Faith in facts?

As far as I am able to understand, it is a matter of what each individual emphasizes in his own understanding of what is real.
Some people think of the mechanical world with the rules of the universe as reality. That is a very intellectual approach, detached and impersonal. This is what science is about. Fanatics focus only on this aspect, ignoring the emotional.

Others feel that the relationship they experience between themselves and their surroundings is reality. They are unable to connect to a reality that is mechanical and 'dead'. They relate on a personal level. Fanatics focus only on the emotional relationships, and ignore the intellectual.

I believe that most people who are somewhat balanced individuals approach the phenomenon of 'reality' both intellectually and emotionally. Science is one, religion the other. They cater to different aspects of the experience we all share. Problems arise when we start to confuse what we think with what we feel, something humans do all the time.

Are you proposing that atheists don't have any emotion?

Metaphor is a fundamental tool for human engagement with (and construction of) the world, almost as fundamental as logic. The existence of the 'religious scientist' reflects our ability to compartmentalize experience. My scientific, poetic, mystical approaches to Reality reflect my brain's ability to multi-task, to engage the world with different parts of my neurophysiology.

...the intention of true metaphor is to extract "noise" or excessive data to convey complex ideas...what consists of "error" or not, depends very much on understanding where the damn algorithm finishes, what the goal is...

That God and Newton that I do not have to choose between the poetic and the analytic.

What a mess. I meant to say THANK God and Newton...

...don't exaggerate, its a perfectly understandable minor mistake, I believe everybody got what you meant...I in fact did appreciate you value Newton so much...

You are being silly. Clearly, we atheists merely have an entirely different set of lies we tell ourselves v. those religious fallacies...

It seems to me (i can't speak for him, of course), that in his post, Cyr is talking about "experienced reality" in contrast to variant sources for "explanations of reality". (Of course, "reality" should probably be put in about three rows of parentheses.) Science represents an intellectual approach to that explanation, and religion an emotional stance. i'm not certain that i quite agree with that position, because I think that both science and religion are made up of equal parts emotion and intellect.

But if science were to stand for intellect, and religion for emotion, anyone who sought an explanation for their perceptions would seem to have to access both sides of the proposed mental coin to attempt to see the matter whole. And thus, the satisfaction of curiosity might seek two different sources, and two explanations.

Now, of course, that is not to say that a person committed to religion might not be intellectually rigorous, nor that a scientist is necessarily emotionally stunted -- merely that some combination between those two hypothetical extremes is not therefore biased one way or the other.

In the meantime, and this is me saying this and not Cyracuz, of course, let's not pretend that atheists do not feed ourselves a whole lot of easy and unreliable half-truths to make our speculations easier to digest. i am not a believer, in any conventional sense, but i know that my own approach to "reality" or "truth" is not terribly more reliable than a religious scientist.

...Okay, it's a little more more reliable -- but it's a difference of degree not of kind, and i want to respect (what i'd like to think of as) my peers. If only because it makes life easier where i live...in the South USA.

Booooo...low education standards...boo...

I think there are many truths to what you say; there are many theologians who study religions and its impact on society. There is much to be said of religious' truth, and how it impacts many cultures. From that perspective, history shows us that humans are forever seeking truth in the same way we seek scientific truth.

Both influence humans both intellectually and emotionally.

Those are facts that cannot be denied.

However, no matter how deeply humans seek religious truth, it becomes more philosophical than it does confirmation by empirical data. That's where religion differs from science.

Humans can believe in those philosophical truths as much as one can believe in scientific truths.

No argument.

Dammit...not "parentheses", quotation marks -- oh, sorry, you caught me in the midst of a self-loathing monologue.



Well, sure, i think that everyone active on this forum would like to think that the balance between religions' search for ultimate truth and science's search for the final fact would be struck by philosophy's wisdom...but i'm not sure we're quite there yet. Yes?

Philosophy may be where science and religion finally meet, let's hope so, anyway. But just because religion, deprived of belief, and science, separated from empirical fact(?), are reduced to a vocabulary similar to philosophy doesn't make them the same thing. I'd like to think that philosophy is not just a godless religion or an experiment-less science. For me, i'd like to think that philosophy includes both intellectual quests without depriving them of their defining characteristics.

No.
I'm suggesting that some people place greater value on what their intellect tells them when they decide what is real. Others place greater value on the emotional aspects of experience.
This is why someone can say that "god is real because I have experienced him".

...beliefs are the unfolding of experiences which are not resolved or if you prefer dissolved, that is, they continuously carry needs for more complete answers or further experiencing...they emotionally project the self into the future through faith...if for one beliefs are the ground of who you are, the ground of your present, for another, they are not sufficient to stop inquiry as they do not satisfy resolve...at this light your destiny, who you are being is momentum, energy with direction which still was not fully dissipated...from a deterministic point of view awareness doesn't change anything about that, but rather conforms with it...

One of the reasons I believe theology to be on the same plane as science, is that Buddhism is practiced to seek self-awareness and goodness. It's not a religion where its adherents goes out to save souls; it tries to save themselves by improving their own life. One of their tenet is "do no harm to living things."

From my perspective, there is much to admire about their religion when compared to science.

As we all know, placing (intellectual) emotion above all else can result in the wrong decision.

There is a reason why doctors should not operate or control their care on their loved ones, family and close friends.