DefSkeptic - Not sure how much of that was Dawkins and how much you but...
Originally posted by DefSkeptic
An article from Richard Dawkins-----
"Faith, being belief that isn't based on evidence, is the principal vice of any religion. And who, looking at Northern Ireland or the Middle East, can be confident that the brain virus of faith is not exceedingly dangerous? One of the stories told to the young Muslim suicide bombers is that martyrdom is the quickest way to heaven -- and not just heaven but a special part of heaven where they will receive their special reward of 72 virgin brides. It occurs to me that our best hope may be to provide a kind of "spiritual arms control": send in specially trained theologians to deescalate the going rate in virgins.
Given the dangers of faith -- and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science -- I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?"[/B]
I think if you take a good look at the philosophy of science you will find that Dawkins is overstating his case at best, and probably quite wrong. Faith is as necessary to the pursuit of science as it is to the pursuit of anything else.
Popper "“What we should do, I suggest, is give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge. And admit that all human knowledge is human: that it is mixed with our errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes: that all we can do is grope for truth evn though it be beyond our reach."
Also -
– “Every proof must proceed from premisses; the proof as such, that is to say the derivation from the premisses, can therefore never finally the truth of any conclusion, but only show that the conclusion must be true provided the premisses are true. If we were to demand that the premisses should be proved in their turn, the question of truth would only be shifted back by another step to a new set of premisses, and so on to infinity."
Or from phycisist Stanislav Grof “It is important to realise that what we know as the ‘scientific worldview’ is an image of the universe that rests on a host of daring metaphyisal assumptions. These are often presented and seen as facts that have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt, while in reality they stand on very shaky ground, are controversial, or are inadequately supported by the evidence.”
It is difficult to think of a single scientific theory that is not dependent on faith for its acceptance (however that is not to say that these theories are wrong of course).
[Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices.[/B]
Which virtues and which vices? This seems to be a personal opinion.
[Science is based upon verifiable evidence.[/B]
Sorry - such certainty is a pipedream.
[Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. [/B]
Nonsense. Most religions lack any conclusive scientific evidence, but that is not the same as having no evidence.
[Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists..[/B]
There are arguments for the power and utility of faith that are completely separate from arguments about the details of what is being believed.
[One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you..[/B]
It would seem odd not to accept the evidence for physical evolution. However 'evolution' does not necessarily mean current neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory in all its orthodox details.
[Science is actually one of the most moral, one of the most honest disciplines around -- because science would completely collapse if it weren't for a scrupulous adherence to honesty in the reporting of evidence. .[/B]
This seems to be an example of faith in action. Firstly morality is not a scientific concept so is ultimately meaningless as an adjective to describe science. Secondly the heavily theory-laden approach that we take to scientific evidence renders that evidence more suspect than we generally assume. (This is not to say scientists do not attempt to be honest - just that there are limits to the success they can achieve).
[Humans have a great hunger for explanation. It may be one of the main reasons why humanity so universally has religion, since religions do aspire to provide explanations. We come to our individual consciousness in a mysterious universe and long to understand it. Most religions offer a cosmology and a biology, a theory of life, a theory of origins, and reasons for existence. In doing so, they demonstrate that religion is, in a sense, science; it's just bad science. .[/B]
You may think religion is bad science (I suppose science is bad religion) but you need to demonstrate this and not just state it. Also there are many different religions and philosophies, lumping them all under 'religion' is not honest or fair.
[Don't fall for the argument that religion and science operate on separate dimensions and are concerned with quite separate sorts of questions. [/B]
Why not?
[Religions have historically always attempted to answer the questions that properly belong to science. .[/B]
And vice versa. Both have the long term goal of explaining existence.
[Thus religions should not be allowed now to retreat away from the ground upon which they have traditionally attempted to fight. They do offer both a cosmology and a biology; however, in both cases it is false.[/B]
Which particular religions, cosmologies and biologies are false, and which particular aspects of them? Most religious cosmologies are explanatory metaphors where the structure of the explanation is more imporatnt than the terms (for instance the 'turtles standing on turtles of 'Discworld').
[Consolation is harder for science to provide. Unlike religion, science cannot offer the bereaved a glorious reunion with their loved ones in the hereafter. .[/B]
True. Science has nothing whatever to say on such matters. Nobody has the slightest shred of scientific evidence for or against the continuation of consciousness after death.
Those wronged on this earth cannot, on a scientific view, anticipate a sweet comeuppance for their tormentors in a life to come. [/B]
Bunkum. See previous answer. Science has no view on this matter.
Uplift, however, is where science really comes into its own. All the great religions have a place for awe, for ecstatic transport at the wonder and beauty of creation. And it's exactly this feeling of spine-shivering, breath-catching awe -- almost worship -- this flooding of the chest with ecstatic wonder, that modern science can provide. And it does so beyond the wildest dreams of saints and mystics. [/B]
I can only assume that you have not yet had such dreams. Such dreams (whether true or false) can make science knowledge appear utterly trivial. When it comes to wonder and awe science is isn't competing in the same ballpark.
[The fact that the supernatural has no place in our explanations, in our understanding of so much about the universe and life, doesn't diminish the awe. Quite the contrary. The merest glance through a microscope at the brain of an ant or through a telescope at a long-ago galaxy of a billion worlds is enough to render poky and parochial the very psalms of praise..[/B]
Well yes. Just as the idea of eternal consciousness renders poky and parochial the chemical table of elements.
I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that charge -- and one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalist -- is an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation; but as zealous bigots, we scientists are mere amateurs at the game. We're content to argue with those who disagree with us. We don't kill them.[/B]
True. But don't forget that a recent poll showed that ca. 60% of American scientists believe in a higher being of some sort. Science and religion are not mutually excusive.
[But I would want to deny even the lesser charge of purely verbal zealotry. There is a very, very important difference between feeling strongly, even passionately, about something because we have thought about and examined the evidence for it on the one hand, and feeling strongly about something because it has been internally revealed to us, or internally revealed to somebody else in history and subsequently hallowed by tradition. There's all the difference in the world between a belief that one is prepared to defend by quoting evidence and logic and a belief that is supported by nothing more than tradition, authority, or revelation..[/B]
Quite agree. However the fact that they are different doesn't in itself tell us anything about their truth or falsity.
[Pretty good stuff eh? [/B]
Yes it was. But I think on analysis the arguments are very weak.
I'm right Warren, you should read and read and read this until you understand that.