7 ms·

I'm a person of faith. At the same time, we point out that the religion of "scientism" exists whether people admit it or not, especially when they claim that th

I'm a person of faith. At the same time, we point out that the religion of "scientism" exists whether people admit it or not, especially when they claim that they "believe in science". Correct faith and science are not contradictory. And those people mix up belief in the unseen with blind faith without proof or evidence.

teawrecks 4y ago
I think your view on this is being influenced by the limitations of the language you're using. When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). When a scientist says they "believe" something, it means all evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then the belief should be abandoned. These are two entirely different concepts, but in English we tend to just say "believe". The scientific "belief" is more akin to a mathematical theorem: - if X, then Y - All data indicates X is probably true, so for now I believe Y. - New data indicates X is probably false, so I no longer believe Y. And of course when you're engineering something, it's not that simple because you need contingencies. X may have a 99% chance of being true, but you still need to have a plan for for that 1% case. None of this is something that religion considers whatsoever; with religion, a belief is true and anything contrary to that belief is considered false, even if that thing is a measurement of reality itself. There are still huge swaths of people who believe a person thousands of years ago was immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with reality. But all contrary evidence simply doesn't matter, the "belief" remains. This is the antithesis of science.
- humanrebar 4y ago
  > When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). In practice religious (or spiritual) people are a rather diverse bunch and it's not all that helpful to paint with too broad of a brush. I will point out that in at least Christian theology, "faith" and "trust" are basically synonyms. In the original Greek of the New Testament, it's literally the same word. In that sense, making choices based on trust in God or making decisions based on trust in science are really fairly similar. And quite often they're not contradictory either. For example, both science and scriptures say worrying is bad for you, so someone can try to minimize worry based on faith in science and faith in scripture simultaneously. I'll also point out that a lot of the "scientific" objections to religions boil down to metaphysical disagreements about the nature of observation of the nature of a (notional, at least) deity. I put "scientific" in scare quotes because science itself only makes sense given some assumptions, like the axiom that it's reasonable to assume things do not exist until it's definitely proven they do. That's a valid opinion, but it's not scientific as such. Another common assumption is that a creator and a fossil record (for instance) are somehow incompatible. As if a creator can create the cosmos but a fossil record is a bit much somehow. Anyway, I think folks would find each other more thoughtful and reasonable if they'd take some time to listen more. There are lots of misconceptions in all directions in these discussions.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  Yet your opinion falls in the same criteria on limitations of the language you're confining it to. "believe in science" can mean what you said, i.e "it means all evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then the belief should be abandoned"; however, it was also exemplified during COVID as "You're not allowed to question it no matter what merit you have, no matter how logical and methodical your perspective is and regardless of the content of your argument; science is untouchable". The latter is absolutely a religion, but worse, it is a religion that's masquerading as real science, the former, dictating public policy. Far more dangerous and destructive than your run of the mill religion/faith.
  - dkonofalski 4y ago
    >"You're not allowed to question it no matter what merit you have, no matter how logical and methodical your perspective is and regardless of the content of your argument; science is untouchable" Is this what happened, though? Outside of the politicization of COVID, the majority of the conversation that was anywhere near this was more simply "if you are going to question the people who are providing evidence, you must provide evidence to the contrary". It wasn't that science was untouchable and the change in guidance proves that not only was that not the case but it was shown that science was not untouchable and regularly changed with new information so long as that information was backed by evidence.
    - systemvoltage 4y ago
      Absolutely, here is Stanford Prof that was cancelled. All of his viewpoints were grounded in science, but he was skeptical and simply raising the concerns such as "There is no high quality evidence for masks and we should conduct further studies" (Emphasis mine, he didn't say there was no evidence, just not good enough). Worth watching his interviews on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnbMIOvbjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnbMIOvbjc
      - dkonofalski 4y ago
        That's not how evidence works. He either needs to show evidence that they don't work or he has to show why their evidence is unsatisfactory. Based on that video, he's done neither. Saying "nuh uh, your evidence is bad" is not an argument against the evidence.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  > was immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with reality. All those things are completely consistent with reality. Every year there are virgin births[0] (not immaculate conceptions[1], which is a term specific to the birth of the Virgin Mary herself), water turning into wine[2], and people walking on water[3]. I think what you mean is, the specific details of those miracles, as described in the Bible, have not been observed since, and they would have required a succession of extremely improbable quantum events. No one disagrees with the notion that those events were scientifically unlikely, but unlikely events are still consistent with reality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowshoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowshoe
  - rafaelero 4y ago
    > but unlikely events are still consistent with reality We name people who overly act on this premisse as schizophrenics.
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      Or gamblers, or entrepreneurs. I don't know why you'd single out schizophrenics. Well, actually I do know why, but I still don't think it's a reasonable example for you to highlight.
      - rafaelero 4y ago
        It's a totally different level. Believing a shitty product will make a successful entry on the market does require some level of self-delusion, but nothing like believing a cluster of extremely low probability hypothesis about the world. The closest comparison to that, again, is a schizophrenic.
        4y ago
- al_mandi 4y ago
  > When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). That is not true. As I pointed out, belief in the unseen, with evidence, is very different from believing without evidence. Check out this lecture for a more detailed and nuanced explanation[1]. It details some of the inherent limitations of science. [1] https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM
altruios 4y ago
Tell me how your believe is better than someone else's 'blind faith'? Science is falsifiable - anything pushed forward by science has a way to be disproved built in (other wise it is not science). That's important because then you can update your worldview based on new evidence. For the same to be true of religion - it must be falsifiable: it MUST have a way to disprove itself via experimentation... oh wait... the (Christian version) does... Go do this test: "Kings 18:20-40": When you've soaked your bull in water and it doesn't magical catch fire by praying... I'll be waiting. (Or I'll be waiting video proof of the Christian god - that should be repeatable by many people... right?) MAKE THE BULL CATCH FIRE WITH YOUR PRAYERS OR GTFO WITH YOUR NONSENSE
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  Just because that prayer lead to a miracle in the past, doesn't mean you can demand that God grants the same miracle again in different circumstances. That's trying to treat God as something like an appliance rather than an agent, and even an appliance would have instructions for when it would work. If I may reverse the burden of proof, and be equally unreasonable, let me say that if you think that there is no afterlife, then you should go kill yourself. You're going to die at some point anyway, and this way you'll get your answer right away. It's a 100% falsifiable position, but unfortunately very few people who have done the necessary experiment have been able to communicate their findings to the scientific community afterwards.
  - dkonofalski 4y ago
    >Just because that prayer lead to a miracle in the past, doesn't mean you can demand that God grants the same miracle again in different circumstances. Why not? If a god has shown that they can intervene in the physical world we live in, why shouldn't we be able to test that?
    - al_mandi 4y ago
      God does not obey your or anyone else's whim. The Quran says: > He cannot be questioned about what He does, but they will ˹all˺ be questioned. -- https://quran.com/21/23 https://quran.com/21/23 I posted this lecture in another post, it's a good starting point: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM

teawrecks 4y ago

I think your view on this is being influenced by the limitations of the language you're using. When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). When a scientist says they "believe" something, it means all evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then the belief should be abandoned. These are two entirely different concepts, but in English we tend to just say "believe". The scientific "belief" is more akin to a mathematical theorem: - if X, then Y - All data indicates X is probably true, so for now I believe Y. - New data indicates X is probably false, so I no longer believe Y. And of course when you're engineering something, it's not that simple because you need contingencies. X may have a 99% chance of being true, but you still need to have a plan for for that 1% case. None of this is something that religion considers whatsoever; with religion, a belief is true and anything contrary to that belief is considered false, even if that thing is a measurement of reality itself. There are still huge swaths of people who believe a person thousands of years ago was immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with reality. But all contrary evidence simply doesn't matter, the "belief" remains. This is the antithesis of science.

humanrebar 4y ago
> When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). In practice religious (or spiritual) people are a rather diverse bunch and it's not all that helpful to paint with too broad of a brush. I will point out that in at least Christian theology, "faith" and "trust" are basically synonyms. In the original Greek of the New Testament, it's literally the same word. In that sense, making choices based on trust in God or making decisions based on trust in science are really fairly similar. And quite often they're not contradictory either. For example, both science and scriptures say worrying is bad for you, so someone can try to minimize worry based on faith in science and faith in scripture simultaneously. I'll also point out that a lot of the "scientific" objections to religions boil down to metaphysical disagreements about the nature of observation of the nature of a (notional, at least) deity. I put "scientific" in scare quotes because science itself only makes sense given some assumptions, like the axiom that it's reasonable to assume things do not exist until it's definitely proven they do. That's a valid opinion, but it's not scientific as such. Another common assumption is that a creator and a fossil record (for instance) are somehow incompatible. As if a creator can create the cosmos but a fossil record is a bit much somehow. Anyway, I think folks would find each other more thoughtful and reasonable if they'd take some time to listen more. There are lots of misconceptions in all directions in these discussions.
systemvoltage 4y ago
Yet your opinion falls in the same criteria on limitations of the language you're confining it to. "believe in science" can mean what you said, i.e "it means all evidence gathered so far indicates that it is true, but if more data comes in and a different conclusion is drawn, then the belief should be abandoned"; however, it was also exemplified during COVID as "You're not allowed to question it no matter what merit you have, no matter how logical and methodical your perspective is and regardless of the content of your argument; science is untouchable". The latter is absolutely a religion, but worse, it is a religion that's masquerading as real science, the former, dictating public policy. Far more dangerous and destructive than your run of the mill religion/faith.
- dkonofalski 4y ago
  >"You're not allowed to question it no matter what merit you have, no matter how logical and methodical your perspective is and regardless of the content of your argument; science is untouchable" Is this what happened, though? Outside of the politicization of COVID, the majority of the conversation that was anywhere near this was more simply "if you are going to question the people who are providing evidence, you must provide evidence to the contrary". It wasn't that science was untouchable and the change in guidance proves that not only was that not the case but it was shown that science was not untouchable and regularly changed with new information so long as that information was backed by evidence.
  - systemvoltage 4y ago
    Absolutely, here is Stanford Prof that was cancelled. All of his viewpoints were grounded in science, but he was skeptical and simply raising the concerns such as "There is no high quality evidence for masks and we should conduct further studies" (Emphasis mine, he didn't say there was no evidence, just not good enough). Worth watching his interviews on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnbMIOvbjc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpnbMIOvbjc
    - dkonofalski 4y ago
      That's not how evidence works. He either needs to show evidence that they don't work or he has to show why their evidence is unsatisfactory. Based on that video, he's done neither. Saying "nuh uh, your evidence is bad" is not an argument against the evidence.
dane-pgp 4y ago
> was immaculately conceived, walked on water, turned water into wine, all things that you and I know are inconsistent with reality. All those things are completely consistent with reality. Every year there are virgin births[0] (not immaculate conceptions[1], which is a term specific to the birth of the Virgin Mary herself), water turning into wine[2], and people walking on water[3]. I think what you mean is, the specific details of those miracles, as described in the Bible, have not been observed since, and they would have required a succession of extremely improbable quantum events. No one disagrees with the notion that those events were scientifically unlikely, but unlikely events are still consistent with reality. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenogenesis [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrigation [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowshoe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowshoe
- rafaelero 4y ago
  > but unlikely events are still consistent with reality We name people who overly act on this premisse as schizophrenics.
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    Or gamblers, or entrepreneurs. I don't know why you'd single out schizophrenics. Well, actually I do know why, but I still don't think it's a reasonable example for you to highlight.
    - rafaelero 4y ago
      It's a totally different level. Believing a shitty product will make a successful entry on the market does require some level of self-delusion, but nothing like believing a cluster of extremely low probability hypothesis about the world. The closest comparison to that, again, is a schizophrenic.
      - 4y ago
al_mandi 4y ago
> When a religious person says they "believe" something, it means they operate as if it were true even though they have no evidence to indicate it as such (a.k.a. the god of the gaps). That is not true. As I pointed out, belief in the unseen, with evidence, is very different from believing without evidence. Check out this lecture for a more detailed and nuanced explanation[1]. It details some of the inherent limitations of science. [1] https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM

altruios 4y ago

Tell me how your believe is better than someone else's 'blind faith'? Science is falsifiable - anything pushed forward by science has a way to be disproved built in (other wise it is not science). That's important because then you can update your worldview based on new evidence. For the same to be true of religion - it must be falsifiable: it MUST have a way to disprove itself via experimentation... oh wait... the (Christian version) does... Go do this test: "Kings 18:20-40": When you've soaked your bull in water and it doesn't magical catch fire by praying... I'll be waiting. (Or I'll be waiting video proof of the Christian god - that should be repeatable by many people... right?) MAKE THE BULL CATCH FIRE WITH YOUR PRAYERS OR GTFO WITH YOUR NONSENSE

dane-pgp 4y ago
Just because that prayer lead to a miracle in the past, doesn't mean you can demand that God grants the same miracle again in different circumstances. That's trying to treat God as something like an appliance rather than an agent, and even an appliance would have instructions for when it would work. If I may reverse the burden of proof, and be equally unreasonable, let me say that if you think that there is no afterlife, then you should go kill yourself. You're going to die at some point anyway, and this way you'll get your answer right away. It's a 100% falsifiable position, but unfortunately very few people who have done the necessary experiment have been able to communicate their findings to the scientific community afterwards.
- dkonofalski 4y ago
  >Just because that prayer lead to a miracle in the past, doesn't mean you can demand that God grants the same miracle again in different circumstances. Why not? If a god has shown that they can intervene in the physical world we live in, why shouldn't we be able to test that?
  - al_mandi 4y ago
    God does not obey your or anyone else's whim. The Quran says: > He cannot be questioned about what He does, but they will ˹all˺ be questioned. -- https://quran.com/21/23 https://quran.com/21/23 I posted this lecture in another post, it's a good starting point: https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM https://youtu.be/If3cNUixEBM