3 ms·

This is something I often think about. What is the difference between me, accepting some scientific theories as fact, even though I have no physical means of te

This is something I often think about. What is the difference between me, accepting some scientific theories as fact, even though I have no physical means of testing all of them myself, and someone deeply religious who chooses to believe in some higher spiritual ideas? There are things I can be reasonably sure of, maybe because I see what the theory behind it says and predicts, and it agrees with what actually happens in real life, yet there are also things that I just have to take for granted (and I guess hope that the other knowledgeable people alive will make sure it's actually correct).

em-bee 7y ago
interestingly i just had this discussion a few weeks ago. contrasting belief in scientific "facts"/theories vs belief in religious claims. in the end both depend on the absence of evidence contradicting the claims. but that also means that science and religion can co-exist if they do not contradict each other. we should accept on either side that anything with contradictory evidence can obviously not be true, and stop to pit one side against the other. any contradictions we find on either side are a sign of misinterpretation of either the scientific evidence or of the religious claims. and on both sides we then need to make an effort to find a better interpretation. i believe that doing that is possible. even if we remove everything from religions that contradicts current scientific theories there is still a whole lot left for a spiritual belief.
Retric 7y ago
The difference is you get to choose what to verify. Science says you can use electricity to turn water into oxygen and hydrogen and then burn them to get water again. It further says what the flame will look like and how much heat it will produce etc etc. Now, if any of that seems unlikely it’s fairly cheap to verify, if something else bothers you then verify that. Sure, verification of every idea is impossible, but pick a few at random and that should logically give you more confidence in the others. On the other hand with matters of faith you can’t verify any of it. Which should then give you some pause.
- gavePause 7y ago
  And so, you idle for a moment, granting precisely that obligatory pause to the void of uncertainty. And then what? Nothing is gained in the pause. Or at least not very much. Sure, you rinse off some of the tedious superstition and boil away a little bargaining and gambler's luck. But then? You still come up empty handed, robbed of answers to serious questions. Why must I ride along, railroaded into this role as singleton pilot of such a lowly meatbag, less than a dust speck, bound tidally to barely a pebble swirling in the limitless void? Granted no memory of a world prior to my birth, and all this experience doomed to be forgotten at the moment of my death. Seemingly a brief gap of awareness illuminating some strange landscape trapped between bookends of pitch black eternal nothingness, suspended without gravity in yet more nothingness. So, matters of faith, you say? Faith indeed. Then why continue the charade of this deception? If this world insists on denying me any rightful understanding of this predicament, the only rational action might just be to shun this life forced upon me. Find a quick exit and escape the cosmic unfairness of such a nightmare.
- nefitty 7y ago
  This is a great way to frame the counterargument. I'm wary of the comparison between religious faith and scientific belief because it seems to sometimes trigger a cascade of irrational beliefs if it goes the wrong way.
- em-bee 7y ago
  religion largely claims to make your life better by teaching you how to interact with each other. it uses believe and fear of an unprovable entity to do that, sure. but you can verify if it does make your and everyone elses life better or not. those that claim to be messengers of god should be recognized by their fruits, that is, by the effect they have on society.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
mikekchar 7y ago
The difference is usefulness. Scientific models are based on observed behaviour. The model tries to predict the behaviour. If it gets the prediction wrong, then it's not a good model to be using in that situation (but we might still use it in other situations where it does make good predictions). Whether you believe in the model or not is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not you can use the model to achieve some goal. Religious people often asks me if I only believe in things that I can prove. I reply that I can prove nothing other than my own existence, and I can't even prove the nature of that existence. I accept things that are useful to me and abandon them when they are no longer useful. I may later come back to accept them if they return to being useful (as they are likely to do). Like most other people in the world, I believe in lots of things. Life is pretty uncomfortable without belief. I don't happen to believe in the things that major religions believe in, but I don't see it as a problem. Believing something, or not believing something is neither here nor there. I am 100% OK with the idea that my beliefs may be wrong. In fact, I rather suspect they are. Why should that worry me? How important is our belief of something vs the acceptance of something that appears to work? Are we invested in the unknowable truth? Does it matter to us if we are wrong? I feel that it's the importance we assign to being right in our beliefs that defines our religions.

em-bee 7y ago

interestingly i just had this discussion a few weeks ago. contrasting belief in scientific "facts"/theories vs belief in religious claims. in the end both depend on the absence of evidence contradicting the claims. but that also means that science and religion can co-exist if they do not contradict each other. we should accept on either side that anything with contradictory evidence can obviously not be true, and stop to pit one side against the other. any contradictions we find on either side are a sign of misinterpretation of either the scientific evidence or of the religious claims. and on both sides we then need to make an effort to find a better interpretation. i believe that doing that is possible. even if we remove everything from religions that contradicts current scientific theories there is still a whole lot left for a spiritual belief.

Retric 7y ago

The difference is you get to choose what to verify. Science says you can use electricity to turn water into oxygen and hydrogen and then burn them to get water again. It further says what the flame will look like and how much heat it will produce etc etc. Now, if any of that seems unlikely it’s fairly cheap to verify, if something else bothers you then verify that. Sure, verification of every idea is impossible, but pick a few at random and that should logically give you more confidence in the others. On the other hand with matters of faith you can’t verify any of it. Which should then give you some pause.

gavePause 7y ago
And so, you idle for a moment, granting precisely that obligatory pause to the void of uncertainty. And then what? Nothing is gained in the pause. Or at least not very much. Sure, you rinse off some of the tedious superstition and boil away a little bargaining and gambler's luck. But then? You still come up empty handed, robbed of answers to serious questions. Why must I ride along, railroaded into this role as singleton pilot of such a lowly meatbag, less than a dust speck, bound tidally to barely a pebble swirling in the limitless void? Granted no memory of a world prior to my birth, and all this experience doomed to be forgotten at the moment of my death. Seemingly a brief gap of awareness illuminating some strange landscape trapped between bookends of pitch black eternal nothingness, suspended without gravity in yet more nothingness. So, matters of faith, you say? Faith indeed. Then why continue the charade of this deception? If this world insists on denying me any rightful understanding of this predicament, the only rational action might just be to shun this life forced upon me. Find a quick exit and escape the cosmic unfairness of such a nightmare.
nefitty 7y ago
This is a great way to frame the counterargument. I'm wary of the comparison between religious faith and scientific belief because it seems to sometimes trigger a cascade of irrational beliefs if it goes the wrong way.
em-bee 7y ago
religion largely claims to make your life better by teaching you how to interact with each other. it uses believe and fear of an unprovable entity to do that, sure. but you can verify if it does make your and everyone elses life better or not. those that claim to be messengers of god should be recognized by their fruits, that is, by the effect they have on society.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

mikekchar 7y ago

The difference is usefulness. Scientific models are based on observed behaviour. The model tries to predict the behaviour. If it gets the prediction wrong, then it's not a good model to be using in that situation (but we might still use it in other situations where it does make good predictions). Whether you believe in the model or not is completely irrelevant. What matters is whether or not you can use the model to achieve some goal. Religious people often asks me if I only believe in things that I can prove. I reply that I can prove nothing other than my own existence, and I can't even prove the nature of that existence. I accept things that are useful to me and abandon them when they are no longer useful. I may later come back to accept them if they return to being useful (as they are likely to do). Like most other people in the world, I believe in lots of things. Life is pretty uncomfortable without belief. I don't happen to believe in the things that major religions believe in, but I don't see it as a problem. Believing something, or not believing something is neither here nor there. I am 100% OK with the idea that my beliefs may be wrong. In fact, I rather suspect they are. Why should that worry me? How important is our belief of something vs the acceptance of something that appears to work? Are we invested in the unknowable truth? Does it matter to us if we are wrong? I feel that it's the importance we assign to being right in our beliefs that defines our religions.