Re: From the mind of Orson Scott Card


"Bill Snyder" <bsnyder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:7ro9f1hqmfv1p47u9hsva3uo227j0q5nu6@xxxxxxxxxx
> On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 16:12:52 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
> <mscottschilling@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Snyder" <bsnyder@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>news:j1g9f1t8n5uercsvk1rn8e6632t8rqs4mf@xxxxxxxxxx
>>> On 6 Aug 2005 02:23:19 -0400, wdstarr@xxxxxxxxx (William December
>>> Starr) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <dc0g34$lr7$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
>>>>mchary@xxxxxxxxx (Michael Alan Chary) said:
>>>>
>>>>>> Well, I'm open to suggestion here... I'm talking about holding,
>>>>>> strongly, an important belief about the objective nature of
>>>>>> reality, without said belief having any observable underpinnings
>>>>>> _in_ reality. Can you suggest a better word than "insanity?"
>>>>>> [wdstarr]
>>>>>
>>>>> "Faith?" That's seemed to work well for a few hundred years.
>>>>
>>>>When the faith is in alleged objective truths about the nature of
>>>>reality, is there a difference?
>>>
>>> I presume you mean alleged objective truths like, "There is a thing
>>> called a physical universe which exists independent of me; it is by
>>> and large consistent and knowable; my senses are generally reliable
>>> guides to its manifestations in my vicinity; logic and reason are
>>> generally reliable guides to its overall nature." Belief in utterly
>>> unprovable statements of faith like that is at least tantamount to
>>> insanity?
>>
>>
>>To be fair, while those statements aren't provable, we are constantly
>>testing them and, in general, receiving corroboration of their validity,
>>or
>>at least of their consistency with what we experience. That isn't true of
>>most religious beliefs.
>
> I'd have to insist on "consistency" rather than "corroboration":
> AFAICS we experience nothing incompatible with the Giant Computer or
> Brain in a Jar hypotheses, or with RAHian solipsism, for that matter.

Wouldn't RAHian solipsism include gorgeous 20-year-old redheaded geniuses
who insist on having my babies? I think we can rule that one out.

But I think the argument can be extended. It's a weak standard to say we
experience nothing inconsistent with, say, the world being created last
Thursday complete with fossils and implant memories. While it's true that I
can't disprove this, nor can I make any testable predictions based on it.
Nor do I have any sound reasons for placing the Creation on Thursday rather
than Wednesday.

It's a stronger standard to say that I can, based on experience, say what
the rules are, and make predictions that actually come true. Chalk one up
for logic, reasoning, and physics that can't be matched by religion.
Religious arguments often have the epistemologically unfortunate aspect of
explaining too many different situations. Is our country prosperous and
victorious? That's because God loves us. Are we poor and defeated? God
still loves us, but right now he's punishing us for our sins. And the
current crop of religiously-based "scientific" positions, say
young-earth-ism and intelligent design, quite clearly start with the literal
truth of the Bible and look for evidence and arguments to support that; they
amount to arguments from Authority, and it's perfectly sensible to disdain
them on that basis. Nor do they claim to be in any way predictive or
testable, so they can't really be evaluated logically.

When someone says "I believe in Jesus because I have seen him", he's saying
"I have had an experience of whose Truth I am convinced. However I cannot
communicate this experience or explain it in simpler terms; at most I can
give you clues about how to have the same experience." That's quite
different from "If you drop that baseball out the window, it'll take 1.5
seconds to hit the ground. I know this because I can calculate it, because
it took that long last time, and because I can show you the bruise on
Frank's forehead when he didn't have time to get out of the way."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: From the mind of Orson Scott Card
    ... nor can I make any testable predictions based on it. ... >for logic, reasoning, and physics that can't be matched by religion. ... >"I have had an experience of whose Truth I am convinced. ... >communicate this experience or explain it in simpler terms; ...
    (rec.arts.sf.written)
  • Re: F&M
    ... Science and Religion would be indistinguishable. ... Something is true if it matches reality. ... just a thought pattern in our heads), truth is had if the predictions ...
    (uk.rec.sheds)
  • The green fervour-> Is environmentalism the new religion?
    ... Is environmentalism the new religion? ... But he understands the unjustified faith that arises from the psychological need tomake predictions. ... After all, he said, scientists cannot even write the equation of a cloud, let alone make a workable model of the climate. ...
    (sci.fractals)
  • Re: Leon Fleischer
    ... Predictions of attack with biological and chemical weapons. ... Do you really think the average Iraqi prefers a repressive dictatorship? ... The problem with Iraq is that it wants just that -- only three of them. ... Mark Twain said that religion and politics are opposites. ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: How will we use horses in the future?
    ... They always couch their predictions in language and logic appropriate ... when religion was the dominant ... Islam and Christianity are both expansionist religions. ... Nations, particularly those that survive and thrive, use the tools ...
    (rec.equestrian)