"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Revalatory Nature of Faith?"

[Metonym]

Morals as such, ephemeral but social functioning human action and concept (not in the philosophical sense) is socialized from within the family and the first experiences of human interaction, and furthermore, pro social behaviors are genetically programmed into us as basic interpersonal models/schemata and feeds from the emotional entanglement with the people close to us and other humans in general. However to generalize further to the human community and to appreciate the causal implications of purpose and intent, and ignorance by lack of understanding or indoctrination and false a priori concept of the world is where the debate should begin and the unexplainable and un -relentless framework of "das ding an sich" or stochastic processes.

Science and religion is both axiomatic belief systems and the latter is tailored not after how the world appear to us but rather how we appear to the world. An internal world view that is explained in and deliberatively robed in a anthromophic world where the creator is a man. This is basic since religion creates models of the world that is far more arbitrarily derived (by definition) than the scientifically deductive and inductive causal explanations and understanding that is the current of western thought.

Granted religion could easily work as sub system to science but the psychologically burden that reveals it as too subjective is however also its biggest strength and in fact is very rooted and based on human values as it constitutes and at its best animates our social being that is a testament to the human situated word faith. Religion is also subject to a far reaching historian project of Authority and control and the Meta language of religion is (and above all was) myth and political intention via sub ordinance as well as elaborate ways of making sense of the world and giving meaning in the specific religious context. These mechanisms are in the inner workings of science too, but not in the same sense. Both Religion and Science speaks volumes (literarily and concretively) about the human condition and its back story.

Systemized thought in S compared to R is in itself a way to ask questions and answer them (the ulterior motive). The design itself in each discipline begs the answer and the premises on which we arrive on and the answer rests on the coherence of the system in S and R respectively. The inherent logical thought of science is to build systems based on observation and carefully asked question, as well as using the tools of science; the formal languages of math and logic and the sophisticated systems of expert disciplines like chemistry, and physics to "grasp" the world but not to do so without severe criticism when it comes to the process itself and what the answer it generates. As far as question and answers goes science is purveyor of intersubjective truth and religion has the hallmarks of personal truth.

When it comes to the archaic view on religion where the foundation is not reason and the search for a meticulously process rather than literary instrument and concept of the world that functions as a sort of recipe for syncretism and the great narrative of mankind that have the ambiguity of both truth and deception, in that regard science could and has been used a type of religion too. To compare them on the same "scale" is to neglect the inner workings that constitute each.

 

[YouGetWhatsGiven]

It is all in line. What caused the Big Bang. Something had to have caused it. Its no like the universe suddenly decided to become created. Stuff has to be created. It is like, say mixing two chemicals. It makes a totally new chemical, but what created the two chemicals that actually made it. Something had to create it all. What did it? I think that for all he has been called (Invisible Superman, an Evil Sky-demon, etc) I think God did it.

 

[Lukeje]

It is all in line. What caused the Big Bang. Something had to have caused it. Its no like the universe suddenly decided to become created. Stuff has to be created. It is like, say mixing two chemicals. It makes a totally new chemical, but what created the two chemicals that actually made it. Something had to create it all. What did it? I think that for all he has been called (Invisible Superman, an Evil Sky-demon, etc) I think God did it.

...or spontaneous energy fluctuations (due to zero point energy) at around the Planck length did it. But you're entitled to your opinion as this is an area on which science doesn't yet have much to say.

 

[Shivari]

I believe that morals do not change, ever. What is truly good will always be so, same for truly evil.

Morals are things that I see more as something developed because of a need for them, not because of a religion, or any sense that we are born with; they are simply a product of the world we live in. We needed them for any type of society to survive. Murder can't become commonplace in society, otherwise it will dissolve into anarchy, so it is seen as taboo in society. In any system where the participants are codependent on the others for survival, a moral will develop that hurting this system by removing participants is wrong, as it would hurt the system and the greater good that those participants strive for.

Yeah, but what about slavery? Slavery has been commonplace in many societies, and doesn't seem to destabilize them. Or torturing people to believe in god--those societies stagnate, but they don't dissolve into anarchy.

Morals change, just like I said. While some of them (like murder) will be commonplace in all societies, some (like slavery) will not be viewed as something that is wrong so quickly, as the benefits of the labor meant more to them than the benefit of letting them live free. Morals aren't a universal truth, and we are no more "right" than our ancestors in anything but our own minds. People didn't have a widespread moral about slavery in the times of slavery, because they had no reason to develop one. When there is more land than there is labor, then a landowner will look to slavery as a way to get the necessary labor. When there is more labor, however, it becomes more beneficial to pay a worker a low wage (which would have been high had there been few workers) than to supervise and take care of a group of slaves. As people start viewing slavery as something that can be replaced with something that supports a better life for the laborers, people start viewing slavery as wrong, and the moral develops.

This is seen in animals as well, primates living together will not kill each other in normal conditions as it would hurt their society (which is less robust than ours, but is still a society in it's own merits), and threaten their survival as a whole if it became the norm.

Yeah, but they also rape each other:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A994647

I mean, I get where you're coming from: it's something much like the Animism/Law of Life that you find in the books of Daniel Quinn. It's just that I want slavery and rape to be immoral like murder--doesn't everyone?

I'd say that in a less complex society with less intelligent participants in the system that the need for a "rape moral" of sorts would be less necessary. It's not sending their society into an uproar, so it's not going to change. If they want the sexual gratification, and there aren't any societal or personal repercussions, than they're going to do that.

I just can't find a way as to how morals would be placed into us at birth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to change things that we used to do that we now consider immoral, as we wouldn't have done them in the first place. It's all just a product of the times and world in which we live, if there's a need for a moral, it will develop. Religion didn't create these values, they adopted them, just as the rest of society did.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I just can't find a way as to how morals would be placed into us at birth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to change things that we used to do that we now consider immoral, as we wouldn't have done them in the first place. It's all just a product of the times and world in which we live, if there's a need for a moral, it will develop. Religion didn't create these values, they adopted them, just as the rest of society did.

That isn't really the point. The issue isn't the source of morality, but rather the fact it is believed to be a true concept. Anyone who claims to have a moral code or believes in "right" and "wrong" has a belief system based on unscientific principles. It would be easy to say at this point that such things are followed because they are beneficial to humanity, but this isn't strictly true. There is no reason that we should, for instance, help support a human who is born blind, or a person with severe MS, or a person who has been found guilty of a serious crime and is destined to spend a large chunk of their life in prison. People still advocate looking after such people though, which suggests that morality isn't just about reaping the rewards of sociability.

 

[Shivari]

I just can't find a way as to how morals would be placed into us at birth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to change things that we used to do that we now consider immoral, as we wouldn't have done them in the first place. It's all just a product of the times and world in which we live, if there's a need for a moral, it will develop. Religion didn't create these values, they adopted them, just as the rest of society did.

That isn't really the point. The issue isn't the source of morality, but rather the fact it is believed to be a true concept. Anyone who claims to have a moral code or believes in "right" and "wrong" has a belief system based on unscientific principles. It would be easy to say at this point that such things are followed because they are beneficial to humanity, but this isn't strictly true. There is no reason that we should, for instance, help support a human who is born blind, or a person with severe MS, or a person who has been found guilty of a serious crime and is destined to spend a large chunk of their life in prison. People still advocate looking after such people though, which suggests that morality isn't just about reaping the rewards of sociability.

Helping other people makes people feel better about themselves, and makes them feel like they're better than those who aren't helping. It's not out of the true goodness of their hearts, it never is, it's so that they can feel like they are better. They're reaping the rewards of an egotistical feeling that they are better for doing something, whether they admit to this or not is not important.

And trust me, people will help others if and only if it does not hurt them to do so. If it costs someone a bit too much or if there are too many risks involved, they'll leave another person to fend for themselves. Would you sacrifice your life for another? Of course not. If you would, you're insane, and if you say you would, you're saying it to make yourself feel better. Before Christmas break, my English teacher didn't have much to do, so we had discussions about different aspects of morality in class for a few days. Now, everyone in my class except for me said that they would do all of these noble things, but you can't honestly say that 24/25 people are going to risk their lives for other people. The only reason they would help another was so they could feel superior to those who didn't, and saying that they would help others makes them feel better as well. When people help others, they have the goal of helping themselves, whether it be a physical reward or psychological, in the dark recesses of their mind. There's a selfish reason for everything we do, most people just don't admit it.

Every moral comes from some sort of motivation, whether it's personal or societal. If morals aren't developed as society demands them, then how do we explain a change in morals? The only possible way to see it is that everyone adopts the morals of that society beckons for at the current moment in time. Otherwise, why would we have different morals then our ancestors? We certainly weren't born "better" than them.

 

[matrix3509]

Argue against me all you want atheists, but every basic law in every civilised country came from someone who got their teachings from one god or another. Those laws are:

1. Do not kill.
2. Do not steal.
3. Do not cheat.
4. Do not lie.

Believe it or not all of these basic laws came from people with some sort of religious guidance. Without them, we would have ended up far worse.

Thank for addressing all Atheists as a collective, for we are all stereotyped bible burners with a hive mind and we don't ever stop talking.

You speech didn't (ironically) make you come off as holier-than-thou or in anyway present you as being insulting towards another group of people (Atheists).

Religion has these rules because human kind made religion and hey, get this, people don't like being dead, having their stuff taken and being deceived.

Imagine that, things the majority of people hate being done to them are listed as sins.

I could not have called that...

Then tell me why we have laws in the first place? Would people abide be these rules even if they didn't exist? The answer is a resounding no.

I address Atheists as a collective because the only atheist I have ever met (this forum included) only addresses Christians or other people of faith as a collective, because the stupid virus goes both ways.

EDIT: To every Atheist that thinks of starting this thread bloody over and over again, let me tell you something. You will NEVER convince a person of faith to become an atheist simply from your flamebaiting. In fact, you give a bad name to atheists everywhere for even thinking it up.

 

[singer52996]

I'd have to say faith

 

[cuddly_tomato]

I just can't find a way as to how morals would be placed into us at birth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to change things that we used to do that we now consider immoral, as we wouldn't have done them in the first place. It's all just a product of the times and world in which we live, if there's a need for a moral, it will develop. Religion didn't create these values, they adopted them, just as the rest of society did.

That isn't really the point. The issue isn't the source of morality, but rather the fact it is believed to be a true concept. Anyone who claims to have a moral code or believes in "right" and "wrong" has a belief system based on unscientific principles. It would be easy to say at this point that such things are followed because they are beneficial to humanity, but this isn't strictly true. There is no reason that we should, for instance, help support a human who is born blind, or a person with severe MS, or a person who has been found guilty of a serious crime and is destined to spend a large chunk of their life in prison. People still advocate looking after such people though, which suggests that morality isn't just about reaping the rewards of sociability.

Helping other people makes people feel better about themselves, and makes them feel like they're better than those who aren't helping. It's not out of the true goodness of their hearts, it never is, it's so that they can feel like they are better. They're reaping the rewards of an egotistical feeling that they are better for doing something, whether they admit to this or not is not important.

And trust me, people will help others if and only if it does not hurt them to do so. If it costs someone a bit too much or if there are too many risks involved, they'll leave another person to fend for themselves. Would you sacrifice your life for another? Of course not. If you would, you're insane, and if you say you would, you're saying it to make yourself feel better. Before Christmas break, my English teacher didn't have much to do, so we had discussions about different aspects of morality in class for a few days. Now, everyone in my class except for me said that they would do all of these noble things, but you can't honestly say that 24/25 people are going to risk their lives for other people. The only reason they would help another was so they could feel superior to those who didn't, and saying that they would help others makes them feel better as well. When people help others, they have the goal of helping themselves, whether it be a physical reward or psychological, in the dark recesses of their mind. There's a selfish reason for everything we do, most people just don't admit it.

You seem to be suggesting that altruism doesn't exist at all. You have a very jaded view of the world that I strongly disagree with. I don't think we will find any common ground though so I am just going to leave this particular tangent alone.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

A few points to make:

1) I think scientifically as much as possible, and turn to faith when all else fails. Since there is no evidence for nor against God, I choose to believe in God. Since the evidence shows that Christianity is the most useful religion for me, I choose it as a means to properly believe in God.

2) Pascal's Wager is hideously flawed, since it assumes several things: that Heaven as opposed to Hell is of infinite worth; that there is a non-zero chance of God; that infinity times zero is still greater than zero (check out calculus for that); and that God might send you to Hell even if you do believe in Him. For all these reasons I have turned my back on this reason to believe in God.

3) History is " a continuous, systematic narrative of past events as relating to a particular people, country, period, person, etc., usually written as a chronological account; chronicle" (Dictionary.com): and thus requires a narrative. Thus, the Bible is a History of the world (according to the Jewish people). Before History was Eden; where many things happened, but nothing mattered until Adam and Eve got kicked out.

4) It is well worth noting that it is easier (and more believable) to blame conflict on fundamentalists. Consider that if you truly want to be an Anti-Jihad Crusader, you should start by killing yourself, and quickly remove one holy warrior from the world. The same holds true for fundamentalist scientists.

 

[Shivari]

Sure--that's right out of Ayn Rand. However, you haven't asked the next question: WHY does it make people feel better about themselves? One of the reasons is that it's because they see that act as conforming better to objective morality than the alternative act.

Just because it's selfish--if you're going to define selfishness that broadly, which me and Rand do too, thanks to Kant pointing this out without realizing it--doesn't mean that the motivation at some level can't have to do with a desire to act in accordance with objective, universal morality.

The point is though is that every action has our best interest at mind in some way, so whatever moral that we say the action resembles is arbitrary. The side effect is the selfish reward, which is what we truly go after, the fact that we're helping someone else in the road towards this side effect is of little importance to us. The reason it makes people feel better? It makes them feel like they are superior to those that didn't help. They are now "helpful, "kind", "generous"; all words that we like to hear about ourselves, it fuels the ego.

And if there is objective, universal morality, then where does it come from? How is it objective, when morality is, for all intents and purposes, is subjective to the person and the circumstances of the time? How come this morality wasn't spawned from the selfish interests of society and those in it?

We don't know what morals our ancestors had, though. Don't confuse the history of civilization with the history of the human race. Someone, somewhere was the first slave, and someone was the first master. I'm thinking that at least the first slave thought that slavery was wrong.

You seem to be missing the distinction between *developing morals* and *adopting morals*. Sure we've adopted the moral that slavery is wrong in larger numbers than our ancestors, but certainly the idea that slavery is wrong was known among our ancestors.

Sadly, those ancestors probably all got enslaved by bigger, slave-holding aggressive tribes before they could wind up in the historical record.

Sure, every type of moral makes appearances at all times due to the situation a certain person is in (e.g. the first slaves thought slavery was wrong), but that developed in them because of their situation, just as the opposite moral developed inside the mind of the slaver. Morals are completely dependent on the situation, and just because an instance may not have been the first time that a moral was developed doesn't mean anything. They still developed it in their minds due to whatever the circumstances of the situation were.

In any case, then why do you keep trying to convince people not to eat meat? The benefits of meat-eating aren't even close to being outweighed by the benefits of treating animals more humanely. My dog isn't going to stop loving me because I chained up a baby calf and slaughtered it for veal, and my cat, well, my cat really couldn't care less about the rights of tuna.

So if you truly believe that morals are only adopted as society changes, what about society changed so radically that it makes more sense not to eat meat?

The fact that it is no longer necessary to eat meat in our society, that's what has changed. Oh, but we've been over this many times and no one seems to want to accept me, so let's not turn this thread into that.

Unless of course, you can say anything new, which knowing this discussion, you probably can't. But society has changed, and so the moral has developed within people.

 

[DMShade]

I think the primary reason Science and Religion cannot coincide well, is that for each side, A considers an acceptable compromise to be B admitting that A is more valuable to society and the world in general. Each side wants their opponents to pretty much devalue themselves and call it 'compromise'.

My own views are mixed, as I was raised not just Catholic (Roman Catholic, I dunno what makes it so special), but in a School System where my Religion was a course, and 9 of my Credits to Graduate had to be in Religious Studies (That's three Half-semester courses). However, I graduated well before the Creationism inclusion began. My Faith was kept as Faith and my Science was Science. Each did not enter into the other's territory, and yet both were there, harmonious, in my education. Neither sought to rout the other.

Now this is me running my mouth, but I never saw how faith and religion didn't fit unless you were painfully literalist about the Bible. I always saw genesis as sort of a fable explaining creation, from Let There Be Light to God Created Man being the Big Bang to our Emergence as a Species. I never understood how Evolution Routed Faith because, if you are faithful, you believe your god to be all-knowing, and all-powerful...which means wouldn't he be smart enough to craft Evolution? A sort of Autopilot to Existence so he needn't watch every ethereal knob, dial and meter?

Let's face facts, I was a C student in Science, but I understood enough to create my own theories. And my theory on the Science/Faith debate is that they could work together if each side didn't insist on the proverbial "Top Billing". Faith has it's uses...educating us on how we should treat the world around us behaviorally (if given right), for a healthy society. Science educates us on the machinations of our world, our fellow man, and so on, so that we know how to treat the world around us Physically for a healthy society.

Science and Faith are Two Halves of a Whole, as I see it...problem is each one is trying to make it look like 60/40 or more in their favour.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

Sure--that's right out of Ayn Rand. However, you haven't asked the next question: WHY does it make people feel better about themselves? One of the reasons is that it's because they see that act as conforming better to objective morality than the alternative act.

Just because it's selfish--if you're going to define selfishness that broadly, which me and Rand do too, thanks to Kant pointing this out without realizing it--doesn't mean that the motivation at some level can't have to do with a desire to act in accordance with objective, universal morality.

The point is though is that every action has our best interest at mind in some way, so whatever moral that we say the action resembles is arbitrary. The side effect is the selfish reward, which is what we truly go after, the fact that we're helping someone else in the road towards this side effect is of little importance to us. The reason it makes people feel better? It makes them feel like they are superior to those that didn't help. They are now "helpful, "kind", "generous"; all words that we like to hear about ourselves, it fuels the ego.

Question: How does that explain acts which are self-destructive, like War, like suicide, like heroes (Firemen, police, etc) who risk their life to help other humans?

The fact is that it isn't about self-interest. It's about interest in the community: it has been studied in humans as well as in communal animals (squirrels, ants, meerkats, and a few more): it is often evolutionary worthwhile to risk/sacrifice oneself for the better of the community.


That said, it's not morality either: it's something hardwired into us via genetics. It's just we call it Morality to give it a name, and attribute it to God. It also helps us to survive: regardless of what Richard Dawkins will tell you, a community of people who cooperate with others will outlast and outperform a community of selfish and self-interested people. And so, regardless of the logic that suggests selfishness is superior to selflessness, the realty is that acting selfless confers an evolutionary advantage on populations.

 

[Beelze]

"Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Rev[e]latory Nature of Faith?"

Of course not. First off, who ever said revelation (or rather, inspiration) is unique to faith? When Archimedes leaped from his bath yelling "Eureka," he didn't run off to try to convince other people based on the strength of his breakthrough alone, but to test out his hypothesis as soon as possible. Thus, one of the primal differences between science and religion is how ideas are dealt with. Scientists test their revelations, while Theologians merely assert them.

Science and Religion are not fundamentally contradictory. They can easily get along, though not for the reasons mentioned so far in this thread. What IS contradictory is science and religious dogma, the adherence to a doctrine without or even in spite of observable evidence. Religion itself, the belief in something untestable, often hangs out with but does not rely on dogma. Humans have a natural proclivity to dogmatic thinking, as anyone who has been around old people can attest. The reason that science and dogma contradict is because science is at heart nothing more than a mode of thinking designed to reduce dogma.

Let's have a hypothetical situation. A honest-to-god miracle occurs. If you put an apple on a table and knock on the table three times, the apple turns into an orange. Over and over. A religious person, or more precisely a person afflicted with unshakable dogma will decide that this is proof of whatever he's been telling people, and go out and try to convince others with newly refreshed faith. An apple once became an orange; that is proof enough for him.

A scientist will instead try to document the living fuck out of the miracle in every way possible, in order to better convince others that it happened. He will then try everything he can think of to test the effects and limits of the miracle. Is the apple and orange the same size? Approximate freshness? If you use a pear, does it still work? How small can the apple be? How large? What about a grapple? What if you knock with a new apple, while the miracled-orange is still there? etc,etc.

In the end, the scientist may conclude that there is a god, or at least some kind of metaphysical force that either hates apples or is really turned on by oranges. If his evidence is irrefutable enough he may convince others as well, or even the whole body of science (though this would likely require a permanent and repeatable miracle which, since miracles always seem to be one-time things which happen to illiterate shepherds and people on their deathbed, isn't very common). Science is not opposed to religion, provided that religion is reached through scientific conclusions based on repeatable evidence. "Convert or be tortured to death" is, alas, not scientific enough.


As for the issue of morality, I'm surprised no one's brought up ethics, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics] the branch of philosophy devoted to creating an objective standard of morals. No one can agree which standard to pick of course, but they're all better than "God said so" and "zere are no real morals, zere is only ze animal-man."

 

[Booze Zombie]

Then tell me why we have laws in the first place? Would people abide be these rules even if they didn't exist? The answer is a resounding no.

I address Atheists as a collective because the only atheist I have ever met (this forum included) only addresses Christians or other people of faith as a collective, because the stupid virus goes both ways.

So, you're saying what you did was stupid... but you know it is stupid?

With or without a holy book or Religion, people still desire stable living conditions... and having laws and police are the best way to protect those you want alive in Society.

Selflessness if actually selfishness projected onto other people. You know that a sharp piece of metal hurts, right?

Through that selfish knowledge, you can then selflessly apply it to pulling someone outta the way of a gunman. Or knocking over a crazy axe wielding murderer to let a little girl run away. It's like "I think that reaction is so negative I will actually help those I percieve as not being a threat (the innocent) to not recieve it".

 

[Fightgarr]

In short, my answer is "Does the Empirical Nature of Science Contradict the Polytheistic Polarity-themed Gods of Druidism Based on Dungeons and Dragons?"

And I would answer that that is insulting to Elhonna and Obad-Hai.

 

[matrix3509]

I just can't find a way as to how morals would be placed into us at birth. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to change things that we used to do that we now consider immoral, as we wouldn't have done them in the first place. It's all just a product of the times and world in which we live, if there's a need for a moral, it will develop. Religion didn't create these values, they adopted them, just as the rest of society did.

That isn't really the point. The issue isn't the source of morality, but rather the fact it is believed to be a true concept. Anyone who claims to have a moral code or believes in "right" and "wrong" has a belief system based on unscientific principles. It would be easy to say at this point that such things are followed because they are beneficial to humanity, but this isn't strictly true. There is no reason that we should, for instance, help support a human who is born blind, or a person with severe MS, or a person who has been found guilty of a serious crime and is destined to spend a large chunk of their life in prison. People still advocate looking after such people though, which suggests that morality isn't just about reaping the rewards of sociability.

QFT...

The human system of moral beliefs is inherently unscientific. Why? Because doing things out of interest to the entire community is completely illogical. You won't find many individual organisms in the entire Animal Kingdom that would willing sacrifice themselfs for a group. I know there are a few species of animals that do, but they are the exception, not the rule.

To use an example so kindly provided to me, you wouldn't stop a serial killer chasing after a person if said serial killer turned their attention onto you. Why would you, for instance help a blind person cross the road, or feed a homeless person? It makes abolsutely no sense to do these things from a logical point of view. Helping these kinds of people as indeed the government is spending tax money to do, only serves to hold the people of a nation back, though the less of these people there are the less detrimental it is of course. But that tax money could instead be used on scientific research. But countries do it anyway. Why?

Because its the right thing to do? Who says it is? The government? Why would you believe the government? What makes them the moral authority? You can't say those basic laws just came about because people just wanna be nice. That's bullshit.