6 ms·

> 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,

by 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.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Thinking of death as an experiment is a fascinating one. It reminds me of the QM measurement problem: “The act of observing disturbs the observed” The nature of the universe is one in which some information transfers always effects the entropy state of the entire system.
  - proc0 5y ago
    Calling death an experiment is a stretch, because you can't obtain results back from it. And good luck "running" this experiment on others lol.
  - skissane 5y ago
    Some physicists have proposed death as an experiment – the quantum suicide thought experiment – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit... Actually, quantum immortality theory is interesting as a non-religious afterlife claim. And Hugh Everett, the originator of the many worlds interpretation, apparently privately believed (had faith?) in quantum immortality, and privately discussed quantum suicide, although he never published on either of those topics.
- proc0 5y ago
  Ok, interesting that you interpret those articles that way. I'm reading something completely different, and those two links support my perspective. It seems we are now in the semantics of doubt territory... we're trying to pin down what we mean by doubt. To clarify, it's ok we're now discussing the semantics of doubt, it is relevant to the bigger discussion. Both links are talking about doubt as something to at least not lean into, from the perspective of religion and faith. Doubt is there, and you can even appreciate it, but the appreciation of it is to strengthen your faith. > "So, doubt in the absolute sense is bad. But doubt in the form of a temptation is—like any temptation we experience passively—not a sin." So the first article is definitely talking about doubt in the sense of "not being sure of the meaning of something". I didn't say there is absolutely no doubt in religion, my point was it is not the goal of religion to be doubting. It is not part of its CORE, it is not "absolute doubt". You can have absolute doubt in science without problem (of course you just have to prove it). This same point arises in the second article: > "The key, he said, is to see those doubts as a call to deepen one’s faith either through study or through seeking the guidance of another believer." Absolute doubt will not deepen your faith... "doubting the validity or the veracity of something" will not deepen your faith. The pope is clear here, he is seeing the glass half-full of doubt. He means doubting as in not being sure, not as in trying to prove it wrong. He even adds another warning: > "When faith is seen mainly as “an abstract theory,” he said, “doubts multiply.” Abstract theory is basically science. He is making my point. Science is about multiplying doubt, faith is about reducing it. Both articles are saying this from my understanding. > there is an easy test to perform, all you have to die How is that a test? Again, a bit of semantics here, "test" I refer to as something being done by science--a scientific experiment/test. You can't just call anything a test, especially if you have no access to the results! Death is not a test for the living, and science deals with the world of the living. Call it "religious test" if you want, but I was using the word to mean checking something, for which being alive is absolutely necessary.
gher-shyu3i 5y ago
The problem is that secular/atheist people group all religions into the same bucket without any nuance, and without understanding what the religion actually says. Case in point, Islam contradicts what you're positing: [1] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:64 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:64 [2] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:76 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:76
- proc0 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with Quran passages (it's on my list though). Reading those doesn't clearly tell me how the core of Islam allows doubt... so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? (btw, I commented in a different thread, under the same parent comment if you want details, but I'm not saying religions are free of doubt, I'm saying the core of a religion is faith, and absolute certainty of some kind).
  - gher-shyu3i 5y ago
    What I quoted was Hadith, not Quran. The Quran is the literal word of God. Hadiths are narrations of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him. Both are used in Islamic Jurisprudence for deducing rules, as well as for other matters. You'll have to explain what you mean by "the core of Islam allows doubt", what "core" are you referring to here? We take our religion from the Quran and Hadith, and I have quoted just two Hadiths that I recall off the top of my head regarding the issue of doubt, and how it is not sinful, nor automatically looked down upon. Here's one quotation from the Quran: https://quran.com/33/10 https://quran.com/33/10 > so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? You'll have to explain exactly what you mean by doubt. A Muslim accepts that Muhammad Peace be upon him is God's final messenger. If doubts happen to cross said Muslim's mind, he's still a Muslim as per the Hadith. This is different from what I feel you're implying in that the person actively tries to take down the Islamic narrative in a way that the enemies of Islam do. The logic is this way: someone accepts Islam because he did his due diligence and was convinced. It's not logical to start doubting everything again from scratch - it means he did not build up a proper foundation to begin with.

by proc0 5y ago

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.

mensetmanusman 5y ago
Thinking of death as an experiment is a fascinating one. It reminds me of the QM measurement problem: “The act of observing disturbs the observed” The nature of the universe is one in which some information transfers always effects the entropy state of the entire system.
- proc0 5y ago
  Calling death an experiment is a stretch, because you can't obtain results back from it. And good luck "running" this experiment on others lol.
- skissane 5y ago
  Some physicists have proposed death as an experiment – the quantum suicide thought experiment – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit... Actually, quantum immortality theory is interesting as a non-religious afterlife claim. And Hugh Everett, the originator of the many worlds interpretation, apparently privately believed (had faith?) in quantum immortality, and privately discussed quantum suicide, although he never published on either of those topics.
proc0 5y ago
Ok, interesting that you interpret those articles that way. I'm reading something completely different, and those two links support my perspective. It seems we are now in the semantics of doubt territory... we're trying to pin down what we mean by doubt. To clarify, it's ok we're now discussing the semantics of doubt, it is relevant to the bigger discussion. Both links are talking about doubt as something to at least not lean into, from the perspective of religion and faith. Doubt is there, and you can even appreciate it, but the appreciation of it is to strengthen your faith. > "So, doubt in the absolute sense is bad. But doubt in the form of a temptation is—like any temptation we experience passively—not a sin." So the first article is definitely talking about doubt in the sense of "not being sure of the meaning of something". I didn't say there is absolutely no doubt in religion, my point was it is not the goal of religion to be doubting. It is not part of its CORE, it is not "absolute doubt". You can have absolute doubt in science without problem (of course you just have to prove it). This same point arises in the second article: > "The key, he said, is to see those doubts as a call to deepen one’s faith either through study or through seeking the guidance of another believer." Absolute doubt will not deepen your faith... "doubting the validity or the veracity of something" will not deepen your faith. The pope is clear here, he is seeing the glass half-full of doubt. He means doubting as in not being sure, not as in trying to prove it wrong. He even adds another warning: > "When faith is seen mainly as “an abstract theory,” he said, “doubts multiply.” Abstract theory is basically science. He is making my point. Science is about multiplying doubt, faith is about reducing it. Both articles are saying this from my understanding. > there is an easy test to perform, all you have to die How is that a test? Again, a bit of semantics here, "test" I refer to as something being done by science--a scientific experiment/test. You can't just call anything a test, especially if you have no access to the results! Death is not a test for the living, and science deals with the world of the living. Call it "religious test" if you want, but I was using the word to mean checking something, for which being alive is absolutely necessary.

gher-shyu3i 5y ago

The problem is that secular/atheist people group all religions into the same bucket without any nuance, and without understanding what the religion actually says. Case in point, Islam contradicts what you're positing: [1] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:64 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:64 [2] https://sunnah.com/mishkat:76 https://sunnah.com/mishkat:76

proc0 5y ago
I'm not familiar with Quran passages (it's on my list though). Reading those doesn't clearly tell me how the core of Islam allows doubt... so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? (btw, I commented in a different thread, under the same parent comment if you want details, but I'm not saying religions are free of doubt, I'm saying the core of a religion is faith, and absolute certainty of some kind).
- gher-shyu3i 5y ago
  What I quoted was Hadith, not Quran. The Quran is the literal word of God. Hadiths are narrations of Prophet Muhammad Peace be upon him. Both are used in Islamic Jurisprudence for deducing rules, as well as for other matters. You'll have to explain what you mean by "the core of Islam allows doubt", what "core" are you referring to here? We take our religion from the Quran and Hadith, and I have quoted just two Hadiths that I recall off the top of my head regarding the issue of doubt, and how it is not sinful, nor automatically looked down upon. Here's one quotation from the Quran: https://quran.com/33/10 https://quran.com/33/10 > so I'll ask this, are you saying that it's ok for Muslims to doubt Mohammad as the prophet? You'll have to explain exactly what you mean by doubt. A Muslim accepts that Muhammad Peace be upon him is God's final messenger. If doubts happen to cross said Muslim's mind, he's still a Muslim as per the Hadith. This is different from what I feel you're implying in that the person actively tries to take down the Islamic narrative in a way that the enemies of Islam do. The logic is this way: someone accepts Islam because he did his due diligence and was convinced. It's not logical to start doubting everything again from scratch - it means he did not build up a proper foundation to begin with.