Comments on Belief and Data Collection

Go to The Agnostics Primer - Add a comment - Go to Belief and Data Collection

See, if I had diligently read your posts, I would have known you had already defined rationalism and empiricism.  Thanks! I think both are indispensable. Wouldn't the optimal state of knowledge be the result of reason and experiment reaching the same conclusion?

So if we did not already know the Pythagorean Theorem, and Pythagoreas told it to us with his logic, we could say, "All right dude, I'm gonna check this out for myself," and create for ourselves a right triangle, and use a ruler to measure its dimensions and see if indeed one-side-squared plus other-side-squared equals hypotenuse-squared. Then logic and experiment would validate the same conclusion. 

posted by Dyl_Pickle on October 10, 2005 at 4:46 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks

Thanks Dylan for reading the post and giving a very thoughtful comment.

As for the scientific info, this post was a partial book review of an atheistic scientist's (Flanagan's) book, reviewing the science he is (wrongly) using to defend his atheism and his claim that humans do not have free will. But I do agree largely with Flanagan's view of morality, which he calls "moral ecology." I might mention that in a future post.

Then my description of the structure of an atom was intended to show how much we know about the behavior of atoms and electrons so far, and how little we know about WHY they behave the way they do. This goes to the basic conflict between empiricists (scientists, atheists in general) and rationalists (religious believers, agnostics). The empiricists can discover specific facts about the nuts and bolts of the universe (behavior of electrons in my example), BUT they cannot discover the WHY, the power or force that causes electrons to move. That is left for the rationalists to explore, though so far the rationalists have not found anything verifiable.

I had an earlier post in this blog, What School of Thought Did YOU Graduate From?, which defines Empirical and Rational and the fuzziness between them.

Like you, I am not comfortable with the Christian beliefs of my childhood, which ask me to condemn every other belief system on Earth (or to let God condemn them). The belief system we are exposed to as children is largely an accident of birth, though birth in a specific place may not be an accident, so let us better say a CIRCUMSTANCE of birth. I would like to think that if I had been born in any other country or belief system, I would have come to question it as well, and would have refused to condemn the Christian belief system as inherently wrong. I seek to find common elements in different belief systems, with moral principles being the most important of those common elements. Specifically the principle of moral reciprocity, which includes the Golden Rule, which I have discussed and criticized as incomplete in my "Golden Rule Needs Some Iron" blog. You were a big part of that discussion, but other readers may not know that. In fact, I probably owe you a comment over there.

posted by GoldenMean on October 9, 2005 at 11:14 PM | link to this | reply

Golden

I was very impressed by the scientific details and explanations offered in this post. That was a pleasant surprise because I had not read so much scientific material in your other posts, and this one was a nice added dimension to your thinking. I find your thinking, as to belief, quite sound. It will offend some, but it is logically valid nonetheless. In my Catholic-school experience, faith was always presented to us as the very beauty, or essence, of the religion: that it was not objectively proveable was what was supposed to appeal to us about it. That's what I got out of it, anyway.

I came to be unsatisfied with that thinking when I began to consider some other questions, though. Such as, if I was prepared to believe in the Christian three-person God, why should I not believe in the Muslim idea of God, or the Jewish one? The truth of the Christian God could not be affirmed by evidence any more than the other ideas could. That made me highly uncomfortable with my religion's claim to have exclusive theological truth. I was no longer willing to say that other faiths were false. That's what appealed to me about agnosticism. It was the only way of thinking about religion that struck me as having the modesty to refrain from making claims it could not justify.

I also like your thinking on rationalism and empiricism. I might suggest defining both, rather than assuming all your readers know what you mean. Sometimes even educated readers have different ideas of what those words mean (not that they should, but connotations get in the way). Still, I was highly impressed with both the substance and writing quality of this post.

posted by Dyl_Pickle on October 9, 2005 at 8:57 AM | link to this | reply

CB

You are polarizing belief and knowledge a lot more than I did. They both have their strengths for different human purposes. But belief is not very useful in data collection (science). That is why we have the Scientific Method of research and inquiry; to keep pre-determined beliefs to a minimum in science. In my post I called for scientists and philosophers to keep both Empirical (objective) and Rational (subjective) lines of inquiry open. There is a some similarity between a working hypothesis, a nagging hunch, and a belief. It is a matter of degree and decreasing flexibility. Knowledge is a hard prize to win, in science or in everyday life. If a belief leads to a discovery of new knowledge, that would be a good thing.

CB, You are very, very mistaken that "no one has ever died, or killed for knowledge." Many times in history, conquering dictators have burned scrolls/books and killed the intellectuals of a conquered society. Religious leaders have killed people who wanted to learn ideas from outside the approved doctrine. In Cambodia, during the reign of terror of the Khmer Rouge, anyone who was educated was tortured and killed. Pol Pot wanted to isolate his people from the rest of humanity and "wipe the slate clean" and start a new Communist culture from scratch. He even wiped out the calendar and started over with "YEAR ZERO." Even people who wore glasses were killed, because it was assumed that they were intellectually inclined.

Knowledge imparts power to the discoverer or possessor of the knowledge. Knowledge is power, and that power can be used for good or evil. Belief tells people (believers) how to use that power. Like I said already, knowledge and belief are in different cognitive classes, with different characteristics and different purposes. I seek to understand them, and assign each of them to the proper use.

posted by GoldenMean on October 5, 2005 at 6:52 PM | link to this | reply

Tapsel T

Perhaps you are right that those who come to the limits of their belief or become unsatisfied with their beliefs, simply did not have a strong enough belief. But it is difficult to reconcile the injustice, tragedy, and evil in the world and maintain a sincere belief in an all-powerful loving God. Free will is not enough to explain it. It is a mystery none of us will know in this life. But I definitely agree with your last sentence: "When all the answers are known,......,then faith/belief will no longer be relevant." Until then, belief will serve a valid purpose, but not for everyone.

posted by GoldenMean on October 5, 2005 at 6:25 PM | link to this | reply

Tapsel T and GoldenMean

thanks Tapsel, for your words. They make sense. It's so true, that faith, is just that...faith. People don't seem to understand that.
GoldenMean, your post would get a lot of hits, probably. But most people that would go it would know that God is all powerful, and is all knowing. Since you are knowledgable about Christianity, you'd know about the "omnis". God does not have to believe in anything, because He created belief. This does not mean knowledge is stronger than belief. Knowledge is good, but only a fool believes it is stronger than belief. No one has ever died, or killed for knowledge. No one has ever put countless Blogs on this stupid website saying "I hate smart people". There have never been wars based on knowledge. "Oh darnit, Poland knows more than us, let's invade them." It hasn't happened, nor will it. Even if you beleive knowledge is smarter than belief...well...that's just it. You BELIEVE it, which shows belief in anything is stronger than knowledge, for you would have to BELIEVE that is true.

posted by CB_Andrews on October 4, 2005 at 9:13 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean, I would suggest that persons who reject faith/belief in God or "come to the limits of their beliefs" or are "unsatisfied with their beliefs" have never really known what it is to have that faith that the Bible speaks of. The belief that you describe would be insufficient for me, for anyone. You speak of belief as a tool, a safe-harbor to those who "need" it. I'm sorry, but if someone "needs" faith, they do not have it. Faith/belief is not a "safe harbor". It is a launching pad into a world of needs and problems and despair. Belief does not need to answer all questions or cure all heartaches. The more problems, questions, heartaches, the more grace abounds and strengthens the faith that God gives. Belief is not a tool, for faith needs no tool. The work is already done by Christ himself. Faith/belief is a assent to allow God to do his work in me and through me in behalf of someone else. When all the answers are known, and they will be, though not discovered by man on his own no matter how hard man tries and no matter how much knowledge multiplies, then faith/belief will no longer be relevant.

posted by TAPS. on October 4, 2005 at 8:58 PM | link to this | reply

A rhetorical question for believers:

Does God believe in anything? I argue that God would have no need to believe in anything, for he/she/it would have KNOWLEDGE of everything. This would seem to support the cognitive superiority of knowledge over belief. Belief serves a valuable purpose, but only when knowledge is lacking.

Perhaps I should make this question a new post and see what happens.

posted by GoldenMean on October 4, 2005 at 8:57 PM | link to this | reply

I just returned from my footlocker to check for comments

There I was, perched on my footlocker at the nucleus of an atom, gazing at the utter nothingness around me at that microscopic scale, yet knowing that trillions of electrons whirled within a inch of me in normal space, imparting order and solidity to the human world.....

Tapsel-T, thanks for your compliments. But knowledge is a different class of cognition that belief. Knowledge is verifiable and repeatable, independent of the knower, belief is not. And knowledge is cumulative, belief is not. Medical knowledge is an excellent example... doctors can now save people from maladies that would have killed them just a few years ago. Knowledge is more than hope... it is a tool that every person who wants to can use to better his/her own life, and the lives of others. Belief is also a tool, of a different class, for a different task.

I don't seek to destroy belief or deny belief to those who need it. I only want to help those who have become unsatisfied with their beliefs, or who have come to the limits of their beliefs, to see perhaps another path to continue learning and growing in moral fiber and virtue. Belief is very important as a safe-harbor to those who need it, while they strengthen their ship to venture out into the open sea of the unknown. But sooner or later they must leave that harbor, and face life with their own intelligence and morality, when belief cannot answer all the questions or cure all the heartaches.

CB Andrews, as you say, it makes sense for you to have faith in God, and not in knowledge. But it may not make sense later in your life. And you ARE doing your duty as a believer in discussing your faith with others. This is as it should be. It is those people who use coercion or violence to attack non-believers, who give belief a bad image.

posted by GoldenMean on October 4, 2005 at 8:04 PM | link to this | reply

Goldenmean

You are right, it is way too early to strip the universe of God or faith. Thanks for your post.

posted by CB_Andrews on October 4, 2005 at 12:31 PM | link to this | reply

Tapsel T

That was a pretty good comment. I also did not choose to make knowledge my God. Knowledge goes away, as does the world. It makes sense to me to have faith in God, not knowledge, but who am I to judge? I simply try to get others to understand that from time to time, as is my duty as a believer. Thanks so much for your insight.

posted by CB_Andrews on October 4, 2005 at 12:30 PM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean, This is a great post. It is obvious that you have put a lot of thought into expressing it just the way you want it. You have done a good job in making it understandable and interesting. The truth of the matter is that all knowledge, all facts, all science, all beliefs are relative. None of these stand on its own. Yes, belief can hinder knowledge but, knowledge is merely hope wearing the mask of unbelief. You think of belief as being shackles that keep one from knowledge while a believer knows that knowledge vanishes away. It will always be a matter of choice. One person chooses faith in God while the next chooses faith in his own knowledge. A hundred years from now they will both be dead and gone. Some of the knowledge will remain, some will be expounded on by others, some will disappear as did 75% of the works of Leonardo Da Vinci. Knowledge is good but I choose not to make it my god.

posted by TAPS. on October 4, 2005 at 12:24 PM | link to this | reply

Thanks, Gomedome

Coming from you, that is high praise indeed. I thought this was a timely post, after our discussion in your blog. It seems you are more in agreement with atheistic scientists than I am, and I thought this might give you a slightly different perspective.

With the wonders of the universe that we are just beginning to discover, such as DNA, electrons, black holes, "dark matter" and "dark energy", it is far too early to strip the universe of God or spirit. They should retain a place in our minds and hearts, which they may be responsible for creating.

posted by GoldenMean on October 3, 2005 at 3:35 AM | link to this | reply

GoldenMean -- this is an exceptional post

I've written on this subject and have covered many of the same points but not near as eloquently or as thoroughly.

posted by gomedome on October 2, 2005 at 8:10 AM | link to this | reply