Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community - View Single Post

troutman · 10-23-2014, 09:42 AM

Are Factual And Religious Belief The Same?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/1...elief-the-same

Like fiction or imaginative play, religious beliefs may persist alongside factual beliefs precisely because they operate within restricted contexts and aren't firmly tethered to evidence. An important difference, however, is in the contexts that fictions and religion typically govern.

What is it that differentiates believing that something is real from entertaining it as a fiction? Van Leeuwen developed an approach to this question that led him to the tricky case of religious belief — he realized that his approach could work here as well, as long as he put religious "beliefs" closer to fictions and imaginings than to ordinary beliefs.

Is this philosophical hairsplitting? Van Leeuwen doesn't think so — he sees a real danger in conflating religious and factual belief: "If we conflate religious credence and factual belief — as so many are inclined to do — we'll simply miss an extremely important feature of religious psychology."

He also doesn't think that religious belief is simply a matter of faith, though his general framework could perhaps be extended to accommodate both faith and the attitude of provisional acceptance that scientists adopt toward even well-established scientific claims.

10-23-2014, 09:42 AM	#1123
troutman Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Crowsnest Pass Exp:	Are Factual And Religious Belief The Same? http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2014/1...elief-the-same Like fiction or imaginative play, religious beliefs may persist alongside factual beliefs precisely because they operate within restricted contexts and aren't firmly tethered to evidence. An important difference, however, is in the contexts that fictions and religion typically govern. What is it that differentiates believing that something is real from entertaining it as a fiction? Van Leeuwen developed an approach to this question that led him to the tricky case of religious belief — he realized that his approach could work here as well, as long as he put religious "beliefs" closer to fictions and imaginings than to ordinary beliefs. Is this philosophical hairsplitting? Van Leeuwen doesn't think so — he sees a real danger in conflating religious and factual belief: "If we conflate religious credence and factual belief — as so many are inclined to do — we'll simply miss an extremely important feature of religious psychology." He also doesn't think that religious belief is simply a matter of faith, though his general framework could perhaps be extended to accommodate both faith and the attitude of provisional acceptance that scientists adopt toward even well-established scientific claims.