Is belief and
"going beyond scientific evidence" really that much of a negative if:
1- If you're not hindering or harming yourself and or those around you.
2- If science can never know anything with absolute certainty and theories are always contingent.
2- If science can never know anything with absolute certainty and theories are always contingent.
3- If most people are not true experts on anything, even though we idealistically admire the concept of the
scientific process..
4- If most people have no real desire to be a true expert on anything, even though we idealistically admire the concept of the
scientific process..
5- If apart of our mind is devoted to and predisposed to
belief in addition to a part of our mind being devoted to and
having a predisposition to rational and analytical thinking.
6- If having a thorough, scientific knowledge of reality does not
help you deal with life any better, in fact it may help you deal with it worse,
because it complicates reality for your mind, which merely wants a conclusion
more than the complicated truth.
7- If the concept of "intellectual integrity" and only
having knowledge that is scientifically proven is overrated and
not really the value that we should have the most focus on.
8- If, according to Michael Shermer's The Believing Brain, we
believe things before we rationally understand them to be true or not, because
this is a natural state of the mind.
9- If the claim, "There are no Atheists in foxholes” is true.
and..
10- If religion plays a major role in health and longevity..
First things first, I am phrasing the question Is belief and "going beyond scientific evidence" really that much of a negative? this way, because that is how my friend phrase it, that to him, if you entertain belief, you are "going beyond scientific evidence". So, I, instead of proving or disproving how true or false this is, just assumed that he is correct about this and for me the question is: Is this really that much of a negative IF?
and..
10- If religion plays a major role in health and longevity..
First things first, I am phrasing the question Is belief and "going beyond scientific evidence" really that much of a negative? this way, because that is how my friend phrase it, that to him, if you entertain belief, you are "going beyond scientific evidence". So, I, instead of proving or disproving how true or false this is, just assumed that he is correct about this and for me the question is: Is this really that much of a negative IF?
#1- If you're not hindering or harming yourself and or those around you.
I think this is a major contention for the majority, if not most, of Atheists and Agnostics about this kind of belief, because they do feel it hinders and harms the individual and those around that person. If fact, this Christian friend of mine, whom it's my current opinion that her beliefs do not hinder or harm herself and those around her.. But an old secular friend of mine, who has also known her, begs to differ. The following is his scrutiny of her and there is no need to comprehend everything he is writing, but the gist of what he's writing, and I've omitted names from this email response to protect these individuals privacy:
"But of course, that's not what your email was really about. You want to know how personally for _____ her faith could be dangerous. Of course, I think it's presumptuous for me to speak for her, but we both know her stands on various issues. I think her stand on homosexuality is wrong and can hurt those she is counseling or asking for advice. Her belief - based mostly on scripture - that evolution is not true (she is currently looking at the Progressive Creationism of RTB and the theistic evolution of Biologos) will keep her from growing in a true understanding of the world and reality, instead substituting an origin narrative that is false. This will affect everything she thinks and how she interacts with those around her since how we got here and why, affects everything in one's life. This is dangerous territory, basing your life on a delusion and affecting those around her. My eldest daughter idolizes some of her life. Her Christian belief system has her committed to celibacy until marriage; she is missing out on some of the most important aspects of what it means to be human, a loving female. And she counsels young women with that aspect of her life missing (or so she and _____ have told me). Many studies have shown that a healthy sexual relationship is very important to our well being. Of course, she could counter that her state is blissful; perhaps it is. Really, who am I to define her life? Another aspect is all the money she gives to her church, etc. Some of those funds are used to promote a way of thinking, of interpreting history, of turning to prayer for answers that in the end don't lead to real solutions. Basing you life on a delusion, and promoting a cultural move towards this thinking in personal lives and government rule is not helpful. I have traded many emails between _____ and _____ about whether America is a Christian Nation or at least founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles and morals. Her false belief system affects which party she supports and how she votes. Who gains the presidency will come with downstream judge appointments, policy rules (abstinent only programs lead to many teen pregnancies and wrecked lives).
That's the thing about religions and faith thinking. As one author has written, it's like costume jewelry. At first it looks pretty and fanciful but on closer exception it's not really something you'd want to own."
--So, that was my old secular friend's point of view of this Christian that I know. It's not the intention of this post to analyze the merit of his specific points. It's my intention to point out 3 things:
1- That none of my Christians friend's actions or words, that I have ever seen or heard, are, in and of themselves, harmful..
1- That none of my Christians friend's actions or words, that I have ever seen or heard, are, in and of themselves, harmful..
2- All human beings are very good at taking what are nevertheless good ideas and misunderstanding them, turning them into misinformation, and therefore into harmful ideas.
and
3- Very rarely do we really get to know people in general, sufficiently in all their context, outside of a personal best friend.
This is why it has been so vital in my wading back out into Christianity, to get to know the Christian life of Ivonne, and experience her for who she is in all of her context... I am very pleased, to say the least, with everything that I have learned so far about her. This is one person I will not be unfairly judging.. And I think this should be its own revelation to all us who interact with someone over very serious issues.
That we be careful how we associate the ideas with the person!!
I don't think my secular friend is associating my Christian friend's beliefs properly with how she actually lives in real life. As a result of only analytically approaching her and only getting to "see" her on an intellectual level he is not seeing enough of her in a clear light. "To see the forest for the trees." This becomes very difficult for many of us to do when dealing with someone of opposing viewpoints. It's easy to not see them, question their integrity instead of their ideas, and then stop getting to know them because we feel we've got them sized up.. Something we all should be aware of..
That we be careful how we associate the ideas with the person!!
I don't think my secular friend is associating my Christian friend's beliefs properly with how she actually lives in real life. As a result of only analytically approaching her and only getting to "see" her on an intellectual level he is not seeing enough of her in a clear light. "To see the forest for the trees." This becomes very difficult for many of us to do when dealing with someone of opposing viewpoints. It's easy to not see them, question their integrity instead of their ideas, and then stop getting to know them because we feel we've got them sized up.. Something we all should be aware of..
#2- If science can never know anything with absolute certainty and theories are always contingent.
This is one of those things that advocates of science like to promote as signs of it's ethical, unpretentious superiority.. That there is a humility about the scientific method that doesn't tout knowing anything with absolute certainty and acknowledges that it's theories are always contingent; always open to revision.. Yes, that also communicates that science is limited and only explains so much and many are trying to lift it up in a way that replaces religion, and for the purposes of this blog, Christianity..
In fact, a major claim about what science can and can not be was put forward famously, many years ago by Stephen Jay Gould. He called this, Non-Overlapping Magisteria. To quote the wikipedia article:
"That science and religion each have 'a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority,' and these two domains do not overlap." There are many who are of the persuasion that science can offer and take the place of religion, that science, for example, can speak on issues of morality and ethics. The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values, by Sam Harris, makes these claims. I still have the book and plan on reviewing what I highlighted in the book, about 2-3 years ago.
Yes, I idealized and romanticized science more than I should of for many years.. This, in my opinion, has been the MINDSET that drives many people to idealize science to the degree that they do: "The reality of the world is what is truth and there is no other truth. Pseudoscience and religion are the same in that they approach truth in half-measure and I don't want truth in half-measure." But just assuming this thought is a coherent one, it is also the secular individual who idealizes science who is also approaching truth in half-measure...
The secular individuals that I have met over the years, semi-consciously draw this circle around topics that they approve of, and it is that process of evaluating what is "worthy" of inquiry that interests me..
For example, I have met secular individuals who never inquire into and sometimes even dismiss, the fields of Psychology and Sociology, because these are in the category of "Soft Science", which involves more abstract or not as concrete and mathematically precise topics as are found in the "Hard Sciences" of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Neurology, Paleontology, etc..
But I'm bringing all this back to the original #2 point here that despite where you land in intellectually entertaining the Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences, the fact with both of them is that neither will arrive at any conclusion with absolute certainty and both will only have theories that are tentative: open to revision. It is to side on error to consider science to be the have all be all of "reality". It is not the height of intellectual integrity to only consider what science says and on top of that to only intellectualy approach truth in a limited way. No, it is actually a form of dogmatic thinking on the level of: This is what I think, and if you don't agree with what I think, then I reject you.. Where is the free inquiry, where is the following the evidence WHEREVER it leads, even if it challenges one's cherished beliefs and assumptions..? The truth is, no intellectual I have known lives up to this standard, not even I did.. And that is a wise point all of us can learn from.
In fact, a major claim about what science can and can not be was put forward famously, many years ago by Stephen Jay Gould. He called this, Non-Overlapping Magisteria. To quote the wikipedia article:
"That science and religion each have 'a legitimate magisterium, or domain of teaching authority,' and these two domains do not overlap." There are many who are of the persuasion that science can offer and take the place of religion, that science, for example, can speak on issues of morality and ethics. The Moral Landscape: How Science can Determine Human Values, by Sam Harris, makes these claims. I still have the book and plan on reviewing what I highlighted in the book, about 2-3 years ago.
Yes, I idealized and romanticized science more than I should of for many years.. This, in my opinion, has been the MINDSET that drives many people to idealize science to the degree that they do: "The reality of the world is what is truth and there is no other truth. Pseudoscience and religion are the same in that they approach truth in half-measure and I don't want truth in half-measure." But just assuming this thought is a coherent one, it is also the secular individual who idealizes science who is also approaching truth in half-measure...
The secular individuals that I have met over the years, semi-consciously draw this circle around topics that they approve of, and it is that process of evaluating what is "worthy" of inquiry that interests me..
For example, I have met secular individuals who never inquire into and sometimes even dismiss, the fields of Psychology and Sociology, because these are in the category of "Soft Science", which involves more abstract or not as concrete and mathematically precise topics as are found in the "Hard Sciences" of Biology, Chemistry, Physics, Geology, Neurology, Paleontology, etc..
But I'm bringing all this back to the original #2 point here that despite where you land in intellectually entertaining the Hard Sciences and Soft Sciences, the fact with both of them is that neither will arrive at any conclusion with absolute certainty and both will only have theories that are tentative: open to revision. It is to side on error to consider science to be the have all be all of "reality". It is not the height of intellectual integrity to only consider what science says and on top of that to only intellectualy approach truth in a limited way. No, it is actually a form of dogmatic thinking on the level of: This is what I think, and if you don't agree with what I think, then I reject you.. Where is the free inquiry, where is the following the evidence WHEREVER it leads, even if it challenges one's cherished beliefs and assumptions..? The truth is, no intellectual I have known lives up to this standard, not even I did.. And that is a wise point all of us can learn from.
#3- If most people are not true experts on anything, even though we idealistically admire the concept of the
scientific process..
This points basically feeds into point #2. You can put confidence in science, but science will never absolutely know something and you will never be a complete expert, which doesn't exist. It would mean knowing everything about your subject, which there always might be something you don't know.. Science can be confident enough about objective object to claim it is a fact. But in the subjective world, that is not the domain of science to be an expert in....