Several weeks ago, my colleague John Lai published a blog in which he posed the question, “If the universe wasn’t created for humans, why do [we] insist human reasoning will uncover all of it’s mysteries?” He went on to ask, “Why do people believe so faithfully in science or human rationality?” and argued that. “At least with religion, there’s a catch-all solution for the inexplicable – ‘Just have faith.’” Finally he posits that, “concepts built off of the scientific framework are more unstable than it’s religious counterpart… and that’s why gravity will forever remain a theory” These are all excellent questions/propositions and they generated some insightful discussion so I’d like to build off that original exchange and present my own take on each of these points.
k
1) If the universe wasn’t created for humans, why do [we] insist human reasoning will uncover all of it’s mysteries?
j
It’s certainly true that the universe was not created for humans and I would agree that the human mind cannot uncover all of the world’s mysteries so by extension the scientific process is limited by the capabilities of its practitioners. However, this is not the relevant question we should be asking. The real question is, can science uncover the answers to all the questions that we have about the universe? The very use of the term mystery implies that the idea has been conceived or can be conceived by human intellect and therefore it has already passed through the filter of human ability. Now we can ask, can science answer all the questions within this minute (by comparison) subset of the universe’s mysteries? I believe the answer is yes. Which brings us to the second question. [As a sidenote, if one wanted to be solipsistic one could argue that the mysteries that we don’t conceive of, don’t really exist on any meaningful level and are therefore not worthy of discussion. This is essentially a variation of the if-a-tree-falls-in-the-forrest argument.]
2) Why do people believe so faithfully in science or human rationality?”
This is also a really good question and one that I think devout rationalists are often too quick to dismiss. It is absolutely true that many people (myself included) have faith that science is the best and only tool through which human beings can uncover truths about the natural world. In fact, science itself relies upon an article of faith, for it can never be proved conclusively that natural phenomena always obey the physical laws that we purport to uncover, therefore we have faith that the laws of nature are effect at all times and all places. If we reject this belief then the scientific process breaks down.
However, at the risk of sounding oxymoronic, I would argue that this type of faith is reasonable. The truth is, everyone must have some degree of faith just to be able to conduct a normal life. Most of us haven’t traveled to outer space or used telescopes to triangulate the relative positions of the Earth and the Sun, so we take it as a matter of faith that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but based purely on what I’ve seen with my own eyes, in theory, the opposite could be true. All these are acts of weak faith and this is all that science asks. We accept a proposition as long as it appears reasonable based on our previous experience unless we have evidence that contradicts it.
Religion on the other hand, requires acts of strong faith and this is what makes it so dangerous. And this takes us to the third point.
3) At least with religion, there’s a catch-all solution for the inexplicable – “Just have faith.”
I like to think of this stance as the garbage bag model. Whenever we encounter a question whose answer is not readily apparent, we can just take it and dump it into this huge epistemological garbage bag called God. Well, at the risk of sounding hypocritical, thank god, there are men and women who aren’t satisfied to with such answers. But far worse that than blunting scientific and intellectual inquiry, strong faith prevents us from getting at the truth and allows lies to propagate unimpeded.
Many people like to blame rationalism for the tyrannical regimes of despots like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. The general argument goes… rationalism leads to atheism, which leads to Nazism and Communism, which led to Hitler, Stalin and Mao. Well the truth is, Hitler never professed to be an atheist. In fact, his own writing revealed him to be a believer in god although he had come to reject the tenets of the Catholic faith in which he was brought up. Furthermore, the vast, vast majority of men that comprised to German military were practicing Christians.
But this is all tangential to my real argument. The point is that all three of these regimes were able to thrive because of a deficiency of rationality, not a surplus. The German proletariate had accepted the dogma that the Jews were an inferior race that would defile the fabric of German society. Had they embraced reason and demanded evidence for this erroneous proposition, the holocaust might have been averted. The regimes of Stalin and Mao relied on similar dogmas that were demonstrably false to anyone not subject to the massive communist propaganda machine. But because the populations of these societies had strong faith, they were able to be manipulated to by their leadership. As Christopher Hitchens argues in God is not Great, these communist society’s were actually extremely religious in the sense that they elevated their leaders to the status of demigods and subscribed to all manner of mythology surrounding the exploits of their anointed sovereigns. Even today in North Korea, many people believe that Kim Jong Il has magical powers.
Therefore the problem is not with faith itself, but with faith that persists even in the presence of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Any society that embraces this Kierkegaardian faith leaves itself open to the worst forms of bigotry. For how can we criticize a man who dogmatically clings to the notion that blacks are inferior when we not only accept propositions that are equally unsupported by the evidence, but venerate those who hold these beliefs as virtuous. And thus we arrive at the final point…
4) Concepts built off of the scientific framework are more unstable than it’s religious counterpart… and that’s why gravity will forever remain a theory
This represents a common misconception about the scientific process. The idea that the truths uncovered by science are perpetually relegated to this purgatory that we call “theory” is somehow seen as a sign that science is weak. Whereas the edicts provided by religion are stable. In fact the opposite is true. The fact that gravity, for example, remains a theory represents the power of the scientific method, that is, it’s capacity for self-correction. All theories in science must stand up to constant scrutiny and any time they can be abandoned in favour of a stronger theory which means that the scientific method is much more likely to converge upon the truth. By contrast, revelations about the natural world that found in the scriptures are invariably fatuous yet there is no mechanism with which to reject, refine or reinterpret them. So at the risk of sounding duplicitous, the fact that science doesn't produce “facts” is undoubtedly a strength and not a weakness.
I’d like to conclude with a comment on purpose. Religious people often claim that if someone doesn’t believe in god then their life has no purpose. As was the case with point number 2, I couldn’t agree more. But really, what is purpose. An object has a purpose if it offers some usefulness to a being that is greater or more powerful than itself. For example my shoes have a purpose because they prevent me from injuring my feet on the pavement when I’m walking outside. Is this how we should derive our self-worth; based on what degree of utilitarian value we provide to some celestial overseer? If that helps others bring meaning to their lives then so be it. But I like to think that my life and the life of every living being is worth much more than that.
AlexsJenkins
It's always funny to hear science described in faith-based terms like 'having faith in the scientific method'! I see the parallels but science is founded on doubt and skepticism while religion is founded on certain unshakeable truths. What's nice about science is that if a better method than the scientific method came along, scientists would embrace it. So even the fundamental tenets by which science operates can be changed, which is the scientific equivalent of re-writing the bible if new information came to light...
But I have to disagree with John that religion is actually being changed by society. I would say it's more or less rigidly enforced (The Inquisition vs Canada or Iran vs countries with Sharia law) but all the raw material for either extreme are all there because their source material can't change. Until the old language that condemns infidels or denigrates women is taken out, every generation has a chance to be exposed to that kind of thinking. I think religion needs an overhaul down to first principles before the messages of submission to God or love thy neighbour really come out.
I'm of the opinion that religion has outlived its usefulness. It can no longer be used as a rational means to explain the origins of life or creation. When ever I get into debates with people about religion, they usually fall back on the excuse that it gives them strength or helps them find meaning in their lives, etc. I'm always at a loss when I hear people say this because far be it from me to tell them what they should find meaning in, but it would be nice if people stopped taking their cues from a heavily discredited book with hundreds of contradictions and started believing in themselves and humanity for a change.
I don't know much about religions....but I thought, for example Christianity today is different from Christianity several centuries ago. And if Stephen Hawking proves there is no "beginning" to space and time, and hence, no need for a Creator, then religion will mutate again under pressure by those who "want to believe".
I think religion still has it's place in this world. Science is a complicated system to grasp. I'm not sure how you're going to drill the concepts like atmospheric pressures and nitrogen cycles into starving uneducated farmers in developing countries. Supernatural and superstitious explanations are more accessible to them. Some people just want simple garbage answers to help them endure a harsh life.
I remember Hannah's article about someone cruelly stoned to death by a mob in Africa. I remember thinking, "This is the time to sell religion. Condition people to believe there's justice in an afterlife." What scientific equivalent is as appealing?
But religion is a short-lived panacea, John. As we've seen with all historical religious, the precepts of love, forgiveness and charity are either changed or flatly ignored as this or that religion is used to justify colonisation (i.e. South America, Africa, Oceania), war (the Crusades, Iran-Iraq War) bombings (various fertility clinics in the US). Whether or not an idea has any credibility is inherent in the idea itself, which is why science 'wins'. To reiterate Aman's point science does not require faith. It is usually only religious people who make this analogy. Science is a method based on testing, questioning and reformulating and not a set of unshakable tenets. It is not the complexity of science which I think most people can't accept. It's the partiality. Our testing and observations constantly throw up exceptions and not neat packages of explanation.
I just wrote "Religion Still Relevant" because modern science is too expensive for many nations. Its like telling a homeless person, "it's more comfortable living in a mansion than living in a cardboard box." That's great, but how the hell will the bum find a million dollars for a mansion? I really believe it's the complexity of science that makes it exclusive to only the privileged 10% of the population in this world.
Politicians will use survival of the fittest to ENCOURAGE war. Businessmen will use science to speed up global warming. You know the saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people"? Well, science doesn't kill people, people kill people. Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people. Religion, like science, is just a tool humans use to control the environment (people or nature).
And why am I, a software engineer with little understanding of religion, the only person defending religion? Can't I get a jebus ranting fella to help me out?
I should've qualified my last statement. Science does have some 'unshakable ideas'. Generally, that inductive reasoning is reasonable, which not even Hume could get his head around, so I will not try. True people do use Darwins' theories to excuse gross acts of indecency just as Christians used their bible to justify the persecution of women (witch burnings) and Jews (pogroms, the Inquisition). That ideas are twisted and used for ill should not be confused with the ideas themselves. As a means of understanding the world the scientific approach of questioning and testing is superior to faith. Neither rationality nor faith are a root away from the violence and exploitation we're capable of, but rationality gives us the tools to question that. Faith says, "Leave it all to God. We have no part. We cannot understand."
I'm going to hypothesize here, and by incorporating my rational holistic perceptions of reality, I have to agree with Colin and say that religion is beginning to outlast its usefulness. The evolution of the human brain is an ever changing process that whether we ever realized it or not, has utilized the scientific method in one form or another to learn new things, adapt, correct past mistakes, etc... Back in pre-historic times and early mesopotamic settlement, the majority of us simply did not have the cognitive capacities and background information passed on from previous generations to devise rational approaches to describe our reality. Hence, we came up with these catch-all ideas about our purpose and existence (i.e. religion). It's a matter of information flow and accumulation. Once we reach certain "critical masses" of information accumulation in our genetic stream, major breakthroughs are achieved (agriculture, economic systems, scientific method, etc...). Religion helped keep most of us grounded and relatively sane without having to rack our brains over the "mysteries of life", thereby allowing us to pursue our curious endeavours and go about our lives. We are now at the point where we can begin to discard religious belief systems because they are a detriment to our progress rather than a benefit and is no longer useful in providing purpose because now, we simply "know better" (at least some of us) It won't happen overnight because humans are inherently stubborn and resistant to change, but the transition is inevitably. Also, let us differentiate between spirituality and religion. I think spirituality based on ones morals, values, and general connectivity with the life around you does, I believe, serve to make this planet a more peaceful place. Religion on the other hand, with its plethora of outdated dogmas, at times breeds dissent, differentiation between people, fear, and ultimately hatred.
I still don't see how science can save a troubled nation that has no education system, no capital to invest in research facilities, and no stable government. If I were The Leader, I will use religion, propaganda, rhetoric, brain-washing and any other non-scientific means to help people on their feet.
Call me a pessimist, but I don't think humanity will ever unite. There will always be the rich and the poor. The poor will never be able to afford science.
Religion can also be used, and has been used, to keep people poor though, even enslaved. Hitchens railed against Mother Theresa for perpetuating the cycle of poverty in India. In a press conference, when asked if she taught the poor to accept their lot, she said "I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ. I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people." And slaves were also told to accept their lot as slaves because they would achieve paradise in the afterlife. Religion helped slavery and colonialism thrive for as long as it did, which in turn led to the impoverishment and destitution a lot of these countries are in now.
One final point, I blogged about this a few months ago, but the Catholic Church excommunicated a Brazilian doctor for performing an abortion on an 11-year-old girl who was raped by her step-father. They didn't excommunicate the rapist father. It is in countries with especially deep levels of poverty that religion is the most dangerous because they don't have access to education like we do in the west, and therefore they become trapped into believing whatever their religion tells them, even if it's in their best interests to behave or act otherwise. If the mother of that little girl hadn't allowed that doctor to perform the abortion, the girl would have died. But since she did, she and that doctor are going to hell (according to the Church). And that's simply too dangerous a philosophy to be espousing, especially in poor countries.
Colin, you're basically saying the greater the tool, the greater the risk. I absolutely agree with that. You can also ask the reverse question, where would this world be without religion? You can bash religion all you want. But if poor people can't afford education, science or ways to develop a critical mind, what are they supposed to turn to? Human disposition will naturally turn to the supernatural.
Can you suggest a more "accessible" solution under destitute conditions?
**You don't hear as much about East Asian religions starting wars. I don't know if that's because there's little news coverage, or if it actually doesn't.
I do know what you mean though John. If life is really bad, it's much easier for someone to accept that there is a purpose to all their suffering and God will reward them for their perseverance. Rational thought is cold comfort if your whole family is killed by some freak accident, or some random psychopath. But Ryan is totally right that it's a short-term cure and if taken to the extreme - which it will always will because humans love black and white thinking - it leads to Sharia law or torturing witches or some other bullshit. And now that it is significantly easier to hurt a lot of people that's a luxury we can't really afford, you know?
Maybe humans just don't have it in them to live up to the standards set by religion. We're driven by hormones and impulses that are out of touch with the society we live in and if religion wants to survive it's going to have be more adaptable...
And if religion is so bad, how come I've never seen anyone go to war in the name of Buddha?
We have some people on the other side of the world practicing seemingly peaceful religions.
very good article...i thought it contained many good point.....but i have to say...like if I had a nickel for every time i read the rationalism vs religion article. Foremost before I begin my comment(which are usually long sorry.) I would like to recommend two books for this arguments ....Jurassic Park and Angels and Demons (and no don't cheat and watch the movies instead). Anyways these are my answers to the points made..they are just my opinions. Not forcing them down anyone throat.
Point 1: so we all agrees the universe wasn't made for humans.sAlexsargues that however science can uncover all our questions to the problems that we are faced with. Essentially saying, while the universe isnt ours, what ever we need to know to get along we can uncover. Or not even to just get along, but just if we have a question. The flip side to this is that despite this clearly rational approach to things, humans are not pure scientist in nature. Nobody in our race is a Watcher(for comic book geeks). What I'm getting at is that we scientifically learn what we need to learn to survive only temporarily. Then we become entrepreneurs and start to corrupt and rape the worlds we've discovered. We ask more liesure questions and then answer them with science while the real hidden questions that eat at our subconcois, while we dont even know it, remain. Essentially science becomes irreversibly polluted and the mysteries of the universe as so called relevant to us are just well drafted lies, while the same questions man has asked himself remain unanswered and ignored. Simply put, science can answer our questions, but not the important ones. These questions, perhaps phycological and sociological (there i am using ogicals, thats contradicotory) in , about human behavoir, about who we are remain only partially even dicovered. Despite the scientific process made in those fields as well as brain reading technology and whatever other study involving manipulation of human minds, will never be able to fully answer our questions about these unpredictabilities. Idk why....I think its because the universe is a Chaotic enviornment, including our brains, and I know all you smart fellows know what that means. That leads to point 2;
2; Humans are somewhat rational, but even those who are among the most rational people have moments of unpredictable action. Impulses as jim carry puts it. Therefore I conclude that its ok whether you believe in a little bit of faith and alot of science or vise versa. It really depends on how much experience you've had with these little unpredictabilities in life. (For instance a hidden theme in Forrest Gump is that he had so much faith, and despite his being impaired, expirienced alot more unpredictabilities. In fact in his Simplicity and strong Faith, he was more rational than most others around him. this combination worked for him). So essentially if you've experieced more valid unpredictabilities in life, you probably have stronger faith in the unknown. Less unpredictabilities, less faith. The point im making is im not saying one is right and one is wrong. But what works for you doesnt work for everybody, no matter the circumstances. There is know right and wrong when it comes down to how strong or weak the faith. It depends on the persons life experience and who they actually are on the inside, whatever is there.
3; I agree with your stance about faith and if there is over bearing evidence against it its wrong. However, i think ...and maybe its just me here....that its impossible to disprove the existance of God or god. The reason for this is that we dont know everything. The universe isnt like the ones in the comics in which a writer can tell us its whole story beginning to end. We werent there when ours started. Now Im not saying the scientific method of inquiery couldnt uncover eventually figure it out and disprove God or god for others. But what I am saying is that we havent yet gotten all that info(i hope you guys agree to that atleast), and in addition I believe we never will, for we would indeed need to conquer space in order to gain enough of that knowledge to have enough evidence againt god in a universal scaled court case, and for those not familiar with "why well never conquer space", it essentially says well never conquer space....before reading it i said bull....after i said ok.... Therefore, if your rational youll agree that well never conquer space, therefore never getting enough evidence against God or god(and for us to assume that we have enough evidence to disprove such an idea i believe is a somewhat ignorant notion in itself.). So i dont know, maybe god is just the unknown that well never be able to get to, and for others God is really god. So its whatever ya kno
4 Ok this is really long and I'm tired....so im just gonna end with this which really has nothing to do with the last point........."Scientist ask what they could do, not what they should do".......o yea read jurrasic park...angels and demons ....."why we'll never conquer space"......
hey if anybody disagrees with anything i said im always open....but remember what i said in the beginning its just my opinion
Very interesting read. Like Eric, this is simply my opinion.........
*Human's are predisposed to either do GOOD or BAD and to know RIGHT or WRONG. I don't like to use the word religion because I feel it's the trigger word that causes people to react and to automatically start discussing/arguing.
*Any thing that can be used to discredit religion should be laid at the foot of MAN (not gender specification). Same goes for science. I have heard a lot of peeps that are strong advocate of science over religion say that religion has started a lot of wars. Well, I ask this question: Was religion behind the creation of the atomic bomb, the creation of anthrax or nerve gas?
*I am beginning to feel as though that science should be a religion also. After all, according to Kai, faith is required in science also. Those that are science over religion supporters are slowly showing traits of religious fanatics. There are some special cults/groups...or whatever you want to call them that believe that a certain race is scientifically superior to another. That one is genetically smarter than the other(s).
*Religion has become the scapegoat to a lot of the short comings and ills of science. Because religion is so big, it's easy to look up (figuratively) and see the reason why people hate and kill each other in a large scale. In the process, people forget that science is just as big a reason why a lot of evil things have happened in this world.
*Religion is so open to interpretation that when a human that is not perfect (no matter how saintly or Mother Theresa-ish) says something about the poor accepting their lot, it makes absolute sense to attack the faith without examining the human factor in the statement. Look, all I am saying is that people use various tools to benefit their desires and wishes. Slavery was pushed through religion but does that mean that the faith itself is bad simply because HUMANS...in our imperfection......used it to benefit one group and disparage another.
Like I said earlier...we are predisposed to do good and bad. And also to know right from wrong. The truth of the matter is that no matter how pure a medium is (Religion or Science). Us humans will use it for our own aims. Good or bad, right or wrong.
I mean I agree that a scientist asshole and a religious asshole are both assholes. I'm not saying scientists are better people. But technology invented by science is, for the most part, neutral. Nuclear power can be used to build a bomb to kill people or provide electricity to schools and hospitals. The decision to act morally is independent of science I think. Maybe this is the role for spirituality...
But I definitely don't agree that science is a type of religion. In fact, they are founded on opposite principles. Science is always changing and builds from old ideas while remaining open to new ones. Religion is based on articles of faith that can't change even when new information comes up. I believe there's a place for religion/spirituality but not in public planning, foreign policy, biology classrooms etc...
I think a long-term stable society requires religion to mostly disappear from the public sphere, but that doesn't mean we should get rid of it, especially since a lot of people take comfort in it and a lot of good work is done in the name of religion.
I agree with Aman. The public sphere is no place for religion, especially when it comes to matters of government policy. Which is why countries that oppose abortion on "religious" grounds need to re-think those policies, particularly since it endangers the life of women when they do.
But going back to John's earlier point about what poor people should turn to instead of religion, I think that's up to them really. My point was that in poor parts of the world where religious institutions have a stranglehold over society should begin to abandon them when it's clear that those institutions no longer represent the best interests of the public. That's why I brought up the case of the 11-year-old Brazilian girl and the Catholic Church. No doubt there will be some Catholics in Brazil who support the Church's stance, and that's a scary thought, because it would mean the death of a child is more acceptable to them than a medical procedure to save her life.
Now abandonment may seem a bit harsh, and some might prefer to choose to reform these bodies, but I think long term people need to begin questioning what good these religious bodies serve. I'm not against religious/spiritual development for the individual - personally I know two people whose faith helped get them out of the hell their lives had become - but when it comes to the influence religion has on society, I say enough is enough.
Lekan - Thanks, that's all I was trying to say. But you delivered it better.
Aman - "Religion is based on articles of faith that can’t change even when new information comes up." I'm very iffy on this statement because Taoism is one of those religions that isn't bound by such constraints. It's a very flexible, tolerant and passive. I would assume Buddhism is similar in the sense they both preach "nothing" and "to go with the flow". So if science comes up with something, a Buddhist monk will probably say, "Meh, whatever..."
Colin - Yeah, i agree with you. And what you say especially applies in developed countries where we have more options. And in a multicultural society like ours, we can't have a religiously governed state. The value of religion/science varies from one nation to another, and it depends on political, economic, cultural and educational factors.
That's a good point John. Eastern religions like Buddhism do tend to be a bit more flexible in that regard.
like marx said, religion is opium for the masses.
sure it can give you comfort in some hard times, but at the end of the day its probably gonna do you a lot more harm than good.
Further to Anthony's comment, everything being said in support of religion, can also be said of heroin, crack and methanphetatines. And religion has a lot of negative side effects of all these drugs (i.e. people doing f#$@ed up, irrational shit while under the influence (snake handling comes to mind).
Lekan, I believe you took some of my words out of context. My point was that science like everything in life, requires some degree of weak faith. If you study philosophy you'll see that even the most obvious and basic of logical frameworks requires the acceptance of certain axioms. These are irreducible truths that must be accepted (without proof) in order for any subsequent deduction to proceed. But this is only weak faith. Religious fatih is another animal altogether.
Also, did you notice that you said you didn't want to use the term religion but then you proceeded to call science a religion? Probably incidental but I thought that was significant.
Science, rationalism, and atheism have none of the elements of religion whatsoever. To demonstrate this I like to use a little thought experiment. Any hardcore rationalist non-believer could easily rattle off up to ten hypothetical situations that that would cause them to abandon their skepticism and embrace faith immediately. For me, if I saw an amputee regrow his or her leg right before my eyes, I'd be sold. (For some reason god only likes to take on the easy cases like curing cancer). A religious person can't tell you anything that would cause them to abandon their faith. In fact events indicating that there is no benevolent, heavenly father looking out for us happen all the time and our extremely precarious and ephemeral existance on this planet is testament to the fact neither our bodies nor our environment were designed very intelligently. Yet all this only serves to strengthen people's religious resolve. This is why religion is dogmatic and science is not.
If we want to talk about religion giving people comfort, then that's one thing (I'm not even convinced of this) but as far as helping us to get at the truth, religion is worse than useless. It's actually counterproductive.
I love when educated people give their opinions on matters that are important to them or that just intrigues them. On that note, I suggested to Max on twitter that maybe we should have "The Dashing Fellows Roundtable". We meet at a location and discuss and sometimes argue about topics such as the one in the article above.
The round table session can either be video taped and posted or can just be designated for a fellow....dashing fellow to summarize and post.....or both can be done.
Politics, religion, social issues, sports and whatever the topic that we decided on will be discussed. The video can be uploaded to YouTube, Facebook, MySpace and Twitter.
A topic once every 2 months or so.
This is up for discussion and ideas. What do you guys think?
Right now, we're considering rationality as two states: On and Off. I think we need to view rationality as a spectrum. You get 10 for absolutely rational and 1 for absolutely irrational.
Here's my scale:
Science is a 10
Religion is a 6
Bad Drugs are a 1
I believe that if everyone were completely rational, this country would fall apart (and maybe a new one would take it's place). Political leaders (and opposing candidates) need to have a rationality score of 10 to govern the country. The citizens of the country need to average a rationality score of 6 (we use religion and movies to keep them at this level).
This allows leaders to govern the country. The citizens have "just enough" rationality to stop a plan from going awry, but not enough to cause everyday bickering over minute details.
Lekan: I like the idea. Actually, we discussed it at one of our DF meetings a while ago, but we kind of abandoned the idea. But if there's some genuine interest out there, I think it's something worth trying.
I umm third the idea...though my contribution will be in the comments section.
Ryan: We can just SKYPE you in on the discussion with a laptop.
Colin: I think it would be great. It will be a unique way to expand the DF brand and reach. Do you want to send out an email to all members and see when we can make this happen?
The board will have to discuss it first, but I think we can make it happen.
[...] Dashing Fellows have had related debates: read here and here. In this post, I use new approaches to expose the weakness of rationality and the power [...]
Good article. I wrote the previous one just to challenge people's opinions, even though sometimes I didn't really believe what I was saying.
In any case, I don't think people should have to compare religion vs. science. As you said, they can serve different purposes.
Religion may not be self-correcting, but it is influenced by science and politics. So as long as something can change, regardless of whether it's due to internal or external forces, it's got a chance to survive the long haul. Science too is under the reigns of politics and finance. So no system is completely independent. I don't think it's a bad to appreciate the values of all systems and take a Mixed Martial Arts approach.