thread: 2005-06-06 : Happenings
On 2005-06-06, The Metallian wrote:
Brand Robins said: "Which I read in rhetorical structure as coming close to something like: The problem with religion is that they think they are right and we are wrong. However, we are right and they are wrong. They need to stop dividing us, so we will now divide ourselves from them.
The problem with these lines of reasoning is that they are inherently conflicted. They come down to the same old same old of "I belive my belife is right, and theirs is wrong." Well, they believe the same thing of you, me, and them. And I belive it of everyone.
So why does one system of thought, claiming the others are acting wrongly, get preference above the others that claim the others are acting wrongly?"
Yep. That is something that has always bugged me, too. How do you meaningfully differentiate religion from "not-religion" in terms of belief systems? How do you avoid becoming the same old thing with different particulars?
I have been fumbling about for an answer to this question. Here are some talking points that I've found, though I have not been able to assemble them into anything coherent or useful:
a) In a scientific/secular view, statements of fact (whether "laws" or "theories" or otherwise) are subject to disproof. That is, you should be always able to specify a set of circumstances under which your statement could be disproven and your beliefs could be altered. (Not everyone actually behaves this way, of course, but that's how it's "supposed" to work.)
b) In the scientific/secular view, a belief is only acted upon if its efficacy has been demonstrated. Ideally, result of the action should be repeatable and externally verifiable!
I admit that point "a" is a lot firmer than point "b," since people have different thresholds for what they consider a satisfactory demonstration of efficacy, and it still relies heavily on general uniformity of human perception. (Maybe some people posess sensory capabilities that I lack! How could I possibly know?)
I feel like the true, fundamental differences are somewhere in there. Especially "a," since "b" is pretty fuzzy. Pragmatism feels like it makes a lot of sense to me, but don't have the words to properly pin it down.
