Faith is (probably) the problem; Doubt is (possibly) the solution

[NeoGreen]

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/article/faith-is-probably-the-problem-doubt-is-possibly-the-solution/

Faith is (probably) the problem; Doubt is (possibly) the solution
Ian Macindoe

It seems to me that the core difference between believers and non-believers is that believers crave certainty and non-believers are comfortable with uncertainty. Believers accept what they are told without sceptical questioning; non-believers are doubtful and question what they are told.

This core difference is more central than the oft-proposed difference between the scientific and non-scientific distinction. As I have pointed out elsewhere (The Australian Atheist, No.9 May-June 08, p. 10) there are plenty of practicing scientists who hold religious or spiritual beliefs. If they are good scientists they are probably sceptical questioners in their chosen scientific field, but they do not extend that attitude to their total world view. They are willing to accept on faith beliefs about aspects of the human condition, or ideas about the world or universe, that non-believers question and have doubts about. Doubters raise questions that good science attempts to answer. Where science is inadequate, or in domains for which science is not applicable, the doubter is comfortable with ‘I don’t know’.

(snip)

‘There is no struggle between science and art or between evolutionary biology and spiritual faith; there is a constant struggle between the spirit of free enquiry and the spirit of fundamentalist dogma. That struggle is the story of human intellectual history … Nothing is a guarantee of humane conduct, except an insistence on it.’

The 'magesteria' are not Science and faith, the 'magesteria', such as they are, are an uplifting spirit of Free Inquiry vs the destructive hammer of fundamentalist dogma.