There are correct and incorrect ways to view evidence.
Dreaded Anomaly Send a noteboard - 05/12/2010 05:42:41 AM
If a person is dying of cancer, prays for a miracle, and watches the cancer go into remission, is that not evidence, to that person, of a higher power? (I am not a religous person, but bear with me.)
The scientist would say no, because the results are not repeatable. Science demands that they be so, and rightly so because science's goals are theory and fact. But religious belief does not have the same condition attached. Does this make it inferior? Only from the point of view of the scientist and his goals, because such belief is incompatible with those goals except as a means to inspire more effort toward them.
The scientist would say no, because the results are not repeatable. Science demands that they be so, and rightly so because science's goals are theory and fact. But religious belief does not have the same condition attached. Does this make it inferior? Only from the point of view of the scientist and his goals, because such belief is incompatible with those goals except as a means to inspire more effort toward them.
Correlation isn't causation. The evidence is the observation that the cancer went into remission. Any connection with God or religion is an interpretation. Is that hypothesis falsifiable, does it make testable predictions? The answer is obviously no, which is why it's not useful. I don't think many religious people would admit that their goal is not fact or accuracy, as you suggest. If they believe their goal to be accuracy, they're failing at that goal. If their goal is not accuracy, I don't see a way to take that seriously.
I've studied the psychology of religious belief and understand that people have subjectively authoritative experiences that convince them of the truth of their beliefs. However, a subjective experience is only worth something to the person who has it. Further, any convictions one gains from it are the result of an interpretation, similar to what I described above. Is the person who has the experience most qualified to make that interpretation? Not necessarily, in the same way that doctors are more qualified to diagnose patients than the patients themselves are.
You contend that the two types of belief are different because of the reasons behind them, and I'm not saying I think you're wrong. But fundamentally different? I'm not so sure. They are both belief, and they both have an affect on the human spirit (by which I mean human dreams, aspirations, etc., not a literal ghostly spirit thing).
Fundamentally different categories can still have things in common. Conservatism and liberalism are both political philosophies, and they affect, for example, how people vote, but they're based on fundamentally different principles.
You say that one is rational and one is irrational, which is technically correct. I don't know if you meant any negative connotation to that word, irrational, though it often comes with that negative baggage. Illogical might be the word I'd use instead, for logic and illogic is a more cold, clearly defined division. Irrational suggests, well, crazy. I don't think there's anything crazy about belief in something despite a lack of evidence. That sort of belief can have very real effects on the human condition, on hopes, dreams, interactions with others, the things that inspire us, the things that make us feel wonder and mystery. Those aren't irrational, even if the belief technically is. Sometimes that illogical belief can lead to negative effects, but only sometimes. But pure belief in the unknown, by itself, is not crazy. It keeps our eyes open.
Rationality and irrationality have clearly defined meanings, and I don't think irrational suggests crazy. I'm not sure what you mean by "belief in the unknown," but believing in something without evidence is irrational. Keeping an open mind means being willing to believe something when a reason to believe it (i.e. evidence) is presented.
And in the end, both science and religion/belief in the unknown serve one identical purpose: they both make us feel very small in the universe.
I don't think that's a universal characteristic of religion. Look at the emphasis on a "personal relationship with God" that's become more prevalent in evangelical faiths. Or, for a much older example, look at Judaism, in which followers are considered the chosen people. Religion often ends up being about making people feel special, at least in some part.
I also don't agree that that's the purpose of science, although it can certainly have that effect.
More Important Than Soccer: Completely new type of DNA discovered
- 02/12/2010 04:48:51 PM
1428 Views
Wow. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 05:32:08 PM
394 Views
that is TOTALLY inappropriate
- 02/12/2010 04:58:47 PM
643 Views
Crazy awesome.
- 02/12/2010 05:07:49 PM
729 Views
So the movie Evolution was real!
- 02/12/2010 05:24:16 PM
638 Views
Wow. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 05:32:08 PM
394 Views
Dang. I thought it was naturally occurring. Missed the part where it was grown in a lab.
- 03/12/2010 02:16:16 AM
690 Views
I won't pretend I know enough about biology to understand the impact of this
- 02/12/2010 06:26:24 PM
713 Views
It's like finding a type of rock that eats laughter
- 02/12/2010 06:51:15 PM
560 Views
... without coming down and dealing with the nasty stomach cramps. 
- 02/12/2010 09:49:06 PM
768 Views
- 02/12/2010 09:49:06 PM
768 Views
I think I had an ex once that was made of arsenic. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 07:10:57 PM
350 Views
So, is it an alien?
- 02/12/2010 07:19:49 PM
701 Views
They haven't mentioned anything saying it's not from Earth, I think
- 02/12/2010 08:03:44 PM
708 Views
The bacteria in question is part of a known lineage
- 02/12/2010 08:07:34 PM
914 Views
see my note below
- 02/12/2010 08:13:35 PM
711 Views
Maybe
- 02/12/2010 08:23:16 PM
638 Views
So, apparently, this bacteria doesn't use arsneic for its DNA in its natural state?
- 02/12/2010 08:06:02 PM
589 Views
While awesome, it's a bit of a problem.
- 02/12/2010 09:04:22 PM
609 Views
True, but I'm not "looking for" anything in particular, so I just like it 
*NM*
- 02/12/2010 11:09:21 PM
391 Views
*NM*
- 02/12/2010 11:09:21 PM
391 Views
Less cool a revelation than I was hoping, but certainly not a complete disappointment. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 10:35:33 PM
345 Views
I don't understand why this is such a big deal. It always seemed common sense to me that there are
- 02/12/2010 10:40:22 PM
744 Views
I think it just makes them happy that they can widen the parameters for life-sustaining planets. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 11:00:31 PM
328 Views
yah. it's one thing to theorize, another thing to find something to hold true.
- 02/12/2010 11:10:23 PM
621 Views
It's much more than an educated guess.
- 02/12/2010 11:59:18 PM
778 Views
You can't "know" from this distance.
- 03/12/2010 03:13:05 AM
582 Views
Why not?
- 03/12/2010 04:42:15 AM
768 Views
obviously you have not learned to look at the back label on the car *NM*
- 04/12/2010 07:04:42 PM
336 Views
*NM*
- 04/12/2010 07:04:42 PM
336 Views
Yes, we can.
- 04/12/2010 06:04:48 PM
936 Views
The problem probably is with me.
- 04/12/2010 08:00:56 PM
601 Views
No, they aren't.
- 04/12/2010 10:01:25 PM
612 Views
Depends on how you view evidence, no?
- 05/12/2010 04:50:11 AM
842 Views
There are correct and incorrect ways to view evidence.
- 05/12/2010 05:42:41 AM
561 Views
Are you baiting me to bait you?
- 05/12/2010 06:41:49 AM
773 Views
I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 05/12/2010 07:26:39 AM
772 Views
Re: I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 05/12/2010 07:08:04 PM
551 Views
Re: I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 05/12/2010 07:56:43 PM
763 Views
Re: I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 06/12/2010 03:15:37 AM
703 Views
I made my students watch the NASA channel for over two hours today 
- 02/12/2010 11:11:40 PM
503 Views
- 02/12/2010 11:11:40 PM
503 Views