Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion

[Riverwolf]

and it provides no clear method for correcting what it gets wrong.

Sure it does... kind of: personal experience.

The Buddha told his disciples to examine his teachings, and if something he taught turned out to be wrong, to discard it.

Plenty of Hindu teachers encourage not accepting anything blindly. "Don't believe in God until you meet him," they say. ^_^

The thing is, this is only good for individuals; it's not effective for humanity's collective knowledge.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

I don't think that faith in science is ever blind. We can see its "miracles" everywhere. It delivers results that are tangible. Quite often, our faith in what scientists tell us is misplaced, but the scientific method tends to force corrections on false information.

Well there have indeed been cases where this sort of blind faith has occurred historically, such as clinging to obsolete scientific theories by refusing to acknowledge superior scientific schools of thought because of a host of reasons (often these are not truly scientific reasons, but rather personal ones with a façade of science) such as advocating against an emerging science because it threatens your own position or because you do not want it to be correct because it would undermine the scientific contributions of the past.

Well, I don't think the Masters of these paths would advocate 100% suspension of rationality in all aspects of life, and they'd certainly never advocate doing this sort of thing for scientists.

However, a loud and noisy mind, so they teach (and my experience backs this up) will interfere with pure experience. I mean, imagine constantly examining all the intricacies of anatomy while making love.

And I agree with this to a large extent, however in such a case they are not truly advocating suspension of critical examination, logic or rationality (perhaps one might say temporal segregation however) but rather simply controlling the functioning of one's own mental faculties so as to prevent interference in a particular process or experience. Those who advocate that those experiences should not be the target of critical examination, nor are subject to logic or rationality do a disservice to the adherents of such an approach and to the society in which those adherents are members; I do not however believe that such examination, needs be concurrent with the experience itself - but it should never be dissuaded nor impinged in any way shape or form.

 

[atanu]

There's no such thing as blind faith when it comes to science.

Hello Dr. Nathan

That is true. But that may not be said of some views that seem to carry a veneer of science about them.

 

[Riverwolf]

And I agree with this to a large extent, however in such a case they are not truly advocating suspension of critical examination, logic or rationality (perhaps one might say temporal segregation however) but rather simply controlling the functioning of one's own mental faculties so as to prevent interference in a particular process or experience. Those who advocate that those experiences should not be the target of critical examination, nor are subject to logic or rationality do a disservice to the adherents of such an approach and to the society in which those adherents are members; I do not however believe that such examination, needs be concurrent with the experience itself - but it should never be dissuaded nor impinged in any way shape or form.

I agree with pretty much all of that. Study the experience after the experience is experienced.

...unless the goal is to maintain the experience for the rest of one's life, which I don't think most of us are really capable of doing, simply because we just don't have the time.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Yet if you are advocating an experience sustained to such an extent you would either need to incorporate the capacity for critical examination within the experience, suspend the experience or else be advocating the suspension of critical examination. If the two are incompatible and the experience intended to be semi-permanent, then one must suspend either the experience or critical examination, in the case of suspension of critical examination, I personally deem it destructive to the individual and society even if personally desirable by that individual.

That is merely my personal opinion, however I cannot envisage a philosophy or theology that is 'above' the capacity for critical examination to provide a more holistic understanding.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yet if you are advocating an experience sustained to such an extent you would either need to incorporate the capacity for critical examination within the experience, suspend the experience or else be advocating the suspension of critical examination. If the two are incompatible and the experience intended to be semi-permanent, then one must suspend either the experience or critical examination, in the case of suspension of critical examination, I personally deem it destructive to the individual and society even if personally desirable by that individual.

That is merely my personal opinion, however I cannot envisage a philosophy or theology that is 'above' the capacity for critical examination to provide a more holistic understanding.

Keep in mind, the kinds of people who do that tend to go live in solitude(typically in forests or caves, essentially becoming wild men), or in some kind of ashram; such a striving cannot be done in civilization. Very few of them come back to civilization after achieving it, and, as you might expect, it tends to leave them after constantly interacting with people.

Though this sort of thing is FAR more common in India; you won't see it very much anywhere else.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the one true God have blind faith in science.

Science does not deal with the supernatural.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

It would depend on the definition/description of the 'God' concept to which you are referring... if it is either falsifiable or verifiable, then perhaps science can be applied to the concept, otherwise (usually) not.

 

[Copernicus]

Science does not deal with the supernatural.

But it is fair to say that all accounts of the so-called "supernatural" involve interactions with natural phenomena. That alone exposes claims about the supernatural to empirical investigation.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

But not necessarily of the supernatural itself, only of the perception thereof. Side note... I hate the word supernatural... Ima gonna use preternatural instead.

 

[OneTwo]

I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the one true God have blind faith in science.

I believe that God made Sun, the stars and the planet Earth with the scientific laws within them. So if God made the universe abide by the scientific laws, then quite obviously no science would be able to understand the nature of God. To try and prove the existence of God will always be impossible with science as we do not have the capabilities nor the capacity in our minds to understand outside these laws.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the one true God have blind faith in science.
None of the founders of revealed religions ever vouched for blind faith. Those who doubt they should quote from Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus etc. in this connection.
Kalama Sutta is one such example; does it advocate blind faith?

I think you are trying to make an unproven, un-evidenced faith equal to science in terms of truth; that is an unsuccessful exercise.

 

[paarsurrey]

I agree. I think science's faithful are bogeymen, however. I've yet to meet or interact online with anyone who believes science has no limits.

The Scientists will always admit that there are limits to science; yet the eulogizers of scientists, namely, atheists/agnostics/skeptics would have us believe that everything should be dealt with science; they become mythical about science.

 

[paarsurrey]

I believe that God made Sun, the stars and the planet Earth with the scientific laws within them. So if God made the universe abide by the scientific laws, then quite obviously no science would be able to understand the nature of God. To try and prove the existence of God will always be impossible with science as we do not have the capabilities nor the capacity in our minds to understand outside these laws.

I think you agree with me.

Thanks

 

[Looncall]

I believe that God made Sun, the stars and the planet Earth with the scientific laws within them. So if God made the universe abide by the scientific laws, then quite obviously no science would be able to understand the nature of God. To try and prove the existence of God will always be impossible with science as we do not have the capabilities nor the capacity in our minds to understand outside these laws.

In that case, we have no way to obtain information about this god, and so no reason to believe in it. Why would anyone believe in an entity about which nothing is known?

 

[tumbleweed41]

The Scientists will always admit that there are limits to science; yet the eulogizers of scientists, namely, atheists/agnostics/skeptics would have us believe that everything should be dealt with science; they become mythical about science.

You do not think natural phenomena should be studied using natural means?

 

[atanu]

But it is fair to say that all accounts of the so-called "supernatural" involve interactions with natural phenomena. That alone exposes claims about the supernatural to empirical investigation.

I am told that when Wright brothers proposed flying machines, some laughed "Even pins do not remain afloat; what of a big machine?" The thinking that is tied to three states of existence cannot think and see the awareness that sees the three states.

 

[OneTwo]

In that case, we have no way to obtain information about this god, and so no reason to believe in it. Why would anyone believe in an entity about which nothing is known?

To a religious God fearing person, we do have enough information, his Holy Scriptures. To a believer in God, that is enough information, as part of the test of being a believer, is believing in the unseen. Otherwise if we could see God and His miracles, there is no test in our faith.

 

[tumbleweed41]

To a religious God fearing person, we do have enough information, his Holy Scriptures. To a believer in God, that is enough information, as part of the test of being a believer, is believing in the unseen. Otherwise if we could see God and His miracles, there is no test in our faith.

Are you saying that because you believe the Bible contains all the answers, there is no need for scientific inquiry?

 

[Tristesse]

To a religious God fearing person, we do have enough information, his Holy Scriptures. To a believer in God, that is enough information, as part of the test of being a believer, is believing in the unseen. Otherwise if we could see God and His miracles, there is no test in our faith.

Well, if we can't verify that the scriptures are true (testable claims), what reason is there to believe? Earlier you claimed that god is undetectable by science, and science is the only process we have for determining the nature of reality, and if a thing cannot be detected in the reality we experience, it is indistinguishable from it's non existence.