science vs religion or reason vs faith

[dastardly stem]

You have to watch out for this one, Stem, because DCP every second Thursday is going to own it and say science and religion are two different kinds of knowledge and science has no bearing on "experience".

I think the biggest thing is that if you look up the "demarcation problem" you'll see that there are a couple centuries worth of debate here, none of which the authors were either aware of or thought relevant, but it's extraordinarily unlikely they are going to be the ones to have finally figured it out. If they have, God bless them.

Not dumb at all, reading that article got you to this thread, and now you can look up "demarcation problem" over at SEP. After that you may still think these guys are right but you'll have more context -- what has gone on before to determine the domain of science vs. everything else, namely religion.

Yes, no doubt I have plenty more to catch up on as it pertains to these matters. Every time I read up on these matters I come away realizing there is plenty more to learn. I won't argue with you there. I'm also not interested in defending this article, per se. I didn't read it thinking it was even an effort to solve the problem. I read it thinking how interesting it was how they incorporated Mormon examples for illustration. I'm interested in the notion that apologetics, generally, attempts to play in the fields of sciences to make their points--thus creating pseudoscience or making it appear their views ought to be taken seriously. Anyway, thanks for the heads up.

[Gadianton]

I agree with you that it's very interesting they quote Mormon examples. From where I'm coming from, that's the ultimate cherry picking. The laugh-fest that is Mormonism is the supreme example of skeptic.org bringing down the glass as they say religion is all about subjective experiences and story-telling. There is probably some teeth here regarding your hobby with the origins of Christianity also, if Christianity is one of these mystery cults, then a rogue guy like Paul losing it in a subjective fantasy is a hit.

But religion covers a lot of stuff from the beginning of human history until now. It may be true that crazy visions and duped followers are a bigger part of the story of religion than science. But religion has other impulses, there are traditionalists, conservatives who resist visions and miracles, who say revelation has ceased. If you believe the restorationists, then the longest arch of Christianity is dead and dry. In fact, rigidity is likely far more important because as Joseph Smith found out in the early days of the Church, if everybody can have visions and miracles, a church can never really organize. And there's just so much more to religion: How would you explain the rift between Catholicism and Greek Orthodox in terms of "experience" and subjectivity? (in a way that isn't facile)

And even Mormonism is only a superficial example of personal experience and subjectivity. We should distinguish between personal experience as a talking point, and actual personal experience. In Mormonism, personal experience and testimony are the ultimate talking points. I would argue that in Mormonism, personal experience and testimony are talking points precisely to guard against people actually making decisions based on personal experience. It's an authoritarian ploy. I've said for many, many years that I don't believe people in the Church generally have testimonies. I've encountered very few members who insist they've had that tremendous spiritual witness, the burning in the bosom, that Mormon culture says is the testimony. I've had far more conversations, especially with fellow missionaries back in the day, where concerns pour out over not having the big witness, and how to cope with that. The type of people who do claim these things (honestly) aren't necessarily the types who will rise in leadership either, nor are they necessarily the types who will endure to the end as the most faithful. Any time a ward member gets up and bears testimony and that testimony strays beyond the rote stuff -- unless their personal "experience" fits a narrow pattern deemed appropriate, everyone in the pews gets nervous and feels embarrassed for the person bearing testimony. If things get too original, the bishop will eventually call the person in for a chit-chat.

And while you really can't compare "science" to Mormonism, there are those same elements in science. Narratives the exaggerate the lives or brilliance of scientists known to the public. When you ask a cosmologist what got them into science, it was more likely science fiction with a lot of romanticism and BS than an obsession with controlled experiments with plants as a child. DCP is right that brilliant scientists can also be delusional religionists. Many who may do fantastic work in science may do so precisely because there are enough institutional controls built in that keep them from being their worst selves, while others might have more self control.

[JohnW]

I was going to post something long, considering this is one of my favorite topics, but as I read through the thoughtful posts, I don't know if I need to. You guys have already touched on some of my big pet peeves when people start talking about science vs. religion or reason vs. faith. Ultimately, it is one of those topics that at first glance seems like it should be straight forward but ends up being way more complicated. I'll have to work through the article, which is already pushing said pet peeve buttons.