[NT] NTs and Religion

[TopherRed]

*Ducks as he realizes a storm is brewing and he left armor and rifle in the car...grabs popcorn bag from backpack and puts down checkered blanket.*

I admit, I'm a smart F, but I'm no T. These arguments usually get little accomplished or proven in either direction because, as usual, all data is fallable. Still, I love hearing all the different points of view and I enjoy watching the fireworks.

 

[01011010]

Agnostic in belief
Atheist in practice
Culturally Jewish

There are plenty of religious NTs. I wouldn't say they comprise the majority, but you'd be surprised just how many there are.

 

[Galusha]

A calc. professor once told me, "Science is a new religion." I'm inclined to agree considering the way most people view it. Too many forget that science is just a progressive construct of what we believe we know, based on experimentation.

My basic philosophy, in a nutshell.

I also try to distinguish between what I believe is true and what I want to believe is true. I pray when I feel I need help, but it's not because I feel like someone's waiting there to help me-- it just puts me in a calmer place when I pretend so, and I end up being more capable of solving my own problems if I think I have a safety net.

 

[Qre:us]

A calc. professor once told me, "Science is a new religion." I'm inclined to agree considering the way most people view it. Too many forget that science is just a progressive construct of what we believe we know, based on experimentation.

How do most view Science to warrant it the status of a 'religion'?

 

[onemoretime]

My basic philosophy, in a nutshell.

I also try to distinguish between what I believe is true and what I want to believe is true. I pray when I feel I need help, but it's not because I feel like someone's waiting there to help me-- it just puts me in a calmer place when I pretend so, and I end up being more capable of solving my own problems if I think I have a safety net.

My big problem with that statement is that it somewhat misses the point. He's right in that one of the major purposes to religion is to explain the unknown in the universe, just as science's singular purpose is.

As an analogy, religion is an oil lamp. Science is a halogen-vapor spotlight. Both serve the purpose of distributing light. However, an oil lamp distributes light broadly and rather dimly. A halogen vapor spotlight illuminates the darkness distinctly and brightly, allowing fine details to be seen. You would never use an oil lamp for the same reasons you would use a high-candlepower halogen vapor spotlight.

That being said, this is where the separate magisteria argument comes from. We still have oil lamps. However, we keep them more for mood and aesthetics than we do for actual illumination. The high-powered lamps are much better for that. However, their starkness and uniformity of color can be jarring and unbeautiful for many. For others, the things that they can illuminate are of unspeakable beauty, and would never be known with that oil lamp. At the same time, oil lamps tend to produce smoke and present a distinct fire danger.

 

[jenocyde]

How do most view Science to warrant it the status of a 'religion'?

Because most of it is all theory and speculation.

Or, I should add, there are quantifiable results that are turned into Laws, but the reason behind the Laws are unproven. Kind of like religion.

 

[onemoretime]

Because most of it is all theory and speculation.

Or, I should add, there are quantifiable results that are turned into Laws, but the reason behind the Laws are unproven. Kind of like religion.

A Theory is much harder science than a Law is, in modern scientific parlance. Other than thermodynamics, most Laws have been disproven in some way, particularly the Newtonian laws.

There is a Law of Gravity. With that in mind, the first person(s) to come up with a workable and testable Theory of Gravity will win a Nobel Prize. Period.

The next question is admittedly a philosophic one, which of course makes me feel dirty: why does there have to be a reason behind the observable universe?

 

[jenocyde]

Yes, I know that Theories are more concrete, but nothing in this world can be certain, except observable results. There is too much that we simply cannot observe, rendering most science ineffective as a proper explanation.

Your question is not dirty. There are many people who don't need to know why, they just accept or believe. This is where faith comes in. Then there are others who must know why. This is where skepticism rears its head. It just depends on how you choose to look at life, and everything in it.

 

[TopherRed]

My big problem with that statement is that it somewhat misses the point. He's right in that one of the major purposes to religion is to explain the unknown in the universe, just as science's singular purpose is.

As an analogy, religion is an oil lamp. Science is a halogen-vapor spotlight. Both serve the purpose of distributing light. However, an oil lamp distributes light broadly and rather dimly. A halogen vapor spotlight illuminates the darkness distinctly and brightly, allowing fine details to be seen. You would never use an oil lamp for the same reasons you would use a high-candlepower halogen vapor spotlight.

That being said, this is where the separate magisteria argument comes from. We still have oil lamps. However, we keep them more for mood and aesthetics than we do for actual illumination. The high-powered lamps are much better for that. However, their starkness and uniformity of color can be jarring and unbeautiful for many. For others, the things that they can illuminate are of unspeakable beauty, and would never be known with that oil lamp. At the same time, oil lamps tend to produce smoke and present a distinct fire danger.

Interesting analogy. I like the last part.

 

[onemoretime]

Yes, I know that Theories are more concrete, but nothing in this world can be certain, except observable results. There is too much that we simply cannot observe, rendering most science ineffective as a proper explanation.

The problem with that is that when you take Heisenberg and the observer effect into account, you realize that observable results are skewed from the beginning. You'll never be able to know what is there in the absence of an observer. I don't particularly care about that.

That's because I'm unabashedly a species chauvinist. As far as I'm concerned, since we'll never know what happens empirically in the absence of an observer, how can you hold the pure empirical standard to it? That's more the realm of theoretical mathematics, which requires no observation, just comparisons of known relationships in the universe. Einstein pieced together general relativity and universal gravitation on a serendipitous hunch he had one day - but it was right because the math worked.

Your question is not dirty. There are many people who don't need to know why, they just accept or believe. This is where faith comes in. Then there are others who must know why. This is where skepticism rears its head. It just depends on how you choose to look at life, and everything in it.

Meh, philosophy is dirty in my mind because it's only very rarely that you get anything practical out of it, and most of that is well past - sort of like the island of Nauru, for an odd analogy. Once all the phosphate rocks were mined out of there, all that was left was barren wasteland, and useless to all.

My question was more one of "why are we asking why in the first place, when it's something that we cannot understand through any data we collect?" I realize that's not a very N sounding question, but then again, that's where Ne and Ni are different (as you're undoubtedly aware of).

 

[TopherRed]

Yes, I know that Theories are more concrete, but nothing in this world can be certain, except observable results. There is too much that we simply cannot observe, rendering most science ineffective as a proper explanation.

Your question is not dirty. There are many people who don't need to know why, they just accept or believe. This is where faith comes in. Then there are others who must know why. This is where skepticism rears its head. It just depends on how you choose to look at life, and everything in it.

Someone who looks at God and doesn't ask "why" is foolish. I have excepted that there are certain things I don't have satisfactory answers to yet (IMHO, that is true faith: trust and belief despite the absence of immediate answers), but if I keep looking, I find them, just as science does. And God wants me to seek Him, that's the only thing that really matters. It's just that most people don't look too hard because they don't want to except the difficulties associated with finding more of God--it causes accelereated growth and maturity that is painful, though the rewards, such as a relationship with God and having some of those questions answered, are worth it.

Not that the piss-poor state of the current Church really encourages you or me to seek after the God they supposedly represent.

 

[INTJ123]

nope no religion. I've tried a few growing up, catholic, christian, lutheran, zen, atheism/agnostic. That doesn't mean I don't believe in any of it, I think I've just grown out of being bound to one particular religion, I like to learn the way of life, spiritual practices, wisdom and knowledge of other cultures and religions. It helps broaden my understanding of being human.

 

[Blank]

Why not? It's pretty plain, IMO

Because it's easy as hell to argue how any action is socially-driven. Whatever, it's irrelevant.

 

[Qre:us]

Because most of it is all theory and speculation.

But, unlike religion, theories in Science are up for falsification, so it's not analogous to religious theories and speculations. It openly allows itself to be scrutinized and wants* skeptics (this is the only reason Science has progressed).

*wants may imply Science as a sentient being, which, of course, is not the case.

Or, I should add, there are quantifiable results that are turned into Laws, but the reason behind the Laws are unproven. Kind of like religion.

But, Science makes no claim that it is going to provide such reasons (or be successful doing it). Religion does (arrogantly so).

Which is why I'm having a hard time understanding how Science is like a religion?

It's just that most people don't look too hard because they don't want to except the difficulties associated with finding more of God-

except --> accept

Sorry, not trying to be nit-picky, just a recent encounter has made me sensitive to this error:
http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/763219-post30.html

 

[onemoretime]

Because it's easy as hell to argue how any action is socially-driven. Whatever, it's irrelevant.

Isn't that because human evolution for the last 5 million years has been primarily socially-driven?

 

[jenocyde]

That's because I'm unabashedly a species chauvinist. As far as I'm concerned, since we'll never know what happens empirically in the absence of an observer, how can you hold the pure empirical standard to it? That's more the realm of theoretical mathematics, which requires no observation, just comparisons of known relationships in the universe. Einstein pieced together general relativity and universal gravitation on a serendipitous hunch he had one day - but it was right because the math worked.

Yeah, that's kind of what I mean. Inefficient.

My question was more one of "why are we asking why in the first place, when it's something that we cannot understand through any data we collect?" I realize that's not a very N sounding question, but then again, that's where Ne and Ni are different (as you're undoubtedly aware of).

I thought I answered this already, but I mean that some people actually believe that they will be one of the lucky ones in which all is revealed. So they keep looking. This goes for religion, as well as science. See below:

Someone who looks at God and doesn't ask "why" is foolish. I have excepted that there are certain things I don't have satisfactory answers to yet (IMHO, that is true faith: trust and belief despite the absence of immediate answers), but if I keep looking, I find them, just as science does. And God wants me to seek Him, that's the only thing that really matters. It's just that most people don't look too hard because they don't want to except the difficulties associated with finding more of God--it causes accelereated growth and maturity that is painful, though the rewards, such as a relationship with God and having some of those questions answered, are worth it.

Not that the piss-poor state of the current Church really encourages you or me to seek after the God they supposedly represent.

To this quote I must say that, for me, the reliance on a church to come to a spiritual answer is a big hindrance for me. I truly wish to associate with no organization and follow no religious leader, or text. I am agnostic, meaning that I am without knowledge and don't know what to believe. But I will surely believe in God before I believe in Man.

 

[jenocyde]

Sorry for the extra post, but I didn't see Q's response when I posted mine...

But, unlike religion, theories in Science are up for falsification, so it's not analogous to religious theories and speculations. It openly allows itself to be scrutinized and wants* skeptics (this is the only reason Science has progressed).

*wants may imply Science as a sentient being, which, of course, is not the case.

I'm not so sure about that. You may be thinking only of a certain religion or sect, but there are Divinity schools even in the Ivy League. And the long tradition of Judaism surely promotes research and knowledge. In fact, there are certain texts men are not even allowed to read until age 40, to make sure that their minds are receptive and probing enough to read and study it.

I believe that most religion encourages questioning and research. It's only when it is filtered down through people that may otherwise want to control you, or large groups of people, that questioning is discouraged.

But, Science makes no claim that it is going to provide such reasons (or be successful doing it). Religion does (arrogantly so).

Which is why I'm having a hard time understanding how Science is like a religion?

Just because science isn't successful, it doesn't mean that it doesn't try to be successful. A main purpose of science is to provide explanations. And because you feel that religion is arrogant doesn't discount that it is also there in order to provide explanations. The only difference is that many religions claim to have all the answers, while science has only claimed to have some of them.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

I am a rarity among NT's. I do believe in God. That being said, I'm not a Creationist and I do lend credit to the Big Bang Theory (FYI ironically it was first suggested by a Catholic priest.) I'm not a fatalist. And being a biology major, not once have I ran into a piece of information that made me question my faith and I've never had to rationalize in vain any scientific concept in order to keep my faith. Science has only made me further appreciate the complexities of God's creation.

This, pretty much exactly. To me, there's no conflict. Science tries to explain what happened after the Big Bang. Religion tries to explain what happened before it.

 

[Thalassa]

This, pretty much exactly. To me, there's no conflict. Science tries to explain what happened after the Big Bang. Religion tries to explain what happened before it.

I'm not an NT but I totally agree with this.

 

[Lithium Onyx]

I was raised Christian - mainly Roman Catholic - by both my parents, and am now agnostic.

In my preteen years I spend a lot of time exploring different religions and I really took to Hinduism, Shintoism and Zen Buddhism. Although I discovered many faiths I liked, ultimately it seemed like there was no one answer. Whether or not there truly is a higher power, it hasn't much effect on my life, so I'm indifferent to the idea.