Faith versus the scientific method

2008 March 25

By ScienceReasonRationality.blogspot.com
Article ID: 1214

“What do I do when I see a ghost, feel the presence of a spirit, or make contact with an angel, demon, alien, Jesus, God or anything else?”

Whether you’re a skeptic or a believer, this should be the very first question that you should ask yourself before coming to any kind of conclusion.

You can’t start with a conclusion, and then work backwards to find supporting facts and evidence. You need to find the facts and evidence first, and then see what conclusion that information supports.

“What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to find out, which is the exact opposite.” ~ Bertrand Russell

Let’s examine a few kinds of people In the world of faith and beliefs. Look at these categories and see if any apply to you.

Believer Type #1

You saw, heard and felt something considered supernatural, like a ghost. You’ve decided to absolutely believe in what you’ve just experienced as real. You might say, “I know what I saw, I know what I heard and I know what I felt. I know what I know. I wasn’t hallucinating nor was I delusional. I don’t know how to prove it but I know it was absolutely real! It was what it was! Period!”

You may have family and friends who share your beliefs. After all, that’s where beliefs usually come from. With the above confident declaration, you seek out other individuals who had the same or similar experiences. You also find articles and other “facts” and “evidence” that would support what you’ve experienced. When enough “facts” and “evidence” are gathered, you convince yourself further that such experiences are in fact real. These practices lead to self-delusion. This is what happens when you conclude something first, and then work backwards to find facts and evidence to support it.

Believer Type #2

You experienced the same supernatural experience as Believer Type #1, but you would not even find facts and evidence to support it. You silently remain in quiet faith and confidence, believing that what you’ve just experienced is in fact real. Therefore, no further inquiry is required, nor it has the need to be proven. Thinking in this way is what I call The Blind Faith Euphoric Syndrome.

Believer Type #3

You’re a believer, but you’ve never experienced the supernatural experience of Believer Type #1. However, you feel that if others are having such an experience, you don’t want to be left out. So you create an imagined experience. It’s so vivid in your mind, you start to believe in it yourself. Then you too feel special and receive the same special attention and special treatment as those who are qualified enough to be on “The Chosen” list.

Believer Type #4

You’re a believer, but you’ve never had the supernatural experience of Believer Type #1. However, you find the need to pretend such an experience to reinforce belief in others and yourself. Both you and Believer Type #3 are such an expert in this self-delusion that you bring new meaning to the words beLIEve and beLIEf.

There are other Believer Types out there, but I just wanted to define the more common ones. Regardless of your Believer Type, all of these approaches are completely wrong. Repercussions from these mental flaws are severely damaging the lives of many people.

Science, Reason, Rationality and Dopamine

No individual should start out as a believer in something. Rather, he should become a believer in something only after proper evidence is produced through responsible and rational science and reason.

Now, lets take a look at the right approach when someone encounters the “supernatural”, including an apparent ghost, spirit, angel, demon, alien, Jesus and God.

Dopamine, a brain hormone, is one factor responsible for supernatural experiences. In an experiment, two groups of people (believers and skeptics) were told to look at images of faces, non-faces, real words and non-words which were displayed quickly before their eyes. They were then told to determine what images were real faces, non-faces, real words, and non-words.

The skeptic group picked out more real faces from non-faces, and real words from non-words. The believers group, strangely, saw faces and words even in non-face and non-word images.

Then the skeptic group was given L-dopa, a drug that increases the level of dopamine in their brain. The skeptics then picked out more non-faces and non-words, similar to the original results of the believers group. This experiment proves the higher the level of dopamine in your brain, the more supernatural experiences you are likely to have.

How do you tell fact and fiction, and safeguard yourself from other deluded individuals who may influence your thought processes?

You use the scientific method.

The scientific method

The scientific method is the best way to perform tests and experiments while preventing fraud and self-delusion.

The video below is an explanation of the null hypothesis, and how it produces the atheistic conclusion that “there is no such thing as God“. Use the null hypothesis along with the scientific method to analyze any of your supernatural and paranormal experiences.

Rationality is always better than religion. Provable ideas are always preferable to beliefs. Conclusions derived from scientific methods are always far better than religious beliefs that conclude first, then later look for supporting facts.

Other articles related to this topic:

5 Comments leave one →

2008 March 26

Critical Critique permalink

From my experience, these and many other points have been used for debates that I’ve participated in the past. Usually, no one will admit that I make valid points to seriously consider the possibilities. Most of the time, ego rules and so, my points are ignored. But I also know, that many minds, especially of the audience, were liberated from the slave chains of religion and believe systems through these debates. May be I can’t convince some individual minds, but at least I know that I’m still making a difference in one way or the other…

2008 April 15

Nick @ Critical Critique permalink

For article update and revision, visit: http://www.criticalcritique.com/2008/03/faith-versus-scientific-method.html

2008 June 5

P Thomas permalink

The scientific method always starts with a conclusion (called a hypothesis) and then looks for the evidence to prove it. For example, the article refers to Believer types as a conclusion, provides no proof in the form of data that they exist, then draws the conclusion that they suffer from mental flaws. The mental state of delusion can be inferred (and the article produces many inferences but no facts)from whatever hypothesis one wishes. It is impossible to reach your conclusion that “all of these approaches are completely wrong. Repercussions from these mental flaws are severely damaging the lives of many people”, as such a conclusion depends essentially on the assumptions underlying your initial hypothesis.

All hypotheses contain assumptions and all conclusions reflect those assumptions. This is evident from the recent works of Dawkins, Hitchins et.al. and, indeed, from the work of Charles Darwin. The scientific method, of course, should always refer to the sources of data but your reference to dopamine provides none. For all I know it could be fictional. Certainly the main clinical studies on the role of dopamine and its impact on personality do not indicate that a clinical trial on the basis you suggest would be of any value.

The correct role of criticism should always be applied to oneself and not to those with whom one disagrees. Perhaps you should apply the scientific method to your own arguments first.

2008 June 6

http://critical-critique.blogspot.com permalink

I’m always amazed with how people come up with excuses and biased explanations to something they will never will consider the possibilities of error and change…

Nick

2008 July 27

Science, Reason & Rationality permalink

This article has been updated at this link:

http://critical-critique.blogspot.com/2008/03/faith-versus-scientific-method.html

Thanks,
Nick

Skepticism. Critical thinking. Podcast. Community.

Faith versus the scientific method

Other articles related to this topic:

Leave A Comment

Last published

Featured

Upcoming

Recent Comments

Search

Subscribe

Categories