Quebec will now ban street prayers as the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ) “super-minister” of identity, Jean-François Roberge, has just passed his bill to strengthen secularism.
That doesn’t change the fact that until it had been demonstrably proven, it was still within the realm of belief rather than fact.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
I’m sure the first people to conceive of the idea of a god had reasons for believing too. The stars in the night sky, the light in the eyes of their first child… How do you explain those things before you understand atoms and molecules and photons?
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Isaac Newton had reasons to believe in his model of physics. And for many years, they were the best explanations for the way things behave the way they do. Until it wasn’t.
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
None of this matters, really. At least it’s not pertinent to the subject. Because no matter how you look at it, it doesn’t justify forcing your worldview and beliefs on others. And that’s what this whole conversation has been about.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
Either way, it’s still belief. The other user I was arguing with was trying to say people should be forced to give up their religious beliefs. My point was that that’s not okay, because the state cannot dictate one’s beliefs. That user then tried to argue that science and reality are somehow mutually exclusive from belief and therefore deserve an exception, when that clearly isn’t the case. And as soon as you try to go down that path, you’ll have whoever is in charge of what constitutes “reality” banning any hypotheses that don’t align with their particular persuasions. Maybe no one can study string theory, because that person believes in quantum gravity. Or vise versa.
If you can’t see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people can’t believe, that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. […] In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like you’re approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Also, plenty of religious people have a scientific worldview, and their spiritual beliefs accommodate empirical facts. Why should those people be forced to give up their beliefs just because you disagree with them?
Now that we know about general relativity, does that change the fact that Newtonian physics were science?
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly).
Wow, that went right over your head. How can you claim I’m the one being dishonest when you’re the one attempting to frame a deliberate aporia as ignorance on my part?
Religion is largely constant.
No, it’s not. Or else we’d all still be animists.
Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. Lots of religions cultivate an appreciation for the unknown. Try considering people besides the obnoxious fundamentalists who are loudest in the media but are mostly viewed as hypocrites by other members of their own religion.
If you’re viewing every religious person as an evangelical christian from the american bible belt, an ultra-orthodox jewish zionist, or a member of the taliban, then I think we’ve identified the problem.
But the thing is, all three of those religions (christianity, judaism, islam) also have other sects that aren’t like that, who believe in science and empathy and universal human rights and mutual respect. But if you’re trying to say that those people need to abandon their religions because you disagree them, then you clearly don’t believe in those things (at least, the empathy, rights, and respect parts).
And it goes beyond the abrahamic religions too. Do you believe people in Tibet should have to give up Buddhism? Because Beijing is anti-religious and that is a part of their cultural imperialism in places like Tibet and Urumqi.
Do you believe Māori and other Pacific Island cultures should give up their religions, because your worldview is more enlightened? How is that not the same as calling them “backward primitives”? Are you starting to see the problems here?
How about indigenous people in the americas, including uncontacted tribes? Are you going to force them to give up their religious beliefs too?
How about all of the religions of the Indian subcontinent? You’re gonna try to tell them what they can and can’t believe?
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter.
Then this entire string has been a red herring. The issue is whether or not to ban individual religious beliefs and expression, and I still firmly say no. The only way to ensure peaceful coexistence and universal respect and dignity is to learn not only to tolerate but also to appreciate the diversity of religious beliefs that exist in the world. Intolerance should never be tolerated, whether the intolerant person is a theist or an atheist. And nation-states should never mandate one way or another what people can or can’t believe spiritually.
Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
I understand the difference quite well. It seems you’re the one who’s trying to lump them together by approaching religion from within the box of science. If you’re trying to apply the same principles, it will never make sense. You said yourself that they’re in different realms, and yet you’re rejecting not only religion but also religious people as a whole, simply on the grounds that they don’t hold up to scientific rigor.
Well maybe the need they fulfill in the human psyche isn’t purely scientific. Maybe there’s a bit of a soft science to it, or maybe it’s more of an art. Have you ever studied the humanities? Do you know how to approach literature, philosophy, poetry, mythology? What about anthropology and ethnography? Because there are a lot of lenses to approach religion through, and you seem to be trying to mandate that we approach it through the lens of the hard sciences.
My entire point from the start in bringing up the unknowns in science was to make you examine your own epistemological assumptions. But clearly that went right over your head and you missed the point entirely, because your entire argument was built as if you were talking down to some religious person who also happens to be irrational.
As I stated elsewhere, however, I’m not even religious. I simply believe, on rational grounds, that every person has a right to determine their own spiritual beliefs and practices, and inasmuch as they don’t transgress on any other person’s rights, no one should be allowed to transgress on theirs.
Again, in science, the “realm of belief” is something different than the “realm of belief” for religion. If you can’t acknowledge that, I can’t assume you’re approaching this conversation in good faith.
So, that’s actually the difference I’m talking about. In science, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you say is “huh, I don’t know the answer to that”. You don’t claim you know the answer to those questions until you actually know the answer. But by using rational, critical thought, evidence, and carrying out the scientific method, you figure out those answers, piece by piece. In religion, when you come across something you don’t know the answer to, the first thing you do is make up an answer based on unprovable, unobservable supernatural forces, and then that’s basically the end of it. Is the difference clear yet?
Right, he “believed” in his model because of evidence, observation, rational and critical thought, and the scientific method. His model was superseded when we were able to make better observations, and saw unexpected things in certain cases that didn’t match his predictions. That clued us in that his model wasn’t quite right, and there must be a piece missing. People went looking for that piece and found relativity, which has proven to be an even more accurate model than Newton’s.
Of course not, and the fact that you’re even asking shows you have a deeply flawed understanding of science (or are not engaging honestly). Religion is largely constant. Science is very much not. Religion is constant because it fabricates the answers and then stops. Science changes because it leaves room to say “I don’t know”, and has well-defined mechanisms for filling those gaps with good, rational answers, as well as improving upon or even replacing those answers when we learn better. In that way, the “belief” in religion is nothing like the “belief” in science.
It may not be directly pertinent to the main point, but it does absolutely matter. Understanding the differences between religion and science is paramount if you’re going to argue about them, and I hope this has given you (and anyone else who reads it) some food for thought.
Either way, it’s still belief. The other user I was arguing with was trying to say people should be forced to give up their religious beliefs. My point was that that’s not okay, because the state cannot dictate one’s beliefs. That user then tried to argue that science and reality are somehow mutually exclusive from belief and therefore deserve an exception, when that clearly isn’t the case. And as soon as you try to go down that path, you’ll have whoever is in charge of what constitutes “reality” banning any hypotheses that don’t align with their particular persuasions. Maybe no one can study string theory, because that person believes in quantum gravity. Or vise versa.
If you can’t see how problematic it is for a state to dictate what people can’t believe, that’s a you problem, not a me problem.
Some religions are specifically about the mystery of the unknown. It sounds like you’re approaching this with a very narrow view of what a religion is. We tend to call that a bias.
Also, plenty of religious people have a scientific worldview, and their spiritual beliefs accommodate empirical facts. Why should those people be forced to give up their beliefs just because you disagree with them?
Wow, that went right over your head. How can you claim I’m the one being dishonest when you’re the one attempting to frame a deliberate aporia as ignorance on my part?
No, it’s not. Or else we’d all still be animists.
Again, you have a very narrow view of religion. Lots of religions cultivate an appreciation for the unknown. Try considering people besides the obnoxious fundamentalists who are loudest in the media but are mostly viewed as hypocrites by other members of their own religion.
If you’re viewing every religious person as an evangelical christian from the american bible belt, an ultra-orthodox jewish zionist, or a member of the taliban, then I think we’ve identified the problem.
But the thing is, all three of those religions (christianity, judaism, islam) also have other sects that aren’t like that, who believe in science and empathy and universal human rights and mutual respect. But if you’re trying to say that those people need to abandon their religions because you disagree them, then you clearly don’t believe in those things (at least, the empathy, rights, and respect parts).
And it goes beyond the abrahamic religions too. Do you believe people in Tibet should have to give up Buddhism? Because Beijing is anti-religious and that is a part of their cultural imperialism in places like Tibet and Urumqi.
Do you believe Māori and other Pacific Island cultures should give up their religions, because your worldview is more enlightened? How is that not the same as calling them “backward primitives”? Are you starting to see the problems here?
How about indigenous people in the americas, including uncontacted tribes? Are you going to force them to give up their religious beliefs too?
How about all of the religions of the Indian subcontinent? You’re gonna try to tell them what they can and can’t believe?
Then this entire string has been a red herring. The issue is whether or not to ban individual religious beliefs and expression, and I still firmly say no. The only way to ensure peaceful coexistence and universal respect and dignity is to learn not only to tolerate but also to appreciate the diversity of religious beliefs that exist in the world. Intolerance should never be tolerated, whether the intolerant person is a theist or an atheist. And nation-states should never mandate one way or another what people can or can’t believe spiritually.
I understand the difference quite well. It seems you’re the one who’s trying to lump them together by approaching religion from within the box of science. If you’re trying to apply the same principles, it will never make sense. You said yourself that they’re in different realms, and yet you’re rejecting not only religion but also religious people as a whole, simply on the grounds that they don’t hold up to scientific rigor.
Well maybe the need they fulfill in the human psyche isn’t purely scientific. Maybe there’s a bit of a soft science to it, or maybe it’s more of an art. Have you ever studied the humanities? Do you know how to approach literature, philosophy, poetry, mythology? What about anthropology and ethnography? Because there are a lot of lenses to approach religion through, and you seem to be trying to mandate that we approach it through the lens of the hard sciences.
My entire point from the start in bringing up the unknowns in science was to make you examine your own epistemological assumptions. But clearly that went right over your head and you missed the point entirely, because your entire argument was built as if you were talking down to some religious person who also happens to be irrational.
As I stated elsewhere, however, I’m not even religious. I simply believe, on rational grounds, that every person has a right to determine their own spiritual beliefs and practices, and inasmuch as they don’t transgress on any other person’s rights, no one should be allowed to transgress on theirs.