And lo, there was silence!

Alas, not even the sound of a white buffalo. I guess they got their fill of this topic talking about god in the grocery store, and yet this was a much more interesting article.

Hence the humor of my comment :) Except apparently I was "anon". Oops.

It's okay though: they still love you: they're just worn out.

If only those partisan shouters at CNN's 'Crossfire' & Fox's Hannity & Colmes were as reasonable as Mr. Taylor...

I've been thinking. Dangerous I know.

What are the practical differences between the common man's perception of science and his perception of religion. For example, why do you believe that stuff is made out of atoms? Chances are you read it in a book, learned it in school, it made sense to you, people you trust and respect told you it was true. What experiments have YOU personally done to reassure yourself that it's not a bunch of bull (meaning the impersonal 'you' here, not anyone in particular)? Except for the few people who personally conduct experiments to support their theories, everyone else takes the conclusions on faith. The common people take the word of the scientific community on faith, trusting in the high priesthood of peer review to make sure that valid principles are propagated. The common person doesn't have the time, talent, equipment or inclination to perform such experiments. Does that sound like a familiar pattern? In case it doesn't, here's the analog -

Why do you believe that God created humans? (I know that you don't, Norm, but this is the impersonal 'you' here again). Chances are you read it in a book, learned it when you were young, it made sense to you, and people you trust and respect told you it was true. The people who claimed to have studied up on the matter all agree that in fact Adam was God's creation. Thus just like people take it on faith that stuff is made up of little spinning balls of subatomic particles, people similarly take the Creation on faith.

Are you a 'mindless lemming' if you believe in the Atomic Theory without doing experiments on it yourself? Do you have an inability to think for yourself if you believe that energy equals mass times the speed of light squared? If a bunch of people say "we've studied this a long time and we all agree that Planc was exactly correct," are you a chump for believing them?

As far as I can tell, those who worship on the altar of rationality just have a different high priesthood than those who are religious.

I'm here Norm, just late. Spent the day watching NCAA men's BBall all day and away from the computer.

This is a big big subject. I'll share 3 ideas: 1. I don't believe one can export morality or legislate it. Be it imposing Sharia Law or banning a contractual arrangement between gay lovers that is the legal equal to that available to straight lovers, the reglious labor under the misconception that they are doing God's work and saving society. But these are not heart matters, they don't change people's views or choices, and they do more harm than good to those being disenfranchised. I'm flat out against it. 1. I think that the methodology of critiquing beliefs systems generally used is unfair. Nonadherents tends to grab a perceived negative aspect and define the belief system by that. I think a fairer approach is to use the John Stuart Mill utils approach and measure the overall imact of a belief system on society. People come with good and bad, countries come with good and bad, and belief systems come with good and bad. As one examines an individual and decides whether there is more good than bad there and thus whether that person is a good guy or one to be avoided, so should belief systems be treated equally. Does Christianity, with its warts in areas, contribute more positive than negative to society.
2. I'm for freedom of expression whether I agree with the expression or not. Ideas don't scare me and expression doesn't scare me. I see a lot of fear from the nonreligious about religious expression. I understand the fear that expression will turn into exportation. 3. I don't believe one can export morality or legislate it. Be it imposing Sharia Law or banning a contractual arrangement between gay lovers that is the legal equal to that available to straight lovers, the reglious labor under the misconception that they are doing God's work and saving society. But these are not heart matters, they don't change people's views or choices, and they do more harm than good to those being disenfranchised. I'm flat out against it.

Mike J - Intersting approach to the subject. I would say that it's a little off though. I would not believe in God were it not for the fact that I have had personal experiences with Him. I didn't read about Him in a book and think that was a good idea. Mostly I thought it was a stupid idea until I met Him. Then I got it. It's why it is fully understandable to me that people would think it is nuts. God even says in the Bible that unless He is drawing someone to Himself, they will never see the truth.

In response to Mike Jensen’s comments.

I have often thought some bright spark would use the idea; ‘not everyone can experimentally establish all scientific knowledge’ as an argument that science is based on belief. However there is a major flaw with this thinking.

Every scientific discovery follows the pattern. Discovery and experimental proof by scientists. Then, down the line the practical invention is brought into the world, subsequently, everyone can see and can do things that were not possible before. Proof to the masses. People trust in science because it delivers every time, it does not require a belief.

Taking the atom as an example, many people may not understand or are not able to establish the physics. However we do have nuclear power stations, nuclear bombs, x-ray machines. All these things are in the world evidencing the facts.

To conclude the idea of science is this simple.

“I think this is so” -> “here is the proof” -> “here is the proof to the masses”

Religion says:

“I think this is so” -> “Here is some conjecture”

ps I do not seek to attack a person. However you should always be able to attach the ideas they hold. The two must remain separate for dialogue to be possible.

I think that Mike is introducing a very important point about science, one which, as far as I know has not been brought up in the discussions that have gone on here about science and religion.

Mike did not say that "science is based on belief". Rather he said that the way most people come to beliefs about scientific truth is very much the same way they come to religious beliefs. In short his point seemed to be that they come to these beliefs through reliance on authorities.

Take a simple example: I happen to have heard personally lectures from some of the most well-known global warming skeptics. They are all PhDs in astrophysics, physics or climatology. They also didn't sound like wackos. But I also happen to know that their views are in the minority of climatologists. So I am skeptical of their skepticism, but merely because of some impression I have about the tendency of the scholarly community, not because of knowledge I have of climatology; much less have I conducted experiments or analysed data on the subject.

Of course there are clear differences between scientific authorities and religious authorities (whether the latter kind of authorities are people or authoritative texts). The best justification for accepting scientific authority seems to be that the views of the scientific community are connected (through institutions like journals and universities) to a process which has proved reliable in the past in providing good explanations about the world. Religious authorities might be viewed as reliable (e.g. in providing moral guidance, offering comprehensive answers about life, etc.) in some sense, but not primarily in the sense that they offer causal explanations. Religion has proved to be bad at causal explanation, and yet its adherents and defenders do not seem to be any fewer because of this fact.

We need to think a bit more about why people believe. They don't believe in religion in the same way they believe in science (most Americans put a good deal of trust in each). But why do people accept religious authorities? Are there good reasons for doing so? The answer of the 'skeptic movement', that people are simply stupid, and that therefore there must be no good reasons (besides being totally unscientific, on the first count, from a social-science perspective) is unsatisfying. There are many things which stupid, unscientific people still do which have very good (and complex) reasons for them (e.g. get up and go to work everyday, act morally, treat their kids well, obey the law, vote Democrat, etc.).

I think it is a mistake, especially in the modern world, to think of religious claims as 'scientific claims, only without any real proof.' It makes much more sense to classify religion as a kind of cultural, social or moral knowledge which does occasionally but not typically involve causal explanations. There still may be rational ways to evaluate this kind of knowledge, but scientific methods are as likely to be inadequate for debunking religion in general as they have been at debunking morality or freedom in general.

Holy shit buffalo, I really don't see much to disagree with in what you say. The devil as they say is in the details, but as a general proposition I agree with you. Mike, thanks for sticking your chin out there it definately added to the discussion. Good points Dende and important distinctions that needed to be made. All in all an excellent discussion. Thanks to all of those that have contributed.

Excellent discussion guys. Mike and Dende make the very good point that we should distinguish between what justifications are possible for beliefs grounded in religion or science and the way people actually do come to believe what they do. As Mike rightly points out we don't all have the resources to do our own experiments. We all accept things based on what authorities tell us fromm time to time. I am somewhat concerned with what this is meant to imply. If it is simply that religious people aren't stupid, then I agree. There are very complex reasons for why people believe as they do.

Two concerns.

Calling belief people come to about science "faith." As John Taylor rightly points out above there are plenty of everyday experiences that provide evidence accessible to anyone that scientific methods are reliable. This evidence is that our technology works. This is not faith. Faith I take it is belief in something with no evidence or even evidence to the contrary.

Dende writes "I think it is a mistake, especially in the modern world, to think of religious claims as 'scientific claims, only without any real proof.' It makes much more sense to classify religion as a kind of cultural, social or moral knowledge which does occasionally but not typically involve causal explanations."

The cultural, social and moral knowledge mentioned is based on hypothetical claims. Their is the claim of the existence of an all-powerful entity whose authority is the basis of those mores. Without that claim being true you undercut that authority. This is not to say that one can't have morality without religion. In fact, I wish more people understood that it is possible. There is also the claim that God created the universe. I don't see how this could possibly be construed as anything other than a causal claim. The point is that religions do make claims about the world and they are claims that are not supported by evidence. I don't see why there should be an exception in standards of justification for those claims. If on the other hand we are treating religious texts as part of culture like, say, Shakespeare; then I agree that those texts have very profound ideas about morality and humanity in general. What I don't see is why we should priviledge religious texts over other great literature.

Mike : Loved your post. I think comparing rational vs religious beliefs has to be seen in the context that our whole lives are riddled with beliefs based on the authority of others (beliefs that we haven't proven for ourselves) because mostly mostly this is a good survival strategy and the most efficient way of extending our knowledge. You know what I'm getting at here : it's a better idea to have a shared knowledge of which berries are good to eat and which ones are poisonous than to have every individual just go out every morning and try them all. (Likewise I believe in the existence of Antarctica, despite never having been there.) So the question becomes what constitutes a justified belief when things get more complicated than picking berries.

Supposing a man up the street believes that the existence of a neighbour threatens the continued existence of the world and that he is the only one who can save the world from this neighbour. Accordingly it follows that he would feel the moral obligation to kill this neighbour in order to save the world and from his point of view he would be doing the right thing, but the rest of us would not agree because we would judge that he lacked the ability to apply any reasonable standard of skepticism toward his own beliefs. W.B.: Please note that I am not vicariously comparing religion to schizophrenia here, but using an example of a personal belief that falls outside of religion to make a point.

It appears that while we cannot escape having beliefs, some combination of curiosity, skepticism, and open-mindedness about them seems to be a necessary component to keeping them healthy, because we are imperfect beings in a world of constant change and are never going to have all the relevant information.

I would still maintain that there is a high degree of personal "proof" in many religious people's experience. The discussion is being framed in a "Science has real output that one can put their finger on and religion is just belief without any actual output" vein. That is simply not true. There are varying levels of "output" that those involved in a relationship with God may experience. I liken the "proof" argument here to one proposed for evolution in this space before - that argument being that it not one massive, undeniable piece of evidence that serves as proof, but rather many smaller ones that all point to the same conclusion. I could provide a long list of examples of such evidence if it mattered to anyone.

buffalo, "personal proof", if by that you mean anecdotal proof and that there is no way to scientifically verify those anecdotes then you're right they wouldn't much matter. Clint Eastwood covered that in "Dirty Harry". everybody has one.

By personal, I mean that it direcdtly happens to you, vs being transmitted from an authority to you. Here are two: My wife, at age 9, had very poor eye sight and wore thick glasses. She was at Bible camp and a man with the spiritual gift of healing came to speak at their camp. He touched her eyes and prayed over here and she had 20/20 eyesight the next time she went to the doctor and didn't need glasses agin until her 30's. A personal experience, witnessed by many. I got plenty more.....

Read this very interesting essay by Theodore Schick Jr.: Can Science Prove the God Does Not Exist.

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/schick211.html

Please respond after reading.