7 ms·

I'm not sure we're disagreeing here, and also don't see how it depends. Religion and science do overlap, but their underlying frameworks are like yin and yang.

by proc0 5y ago

I'm not sure we're disagreeing here, and also don't see how it depends. Religion and science do overlap, but their underlying frameworks are like yin and yang. One is about faith, and the other is about doubt. Without doubt, there is no need to test something, as you already have the answer. Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting. They do overlap, and the overlap is not perfectly clear, so I can see how some can get confused and think there is science that you cannot doubt, but this is false. As far as gramma loving you, I think you can doubt that... and you can test it, right? You can test people's love, and you can collect results over time and then derive conclusions. Maybe the nature of love itself is untestable, and therefore has no framework on which to be doubted, so the nature of love itself might be of a religious nature and it then becomes about faith.

skissane 5y ago
> Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting Here you are giving a definition of "faith" which many religious people would disagree with. Faith is compatible with doubt, and I don't think "absence of doubt" is a very good definition of "faith". You can't doubt everything. At some point you have to just accept that some doubts are not worth entertaining, at least not for you. Philosophers produce all kinds of doubts–e.g. doubting whether other minds exist, doubting that I am just a brain in a vat (or a Boltzmann brain), or that this universe is actually a computer simulation, or that we are being actively deceived by superintelligent aliens who find deception entertaining (I actually read that example in a philosophy book recently, although obviously it is just a slight updating of Descartes' malin génie). Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Scientists also choose to ignore doubts about theories that are outside their area of professional expertise – maybe some mainstream theory in astrophysics is completely wrong, and the fringe voices saying it is wrong are actually right, but if you are a biologist, that's completely outside your field of expertise, so it isn't worth your while to even consider the question. And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true. Many religious leaders will say that's not a sin at all, just one of the trials of this life. (Of course, are others who say doubting is a sin – I think that's a pretty sure sign that one is in a harmful group and one ought to get out.) But, on the other hand, if someone doesn't experience doubt about some religious idea in which they believe, and they choose to disregard those doubts when expressed by others, how is what they are doing fundamentally different from the doubt-ignoring scientists I mentioned above?
- proc0 5y ago
  > Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Right, I didn't say all scientists do is doubt. Science can always be doubted, and more importantly, if some concept or idea makes itself immune to doubt, it is not science. Example: doubting Newton's laws of gravity may have seemed to be a worthless effort (because you can test it and get the same results), however Einstein has proven otherwise, and there's no reason to think General Relativity is beyond doubt. Anyone can doubt anything in science, but of course you have to back it up with something that is testable and then prove it. > And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true Yes it's possible to doubt a religion, but to that extent, you are not part of it. Christians cannot be doubting Jesus as the Son of God, unless you're not a Christian. Same goes with Islam and Mohammad. You can create your own branch of a religion, and set your own rules, but the core of each religion is based on faith, which means you can't question it, you have to follow. That's the point of religion, to believe. I think you're using "doubt" to mean not being sure of the meaning of something, which is different than doubting the validity or the veracity of something. So I can doubt the meaning of a Bible passage, but I cannot doubt the existence of God, unless I'm not part of that religion. Science must allow doubt in regards to its own validity, because it validates itself through tests which must yield the same result. Religion/faith must NOT allow doubt in its teachings because doing so would mean it is not true (because there is no way to test it).
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Yes it's possible to doubt a religion, but to that extent, you are not part of it. Christians cannot be doubting Jesus as the Son of God, unless you're not a Christian. Not all Christians would agree with you there. Here is an article on the topic of doubt from a Catholic viewpoint – https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/is-it-a-sin-to-doubt-gods-existence/5621/ https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/is-it-a-sin-to-dou... – it definitely presents the Catholic point of view as being that it is possible to doubt God's existence yet still be a Christian. And Pope Francis has said some rather positive things about doubt as well – https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/pope-francis-says-doubt-key-life-faith/ https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/pope-francis-says-doubt-... – which don't seem compatible with your idea that you can't doubt Christianity's doctrines if you are a Christian > I think you're using "doubt" to mean not being sure of the meaning of something, which is different than doubting the validity or the veracity of something. So I can doubt the meaning of a Bible passage, but I cannot doubt the existence of God, unless I'm not part of that religion. No, I mean doubt in the sense of seriously grappling with the possibility that it might not be true. Which is definitely one of the senses in which the first article I cited understands the term. When the then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus) said "Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt", he wasn't talking about doubt in the sense of "not being sure of the meaning of something", he was talking about doubt in the sense of "doubting the validity or the veracity of something" > Religion/faith must NOT allow doubt in its teachings because doing so would mean it is not true (because there is no way to test it). Philosophers of religion have a decades-old rejoinder to the claim that religion is untestable – there is an easy test to perform, all you have to die. According to many competing religious accounts, you find out which (if any) religion is true soon after death. Whereas, if none of them are true, you may find out nothing at all, for there will no longer be any you to find anything out. And death is an experiment we are all destined to perform, sooner or later, whether we wish to or not.

by proc0 5y ago

skissane 5y ago

> Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting Here you are giving a definition of "faith" which many religious people would disagree with. Faith is compatible with doubt, and I don't think "absence of doubt" is a very good definition of "faith". You can't doubt everything. At some point you have to just accept that some doubts are not worth entertaining, at least not for you. Philosophers produce all kinds of doubts–e.g. doubting whether other minds exist, doubting that I am just a brain in a vat (or a Boltzmann brain), or that this universe is actually a computer simulation, or that we are being actively deceived by superintelligent aliens who find deception entertaining (I actually read that example in a philosophy book recently, although obviously it is just a slight updating of Descartes' malin génie). Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Scientists also choose to ignore doubts about theories that are outside their area of professional expertise – maybe some mainstream theory in astrophysics is completely wrong, and the fringe voices saying it is wrong are actually right, but if you are a biologist, that's completely outside your field of expertise, so it isn't worth your while to even consider the question. And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true. Many religious leaders will say that's not a sin at all, just one of the trials of this life. (Of course, are others who say doubting is a sin – I think that's a pretty sure sign that one is in a harmful group and one ought to get out.) But, on the other hand, if someone doesn't experience doubt about some religious idea in which they believe, and they choose to disregard those doubts when expressed by others, how is what they are doing fundamentally different from the doubt-ignoring scientists I mentioned above?

proc0 5y ago
> Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Right, I didn't say all scientists do is doubt. Science can always be doubted, and more importantly, if some concept or idea makes itself immune to doubt, it is not science. Example: doubting Newton's laws of gravity may have seemed to be a worthless effort (because you can test it and get the same results), however Einstein has proven otherwise, and there's no reason to think General Relativity is beyond doubt. Anyone can doubt anything in science, but of course you have to back it up with something that is testable and then prove it. > And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true Yes it's possible to doubt a religion, but to that extent, you are not part of it. Christians cannot be doubting Jesus as the Son of God, unless you're not a Christian. Same goes with Islam and Mohammad. You can create your own branch of a religion, and set your own rules, but the core of each religion is based on faith, which means you can't question it, you have to follow. That's the point of religion, to believe. I think you're using "doubt" to mean not being sure of the meaning of something, which is different than doubting the validity or the veracity of something. So I can doubt the meaning of a Bible passage, but I cannot doubt the existence of God, unless I'm not part of that religion. Science must allow doubt in regards to its own validity, because it validates itself through tests which must yield the same result. Religion/faith must NOT allow doubt in its teachings because doing so would mean it is not true (because there is no way to test it).
- skissane 5y ago
  > Yes it's possible to doubt a religion, but to that extent, you are not part of it. Christians cannot be doubting Jesus as the Son of God, unless you're not a Christian. Not all Christians would agree with you there. Here is an article on the topic of doubt from a Catholic viewpoint – https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/is-it-a-sin-to-doubt-gods-existence/5621/ https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/is-it-a-sin-to-dou... – it definitely presents the Catholic point of view as being that it is possible to doubt God's existence yet still be a Christian. And Pope Francis has said some rather positive things about doubt as well – https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/pope-francis-says-doubt-key-life-faith/ https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2016/11/pope-francis-says-doubt-... – which don't seem compatible with your idea that you can't doubt Christianity's doctrines if you are a Christian > I think you're using "doubt" to mean not being sure of the meaning of something, which is different than doubting the validity or the veracity of something. So I can doubt the meaning of a Bible passage, but I cannot doubt the existence of God, unless I'm not part of that religion. No, I mean doubt in the sense of seriously grappling with the possibility that it might not be true. Which is definitely one of the senses in which the first article I cited understands the term. When the then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus) said "Both the believer and the unbeliever share, each in his own way, doubt and belief if they do not hide from themselves and from the truth of their being. Neither can quite escape either doubt or belief; for the one, faith is present against doubt; for the other, through doubt and in the form of doubt", he wasn't talking about doubt in the sense of "not being sure of the meaning of something", he was talking about doubt in the sense of "doubting the validity or the veracity of something" > Religion/faith must NOT allow doubt in its teachings because doing so would mean it is not true (because there is no way to test it). Philosophers of religion have a decades-old rejoinder to the claim that religion is untestable – there is an easy test to perform, all you have to die. According to many competing religious accounts, you find out which (if any) religion is true soon after death. Whereas, if none of them are true, you may find out nothing at all, for there will no longer be any you to find anything out. And death is an experiment we are all destined to perform, sooner or later, whether we wish to or not.