My favorite part of this post directly after reading was the highlighting of the apparent contradiction between the faithist’s pride in their faith and the condemnation in their accusation of faith’s use by science.
But I noticed I didn’t feel I totally understood the dynamics in play in such a mind, and decided to think about it over pasta.
My tentative conclusion:
This is not, I think, a case of bare-faced irrationality per se, as per “What would you do with immortality” when conjoined with “I have an immortal soul.”
The condemnation in the faithist’s accusation of science’s use of faith is not made in a vacuum per “Because your system employs faith, your system is bad,” but rather is made in the context of a presumed and anticipated denial of any utility of faith, or any employment thereof in the accused system. They anticipate that scientists will deny their use of faith, and are accusing them implicitly of hypocrisy.
I feel there’s still something missing, but I think this is whiter, at least.
EDIT: This was apparently nothing new, as demonstrated from the following retrieved from “No one can exempt you from rationality’s laws.”
“For example, one finds religious people defending their beliefs by saying, “Well, you can’t justify your belief in science!” In other words, “How dare you criticize me for having unjustified beliefs, you hypocrite! You’re doing it too!”—EY
My favorite part of this post directly after reading was the highlighting of the apparent contradiction between the faithist’s pride in their faith and the condemnation in their accusation of faith’s use by science.
But I noticed I didn’t feel I totally understood the dynamics in play in such a mind, and decided to think about it over pasta.
My tentative conclusion:
This is not, I think, a case of bare-faced irrationality per se, as per “What would you do with immortality” when conjoined with “I have an immortal soul.”
The condemnation in the faithist’s accusation of science’s use of faith is not made in a vacuum per “Because your system employs faith, your system is bad,” but rather is made in the context of a presumed and anticipated denial of any utility of faith, or any employment thereof in the accused system. They anticipate that scientists will deny their use of faith, and are accusing them implicitly of hypocrisy.
I feel there’s still something missing, but I think this is whiter, at least.
EDIT: This was apparently nothing new, as demonstrated from the following retrieved from “No one can exempt you from rationality’s laws.”
“For example, one finds religious people defending their beliefs by saying, “Well, you can’t justify your belief in science!” In other words, “How dare you criticize me for having unjustified beliefs, you hypocrite! You’re doing it too!”—EY