3 ms·

There is a natural drive to faith: We can't know everything, so we think we have to take some things on faith. The point being that most religions try to foste

There is a natural drive to faith: We can't know everything, so we think we have to take some things on faith. The point being that most religions try to foster faith. It's often a central mantra that faith is good. This unfortunately trains people to stop asking questions. On the other hand, the scientific approach tries to manage how we deal with things we don't know for certain. We believe in things more because we have more evidence for it. Without trusting them 100%.

aaron-lebo 10y ago
Of course, but many things try and foster faith - companies do it, nations do it, people do it. Most people whether they are religious or not aren't applying the scientific method to their daily lives. You can't blame that - biases are easy and trying to be objective is a pain in the ass.
- TeMPOraL 10y ago
  I think most people are smarter than this discussion is saying they are - it's just they don't optimize for the things we implicitly assume here. They don't optimize for the truth value of their beliefs, but for their direct usefulness in life. Most of the scientific facts don't have a direct impact on your life, so you don't get rewarded for getting things right, nor you get punished for getting them wrong. Different criteria thus become more relevant. How a belief fits your image of yourself? How does it help you strengthen your ties to the groups you're in? How it positions you against the groups you dislike? Note that in situations when getting things right has direct impact on one's life - like, when it comes to money or job - people suddenly become very rational.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    This doesn't add much to what you are saying, but I very much agree.
wbillingsley 10y ago
Oddly, in practice it's the other way around. The vast vast majority of the population, for example, is in no position to question the LHC result identifying the Higgs boson. Unless you have a cool billion dollars or so to build your own collider, you are essentially in the position that an expert has told you so, and some other experts said they agree with them (peer review). So therefore believe what you are told. And whenever people do question scientific results, without the expensive equipment and basing their entire career around becoming employed as a scientist, we tend to call them cranks. With most religious positions (eg, what is the biblical view on X), you've probably got three copies of different translations lying around the house, and have every means and encouragement to do your own questioning, argument, and interpretation. In terms of the actual practice of questioning, interpreting evidence, and weighing up a decision on an open question where there are differing views -- most people have vastly more experience and engagement of doing that with religion than with science.

aaron-lebo 10y ago

Of course, but many things try and foster faith - companies do it, nations do it, people do it. Most people whether they are religious or not aren't applying the scientific method to their daily lives. You can't blame that - biases are easy and trying to be objective is a pain in the ass.

TeMPOraL 10y ago
I think most people are smarter than this discussion is saying they are - it's just they don't optimize for the things we implicitly assume here. They don't optimize for the truth value of their beliefs, but for their direct usefulness in life. Most of the scientific facts don't have a direct impact on your life, so you don't get rewarded for getting things right, nor you get punished for getting them wrong. Different criteria thus become more relevant. How a belief fits your image of yourself? How does it help you strengthen your ties to the groups you're in? How it positions you against the groups you dislike? Note that in situations when getting things right has direct impact on one's life - like, when it comes to money or job - people suddenly become very rational.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  This doesn't add much to what you are saying, but I very much agree.

wbillingsley 10y ago

Oddly, in practice it's the other way around. The vast vast majority of the population, for example, is in no position to question the LHC result identifying the Higgs boson. Unless you have a cool billion dollars or so to build your own collider, you are essentially in the position that an expert has told you so, and some other experts said they agree with them (peer review). So therefore believe what you are told. And whenever people do question scientific results, without the expensive equipment and basing their entire career around becoming employed as a scientist, we tend to call them cranks. With most religious positions (eg, what is the biblical view on X), you've probably got three copies of different translations lying around the house, and have every means and encouragement to do your own questioning, argument, and interpretation. In terms of the actual practice of questioning, interpreting evidence, and weighing up a decision on an open question where there are differing views -- most people have vastly more experience and engagement of doing that with religion than with science.