The Intransigence of Religion

[Norsemaiden]

Aren't religions, by definition, intransigent regarding anything that contradicts or even slightly draws into question, basic tenets of the faith?

And are we agreed that science is supposed to be the opposite of intransigent?

 

[Norsemaiden]

Imagine a situation where there are two people. One of them knows a lot of profound and accurate truths, because they were spoonfed these ideas in a religion and they never question but just believe. The other person has a far less deep and meaningful grasp on reality, yet she has no religion and has an inquisitive mind that is searching for truth, facts and understanding by critically evaluating information.

Wouldn't it be more dignified and admirable to be the latter than the former?

My point is that whether there are any important "truths" in religions, we should keep our minds free and never be trapped into being religious. (Which is not to say we can't agree with what we find sensible in any religion).

It seems to me that those who are not religious have more potential for grasping reality anyway - and so said my favourite philosopher also.

 

[Blowtus]

Should we be 'trapped' into not being religious over concerns of 'being trapped'?

What is it about 'not believing' that is inherently more admirable and dignified than 'believing'? Both grant a level of power / value to the bearer. Suppose one is of a nature where they do not and cannot effectively determine a more useful version of 'truth' or 'reality' for themselves than that which a religion provides them with - could it not be more 'admirable' in such a case to accept ones limitations and take up the 'best tool for the job' as such? I guess, as with most (all?) things, eventually it comes down to what you think the point of it all is.

 

[kmik]

Imagine a situation where there are two people. One of them knows a lot of profound and accurate truths, because they were spoonfed these ideas in a religion and they never question but just believe. The other person has a far less deep and meaningful grasp on reality, yet she has no religion and has an inquisitive mind that is searching for truth, facts and understanding by critically evaluating information.

Wouldn't it be more dignified and admirable to be the latter than the former?

My point is that whether there are any important "truths" in religions, we should keep our minds free and never be trapped into being religious. (Which is not to say we can't agree with what we find sensible in any religion).

It seems to me that those who are not religious have more potential for grasping reality anyway - and so said my favourite philosopher also.

You incorrectly assume that religion and science are concerned with the same "truths".

 

[derek]

It's quite possible the religious have it right, and reality can only truly been understood through faith.

 

[Justin S.]

You incorrectly assume that religion and science are concerned with the same "truths".

This is an important insight. However, it is overlooked by dogmatic theism and "atheism" alike. Even when kept in view, this type of insight is difficult to grapple with. It seems that "faith" dwells at the limits of scientific knowledge (the latter understood as knowledge of "nature," of the beings that are "objectively present") and has its own forms of "belief" and "truth," which should not be reduced to those concerning sensible phenomena. When this reduction occurs, for example when truth is held to be nothing more than crude correspondence regardless of the beings under question, we witness the excesses of dogmatism (i.e., the "truth value" of Jesus' resurrection is of the same sort as the truth value that I attended class yesterday, [regardless of the assignment of any "value"]).

I also think it is a mistake to evaluate "religion" solely from a psychological perspective. In Being and Time, there is a passage that tells of how the old churches and cemeteries were built in reference to the path of the Sun, so that the Sun's rise could light the congregation, its set would cast shadows on the dead. Religion was bound up with the world, and not merely as some psychological or theological "truth."

Also, I have doubts about how much, as Norsemaiden suggests, modern science is capable of revision in its basic concepts. Since it became its own discipline largely divorced from philosophy, it seems unable to overcome its basic ontological orientation (which is not even a theme or area of investigation of science, but rather grounds it). Sure, science will exchange one theory for another when given better evidence and so on, but all of this takes place within the established domain of science determined by fundamental principles that are not examined by scientific research, but rather are presupposed by research. Science proceeds dogmatically, in a certain sense, and rightfully so.

 

[kmik]

It is very similar to alternative medicine, no? Charlatans sell a blessing stone, or something, which is supposed to heal you in the same way aspirin does. Holistic alternative medicine, however, simply works in a different framework and so its truth values are simply irrelevant to the realm of normal medicine, not conflicting or not conflicting with it. The fact that creationists argue with scientists over the truth of some matter proves they're dogmatist, but a "true" religion is simply in different realms than science. But I think that what Norsemaiden means is that people accept all the crap religion offers just because some of it is true, or considered so. I think it's an unjust view of religion because when you accept only some of it it ceases to be a religion.

 

[kmik]

I also think it is a mistake to evaluate "religion" solely from a psychological perspective

Can there be a solely psychological perspective? I think not. Psychology cannot exist if there's no interaction with the world, the so called psychological perspective is an oxymoron.

 

[judas69]

Defining religion, at least thoroughly, is somewhat difficult because it can fall into one of those "family resemblance" categories; there does exist enough overlap whereby it should be met, if met honestly, with a more multifaceted approach, as already mentioned.

Most of us however, are only ever religious, non-religious or anything to the degree of our own personal desire, and so it would seem, we still cannot entirely escape the more heavier weight of psychology. That said, the role of psychology in understanding human desire, especially as far as religious belief is concerned, remains critical, as it is this category of interpretive science which best captures (and to the largest extent) our experiences and their eventual abstraction into ones own individual, ever-developing ideological framework.

 

[Norsemaiden]

If you have a mind that looks for truth both outside of and inside of religions, then what do you call that mentality?

I always have considered that as being a "scientific" outlook, (and I think Richard Dawkins thinks like this as well as myself) but experience has shown that most people insist that science is just as much a limited and dogmatic worldview as religion. So that means such open-mindedness is NOT scientific!

Well, you don't call such a person "religious", and yet they could still be "spiritual" without compromising their postition (and shutting themselves in a box). They may be either: atheist, agnostic or non-religious theist (making it up as they go along) or, alternatively, not any of these labels, because they may feel that the whole notion of how they relate to a God concept is irrelevant to their worldview and reject such a pointless definition. (The latter being my own preference).

Surely, anyone would rather have a mind that can freely explore the smorgesbord of ideas already established, as well as formulate ideas of their own, without any pressure to collect everything into a rigid structure at all. [I suppose everyone would want this in their heart, but few could acheive it - and many, accepting their inability to do so and possible fear of seeing things clearly that scare them, reaslitically take shelter in the security of religious dogma].

You can still have this openness and yet have strongly held opinions. You can be into any kind of -ism even. These sort of ideologies, while they mostly contain dogmatic adherents, who cling to their convictions in the same way that the religious do, are nevertheless viewable as being staging posts, from which you can survey your options of where you might like to go next, if anywhere. Religions, by contrast require that you close your mind to alternatives and rely entirely upon faith.

 

[judas69]

Religion is a political, cultural crutch and an evil institution of guilt sold to the ignorant as virtue. There's very little to be gained on the whole, maybe some on a personal level; the trade-off however, is paid by all of us in the form of war, intolerance and indoctrination.

It's quite possible the religious have it right, and reality can only truly been understood through faith.

Maybe Derek could explain himself more here because this is just an empty statement to me without some sort of backing and I'm rarely in a position to take this on authority, even when drunk as I am now.

 

[judas69]

I think you have to be ready and intellectually willing to throw all ideas out the door on a whim (religious and scientific included) and just live especially if classifications and the struggle to define yourself, your world, in this ridged way is only getting in your way.

Not trust, not truth, not faith, just life and living ..after all, it's something you and I do naturally when we're preparing for sleep (or drinking) and not aware or concerned with any of our own partialities.

Shouldn't that be enough? I think it should, but somehow it isn't always.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

Also, I have doubts about how much, as Norsemaiden suggests, modern science is capable of revision in its basic concepts. Since it became its own discipline largely divorced from philosophy, it seems unable to overcome its basic ontological orientation (which is not even a theme or area of investigation of science, but rather grounds it). Sure, science will exchange one theory for another when given better evidence and so on, but all of this takes place within the established domain of science determined by fundamental principles that are not examined by scientific research, but rather are presupposed by research. Science proceeds dogmatically, in a certain sense, and rightfully so.

What is this ontological orientation? That the universe is rationally ordered and obeys laws?

A landmark of the philosophy of science was Karl Popper devising the concept of falsifiability. This simple idea destroyed the claims that Marxism and psychoanalysis are "scientific".

I can do the same optical experiments that Isaac Newton did at Trinity College hundreds of years ago and get the same result.

As for science being dogmatic, if you've ever spoken with a scientist, you'll know that there is no group of people that is more adamant about what they do not know. A scientist focuses intensely on his or her area of study and will quickly pass the buck out as soon as they leave this comfy zone.

As for revision of basic concepts, well, the history of science is the history of the revision of basic concepts. Phlogiston, lamarckian evolution and cartesian vortices are all on the scrap heap of history.

Before 1859 and Darwin's great achievement, we had an impoverished understanding of ourselves as a species. We didn't even know if the universe had a beginning until Hubble noticed the red-shift effect. Newtonian science could build a rocket that will fly to the moon, but quantum physics has opened up the entire universe to us.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is going on-line this year. It'll be creating micro-black holes at a rate of one per second. We came to this through applying E=MC2, in one form or another. Dogma has nothing to do with it. Either it works, or it doesn't.

 

[Justin S.]

What is this ontological orientation? That the universe is rationally ordered and obeys laws?

No. I mean the ontological orientation of western metaphysics; specifically, since we are discussing modern science, Cartesian.

A landmark of the philosophy of science was Karl Popper devising the concept of falsifiability. This simple idea destroyed the claims that Marxism and psychoanalysis are "scientific".

Neither Popper's conception of "science," nor the criterion of falsifiability are somehow gospel, or even currently in favor. Also, Marx and psychoanalysis will get along just fine with or without the approval of "philosophy of science."

As for science being dogmatic, if you've ever spoken with a scientist, you'll know that there is no group of people that is more adamant about what they do not know. A scientist focuses intensely on his or her area of study and will quickly pass the buck out as soon as they leave this comfy zone.

I did not speak about the "attitude" of any given scientist, but the method of science as such. The label of "dogmatic" was not pejorative in that case.

As for revision of basic concepts, well, the history of science is the history of the revision of basic concepts. Phlogiston, lamarckian evolution and cartesian vortices are all on the scrap heap of history.

No. This "history" is the revision of basic concepts of science. Philosophical basic concepts are not the area of investigation of the sciences, nor can they be since they form the latter's ground.

Before 1859 and Darwin's great achievement, we had an impoverished understanding of ourselves as a species. We didn't even know if the universe had a beginning until Hubble noticed the red-shift effect. Newtonian science could build a rocket that will fly to the moon, but quantum physics has opened up the entire universe to us.

The Large Hadron Collider at CERN is going on-line this year. It'll be creating micro-black holes at a rate of one per second. We came to this through applying E=MC2, in one form or another. Dogma has nothing to do with it. Either it works, or it doesn't.

Dawkins, that enumeration owes everything to the dogmatic procedure of science unfolding from its basic concepts, which certainly have their justification within limits. Whether or not your list of accomplishments is something to parade about is entirely another matter.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

I think I get what you mean, thanks.

 

[kmik]

If you have a mind that looks for truth both outside of and inside of religions, then what do you call that mentality?

I always have considered that as being a "scientific" outlook, (and I think Richard Dawkins thinks like this as well as myself) but experience has shown that most people insist that science is just as much a limited and dogmatic worldview as religion. So that means such open-mindedness is NOT scientific!

Well, you don't call such a person "religious", and yet they could still be "spiritual" without compromising their postition (and shutting themselves in a box). They may be either: atheist, agnostic or non-religious theist (making it up as they go along) or, alternatively, not any of these labels, because they may feel that the whole notion of how they relate to a God concept is irrelevant to their worldview and reject such a pointless definition. (The latter being my own preference).

Surely, anyone would rather have a mind that can freely explore the smorgesbord of ideas already established, as well as formulate ideas of their own, without any pressure to collect everything into a rigid structure at all. [I suppose everyone would want this in their heart, but few could acheive it - and many, accepting their inability to do so and possible fear of seeing things clearly that scare them, reaslitically take shelter in the security of religious dogma].

You can still have this openness and yet have strongly held opinions. You can be into any kind of -ism even. These sort of ideologies, while they mostly contain dogmatic adherents, who cling to their convictions in the same way that the religious do, are nevertheless viewable as being staging posts, from which you can survey your options of where you might like to go next, if anywhere. Religions, by contrast require that you close your mind to alternatives and rely entirely upon faith.

Do you have a "scientific" outlook? That would mean that you honestly think all questions can be solved scientifically and that the only problem is prejudice and emotionalism; that the human state can analyzed by a rationalist method and be improved, so utopia is possible, etc. I think everyone admits that reason alone is simply not enough to understand the universe. The scientific method is useful and provides answers to certain questions but like Einstein noted it is crippled without religion. The truths of religion and science are separate, if we go back to Kant from the other thread maybe, you can say that religion is concerned with the noumenon and science with phenomenon?; in any event both are not a specific set of logical conclusions but rather an outlook or a worldview, at least ideally. So if we say that man was created in the image of God, the "scientific" details - when, how - etc. do not matter but rather the idea that there is some divine purpose behind us, whether you agree with this or not.

And besides the thing is that many of us call different things by different names and if you call it God or whatever it doesn't matter. Religion states that the universe and life are not governed by reason and cannot be understood by reason and that a 100% "rational" life is not life and I agree

 

[Norsemaiden]

Do you have a "scientific" outlook? That would mean that you honestly think all questions can be solved scientifically and that the only problem is prejudice and emotionalism; that the human state can analyzed by a rationalist method and be improved, so utopia is possible, etc. I think everyone admits that reason alone is simply not enough to understand the universe. The scientific method is useful and provides answers to certain questions but like Einstein noted it is crippled without religion. The truths of religion and science are separate, if we go back to Kant from the other thread maybe, you can say that religion is concerned with the noumenon and science with phenomenon?; in any event both are not a specific set of logical conclusions but rather an outlook or a worldview, at least ideally. So if we say that man was created in the image of God, the "scientific" details - when, how - etc. do not matter but rather the idea that there is some divine purpose behind us, whether you agree with this or not.

And besides the thing is that many of us call different things by different names and if you call it God or whatever it doesn't matter. Religion states that the universe and life are not governed by reason and cannot be understood by reason and that a 100% "rational" life is not life and I agree

Firstly, religion does not necessarily say that the universe and life are not governed by reason, but rather it says that humans should not attempt to reason - only God may do so. Only God may know the Truth and we are only to know what He tells us, which we must accept without question.

Yes, I do have what I call a "scientific outlook" but no I do not "think all questions can be solved scientifically" because all questions can never be answered. Questions answered unscientifically are pointless. Anyone can answer any question unscientifically. You don't need religion to do that - you don't even need to understand the question. You could just pick a random answer out of a hat. It doesn't follow that I think that utopia is possible. Maybe something approaching kind of utopia by the standards of a masochist is possible. My scientific outlook concludes that utopia is totally impossible and that life is supposed to be a struggle. Religion is utopianist. Almost all religions are concerned with getting away from the hardships of life, either while alive (eg nirvana) or in the hereafter. Religions are about escaping facts, not about facing up to them.

Yeah some people like to call the universe "God" and don't mean a personal God. That's pointless. Why use the word "God" at all, especially when it is so easily confused with the idea of a personal God? Why not just call it "everything" or "the universe" or "existence" instead? I believe in all those things - so then you get people who call this "God" saying that means I believe in God!

 

[kmik]

Firstly, religion does not necessarily say that the universe and life are not governed by reason, but rather it says that humans should not attempt to reason - only God may do so. Only God may know the Truth and we are only to know what He tells us, which we must accept without question.

Yes, I do have what I call a "scientific outlook" but no I do not "think all questions can be solved scientifically" because all questions can never be answered. Questions answered unscientifically are pointless. Anyone can answer any question unscientifically. You don't need religion to do that - you don't even need to understand the question. You could just pick a random answer out of a hat. It doesn't follow that I think that utopia is possible. Maybe something approaching kind of utopia by the standards of a masochist is possible. My scientific outlook concludes that utopia is totally impossible and that life is supposed to be a struggle. Religion is utopianist. Almost all religions are concerned with getting away from the hardships of life, either while alive (eg nirvana) or in the hereafter. Religions are about escaping facts, not about facing up to them.

Yeah some people like to call the universe "God" and don't mean a personal God. That's pointless. Why use the word "God" at all, especially when it is so easily confused with the idea of a personal God? Why not just call it "everything" or "the universe" or "existence" instead? I believe in all those things - so then you get people who call this "God" saying that means I believe in God!

Huh? If questions can only be answered scientifically, then what is the value of philosophers and artists?

A 100% dogmatic scientific outlook as you define it means that you base all your decisions on reason and the scientific method. That means that man is fundamentally a rational animal and that we can analyze ourselves just as we can nature. We can find out what man needs, scientifically. We can find out how to satisfy these means, scientifically. So we can scentifically improve the human condition - this is the view of the Enlightenment and Marxism.

Why do you think religion is about escaping facts? Religion is not concerned with the "facts". Creationism is not genuine religion; I realize this is a no true Scotsman fallacy but belief in God and in spiritual teachings is something else entirely. The symbols and mythology of religion are not to be understood literally and you don't build a car according to the scriptures. However they point out at a certain set of mind, a zeitgeist, whatever you want to call it. If in some religion the world is flat and it rests on turtles or something, you should not dismiss it as nonsense but rather think what stands behind that. Perhaps that needs foundations? That the earth and humanity are the center of the cosmos? This is a stupid example but you get what I mean. Or, let's say, the belief in God requires a certain humility - that not everything is in control, that not everything can be known, and that is something I respect. That is a different kind of knowledge than the scientific, it is about experience and intuition. At least that's how I see it.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Science IS philosophy and vice versa (if the philosophy holds water).

Science used to be called "natural philosophy".

Read this
http://www.friesian.com/hist-2.htm

 

[judas69]

Science is more of a branch or subset of philosophical thinking especially since science is mostly concerned with the application of the scientific method via controlled experiments etc.

So by this, I wouldn't exactly say philosophy is science, or science is philosophy.