Why Wear the Whole Hat?

Post Reply New Topic

techstepgenr8tion wrote:

I was just thinking about why some people feel that they need to 'wear the whole hat' (nice expression, I've never heard that one before. I hope you don't mind my borrowing it). It seems as if some people feel that their beliefs taken together have special powers almost like the ingredients for a magic potion. It isn't the content of the beliefs as much as the having of the beliefs altogether that makes them powerful. The correct 'potion' gives them access to special knowledge and a secret society (secret in that you must be a member to really get what is going on, not that nobody knows the society exist), which gives them a sense of power over other people. Very enticing. I think all this is essentially to idolize belief itself over the content of belief, which is where the actual value lies. Being able to value a belief for its content and not for itself enables a person to let go of having to 'wear the whole hat.'

Darwin eliminated the need for god, therefore saying that there is no god is the next logical step.

Darwin's sin wasn't eliminating the need for God - evolution does not speak directly to the big-picture questions, only to the observable mechanisms.

The concept of evolution is a threat not those that believe in God, but to those that go beyond worshipping God (by worship a text that they believe to be the word of God, which conflicts with scientific evidence).

I heard a metaphor once about science and proving God. The metaphor was this:

A scientist studying fish in the ocean decides to examine what he can catch in a net with three inch holes. After studying his catch he concludes that there are no fish in the ocean smaller than three inches.

The net is, of course, the scientific method, which can only catch that which can be perceived by human beings. The conclusion is that human beings can perceive everything that exists.

Brutal argument!

The modern scientific methods have revealed many things that historical man did not know existed. The full range of the electromagnetic spectrum, the forces that hold the atom together, the galactic universe, microscopic life, the mechanism of cells, and on and on. We construct our universe out of what we can know. To try to construct the universe from what we do not know is bound to lead to all sorts of false things that can disrupt sensible functioning and can be dangerous. Of course the scientific net has holes but as we learn more we can weave the net finer and finer. That's what science is all about.

I am not saying the scientific method doesn't do what it does well. I generally trust it and know many things I wouldn't know otherwise because of it. However, I think some of the conclusions people make while referencing the scientific method are too far reaching. Those false and arrogant conclusions, I would argue, are just as dangerous as what you describe.

Also, I don't think it matters how fine the holes in the scientific net ever get, they will never close completely. And, as we have found through science already, every level of specificity is, to us, practically infinite. We can only scratched the surface of what we can perceive no matter how fine tuned the method becomes.

There is no question that there are facts more elusive than the scientific net can, at present, capture. But to substitute fantasy to cover the unknown portion and even violently distort the picture given by observation and established workable fact is to surrender to wishful thinking. Nature is very unforgiving to those who surrender to what is merely hoped for. It is simpler to merely acknowledge that there are still things unknown that might be dangerous and hope that a gradual accumulation of established facts will push away the darkness rather than creating imaginary devils and angels out there in the dark.

Science advances by creative suppositions of what might be but is not satisfied by suppositions. Science demands that actual confirmations be obtained before suppositions are even tentatively accepted. The cardinal characteristic of science is that it holds everything tentatively and welcomes attacks on held beliefs that can be substantiated. That's how it differs from religion and that difference is crucial.

Speculation on things that cannot be percieved, much less understood, will get you nowhere. Find new ways to percieve. This is the first method of how new knowledge is obtained. The second is the correlation of seemingly disparate pieces of information into a whole that reveals more than the sum of its parts - but the whole is only as valid as the most tenuous of its initial pieces.

How does this relate to religion? Well, there's two ways to explore belief systems, and they're the same ways as used to explore nature. Don't trust in faulty subjective perception and dubious ancient texts as undoubtable fact, but instead percieve as best you can, find new ways to percieve, test your sources and assumptions viciously and smash apart everything that cannot hold, and you might get somewhere.

I tend to accept mainstream scientific theories. However, I don't think that my belief in God is contradictory to accepting those theories. I don't think every aspect of what I believe must be governed by the scientific method. I don't distort the science I have studied with my belief in God. I am not the type of person who observes some scientific data and then tries to manipulate it to fit into a concrete religious belief system.



Not every 'religious' person holds their beliefs the same exact way as you have implied here. Nevertheless, religious beliefs and scientific beliefs are different animals. The one obviously has more to do with the supernatural and the other with the natural. What I have a problem with is saying that because this corner of natural world is all that we can perceive with our five senses, it is the only thing that exists.

I do not believe that the scientific method is as thorough as you describe it to be. By definition, Science only deals in levels of certainty, never positive proofs. Science will never be fine tuned enough to examine everything at every level of specificity, nor do I think, humans have the capacity to comprehend everything at every level of specificity. Science has barely scratched the surface of the levels we can perceive now! I am not saying that the scientific method does not help us cope with and give context to our immediate surroundings much better than we could without it. I just don't see how as a philosophy of thought, it has the power to determine what does and does not exist.

I doubt any scientist believes science knows everything nor claims it can know everything. We are animals adapted to a very limited environment at the Earth's surface and perhaps a mile above and a little below. The universe is huge and there is much to find out and we can only find out by using our limited senses and our limited minds. There is no other method.

No, this is an argument used WITHIN science to point out the problem of the shortcomings of test methods.

Two points here. Darwins theory of evolution doesn't REQUIRE a creator, second scientists discovered that man had existed for about 200,000-250,000 years.

This begs the question, why did god sit on his butt for 99% of human history before deciding to redeem humanity by an act of human sacrifice in a barely civilized part of the Roman Empire, then wait another 2,000 years for people to spread this fact across the globe??

I'm sorry, but if this is the best "god" can do, than mankind is better off without him. It's only a natural conclusion, that if humanity can achieve better results than "god" can, that god must not exist.

Actually Cromagnon humans (us) have existed for between one and two million years. I find the concept of God unnecessary and downright silly but life has existed for well over a billion years and if there were a God it probably enjoyed playing with life's possibilities for much more time than it devoted to humans. The bulk of time that life existed it was single celled and only in the last quarter of life's existence has multi-celled life existed. It seems hugely unlikely that a God that created the universe has any real interest in a flash in the pan creature like man.

God did not "sit on his butt." All through out the beginning of the Bible before Jesus was born, God talked directly to phrophets and people. He was with Adam and Eve in the garden, he was with Moses, Noah, Esther, etc. The Bible is all about Gods work, and Jesus didnt come into the picture until about 3/4thish of the way in.

I agree with your point that Darwins theory of evolution doesnt require a creator. But i dont agree with this post at all. First of all how can someone put part of a hat on. no no no that doesnt work. You cannot believe part of Darwins theory and part of christianity. Especially when they contradict the first and foremost part of the existance of the world. I mean come on how could you miss this. One says it happened by chance, all the cells, diseases, bacteria, the perfectly working ecosystem, and the other says it was created, which makes a whole lot more sense because thats like the declaration of indepence perfectly spilling out of a bag of letters while playing scrabble(although i dont think there would be enough letters but you get my point lol)

You clearly don't understand how evolution works. It's not a purely random process. It's guided by the laws of physics, and natural selection.

Lets take your scrable example. If you were to spill out a bag of letters, and keep the letters that ended up in the correct position (natural selection) and put the remaining letters back in the bad and spill them again (passage of millions of years) after several attempts, you WOULD eventually end up with the Declaration of Independence. Do you see the flaw with that example you gave?