RE: On Atheism
You are viewing a single comment's thread:
Interesting post. Here are some of my thoughts ...
Throughout my 21 years of life, I've come to believe that religion is composed solely of blind faith in one, or multiple, supernatural beings.
I am curious as to your definition of "blind faith".
I would not describe my faith as blind. If that which I initially affirm as true based on faith does not fit with all that I observe around me, then I abandon that presumed truth and continue seeking. I consider myself an eternal skeptic -- always questioning the veracity of whatever truth claims come my way -- and always evaluating those with respect to what I have observed and experienced (and against future observations and experiences). Does that make me 'scientifically religious'? Maybe, I'm not sure ...
What I find very interesting is the number of so-called 'scientific' truth claims that many widely accept as 'truth based on science' even though they are not "tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation". For example, if one takes the contemporary 'scientific' belief in the origin of species all the way to its presumed starting point, one must abandon everything that has been "tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation" because one must assert that at some point in the past there was an event where life sprang from non-life, even though all scientific observation has been to the contrary -- that life comes solely from life.
This is not to say that life cannot come from non-life, for we cannot prove a negative. Rather, I am merely stating that the contemporary view for the origin of life requires FAITH for its starting point. So, the one who holds the contemporary view does so out of faith. Similarly, the one who holds the 'religious' view (that an Almighty God created everything from nothing, ex nihilo) also does so by faith.
Ultimately, it's my opinion that it's much too optimistic to think that science will eventually answer all of our questions, especially regarding the existential. Many questions will remain unanswered.
Yes, I think you are correct. And I would go a step further to say that we will continually find out that many of the 'answers' that we previously accepted as true were, in fact, wrong. This is why true 'science' must embrace skepticism. And that's why the phrase "the science is settled with respect to ________" is completely and utterly ridiculous (and non-scientific at its core).
Hi. Thank you for stopping by, professor.
I expanded on that 'faith' in the next sentence, that having faith (with zero evidence to upkeep that faith) in an invisible, all-powerful God being the arbiter of the metaphysical realm inherently requires total blindness, but this definition is in the much smaller context of God. In a wider context, such as religion wholly, I describe blind faith as not having sufficient information to determine whether or not the beliefs espoused by religion are valid, but since these beliefs seem to be outsourced towards a positive step in the direction of some ultimate goal of which people have become personally enamored by, then faith in that religion becomes compelling.
But see, the core trait that distinguishes those 'scientific' claims is that they are very much open to falsification, whereas outmoded concepts like God are not. Who knows, a publication could come out tomorrow saying that a bunch of atoms just so happened to have coincidentally aligned itself into a configuration that supports life, therefore falsifying the claim that 'Life always springs from Life.' The starting point of having FAITH, in the context of the empirical world, could be quickly turned into incontrovertible TRUTH.
That is why I think that the two disciplines that complement each other are 'science' and 'faith'. We need to know where the empirically observable world begins and where the unobservable ends. We do not want to just be 'scientists' or just 'believers', but we must be well informed 'scientists' and well informed 'believers.' And I think being the 'scientifically religious' is the best way to go.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Thanks for the clarification.
I would say we all need to be serious truth-seekers, and 'science' and 'faith' are both an important part of that journey.
I am actually thinking about doing a book study with some students this semester on Science Set Free by Rupert Sheldrake. I haven't read the book yet (so I may change my mind after actually reading it), but he takes a skeptical look at many of the scientific dogmas that are 'taken for granted' but have never been "confirmed through observation and experimentation".
My point is not to convince students to accept any particular viewpoint, but to get them to think critically -- not enough critical thinking happening on university campuses these days.
Critical thinking is quite an important skill to have, and I wish high school stressed it on us harder before going to university.
I've actually been thinking about this topic heavily since my last post. I think taking excerpts of a critical analysis of a piece of literature, then attempting to sort of 'reverse-engineer' that excerpt down to its thought process alongside your students is an interesting way of teaching critical thinking. Essentially, you work your way down the process from the final result rather from the ground up. I don't know if this method of teaching critical thinking works well in practice, but I'd love to see it in action.
I'm disappointed that I missed your earlier post about the problems with 'science' in its current practice. I would've been happy to give it a healthy upvote to get it more recognition and engagement.