Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


SCIENCE AND RELIGIOUS FAITH AND FREE WILL - IS THERE A CONFLICT?

"Science has faith in free will" or does it?

Science cannot prove that we really have free will for it admits that we might be programmed to feel we really are making decisions and have freedom. In fact the denial of free will is the standard view taken by science.

Christians speak as follows, "Is free will real or are we programmed by forces in our brain? If we are programmed, we cannot trust ourselves to know the truth. The Bible says we know what is right and wrong in our hearts even if we do not admit it. It is necessary for science to assume we have free will or to believe perhaps the Bible that we have it."

So they are saying the Bible compels you to say you KNOW free will exists.  Or it tells you you know it exists for that is where your certainty that right and wrong exist as moral categories.  But few would go that far!

You will be told that the Christian who says, “God said I have free will”, is better off than the unbelieving scientist who merely assumes it. It is more scientific to believe a testimony from God than to merely assume it. But what if a witch reports revelations from pagan gods such as Venus that we have free will? It is better to assume it after all. It is better to simply assume it for if you assume a testimony is correct about free will you are assuming anyway and making it more complicated. Keep it simple and science requires that you do so.

What is the scientific answer to all that?

In regard to free will, not having it does not mean we cannot trust what we do and perceive.

A basic life form has no perception but still has trustworthy perception to a sufficient degree.

If a microscope was made by chance it could still be reliable.  How unlikely that is not the point. It can happen.

The scientist knows that there are non-scientific realities such as love. He cannot prove it. He also knows there is no reason to assume there are non-physical realities outside of our experience such as God or free will.

Some scientists do believe in a form of free will.  You do not need to believe that free will as in having the freedom to be moral or immoral is necessary for you to trust what you sense and discover.  There are other versions.

You do not need a version based on God or religiously relevant.