Religion, Empiricism, and Politics
nobody
Posts: 353
I share the widely accepted view that religion can’t be disproven with scientific methods. Since no matter on earth can be proven with a 100% certainty there is no way to find out whether religion is true or false. Hence, I can be convinced a religion is false, but I can't state it as the truth.
Since today often there is an outcry on the side of religion when people actually approach religion from the angle of science and empiricism and try to disprove some of its claims, I want to point out that this outcry should be dimmed by the fact that even the ancients, and even the ancients in the bible, were applying the basic principals of scientific reasoning already, even to religion.
If you look into your bible (1 Kings 18:21) or go to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah#Challenge_to_Baal you will find something called “Elijah’s challenge (to Baal)”. Here Elijah is upset by his people’s worship of a “false God” called Baal. So he asks his people to choose only one god finally. He wants to help their decision in challenging Baal and his followers. For that he lets Baal’s priests set up an altar to which they pray and sacrifice with the goal to make Baal light a fire on the altar. They fail. So Elijah sets up an altar for himself, does the same as Baal’s priests, and succeeds in that a lightning strikes his altar and starts a fire. In this way Elijah disproved to his people the powers of Baal and delivered empirical evidence for the powers of Jahwe.
Even if you don’t take this account literally, but symbolically, there is no denying that empiricism clearly was not only known to the ancients, but conducted, even in the case of religion.
Now to finally turn this into a political thread;)
As I said in the beginning, I accept the notion that there should be no attempts to disprove any religion as a whole.
But, as soon as religion forcefully enters the spheres of science, education, and politics it should be allowed to put its evidence, claims, and premises under the same scrutiny than every other line of reasoning. This ranges from disproving singular statements to having the freedom to piece together satire and caricatures about aspects of religion. It is then easy to demand respect for religious feelings and thus drawing attention away from the argument.
My statement is that as soon as religion enters the political arena, this protest is worthless. A “liberal” might as well demand that his/her points aren’t to be criticized/analysed/ridiculed, because it could hurt his/her feelings or the feelings of his/her group.
What is your opinion on my take on this?:)
EDIT: to give a crude example: a political party heavily influenced by religion demands to reduce the state's budget for health issues, because they claim prayer can heal ailments. Then it must be possible for other people to point out that prayer does indeed not help (while it doesn't hurt either) and that the budget must be kept as it is....as I said a very crude example...
m.
Since today often there is an outcry on the side of religion when people actually approach religion from the angle of science and empiricism and try to disprove some of its claims, I want to point out that this outcry should be dimmed by the fact that even the ancients, and even the ancients in the bible, were applying the basic principals of scientific reasoning already, even to religion.
If you look into your bible (1 Kings 18:21) or go to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elijah#Challenge_to_Baal you will find something called “Elijah’s challenge (to Baal)”. Here Elijah is upset by his people’s worship of a “false God” called Baal. So he asks his people to choose only one god finally. He wants to help their decision in challenging Baal and his followers. For that he lets Baal’s priests set up an altar to which they pray and sacrifice with the goal to make Baal light a fire on the altar. They fail. So Elijah sets up an altar for himself, does the same as Baal’s priests, and succeeds in that a lightning strikes his altar and starts a fire. In this way Elijah disproved to his people the powers of Baal and delivered empirical evidence for the powers of Jahwe.
Even if you don’t take this account literally, but symbolically, there is no denying that empiricism clearly was not only known to the ancients, but conducted, even in the case of religion.
Now to finally turn this into a political thread;)
As I said in the beginning, I accept the notion that there should be no attempts to disprove any religion as a whole.
But, as soon as religion forcefully enters the spheres of science, education, and politics it should be allowed to put its evidence, claims, and premises under the same scrutiny than every other line of reasoning. This ranges from disproving singular statements to having the freedom to piece together satire and caricatures about aspects of religion. It is then easy to demand respect for religious feelings and thus drawing attention away from the argument.
My statement is that as soon as religion enters the political arena, this protest is worthless. A “liberal” might as well demand that his/her points aren’t to be criticized/analysed/ridiculed, because it could hurt his/her feelings or the feelings of his/her group.
What is your opinion on my take on this?:)
EDIT: to give a crude example: a political party heavily influenced by religion demands to reduce the state's budget for health issues, because they claim prayer can heal ailments. Then it must be possible for other people to point out that prayer does indeed not help (while it doesn't hurt either) and that the budget must be kept as it is....as I said a very crude example...
m.
Godwin's Law:
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
Yes, they are different.
Although I would challenge the notion that science requieres a lack of faith;) by that notion every person who goes to a doctor shows a lack of faith...;)
And as the above shows: for religious people in ancient times, faith wasn't enough; they wanted empirical evidence to support their faith. (miracles are another thing used as empirical evidence, or people who had spiritual experiences, so I don't think the matter is that easy)
A modern day Elijah's challenge could look like this:
a hindu sits down infront of his tv and tries with his faith to switch it on. I sit down infront of the TV and after reading the manual, I just switch it on having faith in the laws of science;) and then the crowd decides which one is more plausible...
and as Voltaire put it: Arsenic and prayer will kill the horse;)
but this is just meant jokingly:)
The main point I made was that as soon as religion and science enter the political arena, both should be hold to the same standards without one demanding an extra portion of respect because feelings could be hurt.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Of course, there could be a debate on the several conclusions
However, the separation of religion and politics was codified in the Western world with the Enlightenment. Previously, political power was legitimised by the Church even if it was embodied and executed by the monarchy.
Indeed, until the 1870s the Pope was also Head of State in large areas of Italy. Some Popes even led armies (Pope Alexander V, or was he VI? Anyway, Alexander Borgia, who also had several children who became pawns in the dinastic wars of XVIc Europe).
Oh, of course, having said that the Pope is still the Head of Vatican City but holds no political power anymore.
Anyway, the point of this long rambling post is that yes, I agree with your main point
Just to clarify: my main point is not that church and state should be seperated (although I vehemently support this as well).
My main point is, that when religion expands over and above the sphere of religion, then it is not valid to complain about people that apply rational thought and scientific methods to religious claims and demands, just like they are applied in every other aspects of life (and in ancient times even to religion!!!).
This shouldn't be interpreted as an attempt to disprove religion as a whole, only specific claims that are made by religous proponents in order to shape public life and policy...for example when religion demands to be taught in biology as one of the most outrageous examples...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
i agree with most of your points here; however, I'd contend it is much more possible to keep the state out of the church, than keep the church out of the state. The reason I say that is, the state determines what is legal and illegal and what proper policies are...the church is designed to give guidance in life and provide a foundation for living (it doesn't have a monopoly on it, but that is a main point of the church...besides glorifying God etc...). That foundation for living can not help but be carried over the political / state arena, which is far more subjective than objective. The people that make up our government are also people who go to church and are voted in to office b/c of their ideals, some of which have a religious foundation. I agree that religion should be open to criticism (all religions); but I'd also add that keeping a TOTAL separation of church and state is worse for society.
The seperation of church and state as I mean it, is mainly like a seperation between offices. The local priest is not automatically the local mayor and so on. Church power doesn't lead to political power.
I don't contest the influence of religious ideals and values on politicians (individuals), but the office/position itself should be totally free from it. And if individuals in politics apply their religious values and attitudes they should be evaluated by rational thought just as thorougly as when another brings his anarchist views to his political work. There should be no difference.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
I agree and I do not thing that a separation of the two was ever intended. I just think it was to prohibit the state from endorsing or prohibiting specific religions.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
well sweetie, i mix flour, baking powder, cocoa, milk, a little almond essence and eggs and bake at 180 degrees for x number of minutes.
mummy
yes dear
how did God make the world?
nobody knows
why not?
its a secret
why is it a secret
i dont know sweetie, it just is
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
you forget one thing: science can disprove specific claims: e.g. prayer causes the recuperation from illnesses. no matter what kind of reasoning religion holds against it, it is disproved. therefore nowadays most people (also) go to the doctor instead of going to the church (only).
and as I've shown in the example: religion also used scientific reasoning to disprove claims and to deliver empirical evidence that pointed towards their faith.
Elijah's challenge is more or less the same as a scientific experiment...the thing with real scientific experiments is though: they can be repeated in all places and all times, which helps in making the result more solid...Elijah's challenge can't be repeated successfully...it only happended once the bible says.
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
and to prohibit a specific religion to run the government.
seperation from political and religious POWER, not the suspension of religious values from politics is the essence of the seperation of church and state
but his isn't really the point of the thread...;)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Nope - science does not ever prove anything. It only makes predictions based upon past experiences.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
no it never proves anything...it disproves...
if one makes a positive knowledge claim (prayer cures cancer) one has the burdon of proof which means to deliver evidence to make it plausible.
what science can do is to disprove this positive knowledge claim by conductiong one (or one hundred) study in the present (not the past). If they show that people who pray are not more likely to be cured from cancer than people who don't, then the posisitve knowledge claim is disproven. Prayer does not help to cure cancer. it's the same that is done with a pill, or a sirup, or whatever. You can still believe prayer helps you, but it's safer you go to the doctor.
and by the way: if those predictions are true: that delivers even more evidence...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Oh yes, I got that - application of same methodology and standards.
In a very convoluted way (must not debate in the pit when I should be doing other stuff instead!
Similarly, when the Church actively operated in the political arena, they were under the same principles as politicians and even with the added bonus of divine support they did not seek special exemption.
With the Enlightenment, you had the separation between religion and state, as two different powers, which is the foundation of the modern state, which applies still now in the Western world.
So, if you start using religious beliefs as the justification or motivation for specific political claims or exemption for others, then I agree they must undergo the same scrutiny.
Of course, the major issue of contention is about the methodology to be used - if this is being questioned and not agreed upon...
Hope I clarified my point somewhat, and now I really must go.
Interesting topic though.
Cheers
Sorry but the total separation of church and state is the foundation of modern statehood in the Western world, and it's implemented even now.
Who ever holds office should rule for ALL the citizens, who may not be religious at all of course, and regardless of their individual beliefs and in the name of the human-devised law (not any supra-natural being).
EDIT - what nobody just clarified
as for the methodology...my personal preference is to go with the one that has relatively the most "hits" in explaining past events, analysing current events, and predicting future events.
and that, from past experience, has been the scientific method...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
Tell that to the creationists about evolution
fortunately I am in no position or disposition to ever (want to) talk to one
and if one should start talking to me...well, I can make him aware that at least Elijah was with me on this one...;)...dazzling...
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
his people didn't believe him because his altar caught fire.
they did believe him because they other one didn't.
since that is the only outcome that disproves Baal's power.
if both altars catch fire->inconclusive
if both altars don't->inconclusive
if Baal's catches fire->Jahwe is powerless, at least when it comes to lighting fire in a competition with Baal
the point is: Elijah disproves Baal with the scientific method; why can't I disprove Elijah (partly) with the scientific method?
(note the fact that Elijah actually engaged in this contest, and didn't only say believe me, cause that's the way it is...not so dumb those ancients)
(note also that Elijah didn't say that Baal and Jahwe were different and thus couldn't be compared)
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
and I would like to add: before science existed, religious people WERE using the scientific method. they demanded evidence that a god was real and another was not.
only now that science explains a lot more than we can have ever hoped, religion backs off of those issues they formerly explained with the presence of god(s), e.g. lightning, earthquakes etc. and claim to have their own kind of reasoning which by now more or less consists of claims that can be neither proven nor disproven...
thus, attempts like those of creationists to engange in scientific research are bizarre and bewildering...
m.
"As an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."