PDA

View Full Version : Belief, Assumptions, Logic and Science


BluffTHIS!
06-27-2005, 12:55 PM
I would like to follow up David's thread about belief and probability with one that examines belief, assumptions, logic and science. As most of you know by now, I approach the subject of belief from a Catholic Christian perspective, but I think these things have universal application. Any scientific or religious or philosophical belief system usually starts with certain axioms, i.e. core assumptions which cannot be proved scientifically but are nonethless deemed true and are the foundation for that system. In the case of religion or philosophy, if there were no axioms, that is if the core beliefs were demonstrably true, then it wouldn't really be what we call a religion or a philosophy, but merely a subset of science, regardless of whether it had to do with traditional religious/philosophical themes such as deity, afterlife, why we are here, how can we lead the best/ethical lives we can, etc.

Regarding such core assumptions/axioms, though many of you might and do believe that those upon which Christianity or Islam or Buddhism, etc. are farfetched and made-up, surely the core assumptions of some religions and philosophies seem to a majority of people to be less far-fetched than others and thus worthy of more consideration. An example of extremely far-fetched would be to me such beliefs as those that motivated people to kill themselves thinking that a spaceship waited behind a comet to trasport them somewhere, a belief system whose tenets and member-control mechanisms would desiginate it as a cult to most people other than themselves.

After looking at the core assumptions, the next question to me is, do all the subsequent doctrines that follow from them procede from same in a logical manner and are they consistent with science? This of course allows for the fact that such beliefs may not contradict today's science only because science has not progressed far enough, and that just because certain beliefs cannot be said to be based upon scientific evidence, that they may do so in the future or perhaps will always occupy that unproved-but-not-disproved status that seems typical of most religious/philosophical systems. Many religious/philosophical systems I have encountered over the years not only from my perspective seemed based upon flawed axioms, but also to possess derivative beliefs that do not follow logically from those axioms or are contrary to scientific evidence or in some cases that own system's history itself.

In my own case regarding the Catholic Church, it is clear to all that over the last two thousand years that many of it's leaders and members have lead lives totally opposite to what they professed, have abused their authority and made decisions ruinous to the lives and spiritual welfare of others. Also it is clear that the church has not always had a correct understanding of science, Galileo being a case in point, but such things do not concern me overly much as scientific opinions even held by a pope are not matters of doctrine and thus not necessry for anyone to believe. Indeed regarding science, I do not believe that there can or should ever be a true difference between God and the doctrines concerning Him and true science. In this respect for example, contrary to what is believed by more "fundamentalist" Christians, I believe in "theistic evolution". Thus I think that the most important thing to understand is that God is the "first uncreated cause" and that He was free to use whatever scientific or miraculous means to achieve His purposes, and that as we possess a greter scientific understanding, it is clear that He mostly uses natural means consonant with science.

Finally when looking at logic, and integrity as well, I look at various religious/philosophical belief systems for how they deal with their own shortcomings through history, and whether they have really actually changed their axioms and logically derived beliefs and admit to doing so. The most cynical example I can think of here is the Jehovah's Witnesses, which I view as a cult, who in the 1940's produces a set of brightly colored books dubbed by some as the "rainbow series". These books made many prophecies which obviously did not happen. The cynical part is that their chief agency sent people out to bookstores and other venues over the past 20 years to buy up such books so that they could be destroyed and thus limit exposure of these false prophecies. When you add this to the fact that they take a literalist interpretation of a certain passage in scripture which would limit the total amount of those saved over all time to 144,000, and that their total wordlwide membership now greatly exceeds that number, ignoring those who have already died or are yet to live, then yet another logically preposterous belief exposes the entire system to deserved ridicule and unbelief.

As I have stated before, just because there might be a point of doctrine upon which I am less sure than other, I do not therefore have to have a crisis of faith because of that regarding the whole belief system, but surely a number of critical issues upon which I came to see differrent might cause such a crisis, though that has never happened in my case. What is interesting however, is why certain people upon not just accepting relatively far-fetched axioms also seem to accept derivative doctrines which don't even follow logically from those axioms and/or are clearly disconnected from known science in some respects. If you add to these historical disparities and attempts to cover up same, including in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses above clearly erroneous and distorted translations of scripture, then the question of why such people continue to believe does clearly become a psychological one, which is why DS has said that many such questions belong in the psychology forum.

David Sklansky
06-28-2005, 12:53 AM
Well written. Keep in mind though that even if a religion bends over backwards to avoid logical contradiction, extreme farfetchednes, or direct conflicts with science, it is still probably wrong.

IronUnkind
06-28-2005, 02:46 AM
Why? What is the quality of religion that renders it ill-suited to describing truth? We're not talking now about a specific religion but, mind you, but the "ideal" religion.

Zeno
06-28-2005, 03:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We're not talking now about a specific religion but, mind you, but the "ideal" religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Athesim?

-Zeno

drudman
06-28-2005, 09:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Why? What is the quality of religion that renders it ill-suited to describing truth? We're not talking now about a specific religion but, mind you, but the "ideal" religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How about the fact that it has no empircal basis whatsoever?

Cyrus
06-28-2005, 10:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
What is the quality of religion that renders it ill-suited to describing truth? We're not talking now about a specific religion but, mind you, but the "ideal" religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Religion necessitates dogma.

And, with dogma, there is, necessarily, by force, always something missing in describing Truth/the Cosmos.

The moment you are 'freezing' in time an idea (or a set of ideas, however 'obvious' or 'self-evident'), you have thrown yourself out of the vehicle with which Truth is pursued.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 01:16 PM
[ QUOTE ]
How about the fact that it has no empircal basis whatsoever?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too over-reaching a statement. History and historical texts, whether possibly made-up or exaggerated can be empirical if they are true, even if there is not overwhelming evidence that they are. Furthermore, religion describes, in its view empirically, what quantum physics and cosmology have yet to do: the first cause of creation, the uncreated from whence everything else sprang. If science cannot say where the proto-matter for the big bang came from, then religion cannot do much worse.

drudman
06-28-2005, 01:35 PM
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the fact that it has no empircal basis whatsoever?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is too over-reaching a statement. History and historical texts, whether possibly made-up or exaggerated can be empirical if they are true, even if there is not overwhelming evidence that they are. Furthermore, religion describes, in its view empirically, what quantum physics and cosmology have yet to do: the first cause of creation, the uncreated from whence everything else sprang. If science cannot say where the proto-matter for the big bang came from, then religion cannot do much worse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good grief.

Are the fundamental tenets of religion even weakly verifiable by experience? No.

Of course anything written down COULD be true. Even if it were though, it is debatable whether that even counts as empirical evidence.

There is nothing empirical about religion's explanation for creation. That statement is self-condemning. There is a good reason why science doesn't explain the where the proto-matter came from. It can't. Probably nothing can.

Zeno
06-28-2005, 03:09 PM
[ QUOTE ]
If science cannot say where the proto-matter for the big bang came from, then religion cannot do much worse.

[/ QUOTE ]



That is one of the lug nuts that holds the wheel of religion onto the wagon of humanity.

This appeal to ignorance is the slippery eel of every theologian that bamboozles the credulous. Because something can't be explained, yet, it therefore automatically falls under the domain of 'religion'. Or religion can explain it just as well if not better than science. This is bolstered in the minds of many mainly by social acceptance and cultural tradition, even though it is sheer nonsense. In addition, this tug-of-war struggle has been ongoing for millennia and will continue on unabated into the foreseeable future. It started with the first Shaman shaking his rattle and blowing smoke right down to the present frauds and knaves that weave webs of metaphysical hooey. It is why there has always been an undercurrent of hostility between science and religion - set in bold relief by the trial of Galileo.

Whenever science shines some light on some unknown area of the natural world the corn doctors of religion simply shift to some other corner or court. Slowly they have been running out of space through the years but that is not really a deterrent to their ilk. They feed on the fear of the unknown, which is a very powerful stimulus. Also, the old appeal to revelation is an ace up their sleeve and it is played with deft skill. The wheel will not be coming off anytime soon.

-Zeno

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 03:36 PM
Your post might have some validity regarding most scientific truths that are slowly discovered over time. Yet the question I posed is the prime question, how is that either something was created from nothing, or that something has always existed without having a beginning. In a lecture of Stephen Hawking's which can be found here (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/lindex.html) he states that time and the universe does have a distinct beginning 15 billion years ago in a quantum singularity, and thus that the notion that an external agency such as God could have created it can only be true if it was done earlier than the 5000 years ago or so that the literalists argue from the literal chronology in Genesis. But I and other Christians don't expound those contrary-to-science interpretations of scripture, and a careful reading of Hawking's essay will show that he really has no idea where the original singularity that exploded into the big bang came from, though that the event of the big bang itself was following the laws of physics.

[ QUOTE ]
Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you have here a question, the origin of the proto-matter contained in the singularity that produced the big bang, that Hawking states can basically never be proved due to lack of observational or physical criteria. I am not of course stating that this proves the existence of a creating God by itself, just that in this matter alone, it will never scientfically be proved otherwise either. Thus the prime lug nut will never be loosened.

David Sklansky
06-28-2005, 05:41 PM
"So you have here a question, the origin of the proto-matter contained in the singularity that produced the big bang, that Hawking states can basically never be proved due to lack of observational or physical criteria. I am not of course stating that this proves the existence of a creating God by itself, just that in this matter alone, it will never scientfically be proved otherwise either. Thus the prime lug nut will never be loosened."

I don't knowif this is right or not. Perhaps someone will one day prove that time curls back on itself which will have implications for the lug nut.

But so what? Only one religion (Sklanskyanity) claims that the only things we need to believe is that God created the universe and that God will reward or punish after death. Every other religion makes fools of themselves with nonsensical and unnecessary details.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 08:15 PM
David, actually I think that Sklanskyanity left out an important detail other than the Golden Rule. That is, that there is no requirement to worship (read acknowledge) and love God for Himself in the way that He asks us to, besides just being good to his other creatures. Surely it is rational that something like this would be partial grounds for reward and punishment as well as conformity with the Golden Rule.

IronUnkind
06-28-2005, 09:03 PM
This rant sounds about as critical as those of creationists who believe that a cabal of "evolutionists" is off somewhere twisting their moustaches and hatching a plan to take away their bibles.

Even if you think that "the corn doctors of religion," is a term which applies to most of the religious, its not really productive to discuss the motives of worst subset of the group.

The fraudulence of a few (or even of many) does nothing to demonstrate the fraudulence of their idea.

IronUnkind
06-28-2005, 09:47 PM
This is a good start. Even ignoring my minor quibble with your use of the word "whatsoever," I still don't think you answer the question, though. Kant's contribution to the philosophy of science cannot be simply ignored. Kant showed that the activity of the observer contributes to how the observed appears to us. Therefore, there is a gap between the way things appear to be and the way things are. This is the limitation of science, which must be predicated upon an interpretation of data (empiricism).

Religious inquiry takes place within a different epistemological category (simultaneously idealistic and subjective) but a valid one nonetheless. If you disagree with its validity, I'd ask you to first consider Schrodinger's comment:

[ QUOTE ]
Einstein has not ... given the lie to Kant's deep thoughts on the idealization of space and time; he has, on the contrary, made a large step towards its accomplishment

[/ QUOTE ]

The theory of relativity injected a subjective element into the scientific picture, which continues to get weirder with all of the quantum peculiarity.

David Sklansky
06-28-2005, 11:30 PM
"David, actually I think that Sklanskyanity left out an important detail other than the Golden Rule. That is, that there is no requirement to worship (read acknowledge) and love God for Himself in the way that He asks us to, besides just being good to his other creatures."

The God of Sklanskyanity is like your real father. He might say something like "Do what I tell you because I am your father. Don't ask why" as your father probably said to you when you were nine years old. But he didn't really mean it. He wanted you to do what he said because he knew it was best for you. He had no interest in your acknowledging his wisdom except for the fact that if you did, and thus followed his wishes, he could be sure that you would do the right thing. And while he desired your love, he felt only sadness, not anger if you did not give it to him.

BluffTHIS!
06-28-2005, 11:59 PM
But would such a father nonetheless feel that justice did require a return of love for love, and that some type of punishment or detriment should accrue for lack of same?

Zeno
06-29-2005, 01:42 AM
[ QUOTE ]
This rant sounds about as critical as those of creationists who believe that a cabal of "evolutionists" is off somewhere twisting their moustaches and hatching a plan to take away their bibles.


[/ QUOTE ]

You may not like my style but the substance is plain, straightforward and quite factual. I make no mention in my post about some secret cabal of plotters or conspirators hatching schemes. Religion is tied to dogma and orthodoxy and has its roots deep in the human psyche and works off of fear and has evolved though different stages throughout human history.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if you think that "the corn doctors of religion," is a term which applies to most of the religious, its not really productive to discuss the motives of worst subset of the group.


[/ QUOTE ]

Motives reveal much of why religious individual’s believe what they do, what justifications they use for their belief, and their tenacious 'faith' in concepts that often disregard all available evidence or rational thought. It wasn't for nought that Mr. Sklansky pointed out in a recent thread why religion was an appropriate subject for the Psychology Forum. In addition, the above applies a great deal to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and many other major faiths. And religion is not so sacrosanct as to be above critique, though that is rarely socially acceptable.

There are of course some positive aspects to religious thought, but that was not the focus of my post.

[ QUOTE ]
The fraudulence of a few (or even of many) does nothing to demonstrate the fraudulence of their idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

Many ideas and beliefs of the major religions are based on fraud. In my opinion to twist facts or ignore them completely or rely on logic only to the point that it supports your preconceived notions or faith, and then abandon it and rest on revelation, all to perpetuate a fraud is crass thinking. Of course not all religious people fit that description. But a significant portion do (a few post on this forum) and I am willing to point that out; I don’t care if that makes me unpopular or not.

That said, many fine posts are made by the 'religious faction' on this forum. Bluff's is a good example of many and worthy of discussion.

-Zeno

Zeno
06-29-2005, 02:02 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So you have here a question, the origin of the proto-matter contained in the singularity that produced the big bang, that Hawking states can basically never be proved due to lack of observational or physical criteria. I am not of course stating that this proves the existence of a creating God by itself, just that in this matter alone, it will never scientfically be proved otherwise either. Thus the prime lug nut will never be loosened.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hawking could be wrong. He is after all only a man and not a god. It is possible of course that the ‘information’ needed to solve the cosmic puzzle was destroyed beyond all recovery during the very making of the universe. Or not. Or maybe some things that lead to that conclusion are actually wrong. Again, or not. Anyway, it is not as fixed as I think you want it to be. Your use of never is a bold statement. It has been used before to the chagrin of the user.

I enjoyed your posts.

-Zeno

IronUnkind
06-29-2005, 03:27 AM
[ QUOTE ]
I make no mention in my post about some secret cabal of plotters or conspirators hatching schemes.

[/ QUOTE ]

True enough, but you pretty plainly imply that the motives of the religious are to subvert truth and hoodwink the easily manipulable. It is tough for me to believe that this cynical characterization applies to most religious leaders, and I certainly don't think that it represents the intentions of many religious scholars/theologians.

[ QUOTE ]
Religion is tied to dogma and orthodoxy and has its roots deep in the human psyche and works off of fear and has evolved though different stages throughout human history.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps, but it is childish to think that this should automatically render religion suspect. I encourage you, however, to elaborate on the idea that religion "works off of fear." It seems like a glib conclusion to me, but perhaps you have some studies that demonstrate excessive amygdala-signaling during worship.

[ QUOTE ]
Motives reveal much of why religious individual’s believe what they do, what justifications they use for their belief, and their tenacious 'faith' in concepts that often disregard all available evidence or rational thought. It wasn't for nought that Mr. Sklansky pointed out in a recent thread why religion was an appropriate subject for the Psychology Forum. In addition, the above applies a great deal to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and many other major faiths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't disagree with what you say here, except that motive is not a quality of religion but rather a characteristic of believers.

I'd like to deconstruct the logical errors in the following paragraph, because I think it is indicative of the kind of thinking that must be expunged from the discussion.

[ QUOTE ]
Many ideas and beliefs of the major religions are based on fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

Step one: Introduce a dubious premise. Make sure that it is sweeping enough to ensure that no one can discuss the merits of its particulars.

[ QUOTE ]
In my opinion to twist facts or ignore them completely or rely on logic only to the point that it supports your preconceived notions or faith...

[/ QUOTE ]

Step two: Accept your own dubious premise and proceed to assault the straw man.

[ QUOTE ]
...and then abandon it and rest on revelation, all to perpetuate a fraud is crass thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Step three: Impugn faith for not being logic, and ascribe a devious motive to those who use it as a way of understanding their world.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course not all religious people fit that description. But a significant portion do (a few post on this forum) and I am willing to point that out...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the portion of religious adherents whose intention it is to defraud others is insignificant. I grant you that The Mislead, The Stupid, and The Confused are taking up a large section of the pie chart. But there are also exists a group of religious people who are thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate and tolerant. Their numbers are not as small as you would think, and they are the reed by which we should measure the faith.

BluffTHIS!
06-29-2005, 05:25 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Your use of never is a bold statement. It has been used before to the chagrin of the user.

[/ QUOTE ]

Normally I would agree with you regarding being that assertive about something scientific. However I think it is fairly clear that the big bang itself destroyed any observable evidence of what went before as Hawking said, and the fact that the laws of quantum physics break down in singularities would also make impossible to trace the universe farther past the big bang by theory using that very quantum physics.

David Sklansky
06-29-2005, 01:20 PM
"But would such a father nonetheless feel that justice did require a return of love for love, and that some type of punishment or detriment should accrue for lack of same?"

Not the fathers I know. Including me.

Zeno
06-29-2005, 03:52 PM
[ QUOTE ]
I think the portion of religious adherents whose intention it is to defraud others is insignificant. I grant you that The Mislead, The Stupid, and The Confused are taking up a large section of the pie chart. But there are also exists a group of religious people who are thoughtful, intelligent, compassionate and tolerant. Their numbers are not as small as you would think, and they are the reed by which we should measure the faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

We should measure religion by ALL its adherents, not just a select few. I agree that my statement(s) that 'all' religious individuals intentionally mislead is unjustified. That was uneccessarily cynical.

As to your other points, I disagree. It is not a fact that, say, Jesus came back to life after being crucified (if that event even occurred). Or that some God requires a blood sacrifice to wash humanity of its sins. It is not a fact that Jesus ascended into the heavens or that Mohammed did likewise. Or that a pillar of fire lead some clan of people across a wilderness or that a sea parted, the list is almost endless and is not particular to any one religion. People may believe that those events occurred but that does not make it so. There are other explanations for those events, the most probably being that they never happened or are the wishful thinking and exaggerations of close followers, hardly an unbiased group, or myths and legends or sheer fabrications. It follows quite logically then that the base for many religious beliefs is fraudulent. But those concepts are taught as fact by many 'Straw men'. And not just to adults but also to the very young. Indeed, many are taught that if you do not believe in certain 'facts' and creeds then you will end up in an afterlife of eternal damnation.

For the above I offer the evidence of unbiased biblical scholarship, religious research, history, and many other sources that any seeking individual could easily find read and study. I have no time at the moment to list in detail any particular books.


On the other side of the ledger are religious beliefs in compassion, forgiveness, and love of your fellow man that are exemplary. Although these same concepts have also been taught and outlined by many people that most would not consider 'religious'. Confucius for example.

-Zeno

BluffTHIS!
06-29-2005, 08:43 PM
[ QUOTE ]
"But would such a father nonetheless feel that justice did require a return of love for love, and that some type of punishment or detriment should accrue for lack of same?"

Not the fathers I know. Including me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do actually agree with your response in part, because the gospel parable of the prodigal son shows very well that God the Father is always willing to forgive a repentent son who returns. However, in the case where such a son does not return and repent, then that son has effectively excluded himself from the father's estate and protection and will suffer the consequences. A "just" consequence, albeit one that occurs permissively on the father's part.

IronUnkind
06-30-2005, 04:21 AM
[ QUOTE ]
We should measure religion by ALL its adherents, not just a select few.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not if the goal is to evaluate the strength of an idea. If that were the case, then we could also determine the merit of a scientific theory by asking a random junior-high biology student.

[ QUOTE ]
It follows quite logically then that the base for many religious beliefs is fraudulent. But those concepts are taught as fact by many 'Straw men'. And not just to adults but also to the very young. Indeed, many are taught that if you do not believe in certain 'facts' and creeds then you will end up in an afterlife of eternal damnation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I strenuously object to your continued use of the word "fraudulent." Even if EVERY SINGLE scriptural (Christian, Muslim, or otherwise) event were non-historical, this fact would not sufficiently demonstrate that those who teach otherwise were practicing deceit. If they promulgated a viewpoint which they believed to be rooted in fact, then they would not be "defrauding" their adherents, even if they were dead wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
For the above I offer the evidence of unbiased biblical scholarship, religious research, history, and many other sources that any seeking individual could easily find read and study. I have no time at the moment to list in detail any particular books.

[/ QUOTE ]

Given the tenor of your viewpoints, I find it hard to believe that your sources are unbiased. I'd be curious to see which books populate your shelves, as I suspect there are at least a few duds in your collection. Note: I partially suspect this on the basis of your side comment in which you question the historicity of the crucifixion. This is a well-tread topic within the atheist crackpot community, but it merits little interest among serious biblical historians.

Prevaricator
06-30-2005, 05:32 AM
Great post.