I’m not usually fond of organized religions, but when I hear faith being described as a problem and science a solution, object I must – especially when the claimant refuses to acknowledge they believe in science, just as many of us happen to believe in our democratic institutions, or in whatever else people believe these days.
How can anyone deny that science is a form of religion while asserting that believing in something is a problem? It’s like trying to have your cake and eat it too.
Why? Because in removing the subject matter of science from the realm of belief — a mental/emotional state which goes hand in hand with our approval of, and confidence in, a certain state of affairs — the proponents feel they’ve acquired a license to pass judgment on the validity of other belief-systems. To wit, if it’s not science, then any other object of human belief, the very state/act of believing, is below contempt.
I find such arguments dangerous. The freedom of worship is another fundamental right, yet the kind of intolerance inherent in this utterly secularist viewpoint defies the spirit of democracy. I’m talking about the modern-day wolves in sheep’s clothing, and their number is growing.
The sooner we realize that ours is a pluralistic society where all opinions matter, the better. Any tyranny concerning speech is antithetical to the spirit of liberal democracies. A view which takes cognizance of the human condition as being incomplete without the necessity to believe in something, which regards faith as one of the essential ingredients of what it means to be human, is a fundamental one. It’s a view which provides for our plurality, our tolerance and mutual understanding, a view without which neither our society nor our system of government would be possible.
Let no individual ever dictate which of our beliefs are justifiable and what objects are worthy of worship. It’s a road to perdition.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Doug Hunter
Religion deals with the values, science the facts. I don't see the comparison (or why they should even be in conflict with one another).
2 - Doug Hunter
I suppose beliefs could be defined as an extension of values shaped by fact. Maybe that's the issue. The two still aren't truly in opposition. I think people mistakenly believe it's science versus religion when it's often really just a difference in values.
3 - roger nowosielski
Great point, Doug. There isn't necessarily the opposition, just different realms.
4 - Mark
Good shot, Rog. And I agree with your implication that 'argument' against the excesses of scientism has to be, in part, politically based just as their development has been.
5 - roger nowosielski
I think it's all "politically-based" in the Aristotelian sense, Mark. Politics as regards human society is like ethics when applied to individual lives and human relations.
Both are expressions of human concern and preoccupation with values.
6 - Mark
Interesting word, "value". Its various shades serve as basic terms in so many disciplines: mathematics, economics, ethics, politics...
7 - roger nowosielski
Indeed, we can plug different values into an equation and obtain different results.
Something to think about.
8 - roger nowosielski
No different, I suppose, with a "rational" argument: different values lead to different results.
9 - roger nowosielski
Which brings up George Herbert Mead's schema - Mind, Self, & Society - which posits the means-ends nexus as the defining characteristic of the human animal as being, in essence, purpose-driven.
Talking about the origins of functionalism.
10 - roger nowosielski
A link to George Herbert Mead.
11 - Christine
Yes, we should learn to coexist! Merry Christmas Roger!
12 - roger nowosielski
Here's an interesting aside, Mark:
If we accept:
1) the fact-value distinction (in some rudimentary form);
2) the notion that a human is basically a purpose-driven animal;
it follows that "rational arguments" are comparable only if they partake of pretty much the same values. Indeed, even the same value-types can lead to (slightly) different results if they're quantitatively different.
And it's got nothing to do with the logical structure of the argument.
Ergo, the same logical arguments can lead to diametrically-opposite results.
13 - roger nowosielski
Merry X-mas to you, too, Christine, and yours.
14 - Baronius
This definitely belongs in the Culture section.
15 - roger nowosielski
I have enemies in the Culture section, Baronius.
16 - roger nowosielski
Besides, it's an opportunity to discuss theological issues without impinging on Dave Nalle's thread.
17 - roger nowosielski
Here's a good link to Mead, Mark.
His theory of mind - as being inextricable from the faculty and use of language - sounds more right-headed to me than the recent developments in philosophy of mind.
18 - roger nowosielski
#9:
I should say, "purpose-driven and problem-solving [animal]"
19 - roger nowosielski
The Mead article, linked to in #17, should also be of benefit to you, Cindy, to combat Heloise's rather one-sided reliance on genetics.
To cite: "The self, like the mind, is a social emergent. This social conception of the self, Mead argues, entails that individual selves are the products of social interaction and not the (logical or biological) preconditions of that interaction."
I think you would like that.
20 - Dr Dreadful
I agree with Baronius.
And only Roger could manage to make enemies in the Culture section...
:-)
21 - roger nowosielski
Well, then perhaps you're not aware that something is rotten in the state of Denmark.
22 - Doug Hunter
Roger #7,8,12
That sounds about right.
23 - roger nowosielski
Exactemundo, Doug.
It's all about values - the perennial source of human disagreement.
24 - Baronius
Yeah, well, Roger, I made enemies with my brother-in-law, but that doesn't mean I'm going to be celebrating Christmas here. This is the Politics section. You know I love to chat about religion, but we don't have a Religion section so I try to stay in line. Sometimes religion or philosophy are part of a political discussion, and when that happens I indulge. Barring the creation of a Religion or Philosophy section, this stuff belongs in Culture (which could use an infusion of energy).
But hey, I'm not the Thread Sheriff.
25 - roger nowosielski
Well, neither am I, Baronius. But trust me, Sheriffs of Nottingham abound.
Robin Hood may have been a legend, but not his adversaries.