Faith Vs. Science

[thesometimesaint]

Vex:

How so?

[Daniel Peterson]

An excellent definition of religious faith is "unfounded belief."

Few serious religious thinkers, if any, would accept that definition, let alone praise it as "excellent."

But I can easily see how somebody with 44Foxtrot's agenda would find it marvelously useful: As a question-begging premise to his argument, it already contains his conclusion!

[volgadon]

Science already makes sense.

The confusion, conflict and consternation in the world is due, in no small measure, to differences in religious belief.

Apples and oranges.

[thesometimesaint]

44Foxtrot

"The confusion, conflict and consternation in the world is due, in no small measure, to differences in religious belief."

The 20th Century should have disabused you of that ridiculous idea.

[Vex]

The amount we know about either is like a thimbles' worth of knowledge compared to our vast ocean of ignorance.

unless I'm misunderstanding what you are replying to...

[thesometimesaint]

Vex:

I think the word "either" applies, but am willing to concede the point.

[Jeff K.]

Science already makes sense.

The confusion, conflict and consternation in the world is due, in no small measure, to differences in religious belief.

Science doesn't always make sense. In fact, much of it is based on uncertainty. Of course Heisenberg could be wrong.

[semlogo]

Few serious religious thinkers, if any, would accept that definition, let alone praise it as "excellent."

But I can easily see how somebody with 44Foxtrot's agenda would find it marvelously useful: As a question-begging premise to his argument, it already contains his conclusion!

It would behoove us as Latter-day Saints not to accuse people of having "agendas." He has a viewpoint. So do we. Using the word agenda makes it sound like he's a part of some evil conspiracy. I think using that sort of terminology does not elevate the level of the discourse, but rather has the opposite effects, and only serves to create unnecessary animosity.

Surely we can all acknowledge that we all have different viewpoints, honestly held opinions, even if they are radically opposed to each other, without the mudslinging.

[Mortal Man]

Religion is like a forest and science is like agriculture. In the beginning, the forest is vast and dense, but then the farmers show up and start clearing it away. As civilizations advance, they clear the forest to add more farms. Sometimes a lot of farmers get killed (like the fall of the Roman Empire) and the trees make a comeback. Ultimately however, the trees are all doomed. When the last tree falls, everyone dies, which is what happened on Easter Island.

[Daniel Peterson]

To suggest an "agenda" can in no way be reasonably construed as implying a "conspiracy" or as "mudslinging."

I have plenty of agendas, including a research agenda and a publishing agenda.

If I wanted to be particularly sensitive, I would note that accusing me of imputing conspiratorial skullduggery to 44Foxtrot and of attempting to brand him as "evil" and of "mudslinging" is itself an insult and a lowering of the level of discourse, and that I resent it.

But I have no intention of playing along with attempts to personalize these discussions.

[Deborah]

You stated that perception of physical evidence in support of faith comes to the faithful. You are correct. In fact, it comes only to the faithful. Think about it.

I didn't say "perception." I said physical evidence. I do think however that those who lose their faith redefine the evidence to become mis-perception based on their prior non-enlightenment.

[Jeff K.]

Tycho Brahe and an assistant were walking late one evening looking at the stars. The assistant was chuckling how silly earlier science was to believe that the world was the center of the universe and all things revolved around it. Brahe suddenly stopped and looked up silently at the starlit night. His assistant queried why Brahe had stopped, and Brahe replied "I wonder what the evening sky looked litke than."

In fact it looked the same, and most of the science worked quite well. However as we learn more, our perceptions of the world around us changes (sometimes dramatically). Perception is very important since it defines reality, especially for the sciences and scientists are constantly arguing about perception and which perception should dominate. Science like religion is chaotic that way.

There is no doubt that there is conflict between some aspects of science and some points of mormon doctrine. As has been discussed elsewhere in this forum, we can't reconcile what the scriptures say about Adam and Eve, their immortaility while in the garden and the 6,000 years of time its been since they partook of the fruit. Most mormons do not worry about it, they somehow blend the two together in a way that really is not rational, others who are more rational may reject some of the docrine but surprisingly, they still believe in the church, so its really not much of a problem. Still others like me, will blow off the science and not pay it any heed. The mormon leadership has wisely chosen to ignore conflicts because it does not matter what you believe regarding the age of the earth or Adam, people will still believe in the church.

For the statement to be accurate one would have to believe that not knowing something is irrational. The absence of knowledge does not create irrationality. It is of course rational to assume some parts of the Old Testament are literal and some passages are meant to be symbolic, that is not an irrational stance to take. I do not think a conflict can exist when one states "I don't know" or "The Lord hasn't made it known to me". The conflict only exists when one stats unequivocably that something either had to occur or did not occur. So no, it is not a question of rational versus irrational behavior, rather it is simply a question of knowing or not knowing. As such it doesn't impede scholarship or science since it conflicts with neither.

[semlogo]

To suggest an "agenda" can in no way be reasonably construed as implying a "conspiracy" or as "mudslinging."

I have plenty of agendas, including a research agenda and a publishing agenda.

If I wanted to be particularly sensitive, I would note that accusing me of imputing conspiratorial skullduggery to 44Foxtrot and of attempting to brand him as "evil" and of "mudslinging" is itself an insult and a lowering of the level of discourse, and that I resent it.

But I have no intention of playing along with attempts to personalize these discussions.

"Agenda" is a well-known "weasel word," used frequently in politics in order to impart a sinister connotation to the intent of one's opponents.

We, as representatives of Christ, should be above that sort of rhetoric.

I should note, however, that I actually agree with you, not with Foxtrot. His opinion does not accurately represent true religion.

[Mortal Man]

Tycho Brahe...

He's my ancestor.

[44Foxtrot]

Few serious religious thinkers, if any, would accept that definition, let alone praise it as "excellent."

But I can easily see how somebody with 44Foxtrot's agenda would find it marvelously useful: As a question-begging premise to his argument, it already contains his conclusion!

To many scientists and other rationalists, the term "religious thinker" is, sorry to say, somewhat of an oxymoron.

Your expressed discomfort with "unfounded belief" as a definition of religious faith does make it an any less accurate and useful definition.

[WalkerW]

To many scientists and other rationalists, the term "religious thinker" is, sorry to say, somewhat of an oxymoron.

They are entitled to their opinions. Good thing their opinions aren't the only ones that count.

[44Foxtrot]

They are entitled to their opinions. Good thing their opinions aren't the only ones that count.

When determining whether an opinion "counts" or not, one should look at the results of such opinions on society, as a whole and over time.

Considering that "unfounded belief" was the only choice our ancient ancestors had, given their lack of knowledge about how the world worked, such opinions were not much of a problem. One set of superstitions was about as useful or valid as another.

Problems arise when a significant number in our society (more than 60% by some estimates) continue to base their worldview on unfounded belief when physical evidence based scientific understanding as to how the world and the universe really work is readily available.

I recently had a religionist tell me that, while the evidence for evolution was indeed convincing and she could find no significant objective fault with it, she simply could not "believe" in evolution.

Compared to opinions based on evidence based belief, opinions based on beliefs held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary have about the same relative value as the opinions of Amazonian shaman as compared to those of a medical doctor regarding treatment of systemic infections.

[volgadon]

Isaac Newton would have never made it beyond the door if he were looking for a job and foxtrot were hiring.

[44Foxtrot]

Isaac Newton would have never made it beyond the door if he were looking for a job and foxtrot were hiring.

Not to worry. The jobs that 44 Foxtrot hires for were not even around in Isaac Newton's day.

[WalkerW]

When determining whether an opinion "counts" or not, one should look at the results of such opinions on society, as a whole and over time.

I'm reminded of philosopher David Bentley Hart's reply to to the subtitle of Christopher Hitchen's book, which is How Religion Poisons Everything. He said,

Does he really mean precisely everything? Would that apply, then-confining ourselves just to things Christian-to ancient and medieval hospitals, leper asylums, orphanages, almshouses, and hostels? To the golden rule, "Love thine enemies," "Judge not lest ye be judged," prophetic admonitions against oppressing the poor, and commands to feed and clothe and comfort those in need? To the music of Palestrina and Bach, Michelangelo's Pieta, "ah! bright wings," San Marco's mosaics, the Bible of Amiens, and all that gorgeous blue stained glass at Chartres? To the abolitionist movement, the civil rights movement, and contemporary efforts to liberate Sudanese slaves? And so on and so on? Surely it cannot be the case that, if only purged of the toxin of faith, these things would be even better than they are; were it not for faith, it seems fairly obvious, most of them would have no existence at all (Hart, Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies, Yale University Press, 2009: pgs. 219-220).

One set of superstitions was about as useful or valid as another.

Really?

Problems arise when a significant number in our society (more than 60% by some estimates) continue to base their worldview on unfounded belief when physical evidence based scientific understanding as to how the world and the universe really work is readily available.

And there is an extensive array of philosophical and scholarly literature that is readily available to anyone who wants to understand the world of so-called "unfounded belief." One may disagree with the literature, but to simply state religious belief as "unfounded" is just incorrect.

I recently had a religionist tell me that, while the evidence for evolution was indeed convincing and she could find no significant objective fault with it, she simply could not "believe" in evolution.

Fantastic. I believe in evolution and I know three books off the top of my head that talk about this very subject:

Kenneth Miller, Finding Darwin's God: A Scientist's Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution (Cliff Street Books, 1999).

Francis S. Collins, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief (Free Press, 2006). Collins founded the BioLogos Foundation and also recently edited Belief: Readings on the Reason for Faith (HarperOne, 2010).

Simon Conway Morris, Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe (Cambridge University Press, 2003).

I've read Miller's and both of Collin's, but not Conway's. I have, however, read Conway's impressive article "Evolution and the Inevitability of Intelligent Life" in The Cambridge Companion to Science and Religion, ed. Peter Harrison (Cambridge University Press, 2010) as well as his 2005 Boyle Lecture entitled "Darwin's Compass: How Evolution Discovers the Song of Creation."

My own mother doesn't believe in evolution and she thinks the scriptures somehow prove her position. (Or at least she did. I haven't discussed the matter any time recently.) I disagree with her and her approach to scripture. Yet, we are both Mormon. Apparently, there is nothing inherent about Mormonism that should make one question the science of evolution.

New Testament scholar N.T. Wright has a

similar to yours, but regarding the historical evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. However, I'm sure you will not be impressed with it, just like I'm not particularly impressed with yours.

Compared to opinions based on evidence based belief, opinions based on beliefs held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary have about the same relative value as the opinions of Amazonian shaman as compared to those of a medical doctor regarding treatment of systemic infections.

Beliefs held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary would certainly be questionable beliefs. I guess it depends on the belief and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, beliefs held in the face of overwhelming rhetoric to the contrary are a different matter. That seems to be what is going on here.

[44Foxtrot]

Beliefs held in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary would certainly be questionable beliefs. I guess it depends on the belief and the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. However, beliefs held in the face of overwhelming rhetoric to the contrary are a different matter. That seems to be what is going on here.

Just so I understand, are you claiming that, as a faithful Mormon, you hold no beliefs for which there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

[Jeff K.]

He's my ancestor.

Related to shiny nose? Very cool.

[WalkerW]

Just so I understand, are you claiming that, as a faithful Mormon, you hold no beliefs for which there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

Actually, no, that has nothing to do with what I was claiming. I was pointing out that you like to lump any and every belief that may have some kind of religious connection together in a huge vat you disdain as religion. This is just plain sloppy.

But to answer your question: Not off the top of my head, no. But I'm always adjusting my paradigm the more I learn (I would hope that is true with any worldview).

However, I hope your label of "faithful Mormon" doesn't take on some Mormon orthodoxy that you made up.

[Jeff K.]

Just so I understand, are you claiming that, as a faithful Mormon, you hold no beliefs for which there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary?

That is correct. Our doctrine is not incompatible with science, and not one doctrine we hold is against any known scientific knowledge.

[WalkerW]

Foxtrot is more than welcome to present a Mormon belief I have that has "overwhelming evidence to the contrary."