Religion and rationality

[skepticalmike]

But that was not my point. My point was science itself is based on faith in the scientific method.

Faith in the scientific method is in no way comparable to the kind of faith that Christians have.

[Chris]

Faith in the scientific method is in no way comparable to the kind of faith that Christians have.

As an explanation, it certainly is.

[skepticalmike]

I find most religious arguments rational. They begin with an axiomatic belief and make rational arguments from that. It's no different than any other argument.

I have never found religious arguments to be rational. I have never been convinced by a single argument coming from a Christian apologist. They start out with extraordinary claims, not axioms,
and then they come up with convoluted and irrational arguments.

[skepticalmike]

The scientific method described below sounds like the antithesis of Christian faith.

The scientific method as described by Wikipedia:

Scientific method - Wikipedia

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.^[1][2][3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.^[4][5] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.^[6]

[Chris]

The scientific method described below sounds like the antithesis of Christian faith.

The scientific method as described by Wikipedia:

Scientific method - Wikipedia

The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation. It involves formulating hypotheses, via induction, based on such observations; experimental and measurement-based testing of deductions drawn from the hypotheses; and refinement (or elimination) of the hypotheses based on the experimental findings. These are principles of the scientific method, as distinguished from a definitive series of steps applicable to all scientific enterprises.^[1][2][3]
Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, the underlying process is frequently the same from one field to another. The process in the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments or empirical observations based on those predictions.^[4][5] A hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while seeking answers to the question. The hypothesis might be very specific, or it might be broad. Scientists then test hypotheses by conducting experiments or studies. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, implying that it is possible to identify a possible outcome of an experiment or observation that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, the hypothesis cannot be meaningfully tested.^[6]

And? You still put faith in the scientific method.

[Chris]

I have never found religious arguments to be rational. I have never been convinced by a single argument coming from a Christian apologist. They start out with extraordinary claims, not axioms,
and then they come up with convoluted and irrational arguments.

I, even as an atheist, find all such arguments against religion to be irrational and unconvincing.

[Standing Wolf]

Yes, faith in the scientific method.

Here one need be careful, for science did advance beyond authoritarianism to empiricism but the death of logical positivism brought in a new era of falsification (see Popper, The Logic of Scientific Discovery whereby amendment is endless, search is endless.

But, yes, essentially, faith--solely on faith--in the scientific method, in science itself.

Objectivity? Based on what? The scientific method?

Are you suggesting that a belief (or faith, if you want to put it that way, though I think that's the wrong word for it) in the scientific method is comparable to a belief, based solely on faith, in the existence of a supernatural, all powerful intelligence, the divinity of Christ, etc.? (Or, if one is considering one of the other religious traditions, a belief that the world emerged from a flower that grew from the navel of Brahma, or however that story goes?) In other words, can a belief in any supernatural being or incident really be placed on the same plane as the scientific method in terms of what is "rational"? Is one really using the word "rational" in the same sense in both instances?

[Standing Wolf]

And? You still put faith in the scientific method.

People put faith in the scientific method because it works and because its conclusions are provable and, in most cases, backed up by hard evidence and direct observation. None of that is true of religion - any religion. Not all examples of people having faith in something are equally rational. Not all faith is equally rational.

[Chris]

Are you suggesting that a belief (or faith, if you want to put it that way, though I think that's the wrong word for it) in the scientific method is comparable to a belief, based solely on faith, in the existence of a supernatural, all powerful intelligence, the divinity of Christ, etc.? (Or, if one is considering one of the other religious traditions, a belief that the world emerged from a flower that grew from the navel of Brahma, or however that story goes?) In other words, can a belief in any supernatural being or incident really be placed on the same plane as the scientific method in terms of what is "rational"? Is one really using the word "rational" in the same sense in both instances?

Yes. Both are based on axiomatic belief (words we both used earlier).

As to your second question, you're changing categories or levels of talking about this by particularizing religion. We could similarly ask whether any science is rational? Evolutionary Theory vs Creation Science? We hear scientific claims every day, especially concerning health, that end up bogus.

Part of the problem in this discussion is I suppose I am taking a metaphysical view while some of you are pitting science against religion, which I'm not interested in. Metaphysically, both are based on axiomatic beliefs that to believers seem perfectly sensible, rational, and arguments from those axioms can be perfectly rational in particular, Aquinas, St Augustine, St Paul even, and then Galileo, Newton, Einstein, neither side of which to my knowledge rejected the other side.

[Chris]

People put faith in the scientific method because it works and because its conclusions are provable and, in most cases, backed up by hard evidence and direct observation. None of that is true of religion - any religion. Not all examples of people having faith in something are equally rational. Not all faith is equally rational.

Yes, pragmatically. But I'm sure a religious person finds his faith equally pragmatic as a guide in life.

BTW, science is not provable. See Hume and the Problem of Induction, resolved by Popperian falsification.

I agree, not all religious people are rational just as not all who believe in science are.


I am in a way, I'm realizing now, following the thinking of Victor Stenger. He's a physicist who at one time was eager to join the ranks of the New Atheists (early 2000s, probably now forgotten) but who killed his own efforts by arguing ultimately that when religion made scientific claims it was subject to scientific method and consistently rejected, but that when it made religious claims science had no business there because it is after all strictly materialistic. He was just following Gould's notion of non-overlapping majestreia.