), it's actually quite common to observe them holding onto something when they look into the sky because they have not yet taken such observations (as not falling up) for granted. It is only once they have acquired the suitable experience to stop worrying about such things that such behavior stops. It is only once faith that observable data will remain constant that children stop displaying these sorts of behaviors. If you think about science not as truth, but as the pursuit of truth based on faith based reasoning (no matter how rational), then do you not admit that at there very core they are very similar concepts?
I have some responses to Silly's questions, editing in.
In response to if I think meaningful probabilities can actually be determined about those events, I am not sure that probability has much of a place when thinking about history. It's either 100% probable or 0% probable, I don't feel that adequate data exists to calculate any mathematical probabilities about the events, therefore no I do not believe those specific events can have probabilities associated with them. If you are to consider these events happening in the future to people of today, yes probabilities can be drawn.
To me I guess it's less of a question of what factors scientific or religious beliefs are founded on, but rather the human and biological factors which allow them both to happen. I suppose I may even have to make a distinction between the scientific process and scientific claims.
"When someone uses logic, they are putting their faith in logic. Without logic, we would have no way to distinguish between the truth or probability of any claim, as none would be determinable." - Silly
This statement gives credence as to why It's difficult for me to accept that science is not a form of religion. If I were to extrapolate a little bit on this statement would you accept that "without faith, we would have no way to distinguish between the truth or probability of any claim, as none would be determinable." The necessity of faith is a major factor for me in not ruling out that science is a religion.
When comparing/contrasting science to religion, we have to be careful in not comparing it to a specific religion. There are religions that exist that do not depend on historical accuracy to maintain their belief structures. There are religions that exist that have no personification of their higher powers, and religions that are able to adapt their belief structures and change over time. There are even religions based on observable data (example, mayans that the sun will rise everyday, grows plants, therefore it takes care of people). Religions can be invented by anyone, and can have any number of people that believe in them. There are religions that do not believe in higher powers at all, but rather the mystical properties of nature itself.
Religions can be very diverse, and boxing all religion into Christianity like concepts makes this conversation very difficult. To me, if you get a group of people together who all share common beliefs about the 'truth' of the world, this implies a structured system of beliefs. If all that defines a religion is any set of structured beliefs that people share, then how can science not be a religion by definition? The belief in logic is a highly structured system, that scientists put their faith in. Sure, it is drastically different from Christianity, but I am not trying to claim that Christianity and science are the same thing, simply that they overlap in the processes that allow for humans to accept any beliefs at all, faith. Without faith, you can have neither science or Christianity.
Concepts such as that we won't walk outside and fall up are not instinctually ingrained into us at birth. In small children (sometimes adults even), it's actually quite common to observe them holding onto something when they look into the sky because they have not yet taken such observations (as not falling up) for granted. It is only once they have acquired the suitable experience to stop worrying about such things that such behavior stops. It is only once faith that observable data will remain constant that children stop displaying these sorts of behaviors. If you think about science not as truth, but as the pursuit of truth based on faith based reasoning (no matter how rational), then do you not admit that at there very core they are very similar concepts?
I have some responses to Silly's questions, editing in.
In response to if I think meaningful probabilities can actually be determined about those events, I am not sure that probability has much of a place when thinking about history. It's either 100% probable or 0% probable, I don't feel that adequate data exists to calculate any mathematical probabilities about the events, therefore no I do not believe those specific events can have probabilities associated with them. If you are to consider these events happening in the future to people of today, yes probabilities can be drawn.
To me I guess it's less of a question of what factors scientific or religious beliefs are founded on, but rather the human and biological factors which allow them both to happen. I suppose I may even have to make a distinction between the scientific process and scientific claims.
"When someone uses logic, they are putting their faith in logic. Without logic, we would have no way to distinguish between the truth or probability of any claim, as none would be determinable." - Silly
This statement gives credence as to why It's difficult for me to accept that science is not a form of religion. If I were to extrapolate a little bit on this statement would you accept that "without faith, we would have no way to distinguish between the truth or probability of any claim, as none would be determinable." The necessity of faith is a major factor for me in not ruling out that science is a religion.
![[-]](https://war-lords.net/forum/images/collapse.png)
"Most people think time is like a river, that flows swift and sure in one direction. But I have seen the face of time, and I can tell you, they are wrong. Time is an ocean in a storm."