255d
@moonbus saidAre the beliefs that "humanity must try to understand the universe" and "humanity has value" and "my life has a purpose" scientific or religious beliefs, in your view?
@spruce112358
There are two problems with "belief in belief."
One is that one cannot, psychologically cannot, get oneself to believe something simply because one wants to believe it or because one thinks it might be beneficial (despite its being evidently false or unprovable). Try, try real hard, to believe that 2+2=5. Or that Donald Trump really won the 2020 election. ...[text shortened]... e of which happens to be put in a box marked 'scientific' and the other in a box marked 'religious.'
Because I think even scientists sometimes need to believe that their lives have a purpose. Especially when contemplating the infinite vastness of space.
You say we cannot believe something 'because we want to'. But do we not choose to believe that we matter?
255d
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThey never had any beef because...
It is really unfortunate that Islam, Judaism, and Christianity have been fighting each other for centuries.
Hindus, on the other hand, never had any beef.
what goes around, comes around.
🙂
255d
@spruce112358 saidThis was a good one!
They never had any beef because...
what goes around, comes around.
🙂
Well done! 🙂
-VR
255d
@very-rusty saidYes, when he tells people what he believes is true, that too should change everyone's mind because he explained what he meant, more times than not I do agree with him, but from time to time, not so much.
Ghost believes if he said it and he thought it was funny, everyone else should see it to, is the impression I get. 🙂
-VR
@suzianne saidWe are creatures that live by faith, you must have faith that we can do science, or what is the point, you must have faith that we can understand the universe to study it or what is the point, you must have faith that what your conclusions are based upon factual truth, or what is the point? You go to work to get paid, because you believe they will pay you when it is time or what is the point?
Science is not about faith.
Blind faith is believing without cause, faith is putting your trust in what you are doing is worth doing or what is the point?
254d
@kellyjay saidScience is not about faith in the slightest. Science is about fact. Hypotheses are compiled then proven, or else proven wrong. There is nothing in science about faith.
We are creatures that live by faith, you must have faith that we can do science, or what is the point, you must have faith that we can understand the universe to study it or what is the point, you must have faith that what your conclusions are based upon factual truth, or what is the point? You go to work to get paid, because you believe they will pay you when it is time or ...[text shortened]... ithout cause, faith is putting your trust in what you are doing is worth doing or what is the point?
Religion is about faith because it is not proved; it is the 'evidence' of things unseen.
254d
@suzianne saidRight. Science has no axioms because everything can be questioned.
Science is not about faith in the slightest. Science is about fact. Hypotheses are compiled then proven, or else proven wrong. There is nothing in science about faith.
Religion is about faith because it is not proved; it is the 'evidence' of things unseen.
Mathematics, though, has axioms. If you don't believe in the axioms, you can't do any math. So is mathematics more like religion than science? 🙂
What about the statement, "Humanity has worth, so doing science to understand how to help humanity is good." How does a scientist prove that humanity has worth?
Or, "We must understand the Universe, therefore I must do science." So the scientist believes he must understand the Universe. Why? Can he prove through science that he MUST understand the Universe? I don't think so.
I think FMF's original question was about whether religion and belief could be argued to have value EVEN for scientists.
I have come to agree. I believe... in belief.
254d
1 edit
@spruce112358 said"Humanity must try to understand the universe" is not a belief in the sense in which some people believe, for example, that God became man and died for man's sins. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes that "humanity must try to understand the universe." Trying to understand how nature works has an obvious evolutionary survival value, in that people who don't understand how really basic things function, such has how pray-animals migrate and which plants are poisonous and so on, don't live long enough to pass on their genes. Trying to understand the world we live in is just something we do, like breathing, it's not about believing. Believing that God became man and died for mankind's sins has no evolutionary value; there is no natural selection pressure to believe this and pass on one's genes by virtue of having believed just this (rather than some other, possibly erroneous, belief). Whereas, if you erroneously believe hemlock to be not poisonous, it has an obvious survival dis-advantage.
Are the beliefs that "humanity must try to understand the universe" and "humanity has value" and "my life has a purpose" scientific or religious beliefs, in your view?
Because I think even scientists sometimes need to believe that their lives have a purpose. Especially when contemplating the infinite vastness of space.
You say we cannot believe something 'because we want to'. But do we not choose to believe that we matter?
Similarly, it is weird to talk of believing that "humanity has value" and "my life has a purpose." Your life has a purpose or it doesn't -- your believing it has a purpose or no purpose adds nothing to its having or not having a purpose. Your purpose, if you have one, is not to believe something. It's rather like breathing: my believing I'm breathing adds nothing to my breathing.
254d
@suzianne saidYou think all things we call facts are indeed facts as we believe them to be? Every single one of them!?
Science is not about faith in the slightest. Science is about fact. Hypotheses are compiled then proven, or else proven wrong. There is nothing in science about faith.
Religion is about faith because it is not proved; it is the 'evidence' of things unseen.
254d
@moonbus saidBut believing your life has value and believing it should continue may increase the likelihood that you get to reproductive age so that you DO in fact pass on your genes. Whether you believe this "Because God" or "Just Because" makes little difference. Not believing, though, may place you in evolutionary jeopardy.
"Humanity must try to understand the universe" is not a belief in the sense in which some people believe, for example, that God became man and died for man's sins. In fact, I don't know anyone who believes that "humanity must try to understand the universe." Trying to understand how nature works has an obvious evolutionary survival value, in that people who don't understand ...[text shortened]... mething. It's rather like breathing: my believing I'm breathing adds nothing to my breathing.
Believing that you are breathing adds nothing to breathing, but believing that you should go ON breathing could be important.
254d
3 edits
@spruce112358 saidScientists believe things, but that doesn’t mean that science is a kind of a religion. Science is about facts and how things work. Religion is about values and mankind’s wherefore.
But believing your life has value and believing it should continue may increase the likelihood that you get to reproductive age so that you DO in fact pass on your genes. Whether you believe this "Because God" or "Just Because" makes little difference. Not believing, though, may place you in evolutionary jeopardy.
Believing that you are breathing adds nothing to breathing, but believing that you should go ON breathing could be important.
Are you one of these people who think that science is just an alternative belief system with nobody in place of God?