Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
I will start by moving a little away from the topic of comparing science and religion, but very close to it, by saying a few words about atheism and religion and whether the former can be considered more scientific than the latter. Just today I came across a good article in The Conversation on this topic.
So, if we summarize the results of recent scientific studies in which psychologists compared atheism and religion, the difference is small. Studies conducted by various authors have shown that people who say “I don't believe in God, I believe in science” are actually just as likely to be irrational as religious people. In particular, they also tend to groupthink and believe in authority figures, in both cases this is quite consistent with what we see in the case of religion.
Similarly, for most atheists, atheism is not the result of rational choice, which is the result of deep reflection on worldview issues. In practice, people become atheists either because they grew up in an atheistic or simply indifferent environment, or because in their childhood they encountered situations where people close to them, such as their parents, identified themselves as believers, but behaved in an unacceptable way. For example, they talked about love and forgiveness, and domestic violence flourished in the family, or they talked about the need to help the poor, but in practice they did not participate in charity, etc.
It is easy to see that all these examples, in fact, do not concern the content of religious doctrines and their greater or lesser rationality in comparison with atheism.
Developing this idea and returning to the question posed, it seems that at the level of ordinary consciousness, the difference is not so great.�
Let's be honest: for the average person, the Schrodinger equation is as mysterious as the cult of some exotic deity. And if he or she thinks the former is more reliable than the latter, it is not because they have carefully understood the intricacies of quantum physics, let alone the metaphysical philosophical debate about the nature of reality.
In both cases, we have social institutions trying to attract supporters and funding. In one case, they are scientists, in the other – religious figures. Both of them claim that they have some special experience (mystical experience or experience in the laboratory) that supports this knowledge. Experience that ordinary believers usually don't have.�
Again, let's be honest: while it's often said that scientific claims “can be verified empirically,” what percentage of people actually worked at the Large Hadron Collider, and what percentage simply accept current models of particle physics? And, in addition, religions often also claim to have empirical confirmation in the form of mystical experience, which, at least in theory, with appropriate practice, can be acquired, if not by everyone, then by the majority of followers of the teaching.
Summing up, we can say that at the level of everyday consciousness, the difference between “faith in a scientist” and religious faith is conditional. The psyche is the psyche, and it works for all of us in a more or less similar way. Another thing is that the difference between religion and science is huge. But that's a different story altogether.
The difference is very clear. Scientists are looking at what can be perceived with the help of five senses (so far): sight, hearing, smell, touch, taste. All the formulas, icons, and obscure words that scientists come up with are needed only to describe these feelings. Phenomena that are inaccessible to the senses are considered in science only as derivatives of those that can be felt. Scientists thus create an approximate model of the world. They do this not just for fun, but to make it easier to live with the body. They create the language of the material world. If scientists discover something new, they simply invent a new word for it and write it into the model of the world.
Religions most often accept phenomena inaccessible to the senses. That is, they offer an alternative way of knowing reality without using the five senses. This is either a feeling of the soul, spirit, revelation of the deity or direct independent knowledge of reality with the help of only the mind. Religions sometimes don't even try to use words to describe these feelings. They just say: this can only be described apophatically, that is, by negating any signs. In order to discover this knowledge, it is necessary to make some spiritual or intellectual effort that is different from the effort required to understand the material world. Religions create the language of the immaterial world. They also do this not for entertainment (and not for enrichment, as it may seem), but to make it easier to live with your soul or mind. To neutralize disturbing things.
Therefore, there is no contradiction in these separate models of the world. Someone combines them, recognizing the reality of both the material and non-material world. Someone does not combine, dividing the model of the world into an illusory and real part. This is a personal choice of each person. Everyone tries to live as it is convenient for him.
Great question.�
I believe in the big bang theory – and what exactly does “believe” mean in this case? In my case, this means “I trust the community of scientists who believe that the big bang theory is the most plausible cosmological concept (that is, if everything was as it says, the world would look as it looks and we do not have such hypotheses of the world's origin that would better correspond to the observed state of the universe) at the moment, including because, as far as my own competence, you have to compensate by trusting the community)”.
But you can also put other meanings into “faith”. For example, “I am convinced that 13.9 billion years ago the universe was created as a result of the rapid expansion of the universe from the state of a singularity.” Also a faith, but quite different, isn't it?
Which of these is closer to faith in God? You can also believe in God in different ways. You might say,”I don't see any other satisfactory answers to the fundamental metaphysical questions I'm facing, other than the existence of higher forces.” Or you can say, ” I am convinced that the Bible is true from the first word to the last.”
And here are the first examples from each area – they are not synonymous, of course, but they are closer to each other than two examples from the same area are close to each other.
And also here is an excellent series of posts on the relationship between science and faith, I recommend you to read.
https://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/2092440.html
https://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/2092663.html
https://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/2093019.html
https://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/2093477.html
https://ivanov-petrov.livejournal.com/2093575.html
The difference is that God calls You to believe Him, and often this is the only possible way to rely on His Word, and scientists do not. All science is based on the fact that scientists do not believe each other, criticize each other and try to refute each other. Therefore, when people believe the conclusions of scientists as a revelation, they commit completely unmotivated stupidity.
faith is almost synonymous with consent… there are three kinds of faith… 1. faith in knowledge, i.e. if I have known something, felt it, checked it and was convinced, then now I believe in it: it was, is and will be… 2. faith is higher than knowledge, I assumed something and am looking for evidence or refutation… 3. faith is lower than knowledge, agreement with what cannot be checked… the faith of scientists is faith above knowledge… faith is lower than knowledge, blind faith belongs to religions and superstitions… well, there is a difference in everything… It is impossible to believe God at all, because this word implies a person, but the Creator is a positive energy that expresses the desire to enjoy, give, care, and love… By saying I believe in …, religious people mean agreeing with the words of preachers or with the authors of texts… and I agree to try to find a sense of His love in an effort not to harm my own kind…
FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC AND RELIGIOUS METHODS OF COGNITION. Lev Regelson, Igor Khvartskiya.
http://www.regels.org/Science-and-Religion.htm
The split between scientific and theological thinking runs through the very heart of our civilization and represents the most difficult creative challenge in human history. These two types of thinking differ dramatically in both content and method. The scientist thinks of the world as an infinitely complex object; the theologian thinks of a Person infinitely superior to it. The result of scientific research depends entirely on the efforts and abilities of the scientist; the result of theological creativity depends primarily on God Himself. The scientist does not ask his subject if he wants to be known; in the knowledge of God, this is the basic question. From the point of view of theology, science deals with things that are not decisive for a person; from the point of view of science, theological knowledge is devoid of any certainty.
The main objection to religion is: if there is a God, why does He so consistently and steadily conceal Himself from all objective and systematic observation? To some extent (although this is only one aspect of the matter), we have already answered this question: obviously, the Supreme does not want to be perceived as an object, even if it is the highest among other objects. If its existence could be proven, then at the current level of our development, this would threaten universal idolatry, that is, the rejection of our own responsibility for ourselves and for the world around us. Therefore, theological knowledge is necessarily preceded by faith as a free consent to the existence of God, as a willingness to enter into personal communication with Him, into a spiritual dialogue. The initiative of communication can come from either party, but the consent to communication must be mutual. Direct knowledge of God is possible only through His revelation about Himself, and each” touch ” of the Almighty deeply affects the perceiving person. Alternating the self-revelation of God with His self-revelation is the main method of Divine pedagogy, which educates a person as an independent person.
Someone may well confuse these concepts :- ) But ideally, the difference is this: we trust the scientist as a specialist, recognizing that he can be wrong as a person; we trust God completely and without limit, knowing that He cannot be wrong.
The author of the article distorts the cards. We should talk about faith as a certain psychological state of consciousness based on unproven verbal statements. That is, we should talk about illiteracy and inability to think straight. All the verbal pirouettes have a pretty sneaky goal-to convince people that religious nonsense is worthy of the same respect as science.
And you try, hammer yourself on the finger with a hammer,
and you will immediately understand what the belief that the kinetic energy of the hammer is
it will turn into painful sensations, different from believing in God and all his magic…faith in God is not enough for you to eat today, pay your bills, and so on-pray – and your dog will not make a mess on the carpet, but will be patient until the day after tomorrow.
Faith is a person's acceptance of something true without proof. Religion is faith. But a scientist has no faith. It is not a fact, of course, that all the ideas of scientists are true, but they are all based on observation, description, experience, experiment.
What scientists there are many scientists God is one I personally find it easier to believe one God than different scientists especially since there are a lot of outright idiots like Freud… How can you trust him ???
At the level of mental processes-no difference.�
Faith for a person is the main way of cognition.
It's funny that in ancient times, when people lived in caves, and tools were no more complicated than sticks and chipped stones, people relied much more on empirical experience(experiments).�
It's just that there is no particular choice. The more information, the more difficult it is to verify it or somehow make sure that it is reliable. Sooner or later, you will have to come up with some notches or certificates of authenticity (which, of course, will be forged) so that you can use this method of cognition relatively safely.�
Now, we live in a time of information chaos, where more and more people wander like lost sheep and after long wanderings reverently return to the bosom of the church, to the old proven lies, which are much less harmful than modern handicraft and science, which does not bring the ordinary man in the street anything but disappointment in their own mental abilities. �
There may be a difference (though not always) in the difficulty level and position relative to something. The primitive position of the believer will be the same, I do this because it is written/said by an authoritative someone there.
Those who do not have enough of this, who want to dig deeper, in the case of religion, will come up with unverifiable rationalizations for non-obvious (for them) religious statements, which are extremely difficult to refuse.
And in the case of faith in the sciences, rationalizations will concern mechanisms that should be a priori verifiable. Therefore, it is easier for a person to accept their fallacy, to change them to more constructive (realistic) ones. That is, giving preference to faith in science (especially if we understand that this is faith), we have more chances not to be deceived, adapt faster, process faster and better assimilate new information (this does not mean that all believers are not capable of this, we are just talking about the average temperature in the hospital).
1) Faith in scientists is the belief of a particular person in the words actually spoken. For example, if a scientist says that he has candy in his pocket, then you know who you believe/don't believe and what you believe.
God himself does not say anything, so it is impossible to believe God in principle. We can only believe / disbelieve the people who wrote on his behalf.
2) Scientists rarely ask to be believed.
God, judging by the biblical texts, sometimes almost requires faith, and punishes for its absence.
Approximately the same as between cataphatic theology and apophatic theology . At the same time, this method of knowledge of God has always been as far as the study of texts and stories of religions shows. It's just that the human brain is so designed that it believes in something irrational and at the same time checks it with experience . It's like Pushkin's “And experience is the son of difficult mistakes and the genius of paradoxes is a friend” – Kapitsa had such a screen saver in the USSR in the program Obvious Incredible. At the same time , periods of religiosity in each country and in each epoch were usually replaced, either not by total disbelief and doubt, but by coups and schisms . Because what any religion is, regardless of the denomination and period , is the belief that there is a certain intelligent substance that created , organized and manages the entire human and universal world order . You can come up with different names from God to “Solaris”, but the same we believe in what we do not see – this is cataphatic theology . God exists because he cannot be absent , because there is a mystical experience, and so on. Further and closer to atheism is apophathy , that is, denial-God is uncreated , we will never see him , we will never comprehend him, because our rational consciousness cannot contain all His wisdom . That is, those who deny any consciousness above their own must be either artificial intelligence, where this information was not invested, or mentally retarded ..
If we proceed from the Christian worldview, then man is God on Earth. Hence, to believe scientists is to believe in God. The lack of understanding of this is due to ignorance (or, in Christian terms, to the evil one). “Atheists” believe in the so-called small bang theory, completely unwilling to answer the questions that immediately arise: “Where did the singularity come from, and the space in which after the explosion (who put the match?) has matter started to spread?” “Atheists”, answer an elementary question without flaunting fictional “scientific” words and theories: “Who established (after your explosion) the rules (ordering) the existence of the visible world?” Or are you ready to prove that the rules were established by themselves? The absurdity and primitiveness of atheistic thinking is depressing in itself: people who do not want to recognize the divine principle, and take on a great responsibility in this regard, are happy to put on the blinders of laziness ,lack of faith, underdevelopment and outright lies.
The answer to your question is complicated by the fact that it is not known what is hidden under the term “faith in scientists”, because scientists are different and the subjects of their research are also different. But I suspect that your question is about the theory of human origin, so you had to simplify your question and reduce it to a more specific form – what is the difference between believing in Creation and believing in Evolution, the Big Bang, etc.? After all, not all scientists believe in Evolution, so there are options in this question.
John Lennox— mathematician, Doctor of Science and Doctor of Philosophy, Master of Bioethics. He graduated from Cambridge University with a degree in pure Mathematics. Professor at the University of Oxford.