
Richard P. Feynman - The Relation of Science and Religion - vinutheraj
http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/49/2/Religion.htm
======
btilly
A couple of minor notes on Feynman's claims.

First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure,
atheists tend to be _more_ ethical than religious people as a whole. This
shows up in under-representation in criminal activity, lower divorce rates,
etc. (There are a number of sociological reasons for this, but those are the
statistics.)

Secondly surveys that I saw a long time ago suggest that Feynman was wrong
about most scientists in his day. At that time most scientists were religious.
(Still at lower rates than the general public.) However most _elite_
scientists were atheists. Which supports the thesis that the more seriously
you take science, the harder it is to subscribe to traditional religion.

But this has shifted over time. While looking for that old survey I ran across
[http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?...](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/23/national/23believers.html?_r=1)
which says that today about 40% of scientists believe in a personal God that
they pray to, etc. But if you look at members of the National Academy of
Sciences (an elite group of scientists), about 10% believe in God.

So it seems that, in yet another way, Feynman was a man ahead of his time...

~~~
amichail
_First, a number of studies have concluded that by any reasonable measure,
atheists tend to be more ethical than religious people as a whole. This shows
up in under-representation in criminal activity, lower divorce rates, etc.
(There are a number of sociological reasons for this, but those are the
statistics.)_

What about if you compare atheists and religious people of similar
intelligence? I suspect atheists tend to be more ethical simply because they
tend to be more intelligent.

~~~
btilly
The correlation between education and atheism is one of the sociological
reasons I was referring to. Unfortunately I do not have access to any research
that tries to control for this obviously correlated factor.

------
wheels
Bertrand Russell's writings on the topic are classics on the dealings of
science and religion. This essay reminded me a bit of _A Free Man's Worship_ :

[http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans...](http://www.philosophicalsociety.com/Archives/A%20Free%20Mans%20Worship.htm)

I read this collection of his essays on religion about a decade ago and would
recommend it to folks interested in the topic:

[http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections-
Writings/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Russell-Religion-Selections-
Writings/dp/0415180929)

I feel like Feynman (and Russell) are asking a much more interesting question
than the typical interwebs atheists and jesus-ists debate that this is already
turning into: not, "Is religion right?" But, "What is the future of religious
experience, thought and practice in a scientific world?"

~~~
mbubb
Nice link - thanks for that. (the link to the article is broken but easy to
find)

Another interesting question is to look at the relationship of atheism and
belief. Actually science does not approach real atheism - it never exceeds
agnosticism (one of Feynman's points).

Real atheism is very close to deep religious belief. Look at the great mystics
- St John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Kabbalists - they reach a point of
blackness, emptyness where there is nothing but a completely baseless faith to
sustain them.

William Blake in the 4 Zoas discusses 'experience'. I won't quote it here as
it is too long - but it is here: <http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-four-
zoas-excerpt/>

a remarkable passage that begins:

What is the price of Experience do men buy it for a song Or wisdom for a dance
in the street? No it is bought with the price Of all that a man hath his house
his wife his children...

What I personally have always wondered (and I ask this as a half-assed, weak,
too lazy to get up on Sundays, lapsed catholic) is if there is really a god,
an omnipotent all-knowing, all powerful entity. Then how could we possibly
know anyhting about this entity.

Somewhere is the Hebrew scriptures (part of the Moses story) is the phrase "no
one who looks upon my face lives". If one really believes in such a god (and I
am in no way looking down on this) - how far is that from atheism?

~~~
ThomPete
Atheism means without god

How that is close to deep religious belief?

As an atheist I live without god in my life. That's it. I don't think about
god, I don't reason based on any bible, I don't extrapolate my morals or
ethics from god or any religious scripture.

How on earth are you by any metrics going to claim that that is deep religious
belief?

~~~
wheels
Uff, congrats on going for the standard internet atheist vs. christians
blather.

Atheism makes a definitive statement for things which are outside the realm of
the testable world. In that sense, it is like being religious. The term
_agnosticism_ , or simply _not religious_ , as I more often use, is indicative
of a lack of belief.

Second, morality and ethics are part of the same social evolution that has
traditionally produced religions. Almost any citizen of a western country has
ethics that are rooted in some vaguely judeo-christian notions, which
themselves are rooted in socratic notions, and so on. The social fabric
doesn't have clearly demarcated lines for "religious" and "areligious". Trying
to imaging what western ethics would have been without the influence of
religion is like trying to imagine the United States would have been without
the influence of England. You just can't pull the two apart.

~~~
ThomPete
With regards to agnosticism.

We exactly don't know whether there is a god or not, but choosing to believe
there is one despite there being no evidence for this is by no metrics the
same as saying I don't believe in it cause there is no evidence.

You can't be an agnostic. You either "live with god" in your life or you
don't.

You can have an agnostic point of view on whether the question is answerable
or not.

You can't both live with a belief in god and without one.

You can't both follow the laws of a religion and not follow them.

With regards to the cultural heritage then again you are simply assuming the
conclusion.

The reasons why we have morals and ethics are NOT because we have religion.

Human reality is the fundamental reason why we have rules. Religion sits on
top of these rules and pretend to tell us WHY we should believe (gods wrath
and vengange being one of them)

But you don't need religion to make rules for peaceful co-existence and that
is what people fundamentally want.

------
vinutheraj
Here's why I am an agnostic - because you can never absolutely certain of the
existence/or lack thereof of God ! But the main problem is, IF there is a god,
and if he created us and left us all here to kill each other and try to
survive by not getting oneself killed, that is a very cruel, sadistic and
uncreative god, by the modern moral yardstick! So even if there is a god, I
don't think I would respect him by my present morality !

~~~
ilitirit
I think there is far more to it than that. Take for example the question of
creation. It could be possible that our Universe was created, but not designed
(<http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2006/08/5027.ars>). Under those
conditions, the creator would not be able to intervene in our actions (unless
he/she/they destroy the Universe), so they couldn't really be classified as
evil or immoral. Which also leads to some interesting questions: If this
Universe was created by beings in a laboratory, and they somehow managed to
convey this information to us and threatened to destroy the Universe unless we
worshipped them, how many people would actually do it? Etc etc.

Either way, as far as "God" goes, colour me apathetically agnostic. Nothing
meaningful can be said about the existence (or lack thereof) of undetectable
entities, so I don't concern myself with them. But unlike many atheists, I
don't care enough about the topic to proclaim this view.

------
DanielBMarkham
As a sidebar to this speech, over the past few years I've been listening to
various lectures about the existence of God, the philosophy of science, and
the philosophy of religion. What can I say? I find it interesting.

One of the interesting points that one of the professors made is that faith
_is not knowing for certain_. So, in this guy's view, even religious people
never "know", because if you really knew, really knew without a doubt, then
there would be no faith involved. On the other hand, some scientists "know"
what the results of their inquiries are going to bring. (I won't name names,
but I hope we can agree on this simple point). So religious people can be very
uncertain and scientists can be very certain.

This leads me to believe that there isn't necessarily a great gulf between
religion and science. Some folks just have to know for sure, and some are
comfortable with sliding scales of certainty. This seems to be true in both
science and religion, although it may be that there are more of one type in
each.

At the end of the day, instead of science and religion, the much more
interesting questions might be about the _practice_ of science and religion.
Referring to these things as some sort of Platonic ideals that either mesh or
compete with each other probably does a great disservice to the actual
practices by individuals.

So as much as I hate to critique Feynman, I believe he was off-base a bit in
this case.

~~~
kirse
_So religious people can be very uncertain and scientists can be very
certain._

Except this is not the case, at all. It's a false sense of certainty drawn
from the solid roots of empirical science, _especially_ for the existential
(or _unempirical_ ) topics of disagreement between science and religion.

I am a huge advocate and fan of empirical science and all that has brought us,
but when people go clobbering religious believers with the science bat as if
they're somehow "more certain" about that which _cannot be empirically
experienced_ , nor _empirically reproduced_ , then that's when I call BS.

On existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between
science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are _equally_
uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of
faith-based assumptions about things we cannot _EVER_ determine empirically.

Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see.

I love robg around here not only because he finds great articles, but because
he's a damn smart neuroscientist and backs me up entirely on this:

 _The problem of course is that naturalism has it's own limit or else it too
becomes dogmaticism. There's stuff we just can't know from empirical
observation. Indeed, I'd argue the question "why" has a genesis just beyond
rational thought. Empiricism might help to explain away those urges but I
don't see how it will ever address their origin._
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=396215>

To sum up, both Science and Religion will _never_ answer the question "Why?"
with ANY logical degree of certainty greater than the other. It's not
empirical and never will be, period. In that case, I choose to embrace only
solid, logically grounded empirical science yet address the intuitive
questions with a faith in God that never fails me.

~~~
btilly
_I am a huge advocate and fan of empirical science and all that has brought
us, but when people go clobbering religious believers with the science bat as
if they're somehow "more certain" about that which they cannot empirically
experience, nor empirically reproduce, then that's when I call BS. On
existential issues (the only legitimate grounds of disagreement between
science and religion), Science and Religion are equal. They are equally
uncertain, although many people can't understand that. Both have a mountain of
faith-based assumptions about things we cannot EVER determine empirically.

Faith, after all, is being certain of what one cannot see._

By your argument you should personally be equally uncertain about whether
gravity works on the surface of Pluto and whether I am a giant octopus. After
all you are unable to travel to Pluto, and you are unable to track me down and
verify that it was not a giant octopus who wrote these words. In your words,
both are claims about things that you " _cannot empirically experience_ nor
_empirically reproduce_."

Yet despite your inability to empirically experience or empirically reproduce
either gravity on Pluto or any data pertaining to my octopus-hood, I
confidently assert that you do not find your uncertainty on those two issues
to be even remotely equivalent.

Why not? Because you have established mental models of how the universe work
that make it difficult to believe that gravity doesn't work on Pluto and make
it difficult to believe that there are giant octopuses posting on HN. Yet this
is exactly the type of certainty that you say you'd call BS on in others. And
if you met someone who strongly believed that I am a giant octopus, and
expected you to accept it, I'm sure you'd be rather flabbergasted.

Science is nothing less or more than the distillation of the successes of
several centuries of work on producing and testing better mental models of how
parts of the universe exist. Mental models exactly like the ones you used to
tackle the data points I gave you. (In fact every part of the mental model
you'd use on the Pluto question, including belief in the existence of Pluto,
came out of that scientific process.)

Please think about this example carefully. Then try to apply modern mental
models of the universe to questions such as whether people get possessed by
demons, water can turn into wine, and people can come back from the dead. You
should find that those questions all look far more like the giant octopus
claim than gravity on Pluto.

Whether or not this list of dubious factual claims in the Bible changes your
belief system any, I think it is sufficient to make concrete why it is not
just BS for people with a strong science background to look at a concrete
religious tradition (Christianity in this case) and dispute specific claims
that religion makes. Even though it involves reasoning about events that you "
_cannot empirically experience_ nor _empirically reproduce_ ".

And once someone has disputed the basic facts of the central story, what
grounds are left to accept the other beliefs of the religion?

~~~
kirse
Where did I say that _I, personally_ had to empirically experience something
to accept it as fact? I edited my post in case it caused confusion.

All I meant was that I will only accept science that is grounded in
empiricism, because that is the only basis for concrete, logical, conclusions
from science.

Where science and religion differ (the unempirical), I'm going with my own
intuition and convictions, because science is no more correct or certain than
religion.

Just in case though, can you get on Skype so I can make sure I'm not arguing
with an octopus? =P

~~~
ThomPete
Huh?

Science is the only thing that can be correct if we follow your own
interpretation.

To be correct about something it requires empirical evidence to measure up
against lack of evidence.

By definition religious claims can't be verified so they can never be true.

------
tmsh
Quite interesting (would've been VERY interesting in the 50's).

Splitting the way of looking at the world into two sides -- religion and
science -- is itself a 'perspective', if you will. But establishing that
dichotomy is somewhat useful.

I find in coding that I need to be humble and 'doubting' in the scientific
sense. But I also find that I need to have faith during e.g. long
refactorings. I'm not even joking. It may seem trite to apply it directly to
programming, but considering the difference of the world of 2010 and the world
of 1956 -- it's nice to see some of his insights are quite relevant.

(The naive part in his understanding, imho, which anything written in the 50's
would be a part of -- is that a lot of history, which wasn't exactly in the
history books back then, has many examples of people screwing over other
people in the name of 'religion'. So it's not all a box of roses this
Christian 'ethics' that he's putting forth. Though I suppose he had to respect
the YMCA audience where he spoke and the times were quite different then. I'm
sure he himself, the son of Jewish immigrants, was quite aware of it. But
there's a bit of the typical Feynman arrogance -- like his dismissal of the
social sciences in some youtube video. Should've been a little more
scientific. But, like always, he is somewhat original and sometimes connects
the important dots that we overlook.)

haha, someone posted this just now in another forum.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk>

------
tokenadult
"There seems to be a kind of independence in these ideas. In the end, it is
possible to doubt the divinity of Christ, and yet to believe firmly that it is
a good thing to do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you. It is
possible to have both these views at the same time; and I would say that I
hope you will find that my atheistic scientific colleagues often carry
themselves well in society."

Yes, it is possible to have both those points of view at the same time.

------
camccann
There's a popular misconception that science answers questions like "Why?" or
"How?"

But that's not the heart of it. Strip away the math and jargon and theories--
all the messy details that make the engine of science turn--and it all comes
down to answering "What next?".

Making up silly stories about why something happened is perhaps humanity's
second-oldest pass-time. Science is the unprecedented art of making up silly
stories about what _hasn't_ yet happened, then _throwing out_ stories that
didn't come true. The astonishing part is that many times, when people started
extending those stories to things they hadn't known of when the story was
invented, or that they couldn't easily see happening--the stories kept
working!

It may be the case that these flights of fancy, increasingly accurate in their
predictions, describe reality, or answer questions like "Why" and "How"--but
if they don't, it doesn't really matter.

So when you tell yourself a story about things that happen, and use that to
form expectations of what will happen next, and most importantly get rid of
stories that led you astray--that's Doing Science. And if you tell your
friends about that story, and it helps them form expectations that work--
that's where scientific knowledge comes from. It's not about truth, or
certainty, or very formal and proper double-blind experiments, or answering
Great Questions, or any of that stuff. It's about "What's next?", nothing
more, nothing less.

So, what's left? What is it that science _isn't_? I suppose--stories that
aren't expected to predict anything, perhaps; ideas without implication, freed
from the burden to inform today your anticipations for tomorrow, to guide your
actions with the knowledge of expected consequence. So the question is: What
is the purpose of an idea that impacts not at all what one thinks will happen
in the future? Answer that, and you have found what science will never touch.

~~~
Herring
Well there's nothing really special about the "next" part. It's just that you
can't check the _accuracy_ ("truth" is a dirty word, apparently) of your model
against the data you used to construct it. It's why there's stuff like cross
validation in machine learning.

Anyway a model is not really useful either when there's only a finite amount
of data. I hear astronomy's starting to hit against this problem.

------
cwilson
This part in particular really stuck out for me as it's a point I've been
making (in lesser words) for quite some time when it comes to why I am an
atheist:

"For instance, the size of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny
particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand million suns in
this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies.

Again, there is the close relation of biological man to the animals, and of
one form of life to another. Man is a latecomer in a vast evolving drama; can
the rest be but a scaffolding for his creation?

Yet again, there are the atoms of which all appears to be constructed,
following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are made of the
same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity
as to mysteriously appear alive – like man himself.

It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe beyond man, to think of
what it means without man – as it was for the great part of its long history,
and as it is in the great majority of places. When this objective view is
finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are appreciated, to
then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to see life as part
of the universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is
rarely described. It usually ends in laughter, delight in the futility of
trying to understand. These scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at
the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that
the theory that it is all arranged simply as a stage for God to watch man's
struggle for good and evil seems to be inadequate."

What he doesn't say is the point I attempt to make after explaining my version
of Feynman's quoted text: If we are such a small speck in the vastness of the
universe, what right do we have as human beings to claim we KNOW what created
us and everything else? Why do we assume the universe is merely something for
us to look at in the sky?

In my opinion religion and certain belief in deities is simply arrogance and a
great crime by humanity as a whole.

------
anateus
"I don't know the answer to this central problem -- the problem of maintaining
the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most
men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the
metaphysical aspects."

I feel that's the core of the conflict. Whatever aspects religion has, they
are thoroughly dependent on an unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical
model, whether a minimalist one such as in Deism or one as expansive and
involved as in Animism. This is the aspect that is antithetical to science,
not just in science's conclusions (it's hard to falsify a deistic model,
unlikely that will occur any time soon) but fundamentally in its approach.

~~~
JunkDNA
"Whatever aspects religion has, they are thoroughly dependent on an
unquestioning acceptance of some metaphysical model."

I would be careful with such a sweeping statement. My personal experience as a
Catholic is that through some pretty intense questioning, I have come to a
better understanding of _why_ I believe what I believe. I look at this
questioning as a lifelong pursuit that is never finished. I'm constantly
checking myself: "Do I believe this still? Why do I believe this to be true.
Is that consistent with _other_ things I believe. If not, why?" My personal
religious experience would be quite shallow if I wasn't doing that.

~~~
anateus
I think I didn't so much mean that the full metaphysical model must be
accepted without question. Rather there are certain core facets that are
necessitated. If certain aspects of your Catholic belief went away your belief
in that particular religion would change (e.g. if you couldn't believe in the
Trinity, you wouldn't quite be able to consider yourself a Catholic, I think).
As I should have qualified my original statements more, I'll qualify I don't
think any religion is a monolithic set of beliefs, I'm quite aware it's rather
fluid and flexible as you describe.

I'm also not discounting someone discovering new tenets via that same type of
self-investigation.

I'd be quite interested to learn more about such self-questioning, as well as
what limitations if any you impose on yourself.

~~~
JunkDNA
You are quite correct that certain aspects need to be accepted. I'll use your
example to describe a little about how I go through the process of self-
investigation.

The Trinity is an excellent example of something I have questioned at various
points in my life. There isn't the space here to fully detail my whole
exploration of the topic, but I have asked questions like, "Assuming there is
an all powerful God, how is it possible for this being to be simultaneously in
human form? What if this is all just a metaphor and not meant to be taken
literally? Given what I know about physics and biology, isn't it possible this
Holy Spirit thing is not real?"

Obviously, one can't arrive at conclusive "proof" in the scientific sense for
any of the answers to these questions. But as a professional scientist, I find
the process of asking them gives me a way to go and look into these specific
topics more fully. It satisfies the analytical part of me that is always
asking "why?" about everything. For this reason, I don't really put many
limits on my line of questioning, since it's important to ferret out the
things that are causing me trouble.

Note that I'm also not constantly questioning _everything_ all at once. This
is counter-productive since you basically end up at the extreme wondering if
everything you observe in the real world is fake and not being able to believe
anything, metaphysical or otherwise (it has been a few years since my
philosophy courses in college, but I know this is well-traveled ground in
philosophy). To put it another way, at several points in my life, I have
explored the idea that God may not exist (or that maybe I'm dealing with the
"wrong one"). Ultimately, I have made the decision that I believe there is a
God. So I don't go back and re-hash that concept every time I want to explore
another facet of my faith.

One of the things I have come to appreciate about Catholicism as an adult is
that it's internally consistent from a philosophical point of view. There is a
rich history of writings by various Catholic philosophers (such as St.
Augustine: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustine_of_Hippo>) on why we
believe the things we believe. Furthermore, the Church publishes the Catechism
which has extensive citations for the source texts for every facet of the
Catholic faith. From the outside, many of the teachings of the Church can seem
proscriptive and arbitrary. But when you dig into the details, you find there
is a structure to how it all fits together into a coherent and consistent
picture. You may have to do a lot of digging and reading to get to all the
details, but it's all there.

------
mbubb
"After all, the earth moves around the sun – isn't it best to torn [sic] the
other cheek? "

It is never a disappointment to read Feynman - an interesting piece from the
opening claim:

"In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often
incompetent to discuss another...When we look at the past great debates on
these subjects we feel jealous of those times..."

He then goes on to excuse himself from the debate as he is not an expert on
religion but sets up an interesting hypothetical of a young scientist who
becomes disenchanted with 'his father's god' - which is a wonderful way to
setup the discussion because as it follows he doesnt really pit religion vs
science. He discusses a crisis of faith which is really at the heart of any
faith based system.

Discomfort with one's father's god - Cronos and Uranus, Abraham and Issac,
God-the-Father and Jesus - there is something corrosive, some conflict which
moves religion forward in an analogous way to how great discoveries unseat
accepted truths in science. In a very elegant way Feynman touches on this and
moves to a discusson of how science and religion are on different tracks.

I find it noteworthy here that he does not equate scientists with atheists but
says that scientists if they believe in god do so differently. This is Issac
coming down from the mountain, Jesus' last words, Buddha's fire sermon - a
deep realization that we are alone in the cosmos. The scientist may worship
the same god as before - but it is not longer his father's god.

The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is that
it cannot entertain metaphysical questions - which is consistent with the
Kantian tradition of separating reason into realms (pure, instrumental,
speculative). Science is pure or instrumental - but not speculative.

(As an aside there are good examples of why science should not attempt to be
speculative in recent news - Dr in UK who falsified data to support the
mercury-autism link; the recent climate science scandals. And even better
examples of the perversion of religion in science: "intellegent design")

This piece is great - it is not meant as a Bertrand Russell type of exegesis
but is a luncheon talk intended to spur debate. As such just churns up
questions and seeks productive argument.

Most throw up their hands at this debate - pick one side or another and the
discussion stops. He sets the problem up beautifully - I wonder if the
following discussion was saved.

What a wonderful man, beautiful soul he was.

~~~
btilly
_The reason (for Feynman) the Science can never truly supplant religion is
that it cannot entertain metaphysical questions..._

FYI Feynman was an atheist in his later years. Also his hostility to
philosophy and metaphysical questions has become legendary.

I don't know what his status on either trait was in the early 50s.

------
J3L2404
I feel that conducting yourself in an ethical manner if you are not religious
has more value than similar behavior by believers, due to the fact that the
decision is made without the coercion of a punishment by God. That said some
of the best people I know are quite religious. I personally see religion as a
deferment of curiosity, but I don't look down on people that use computers but
don't want to know how they work.

~~~
kirse
_due to the fact that the decision is made without the coercion of a
punishment by God_

Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption.
The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done
out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear.

 _religion as a deferment of curiosity_

Religion, in fact, holds science to a higher degree of authenticity, because
it demands logical, _empirically validated_ reproducible processes for someone
to believe it. The entire basis of quality science is empiricism.

At least religion calls certainty in the unempirical "faith".

In science, that f-word is a big no-no. It would be heresy to admit that
science has no greater certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than
religion.

~~~
jamesbritt
"Except this isn't true, at all, so you can throw out that invalid assumption.
The things a religious believer does (at least, speaking for myself) are done
out of love for a God greater than them, not done out of fear."

Isn't true _at all_? Speaking as an ex-Catholic, I was doing many things out
fear of a particularly nasty and vengeful super-being. And I know I was not
alone in this among my fellow believers.

Anecdotal to be sure, but it's interesting how often the pain and punishment
awaiting those who step astray gets mentioned in some religious texts.

Seems pretty clear that the authors themselves did not expect love of the
almighty to be sufficient to keep the flocks in line.

'At least religion calls our certainty in the unempirical "faith". In science,
that f-word is a big no-no, it would be heresy to admit they have no greater
certainty about the true unknowns (aka "why") than does religion.'

Again, YMMV, but my experience with the Catholic Church is that very few
members spoke about god, hell, limbo, miracles, etc. as if they were
interesting conjectures, speculations born from an absence of empirical
evidence.

No, these things were put forth as being no less factual than the presence of
the sun and the rain and the snow; you were to accept them as fact; this was
your act of faith.

The most striking difference I've seen between science and religion is the
degree to which people readily admit that what they are saying could very well
be wrong, and the extent to which doubt and skepticism is actively encouraged.

~~~
kirse
_Speaking as an ex-Catholic_

I can understand where you're coming from. The majority of my friends are
Catholic (well, ex-Catholics), and to hear them talk about church almost pains
me. I could not believe when they said people would show up at their door
demanding tithes/money, some of the requirements for attending church, etc. To
be honest, hearing all about how Catholicism operates, I'd probably have been
an ex-Catholic myself.

I'm a protestant Christian though, and the root of my belief has always been
that we are "justified by faith" in the midst of our depraved, imperfect
nature (see Romans 3:23-24 and Galatians 2:16). My faith is not a set of
demands that I am obligated to perform to get into Heaven, nor does it operate
out of fear of Hell and punishment. It's a faith that is rooted in a love for
Christ, knowing that I can _never_ do enough good deeds to justify myself
before a perfect God.

When you know that by faith - simply believing - you are justified, clean, and
in God's grace, there is no basis for fear.

It's an awesome concept, but if you were to examine the New Testament, you'd
conclude that Christ didn't come to instill fear (or condemn) the world, but
to save the world (John 3:17).

If you're really curious, check out "Classic Christianity" by Bob George or
the latter parts of "Mere Christianity" by CS Lewis. Both books do away with
the needless junk that is the basis for many sects of Christianity and get to
the core of what Christianity and the Bible really means.

~~~
kajecounterhack
This is pretty interesting. I am also a protestant Christian though my belief
is sort of er... iono. Different?

Faith is "Being sure of what you hope for and certain of what you do not see."
(Hebrews 11:1) Now, how can you be sure of what you hope for if there is not
due evidence to have that kind of certainty? Also, you can't be certain of
what you do not see without other evidence (e.g we can't see air but we know
it exists from a plethora of reasons).

I'm not sure that Christianity is about "simply believing" -- I mean yes that
describes the effect of Christ's _grace_ (all you need is belief/acceptance to
receive it)... but that's not _why_ I choose to believe in a God.

The rational / irrational (who cares) reason for my belief in God has to do
with the things that are historical texts and events, key elements include the
existence of Jesus / his effect on the world, as well as the written word
recorded close to after his death. Is the old testament just a silly
mythology, or a long way to prove a single point (that humans could never
achieve the nature of this thing we call God)? Maybe, I don't claim to know.
But I feel that the new testament and its claims as well as the testaments of
some people who died refusing to renounce what they saw as truth are very
compelling in terms of conveying something important that happened. Do I
believe that some really crazy, amazing things happened back then? I think I
have due reason to believe it. I mean, I just find it so hard to believe that
all those people who wrote the letters and books that make up the bible are
crazy. They were crazy enough to die gruesomely and still refuse to renounce
their belief, and the thing that separates them from suicide bombers is their
apparent sanity in the writing as well as their message of love. _Personally_
speaking I think the evidence is enough for me to put my faith in it, to be
sure of what I'm hoping for (that there is a loving God out there). Hey, worst
case scenario I was wrong and I loved more people and used my life to help
others, right?

In addition, it's not like the dude Jesus was preaching "thank god for dead
soldiers" or "kill the infidels" or "scare them straight" or anything moronic
like that. He preached humility, love, forgiveness and a bunch of things
(personally, I feel) the world actually needs. I don't know how anyone can be
mad at me for choosing to believe in something like that.

Now, I can similarly understand that what I see as evidence may not be
evidence enough for another person, and so they may not believe the same thing
as me, and that's fine. But for me to tell them that they are dumb for not
seeing it, or for them to tell me that I am dumb because I choose to believe
something, iono if that's a good thing. We all get the same data and we draw
our own conclusions.

Am I evangelical? Yeah, I have to say yes. If you want to know more about what
I believe, I am happy to spend time talking or do a bible study. Do I shove
religion down other peoples' throats or get all political about crap? Not
really my cup of tea. I think chill is the best demeanor for life ;D and love
is all you need.

~~~
kirse
_I'm not sure that Christianity is about "simply believing" -- I mean yes that
describes the effect of Christ's grace (all you need is belief/acceptance to
receive it)... but that's not why I choose to believe in a God._

I completely agree with you.

Belief for the sake of belief is not _why_ I choose to believe in God, either.
However, you must at least admit that justification by faith (simply
believing) is at the core of the protestant Christian tenets.

If you trace the original conversation though, I was just trying to point out
that fear was _not a motivator_ for my belief, and tried to show why. I could
have expounded on the core of _why_ I do believe, but that would have resulted
in a full dissertation.

As you pointed out, there are hundreds of historical texts and reasons that
form the foundation for belief (see also Josh McDowell - Evidence that Demands
a Verdict).

We're on the same page, I was just explaining something entirely different.

------
olalonde
I asked a question along those lines to HN a few days ago.
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1108912>

