hell-kite
Initiate
Gender: 
Posts: 73
Reputation: 5.01
Rate hell-kite
feed me!
 
  
|
 |
virus: =?iso-8859-1?Q?religion_versus_science_-_the_attempt_of_a_synthesis.?=
« on: 2004-10-20 11:55:10 » |
 |
... to deduce a new, better thesis to discuss.
The difference between (objects of) religious belief and (objects of)
scientific belief is non-existent in an objective, categorical sense. My
proposed solution as to how to judge the difference between religion and
faith – apart from the correct but (as I just said) epistemologically
refutable proposition of the objects of religious belief being unfalsifiable
etc. – is as follows, devised to suppress the principally (not practically,
as most of us will agree) correct response that “science is just another
form of faith”.
The difference is not categorical but dimensional, a spectrum supposedly
ranging from [passive belief/acceptance] to [active questioning/doubt]. I
shall call this spectrum “inquisitiveness” (tendency to be inquisitive).
Inquisitiveness differs not only interindividually, but also
intraindividually – by this I mean, that a person can be, in regard to a
particular topic (of any solution (narrow or general), probably correlated
with the amount of knowledge about the topic), very inquisitive – e.g., in
regard to “faith in the correctness of mass media broadcasting” (“This guy
writes nothing but bullshit!!” “Even the news are fake (by the
Illuminati)!”). In regard to “faith in the bible”, a person might, AT THE
SAME TIME, have a very low inquisitiveness (“whatever is written, it’s the
word of God, we cannot doubt it”). Or vice versa; the examples are
arbitrary.
Intraindividuality also refers to stability in time, i.e. e.g., if I am
sceptical about the bible today, I might not be so tomorrow and accept it
whole-heartedly the day after.
Inquisitiveness encompasses the realm of self-criticism, that is, the
ability to question one’s own opinions, experiences, insights etc.
Self-criticism is a ability on a meta-level. The more self-critical a person
is, that is, the stronger his or her (meta-)inquisitiveness, the more that
person will doubt his or her own experience. Probable (inverse) correlations
with self-confidence are not explicitly proposed but not denied either.
Furthermore, this tendency obviously is dependent on capacity. The better a
person is able to integrate information to abstract units, and the more
units a person can keep present in his or her working memory at the same
time, the “deeper” questions the person can ask. Persons with a low capacity
do not “get as far” (I am conscious of the implications; btw, this is not
arrogant, I am trying to be descriptive).
„To non-believe“ would become „rather questioning than believing/doubting
than accepting”, “to believe” would become “rather believing than
questioning/rather accepting than doubting” – nota bene, always in regard to
the topics discussed.
In an average „believer”/“non-believer”-discussion, which topics are these?
Basically, the topics are drawn from the whole spectrum covered by
philosophy: Metaphysics, cosmology, ontology, ethics et cetera.
[I am explicitly excluding epistemology, because imho, it would eventually
lead to nihilism, and we should only run the danger of conjuring it if we
disagree that we CAN have insight into reality. The above attempted
synthesis probably even tries to cut loose the “inquisitiveness” from
epistemology and draw it unto a more behavioural basis. We (I am referring
to “believers” and “non-believers”) are not left with many alternatives, if
we want to have meaningful conversation. Granted, to question
inquisitiveness is impossible without subscribing to it, it is thus a
circular, but imho plausible and pragmatic explanatory model.]
My argument is, that religions give answers in regard to all of these topics
which CAN be further questioned/doubted, while the scientific method
declares questioning to its cardinal virtue and will celebrate it ad
aeternitas. My argument is, that faith ALWAYS falls short of explanation,
ALWAYS judges prematurely.
[Why I would welcome the death of religion – thus, the question of my
opinion’s pragmatic implications – I will discuss at another time, just so
much: IF we want to lead a life as I deem it good, THEN we must communicate;
THE LESS prejudice exist on either side, THE BETTER communication will work;
premature judgement EQUALS prejudice; all in all: religious faith hinders
communication]
Metaphysics/cosmology: Religion: en to archä ho logos, In the beginning was
the word and that means God etc. Amen.
Metaphysics/cosmology: Science: We do not know what was there in the
beginning, but we have certain clues... matter/energy apparently cannot
become more or less... thus, it must have been there all the time... the
universe seems to expand... hmmm, well, we have the hypothesis that etc.
Ontology: Science: Hmm… we have many species that have died out... this
birch-butterfly’s (what the hell I don’t know the English word...) black
mutant’s relative reproductive success correlates with the blackening of
these birches due to soot emitted by these factories... how come?...
evolution, natural selection and such, yes, a good idea for the present...
and apart from evolution, what about abiogenesis?... well, no idea...
coincidence? we don’t know, but we’re working at it...
Ontology: Religion: God created the world in six days. Amen.
Ethics: Religion: We should behave in this way because thus it is written
here in the bible. Amen.
Ethics: Science: We don’t make any normative statements. Make up your own
ethics – we cannot force you to, but from our viewpoint: Take care to make
it as consensual and provisional as our theories are.
So far – thanks for reading, I probably wouldn’t have!
:-D
Any opinions on this?
Björn
---
To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
|
Othello. Thou dost conspire against thy friend, Iago,
If thou but think'st him wrong'd, and mak'st his ear
A stranger to thy thoughts.
|
|
|
Author
Logged
