Was the Klingon war arc wrapped up then or not?
How will you react if the Klingon War Arc isn't wrapped up?
- Thread starter Mark 2000
- Start date
I think it is, actually.
In fact, I don't see how it could be anything other than irrational. To do so, to hold such fundamentally incompatible worldviews in one's head at the same time, requires either (as others have posted) that one willingly discard major parts of one or both worldviews to elide the conflict, or alternately (probably the case for most people) that one never possesses any informed, sophisticated understanding of those views in the first place.
I mean, I appreciate your inclination to be tolerant and diplomatic about this sort of thing, especially given your personal background. And as an attorney and a devoted civil libertarian, I would certainly defend anyone's right to believe in absolutely any religion they like, as a matter of fundamental personal autonomy. That doesn't mean I think it's rational of anyone to do so, though.
From that description, it really sounds like you're more of an agnostic than an atheist. "X can never be tested, therefore we Just Don't Know and we ought to hold the possibility open" is a very different position from "X can never be tested, therefore there's no reason to believe it."
Atheism is not an act of faith. It's the exact opposite. It's an act of rational skepticism.
Last edited:
But this simply isn't the case, nothing in either religion nor science actually precludes the other. What happens is people incorrectly ascribe attributes to them which do. They take both as being explanatory frameworks for the world we perceive and laden each with value judgements about the other
I said I was an atheist......
And no, rational skepticism would be a statement within the confines of the system where the word "rational" has meaning. It would be based on applying occam's razor to simplify an hypothesis, concepts which are meaningless outside of that system where causality has meaning.Outside of that setting an statement is one of faith, regardless of the likelihood of it's literal truth.
Which, you surely realise, actually supports my position that the conflict comes from applying concepts outside of their remit?
I believe they can co-exist but don't feel the need to justify my belief system. Truth is I think science is loaded with theory and unproved formula. It tries though
I feel that your view is a generalised, blanket judgement on a very diverse group of people and disregarding their personal experience and intelligence. It's pre-judging an entire group of people because you personally do not agree with their worldview. To me that is not enlightened, and it feels just as intolerant and close minded as religious dogma. For me reason comes from understanding the other side and other points of view, not condemning them outright because it doesn't mesh with how I see the world. For me the argument isn't so much about religion or science but respecting an individuals right to choose and define for themselves. However that is just me and to each his own.
Having said that, I do appreciate your opinion and have enjoyed the opportunity to debate this with you. One of the things I like most about this board is the high level of discourse with intelligent people. When we're not all arguing about Discovery of course.
And this betrays a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. "It's only a theory" is frequently trotted out when evolution, or climate change comes up. To dismiss 'theory' so casually is to dismiss an explanation for a phenomenon which fits with all known evidence. Because that's what a theory is. It doesn't mean 'guess', or 'idea'. It means something which explains the evidence that we have about a particular phenomenon. The theory of evolution by natural selection, for example, explains the evidence that we have (and its a lot) about the progression and change in life forms over the course of the Earth's history. When we discover new evidence, it tests the theory. So far, the theory has won out. What is 'proof' if not the accumulation of relevant evidence to the point where doubt is unreasonable?
Out of interest, your signature contains two scientific statements. You included a 'guffaw' emoticon with the first one and I can't tell if you're trying to be dismissive. Do you not accept that the atoms that make you up were forged within the life cycle of stars? Or do you find that concept simply amusing for some reason?
Whoops, mea culpa. I meant to type "you sound like more of agnostic than an atheist." I've edited now to clarify.
Kindly share an example of a system, any system at all within the universe as we know it, within which causality and rationality do not have any meaning.`
Well, of course it's a generalization. We're talking about billions of people here. I freely acknowledge the likely existence of outliers, but (as in any population) outliers are not the ones from whom you should generalize. On the whole, I find that people who claim to accept science yet also hold on to religious beliefs cannot actually explain what exactly they believe to be true about either, nor how they can rationally reconcile them. They're just trying to have their cake and eat it too.
Why thank you. Indeed, very civil all around!
Last edited:
I've never found that.
As a religious person I can describe what I think is true, why I disagree with science in some instances, and why I disagree with religious institutions at times. It isn't binary.
There isn't, that's very much the point. Causality is inherent to the universe as we know it, much as is entropy, much as are the rules of logic as we understand them. these are rules which define the observable universe we inhabit and underlie the methods we use to examine it.
God, however, would not be a part of that universe, that is inherent to what it means to be god, to be outside the system such a being created.
Any being which creates a system need not be constrained by the rules which operate within it and therefore if we pose any questions about it's existence or nature it makes no sense to presume such constraints. God's existence is neither testable by the scientific technique nor is it necessarily beholden to the axioms which define that technique.
This is one of the inherent limitations of the scientific method, there are others and acknowledging that is not akin to religious fundamentalism, it is merely having a basic understanding of the technique and what it's purpose is. Science works within the observable universe, it makes hypotheses about that which can be tested. On God it can say nothing.
It has repeatedly been stated in this thread that science and religion can only co exist if one or the other is forced to abandon one or more basic tenets yet not one person has actually given any convincing case as to what tenets need be abandoned or why.
The reason for that is simple, it isn't true.
Adherents of the two have often clashed throughout history, sometimes with tragic results but those clashes have always been due to one or the other (usually but not always religion) overextending their reach and failing to understand the boundaries inherent to their discipline.
Religion is not about the objective, if it is used as a justification for comments about the physical world(which it often has) it is being misapplied.
Likewise science has nothing to say about the meaning or purpose of the physical world, it has nothing to say about god and associated values, those are the arena of faith (or philosophy)
The two can in principle coexist they are not mutually exclusive and no one here has offered any reason to suppose they are.
No, it's really not. It's inherent to your very particular definition of God in this thread, which seems carefully designed to isolate that deity from the realm of scientific understanding, but it's very much not inherent to pretty much any God or gods that have ever been claimed to exist by pretty much every organized religion ever.
That was the whole point of my quote from Dawkins upthread about philosophical naturalism: to point out that every religion ever invented consistently makes claims about its god(s) interacting with the natural world, regularly and often dramatically. (It's certainly incontrovertibly true about the Abrahamic faiths.) And when something does that, it is every bit as susceptible to the rules of causality and logic that apply to the natural world as anything else in it.
(Your analogy about computer programs is just that, an analogy, and not a particularly apt one. A contrasting one, perhaps more pertinent, might be to say that you can't build a swimming pool and then say "well, I created it, so I make the rules, and I don't need to breathe when I jump in.")
Well, then, it's apparently always misapplied.
Seriously, can you name one major religion that doesn't do this as a matter of routine?
After all, this is how religions came to exist in the first place!... they were the result of humans inventing comprehensible (to them) stories to explain aspects of the physical world that were otherwise (in the absence of science) mystifying.
I will grant you that science doesn't much address "meaning or purpose" in any teleological sense, since those things are human mental and emotional constructs. As such, they are indeed the domain of philosophy (referring to it in the contemporary sense, as opposed to the older "natural philosophy" which encompassed science itself along with various other realms of learning). Philosophy, however, also operates just fine on a secular and naturalistic basis, without having to posit anything at all supernatural or otherwise "outside the universe." Adding religious faith to the mix adds, literally, nothing at all to what philosophy can accomplish.
Again, these paragraphs actually support my position. You need to remember I am not out and out supporting religion or even any specific variation. I am making the case that conflict between science and faith is inevitably the consequence of people making exactly the sort of mistakes you are describing.
Of course in practice we will never empirically disprove even reported interventions precisely because they conveniently never happen under lab conditions
The point still stands however, faith and science only overlap where people actively expect one or the other to be applicable outside it's particular arena. That such mistakes are commonplace (or people look for them and claim god intervenes directly in their lives) have such terrible human consequences is more the more reason we should challenge them.
But clearly on a personal level it does add something. Few people find comfort in the works of Plato or Socrates, hospitals do not routinely provide copies of Descartes for patients facing terminal illness. There is a definite and measurable human tendency to seek out some form of faith in a higher but relatable power. Whilst this is no evidence for the literal existence of such a being it does mean faith has purpose and meaning outside that offered by secular philosophy.
The morals of religion seemingly meet a need the ethics of philosophy do not. My suspicion is they provide a subjective sense of comfort in a wiser authority which the colder, less certain questions of those ethics lack. People seek out clear answers and organised religion purpotes to offer that. Philosophy (and humanism in particular) typically doesn't meet that need because it reflects the questions back at the reader, expects them to take responsibility for finding their own answers. That isn't typically what people are looking for from faith, the are looking for someone to tell them what to do and this is where it becomes dangerous because the role of god becomes taken on by human proxies, proxies with real world agendas.
Okay, fair point, I've been using the terms faith and religion pretty much interchangeably in this discussion.
It seems that you're saying, then, that faith (specifically) is philosophically compatible with science so long as it doesn't make any of the mistakes routinely committed by religion? That seems like an awfully difficult distinction to get people to make in the real world.
Many people can and do find comfort from reading and pondering philosophy, actually. I'll grant, though, that it doesn't tend to make the kind of reassuring-but-empty promises religion does, so doubtless even more people turn to the latter when seeking comfort. And, so? That says nothing whatsoever about the truth claims of the underlying belief systems. Philosophy is typically better as a source of understanding than of comfort. I tend to think understanding is more important, but YMMV. Naturally it feels nice and reassuring to believe that you'll live forever in a wonderful place with all your loved ones after you die, for instance, but how something makes you fe doesn't mean there's any reason to believe it. If the "purpose and meaning" it offers is to cocoon people in comforting delusions, that's hardly a worthy thing. It does, as you mention, become dangerous.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here any more. If the only way in which faith (or religion) can serve some sense of purpose is coextensive with it being dangerous and subject to abuse, how is that any defense of it? The only kind of faith you seem to be saying is actually safe, useful, and compatible with a scientific worldview is one which scrupulously avoids organized religion and religious authorities, imposes no behavioral injunctions, makes no truth claims about the natural world, and offers no untestable supernatural answers. What, precisely, would such faith be in? Just how abstracted can you make it before it evaporates into nothing?
It seems that you're saying, then, that faith (specifically) is philosophically compatible with science so long as it doesn't make any of the mistakes routinely committed by religion? That seems like an awfully difficult distinction to get people to make in the real world.
Many people can and do find comfort from reading and pondering philosophy, actually. I'll grant, though, that it doesn't tend to make the kind of reassuring-but-empty promises religion does, so doubtless even more people turn to the latter when seeking comfort. And, so? That says nothing whatsoever about the truth claims of the underlying belief systems. Philosophy is typically better as a source of understanding than of comfort. I tend to think understanding is more important, but YMMV. Naturally it feels nice and reassuring to believe that you'll live forever in a wonderful place with all your loved ones after you die, for instance, but how something makes you fe doesn't mean there's any reason to believe it. If the "purpose and meaning" it offers is to cocoon people in comforting delusions, that's hardly a worthy thing. It does, as you mention, become dangerous.
Honestly, I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say here any more. If the only way in which faith (or religion) can serve some sense of purpose is coextensive with it being dangerous and subject to abuse, how is that any defense of it? The only kind of faith you seem to be saying is actually safe, useful, and compatible with a scientific worldview is one which scrupulously avoids organized religion and religious authorities, imposes no behavioral injunctions, makes no truth claims about the natural world, and offers no untestable supernatural answers. What, precisely, would such faith be in? Just how abstracted can you make it before it evaporates into nothing?
I think you underestimate the dialogue that is going on all around the world on that very distinction, and has been for some time. There are many people of faith and many interested in the topic who make a clear distinction between faith (or indeed spirituality) and organised religion or dogma. Partly this shift is as a result of an increasingly secular and rational worldview in society - we no longer need a 'god of the gaps' to explain natural phenomena, so what is left of value? It is also to do with evolution of morality and tolerance and the move in Western society toward progressive ideals which reject much of the judgmental and exclusive doctrine of traditional religion in favour of an inclusive faith or spiritual practice.
Certainly my faith is of great use to me in my daily life, it does not teach me about how my car works or how a baby is formed or why my boiler is broken. It doesn't let me know why the sky is blue (ok, grey), or how the birds came to fly through it. Nor will it win me the lottery, cure me of illness or make the road to work traffic free however hard I wish for it. But what faith gives me is a framework of morality, a set of principles and values which guide my daily life and decisions, and allow me to process my experiences in a way that rationality alone cannot. We are not Vulcans and we do not live by logic alone. You cannot boil the choices of a life down to little logical rules like 'the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few' because down that road lies tyranny. Nor can you dismiss the mental wellbeing of a human mind as something unimportant or not useful, and faith provides a route to wellness and contentment for many. It may be that, if we break it down, we are all just electrical impulses and chemical reactions and all that awaits us is dust. It probably is, actually - my field of training is chemistry, and that is what it implies. But that is not our lived experience. In our minds we are, to quote another franchise, luminous beings. And that is where faith comes in. Even Dawkins writes of the miracle of finding ourselves alive against astronomical odds, and making the best of that time before we return to oblivion. How we do that is the domain of faith.
Truth is I think science is loaded with theory and unproved formula. It tries though
That's funny, I feel the same way about religion.
Though I would use the term "unprovable formula".
One doesn't need faith for that. Values and principle, morality... ethics are things that should exist with or without faith. I'm atheist, always was, I still have principles and morality
And I don't argue that one needs it.
I can only present my own experiences. I've been atheist, theist and something in between.
Try telling us that without it
