Re-invite for new posts...

Hi all,

Our conversation on Belief has been left as is for almost two years now. This is an open invite to all to share their thoughts on this blog. There has definitely been more that we got to learn on this Universe and us, Humans, in these past two years. Would any of the members like to describe it in a post?Any worthy comments, that give a response to the previous posts, will also be published here.

Thank you guys for the previous posts. Let's continue...
Regards,
Jui

Is Science subjective or objective...

Scientific study is based on objectivity, if the basis needs to be described in one word. But the real basis is logical reasoning, factually compared analysis, factual proofs and whatever can't be proved goes in the box labeled 'Pending'. Any scientific conclusion is objective. But the rest of us look at the conclusion quite subjectively. Hence, most theories and proofs face critical denial. It is the subjective thinking of the rest of the world, that denies a scientist the right to make a breakthrough(with factual proofs), without facing a single negative opinion. Nary has brought forth a very important question that leads to another question. Are scientists today relying more on subjectivity, hence leading to a greater reliance on subjective knowledge(true belief) than factual?

Let me elaborate on subjectivity. According to Searle: Subjectivity has the further consequence that all of my conscious forms of intentionality that give me information about the world independent of myself are always from a special point of view. The world itself has no point of view, but my access to the world through my conscious states is always perspectival.

This cannot be the basis of scientific inquiry or study, except for the social sciences. Even in social sciences or cognitive science, without an objective approach, any theory or conclusion will be regarded as non-factual. Subjectivity is the perspective and a more opinionated restricted approach to the world. We cannot allow narrowing our approach into one point of view when in scientific inquiry.

There are many that confuse selfishness with Idealism and materialism with Objectivism. I have seen a few in the science industry who live in this confusion. This particular attitude in truth does lead to enquiries becoming more subjective. Science can not be based on individual perspective and opinions. Science relies on truth conditions that are independent of the mind. Any form of analysis based on biases and wishful thinking becomes pseudo-science or philosophical hypothesis.

Quite frankly any form of objective approach towards emotion, feelings, is regarded in general, by most of the general public, as 'heartless'. But most of the cognitive sciences do deal with emotions both subjectively and objectively. It is a never ending emotional argument between the two though!

On a New Enquiry

Though we (humans :) ) at present move up on the rising slope of scientific exploration and achievement, I am intrigued to think about this question - 'Is science limiting itself, because of its very strength?'. Looking at it one way, I can say that science is based on 'Objectivity'.
And this 'objectivity' has proved to be the strength of science since "mankind's first day of science".
As we moved along, even to this very day, science has provided us with answers to various things. Objectivity has surely been the base for it.
Having said the above things, I think there is another very important area we humans are still ignorant about of its very possibility.
And that is - "Subjectivity" in relation to science. Or science in relation to 'subjectivity'.
Even today, there are many areas science is not able to provide answers to.
One of them being a very important aspect of me, you and every human being on this planet.
That is, "emotion".
Thinking on a new level of enquiry, I today stand at a position of question.
And that question is:
"Can there be a science based on subjectivity?"

Is There a Religious Atheist?

These days scientific inquiry tends to stay away from religious belief. They are decoupled at least at the top level. There may be efforts (as slim as they may be) by a select few to ensure this stance trickles down to the general public. A few science communicators have always been at the helm of these arguments and have tried to inculcate a scientific temper amongst the common public. They take pains to drill the point that science and religion are not connected and can run parallel without interference. Each in its own domain. But there is still a fundamental flaw in this parallel path. Religious belief is said to be a personal matter and is supposed to be viewed under a lens of tolerance.

Why?

When science on one side harps on rationality and logic, why should we not apply the same premises to our religious beliefs? Why do we test every scientific discovery but accept every religious notion? Why the indifference. Why not put religion through the same test of rationality and logic? Will religion survive this test? If I am an atheist and choose a religion as well can I call myself a religious atheist?

There is a contradiction in that term. To explain it we need to pull one more branch into this discussion. Adding to religious belief and scientific inquiry comes along philosophy. This is required since science rose from the foundations of philosophy and these two must not be decoupled. In fact a scientist might struggle to prove the absence of god but in philosophy (the right kind) it can be demonstrated that god does not and indeed cannot exist. For a more elaborate account of this refer to my page, The 'Eternal' Atheist on Lost Reality. I have made an attempt to demonstrate the need of philosophy in accepting pure atheism.

And since atheism would be the default position if you follow the simple values of Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem, with the corresponding virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride there is no scope for a religious atheist and neither is there place for religion. That the scientist haven't embarked on this path yet may be due to a lot of reasons including the way the present society works. But when values are neither intrinsic nor subjective but objective, religion simply cannot survive.

Beyond Belief 2006

The Beyond Belief 2006 Sessions are available at the tsn site. I've provided the link below.

http://beyondbelief2006.org/

I thought to start off this blog with the November 06 sessions for everyone to understand the truth behind belief and religion. The aim of this blog is to put forth the comments, opinions, criticism of Religion, Faith and Belief and the comparison of Belief with Logical reasoning.