Question for elliotfc (from religion/science compatability thread)

[Ladewig]

The "I've been thinking" (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=25305) thread rolled over to the second page with an unanswered question.

elliotfc-
The fact that this forum exists (religion and philosophy) clearly hints at a dichotomy between science and other forms of thinking.

Is that dichotomy a false one? The important thing, I feel, is that everyone is after objective truth.
[snip]

But all that is secondary to the question of whether or not religion is after objective truth. Is it, or is it not? I believe that it is. Do most of you believe the opposite?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ladewig-
Before I can answer your question, I need to have a better understanding of how you are defining religion and the religious quest for objective truth.

I know how science types go about their quest for o.t.
[snip]

So my question for you, elliotfc, is how do religious types go about their quest for objective truth?

I ask because your definition of religion may be broad enough for me to agree with your assertion that both science and religion are sincerely interested in objective truth.

[elliotfc]

Sorry Ladewig I haven't had time to get to that topic I started, which is highly irresponsible of me I admit.

You ask how "religious types go about their quest for objective truth".

In my opinion (in my opinion) it starts a couple of ways. The first way is the easiest to talk about.

If you believe in God...that belief has ramification. If you are unable to escape the conclusion that an absolute creator is behind the creation of all other creative creators (like me), then you have to follow that line of reasoning. That is one way to embark on a religious quest. You examine other people's ideas. You think things through. You try to formulate a coherent explanation to explain the problems of human existence (and I hope we can all agree that human existence is problematic). In the back of your, or the front of your mind, you should be guided by the certainty that certain answers objectively exist. You're trying to get there as best you can. Humans have reason, and reason can be one guide. Some humans also believe in something beyond reason, that would be a spiritual sense. Whatever you achieve on your religious quest, you have to satisfy both reason and the spiritual sense I think. In the end you will never get the complete 100% objective answers. But I appreciate your use of the word quest. The most important thing is to search, and to never be satisfied.

I think a harder way to look at it is from the perspective of people who "back into" a belief in God. I recommend reading a Lewis' Surprised by Joy.

The religious quest is distinct from the scientific quest. But we are both after answers and truth, and we both believe that the answers and truth are objective.

How can you measure what is objective? Ultimately it comes down to the person. We can talk about big bangs and evolution and what color the dinosaurs were. How much do you need to have a secure faith? Scientists have certain types of knowledge and information and premises that bolster their faith in what happened many many many years ago (events that can never be duplicated). My faith is secure because I can make sense of why the world works as it does. I'm always trying to improve this faith.

-Elliot

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by elliotfc
How can you measure what is objective? Ultimately it comes down to the person.
I would like to say something constructive, but my absurdity meter has just exploded.

I might, however, humbly suggest that the author of this bon mot consult that big book of words known as the "dictionary."

Billy Hoyt, here's a nomination for your logic prize. Or maybe it belongs in Mercutio's thread.

My faith is secure because I can make sense of why the world works as it does.
Your faith is secure because you simply ignore the parts of the real world that challenge it. You might, with sufficient effort, understand why that is not quite the same thing as "works."