Fair points all. My thoughts are more correllaries than disagreements, i think.
I don't believe that even in the best cases, people who live with beliefs that directly contradict science are "no harm, no foul." Such beliefs do have an effect; they impact society in a number of ways, some of them subtle and others not so subtle.
This is undeniable. What we believe affects what we do, and everything we do -- in at least some infinitessimal way -- affects everyone else.
My thoughts on this, though, is that i don't necessarily feel this is a bad thing. Yes, people do all kinds of negative things in the name of what i'll call "non-scientific" (meaning "incompatible with reality #1") belief. I think many also do positive things, though, in both small and large ways. Similarly, while non-scientific beliefs can make people susceptible to manipulation, it can at other times make them more impervious to it. Belief-based organizations can amass resources and use them for bad ends, but thoroughly rational organizations also do that all the time, too.
I think what's important here is that people endeavor to do the same with their non-scientific beliefs as they would seek to do with their rational pursuits: keep their effects positive. This is why i believe far more in the importance of compassion than i do in any one flavor of spirituality, or in the fruits of science/logic. I believe its important that anyone, regardless of deist, agnostic or atheist philosophies, check those ways of life against the metric of compassion. If a church that claims to be based on Christ's teachings (which were very much about compassion and philos) is making political moves to hurt people, then the people of that church must speak up. Similarly, if the progress of technology that is claimed to be for the good of all is coming at a human cost somewhere, it needs to be checked.
Those who sync their #2 with #1 do have the advantage that they can operate on a huge common ground of established purely rational thought. Maybe this gives an automatic edge when dealing with others, and perhaps that edge could be thought of as compassionate. Saying, though, that making decisions firmly grounded only in reason prevents people from being manipulated, misguided or evil is a big stretch, though; with complex issues like social decisions and advanced technological questions, there is plenty of room for the base axioms/criteria upon which the logical process is based to differ wildly between people and cause the same kinds of problems.
You can't have it both ways-- ...
Yes, i agree. If you want to step into the discipline of science, you need to play by that discipline's rules. One can say "God healed my Aunt Rosie's cancer," but if so, it must be accepted that this is a statement of faith, and you can't expect others (whose beliefs may differ) to agree with you. When someone steps outside of the self, they are stepping outside of their #2, and it's critical to recognize that. Often (but not always), one can at least count on #1 as a starting ground for discussion, and people can share #2s, but they can't just expect another person to buy into it.
Sadly, as you said, this often happens anyway. :) I don't mean to suggest that i espouse that.
I guess my question is more on this part:
Such people will often say that using logic, evidence, or Ockham's Razor to evaluate claims of the supernatural misses the point, and that such attempts are using the wrong tool for the job.
How do you feel about this statement, independent of the people who misuse it, i mean? Do you think the point i was trying to make is a sound one in this independent sense, or is there something about it that seems unsound to you?
Re: (cont'd...)
I don't believe that even in the best cases, people who live with beliefs that directly contradict science are "no harm, no foul." Such beliefs do have an effect; they impact society in a number of ways, some of them subtle and others not so subtle.
This is undeniable. What we believe affects what we do, and everything we do -- in at least some infinitessimal way -- affects everyone else.
My thoughts on this, though, is that i don't necessarily feel this is a bad thing. Yes, people do all kinds of negative things in the name of what i'll call "non-scientific" (meaning "incompatible with reality #1") belief. I think many also do positive things, though, in both small and large ways. Similarly, while non-scientific beliefs can make people susceptible to manipulation, it can at other times make them more impervious to it. Belief-based organizations can amass resources and use them for bad ends, but thoroughly rational organizations also do that all the time, too.
I think what's important here is that people endeavor to do the same with their non-scientific beliefs as they would seek to do with their rational pursuits: keep their effects positive. This is why i believe far more in the importance of compassion than i do in any one flavor of spirituality, or in the fruits of science/logic. I believe its important that anyone, regardless of deist, agnostic or atheist philosophies, check those ways of life against the metric of compassion. If a church that claims to be based on Christ's teachings (which were very much about compassion and philos) is making political moves to hurt people, then the people of that church must speak up. Similarly, if the progress of technology that is claimed to be for the good of all is coming at a human cost somewhere, it needs to be checked.
Those who sync their #2 with #1 do have the advantage that they can operate on a huge common ground of established purely rational thought. Maybe this gives an automatic edge when dealing with others, and perhaps that edge could be thought of as compassionate. Saying, though, that making decisions firmly grounded only in reason prevents people from being manipulated, misguided or evil is a big stretch, though; with complex issues like social decisions and advanced technological questions, there is plenty of room for the base axioms/criteria upon which the logical process is based to differ wildly between people and cause the same kinds of problems.
You can't have it both ways-- ...
Yes, i agree. If you want to step into the discipline of science, you need to play by that discipline's rules. One can say "God healed my Aunt Rosie's cancer," but if so, it must be accepted that this is a statement of faith, and you can't expect others (whose beliefs may differ) to agree with you. When someone steps outside of the self, they are stepping outside of their #2, and it's critical to recognize that. Often (but not always), one can at least count on #1 as a starting ground for discussion, and people can share #2s, but they can't just expect another person to buy into it.
Sadly, as you said, this often happens anyway.
:)I don't mean to suggest that i espouse that.I guess my question is more on this part:
Such people will often say that using logic, evidence, or Ockham's Razor to evaluate claims of the supernatural misses the point, and that such attempts are using the wrong tool for the job.
How do you feel about this statement, independent of the people who misuse it, i mean? Do you think the point i was trying to make is a sound one in this independent sense, or is there something about it that seems unsound to you?