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
1471 Views
Wow. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 05:32:08 PM
414 Views
that is TOTALLY inappropriate
- 02/12/2010 04:58:47 PM
684 Views
Crazy awesome.
- 02/12/2010 05:07:49 PM
769 Views
So the movie Evolution was real!
- 02/12/2010 05:24:16 PM
675 Views
Wow. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 05:32:08 PM
414 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
732 Views
I won't pretend I know enough about biology to understand the impact of this
- 02/12/2010 06:26:24 PM
751 Views
It's like finding a type of rock that eats laughter
- 02/12/2010 06:51:15 PM
601 Views
... without coming down and dealing with the nasty stomach cramps. 
- 02/12/2010 09:49:06 PM
811 Views
- 02/12/2010 09:49:06 PM
811 Views
I think I had an ex once that was made of arsenic. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 07:10:57 PM
370 Views
So, is it an alien?
- 02/12/2010 07:19:49 PM
740 Views
They haven't mentioned anything saying it's not from Earth, I think
- 02/12/2010 08:03:44 PM
747 Views
The bacteria in question is part of a known lineage
- 02/12/2010 08:07:34 PM
959 Views
see my note below
- 02/12/2010 08:13:35 PM
751 Views
Maybe
- 02/12/2010 08:23:16 PM
676 Views
So, apparently, this bacteria doesn't use arsneic for its DNA in its natural state?
- 02/12/2010 08:06:02 PM
632 Views
While awesome, it's a bit of a problem.
- 02/12/2010 09:04:22 PM
649 Views
True, but I'm not "looking for" anything in particular, so I just like it 
*NM*
- 02/12/2010 11:09:21 PM
405 Views
*NM*
- 02/12/2010 11:09:21 PM
405 Views
Less cool a revelation than I was hoping, but certainly not a complete disappointment. *NM*
- 02/12/2010 10:35:33 PM
361 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
784 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
346 Views
yah. it's one thing to theorize, another thing to find something to hold true.
- 02/12/2010 11:10:23 PM
665 Views
It's much more than an educated guess.
- 02/12/2010 11:59:18 PM
820 Views
You can't "know" from this distance.
- 03/12/2010 03:13:05 AM
617 Views
Why not?
- 03/12/2010 04:42:15 AM
808 Views
obviously you have not learned to look at the back label on the car *NM*
- 04/12/2010 07:04:42 PM
354 Views
*NM*
- 04/12/2010 07:04:42 PM
354 Views
Yes, we can.
- 04/12/2010 06:04:48 PM
980 Views
The problem probably is with me.
- 04/12/2010 08:00:56 PM
640 Views
No, they aren't.
- 04/12/2010 10:01:25 PM
659 Views
Depends on how you view evidence, no?
- 05/12/2010 04:50:11 AM
882 Views
There are correct and incorrect ways to view evidence.
- 05/12/2010 05:42:41 AM
602 Views
Are you baiting me to bait you?
- 05/12/2010 06:41:49 AM
812 Views
I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 05/12/2010 07:26:39 AM
813 Views
Re: I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 05/12/2010 07:08:04 PM
596 Views
Re: I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 05/12/2010 07:56:43 PM
804 Views
Re: I'm just carrying on a conversation.
- 06/12/2010 03:15:37 AM
741 Views
I made my students watch the NASA channel for over two hours today 
- 02/12/2010 11:11:40 PM
545 Views
- 02/12/2010 11:11:40 PM
545 Views