That doesnāt change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Iām sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasnāt.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least itās not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesnāt justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And thatās what this whole conversation has been about.
That doesnāt change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Again, in science, the ārealm of beliefā is something different than the ārealm of beliefā for religion. If you canāt acknowledge that, I canāt assume youāre approaching this conversation in good faith.
Iām sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first childā¦ How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
So, thatās actually the difference Iām talking about. In science, when you come across something you donāt know the answer to, the first thing you say is āhuh, I donāt know the answer to thatā. You donāt claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you donāt know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then thatās basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasnāt.
Right, he ābelievedā in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didnāt match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasnāt quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newtonās.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that youāre even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say āI donāt knowā, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the ābeliefā in religion is nothing like the ābeliefā in science.
None of this matters, really. At least itās not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesnāt justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And thatās what this whole conversation has been about.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if youāre going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
Again, in science, the ārealm of beliefā is something different than the ārealm of beliefā for religion. If you canāt acknowledge that, I canāt assume youāre approaching this conversation in good faith.
Either way, itās still belief. The other user I was arguing with was trying to say people should be forced to give up their religious beliefs. My point was that thatās not okay, because the state cannot dictate oneās beliefs. That user then tried to argue that science and reality are somehow mutually exclusive from belief and therefore deserve an exception, when that clearly isnāt the case. And as soon as you try to go down that path, youāll have whoever is in charge of what constitutes ārealityā banning any hypotheses that donāt align with their particular persuasions. Maybe no one can study string theory, because that person believes in quantum gravity. Or vise versa.
If you canāt see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people canāt believe, thatās a you problem, not a me problem.
You donāt claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. [ā¦] In religion, when you come across something you donāt know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then thatās basically the end of it.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like youāre approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Also, plenty of religious people have a scientific worldview, and their spiritual beliefs accommodate empirical facts. Why should those people be forced to give up their beliefs just because you disagree with them?
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that youāre even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly).
Wow, that went right over your head. How can you claim Iām the one being dishonest when youāre the one attempting to frame a deliberate aporia as ignorance on my part?
Religion is largely constant.
No, itās not. Or else weād all still be animists.
Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say āI donāt knowā
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. Lots of religions cultivate an appreciation for the unknown. Try considering people besides the obnoxious fundamentalists who are loudest in the media but are mostly viewed as hypocrites by other members of their own religion.
If youāre viewing every religious person as an evangelical christian from the american bible belt, an ultra-orthodox jewish zionist, or a member of the taliban, then I think weāve identified the problem.
But the thing is, all three of those religions (christianity, judaism, islam) also have other sects that arenāt like that, who believe in science and empathy and universal human rights and mutual respect. But if youāre trying to say that those people need to abandon their religions because you disagree them, then you clearly donāt believe in those things (at least, the empathy, rights, and respect parts).
And it goes beyond the abrahamic religions too. Do you believe people in Tibet should have to give up Buddhism? Because Beijing is anti-religious and that is a part of their cultural imperialism in places like Tibet and Urumqi.
Do you believe MÄori and other Pacific Island cultures should give up their religions, because your worldview is more enlightened? How is that not the same as calling them ābackward primitivesā? Are you starting to see the problems here?
How about indigenous people in the americas, including uncontacted tribes? Are you going to force them to give up their religious beliefs too?
How about all of the religions of the Indian subcontinent? Youāre gonna try to tell them what they can and canāt believe?
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter.
Then this entire string has been a red herring. The issue is whether or not to ban individual religious beliefs and expression, and I still firmly say no. The only way to ensure peaceful coexistence and universal respect and dignity is to learn not only to tolerate but also to appreciate the diversity of religious beliefs that exist in the world. Intolerance should never be tolerated, whether the intolerant person is a theist or an atheist. And nation-states should never mandate one way or another what people can or canāt believe spiritually.
Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if youāre going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
I understand the difference quite well. It seems youāre the one whoās trying to lump them together by approaching religion from within the box of science. If youāre trying to apply the same principles, it will never make sense. You said yourself that theyāre in different realms, and yet youāre rejecting not only religion but also religious people as a whole, simply on the grounds that they donāt hold up to scientific rigor.
Well maybe the need they fulfill in the human psyche isnāt purely scientific. Maybe thereās a bit of a soft science to it, or maybe itās more of an art. Have you ever studied the humanities? Do you know how to approach literature, philosophy, poetry, mythology? What about anthropology and ethnography? Because there are a lot of lenses to approach religion through, and you seem to be trying to mandate that we approach it through the lens of the hard sciences.
My entire point from the start in bringing up the unknowns in science was to make you examine your own epistemological assumptions. But clearly that went right over your head and you missed the point entirely, because your entire argument was built as if you were talking down to some religious person who also happens to be irrational.
As I stated elsewhere, however, Iām not even religious. I simply believe, on rational grounds, that every person has a right to determine their own spiritual beliefs and practices, and inasmuch as they donāt transgress on any other personās rights, no one should be allowed to transgress on theirs.
K, it just seems like youāre dug in at this point. Let me leave you with this. If we had different words for āscientific beliefā vs. āreligious beliefā, I donāt think youād be trying to make this same point.
If you canāt see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people canāt believe, thatās a you problem, not a me problem.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and canāt believe. But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like youāre approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method? Yes, Iām most familiar with how Abrahamic religions work because thatās what I grew up around, and thatās the kind of religion that over half the planet participates in. Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
I donāt really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important. What I donāt agree with is your attempt to conflate ābelief in religionā with ābelief in scienceā.
Dug into religious tolerance? Yes, I am, and so are most constitutional democracies in the free world. Letās not try to dig ourselves out of that.
If we had different words for āscientific beliefā vs. āreligious beliefā, I donāt think youād be trying to make this same point.
No, if you go back to one of the earliest examples of epistemology, before the English language even existed, Plato defines ābeliefā as opposed to āfactā in Book 6 of the Republic, in the Line Analogy. What we call it, and whether that differs between contexts, doesnāt change the fact that belief exists in science.
The entire reason weāre having this conversation is that the other user was claiming that science is always about facts, never belief, and trying to use that to justify persecuting religious people for their beliefs.
I demonstrated the error in their argument, which youāre now trying to obfuscate by saying ābelief is different in science than it is in religion,ā when that isnāt what matters, because the other userās arguments were still erroneous.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and canāt believe.
Okay, then you should probably stop trying to support the arguments of the guy saying that states should ban religious beliefs/expressionā¦
But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
The only reason āscienceā even got brought up in this conversation was because the other user was trying to hide behind it as some exceptionalist term, as if no beliefs are held in science and everything is factual. I listed a number of beliefs that are commonly held in science, and no honest scientist would claim they are proven facts.
What part of that are you not getting?
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method?
Millions, possibly billions. The Catholic church officially endorses science and rationalism, for one. Many Hindu religions believe in science. Many Jewish sects believe in science. Many Muslims believe in science. Many Buddhists believe in science. Many Sikhs believe in science. Many people with indigenous faiths believe in science.
If youāre going to categorically dismiss all those people because theyāre religious, then thereās no way to have a good faith discussion with you, because you canāt see through your own biased point of view.
Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
Youāre viewing these as mutually-exclusive categories. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that many religious people do believe in science. They donāt need to justify their religion with the scientific method, because religion is not supposed to be a science. The role that it fills in a personās life and worldview is not the same as the role that science fills. And no one needs to justify their personal beliefs to you in order to be allowed to believe in them.
I donāt really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important
Okay then, dismiss the main body of my argument as pertinent to the topic of this discussion, and only address my responses to your attempted red herrings. I donāt care.
If you agree that freedom of religious expression is important, then youāre not the one Iām arguing with. Unless youāre trying to back up the other user that was saying religion should be banned, in which case youāre contradicting yourself.
What I donāt agree with is your attempt to conflate ābelief in religionā with ābelief in scienceā.
I wasnāt conflating the two. In fact, youāre conflating them by arguing that we need to hold them up to the same standards. Iāve stated more than once that they fulfill different needs/roles in a human life, that we donāt need to treat religions the way we treat science in order for them to be valid.
If you donāt see how pointing out beliefs within science is a valid argument to someone claiming that religions should be banned and thatās okay because science is all about facts and reality, then I canāt help you. But accusing me of conflating the two is a complete distortion of my argument, a strawman and a red herring, and if thatās all you can focus on then I think this conversation is over.
That doesnāt change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Iām sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child, the scent of blossoms on a gentle spring breeze, the taste of fresh fruit in summer. How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasnāt.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
None of this matters, really. At least itās not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesnāt justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And thatās what this whole conversation has been about.
Thank you for coming to my TED talk.
Again, in science, the ārealm of beliefā is something different than the ārealm of beliefā for religion. If you canāt acknowledge that, I canāt assume youāre approaching this conversation in good faith.
So, thatās actually the difference Iām talking about. In science, when you come across something you donāt know the answer to, the first thing you say is āhuh, I donāt know the answer to thatā. You donāt claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you donāt know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then thatās basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Right, he ābelievedā in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didnāt match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasnāt quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newtonās.
Of course not, and the fact that youāre even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say āI donāt knowā, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the ābeliefā in religion is nothing like the ābeliefā in science.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if youāre going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
Either way, itās still belief. The other user I was arguing with was trying to say people should be forced to give up their religious beliefs. My point was that thatās not okay, because the state cannot dictate oneās beliefs. That user then tried to argue that science and reality are somehow mutually exclusive from belief and therefore deserve an exception, when that clearly isnāt the case. And as soon as you try to go down that path, youāll have whoever is in charge of what constitutes ārealityā banning any hypotheses that donāt align with their particular persuasions. Maybe no one can study string theory, because that person believes in quantum gravity. Or vise versa.
If you canāt see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people canāt believe, thatās a you problem, not a me problem.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like youāre approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Also, plenty of religious people have a scientific worldview, and their spiritual beliefs accommodate empirical facts. Why should those people be forced to give up their beliefs just because you disagree with them?
Wow, that went right over your head. How can you claim Iām the one being dishonest when youāre the one attempting to frame a deliberate aporia as ignorance on my part?
No, itās not. Or else weād all still be animists.
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. Lots of religions cultivate an appreciation for the unknown. Try considering people besides the obnoxious fundamentalists who are loudest in the media but are mostly viewed as hypocrites by other members of their own religion.
If youāre viewing every religious person as an evangelical christian from the american bible belt, an ultra-orthodox jewish zionist, or a member of the taliban, then I think weāve identified the problem.
But the thing is, all three of those religions (christianity, judaism, islam) also have other sects that arenāt like that, who believe in science and empathy and universal human rights and mutual respect. But if youāre trying to say that those people need to abandon their religions because you disagree them, then you clearly donāt believe in those things (at least, the empathy, rights, and respect parts).
And it goes beyond the abrahamic religions too. Do you believe people in Tibet should have to give up Buddhism? Because Beijing is anti-religious and that is a part of their cultural imperialism in places like Tibet and Urumqi.
Do you believe MÄori and other Pacific Island cultures should give up their religions, because your worldview is more enlightened? How is that not the same as calling them ābackward primitivesā? Are you starting to see the problems here?
How about indigenous people in the americas, including uncontacted tribes? Are you going to force them to give up their religious beliefs too?
How about all of the religions of the Indian subcontinent? Youāre gonna try to tell them what they can and canāt believe?
Then this entire string has been a red herring. The issue is whether or not to ban individual religious beliefs and expression, and I still firmly say no. The only way to ensure peaceful coexistence and universal respect and dignity is to learn not only to tolerate but also to appreciate the diversity of religious beliefs that exist in the world. Intolerance should never be tolerated, whether the intolerant person is a theist or an atheist. And nation-states should never mandate one way or another what people can or canāt believe spiritually.
I understand the difference quite well. It seems youāre the one whoās trying to lump them together by approaching religion from within the box of science. If youāre trying to apply the same principles, it will never make sense. You said yourself that theyāre in different realms, and yet youāre rejecting not only religion but also religious people as a whole, simply on the grounds that they donāt hold up to scientific rigor.
Well maybe the need they fulfill in the human psyche isnāt purely scientific. Maybe thereās a bit of a soft science to it, or maybe itās more of an art. Have you ever studied the humanities? Do you know how to approach literature, philosophy, poetry, mythology? What about anthropology and ethnography? Because there are a lot of lenses to approach religion through, and you seem to be trying to mandate that we approach it through the lens of the hard sciences.
My entire point from the start in bringing up the unknowns in science was to make you examine your own epistemological assumptions. But clearly that went right over your head and you missed the point entirely, because your entire argument was built as if you were talking down to some religious person who also happens to be irrational.
As I stated elsewhere, however, Iām not even religious. I simply believe, on rational grounds, that every person has a right to determine their own spiritual beliefs and practices, and inasmuch as they donāt transgress on any other personās rights, no one should be allowed to transgress on theirs.
K, it just seems like youāre dug in at this point. Let me leave you with this. If we had different words for āscientific beliefā vs. āreligious beliefā, I donāt think youād be trying to make this same point.
No, I get that. Religious freedom is a founding principle of my country, the government has no place telling people what they can and canāt believe. But in our world of reality, that concept has nothing to do with science, is my whole point.
Cool, how many people believe in religions like that? How many people believe in religions that follow the scientific method? Yes, Iām most familiar with how Abrahamic religions work because thatās what I grew up around, and thatās the kind of religion that over half the planet participates in. Call that bias if you want, none of that changes the fact that no religion relies on the scientific method, critical and rational thought, and evidence the way science does.
I donāt really feel a need to address anything else you said because, like I said earlier, I agree that freedom of religious expression is important. What I donāt agree with is your attempt to conflate ābelief in religionā with ābelief in scienceā.
Dug into religious tolerance? Yes, I am, and so are most constitutional democracies in the free world. Letās not try to dig ourselves out of that.
No, if you go back to one of the earliest examples of epistemology, before the English language even existed, Plato defines ābeliefā as opposed to āfactā in Book 6 of the Republic, in the Line Analogy. What we call it, and whether that differs between contexts, doesnāt change the fact that belief exists in science.
The entire reason weāre having this conversation is that the other user was claiming that science is always about facts, never belief, and trying to use that to justify persecuting religious people for their beliefs.
I demonstrated the error in their argument, which youāre now trying to obfuscate by saying ābelief is different in science than it is in religion,ā when that isnāt what matters, because the other userās arguments were still erroneous.
Okay, then you should probably stop trying to support the arguments of the guy saying that states should ban religious beliefs/expressionā¦
The only reason āscienceā even got brought up in this conversation was because the other user was trying to hide behind it as some exceptionalist term, as if no beliefs are held in science and everything is factual. I listed a number of beliefs that are commonly held in science, and no honest scientist would claim they are proven facts.
What part of that are you not getting?
Millions, possibly billions. The Catholic church officially endorses science and rationalism, for one. Many Hindu religions believe in science. Many Jewish sects believe in science. Many Muslims believe in science. Many Buddhists believe in science. Many Sikhs believe in science. Many people with indigenous faiths believe in science.
If youāre going to categorically dismiss all those people because theyāre religious, then thereās no way to have a good faith discussion with you, because you canāt see through your own biased point of view.
Youāre viewing these as mutually-exclusive categories. You continue to refuse to acknowledge that many religious people do believe in science. They donāt need to justify their religion with the scientific method, because religion is not supposed to be a science. The role that it fills in a personās life and worldview is not the same as the role that science fills. And no one needs to justify their personal beliefs to you in order to be allowed to believe in them.
Okay then, dismiss the main body of my argument as pertinent to the topic of this discussion, and only address my responses to your attempted red herrings. I donāt care.
If you agree that freedom of religious expression is important, then youāre not the one Iām arguing with. Unless youāre trying to back up the other user that was saying religion should be banned, in which case youāre contradicting yourself.
I wasnāt conflating the two. In fact, youāre conflating them by arguing that we need to hold them up to the same standards. Iāve stated more than once that they fulfill different needs/roles in a human life, that we donāt need to treat religions the way we treat science in order for them to be valid.
If you donāt see how pointing out beliefs within science is a valid argument to someone claiming that religions should be banned and thatās okay because science is all about facts and reality, then I canāt help you. But accusing me of conflating the two is a complete distortion of my argument, a strawman and a red herring, and if thatās all you can focus on then I think this conversation is over.