Sam Harris

Mythodologists, you know who you are. Yes you, the ones trying to usurp science's mojo for your religion.

When it comes to understanding reality who is acting rationally and honestly—who has the mojo? Is it the "show me intellectually" methodologist, who has faith in the scientific method, or the "show me emotionally" mythodologist, who has faith in religion?

Science advances, not based on your feelings, nor your understanding, nor your acceptance. Science plods along according the available evidence. Religion by definition can't change—i.e. how can you change god's law? However does anyone deny that believers mine their books for laws that fit their various lifestyles?

Science has a self-adjusting mechanism that keeps it honest. That does not mean all scientists are honest but the system in which they function is.

Can mythodologists call their system honest? Does religion self-adjust when a new discovery invalidates a previous held understanding? Would the believer change a core belief based on empirical evidence?

Ironically religious creeds implore the believer to be honest except when it comes to their own dogma. Show irreverence to the most trivial tenet of your faith at your own peril.

[quote author=“gtrmain”]\
Can mythodologists call their system honest? Does religion self-adjust when a new discovery invalidates a previous held understanding? Would the believer change a core belief based on empirical evidence?

No.  No.  And no.

Buddy - Sometimes religious authorities do have to adjust their beliefs after incontrovertible evidence comes along.  Galileo is the archtype example, as only an idiot would still believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth.  Unfortunately, this rule does not apply to everything proven (or disproven) beyond a shadow of a doubt, such as evolution, worldwide floods and people spontaneously turning into salt.  But don’t tell that to the Christian Right.  They’re the heirs of the same folks who wanted to burn Galileo at the stake for daring to try to enlighten others with fact.

“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use.” - Galileo

Yeah, they’ll compromise things that are absolutley undenaible (like the sun going around the earth) but things like that aren’t that important to them, anyways.  I mean, what does the sun revolving around the earth really have to do with christianity?  honestly.

I was looking at the bigger picture.  They would never compromise the important things such as the divinity of HeyZeus Christo, even if we had video evidence that he wasn’t born of a virgin, etc.
 
Those are the things I was answering “no” to.

Ian23435 & Buddy,

Science’s mojo is its honesty. If a system can not or will not change based on evidence (religion) then it is by default dishonest.

I think science’s big sell is the honesty of the system. When we engage a believer we should drive this home.

Heck, honesty does not even mean it is the “truth”, or even correct—just honest. And that should make everyone feel good.

A book that gives a detailed description of a theists world view is: An Intelligent Person’s Guide to Atheism by Daniel Harbour. It’s really well done. It basically breaks down the atheists world view as being one that is bound only by reason while the theists world view is bound by their belief in dogma; It’s a really enlightening book.
As for anyone who says religion can under go change, it can’t. Is the bible not the holy word of the creator? Is he not omniscient?

AK02189,
My point exactly. How can the believer change what his lord master has proclaimed. That is where the religious system breaks down and becomes an indefensible intellectual quicksand for any half-way reasonable and HONEST person.

It is a shame, and sometimes funny, to hear otherwise intelligent folks willy-nilly divide the Bible into the metaphorical versus the literal. Like, “Of course snakes can’t talk!” -but on the other hand- “Of course Jesus rose from the dead!”

I’ll have to check that book out. Thanks.