Faith In Religon vs Faith in Science [Archive]

Tom McCurdy

Dec9-04, 10:54 AM

I belive that faith in science is much different from faith in religon. I trust the results of science and have faith in them. True I will never be able to check the validity of every single experiment and finding out there, but I know that I could if I wanted to. I also know that new discoveries are rigerously tested before accepted by our society. Faith in science to me is something tangable, as opposed to faith in religon which is more of a blind faith to me.
TENYEARS posted this in his final post in the post debating if religon shows weakness in society.

Did you make the instrument? Did you create the formulas that make it work? All of them? To you know their degree of error? Do you know exactlly the materials they are made of? Their composition exactally. Thier composition with realtion to their exact physical area of use and the surrounding area and it's complete composition? No.. That is faith. You have faith that the instruments of science and technology will provide you truth and what it really provides is an approximation of an approximation of a refected or non observalbe reality which is based on the approximation of an after affect. All based on faith of all the makers. A thousand times LoL.

He was arguing that faith in religon is similar to faith in science... but I must disagree. We can test and do test the theories of today's scientific world. I believe the earth is not in the shape of a cube or flat... that is faith in science, but that is not the same as believeing that someone was able to turn water into wine 2,000 years ago. Here are some of my more extreme believes.... When you think about religon and faith.... religon's faith is based on what happened 2,000 years ago in the Christian religon. People claimed to have direct connections with God... to be prophets, and it was accepted. Today we have just as many people who claim to have those same connections.... or even to be God, and where to they end up? A mental hosptial. Could it be that the people of the time of claimed Jesus just were not as sophsticated as society today, and were easier to be tricked? I have seen performers on tv do more amazing tricks than turn water into wine... they are illusions, why could not this be the case in the past... No to me faith in religon is VERY differnt from faith in science and to compare the two is a very ignorant thing to do.

NOTE::: Poll should read faith in science

gravenewworld

Dec9-04, 11:59 AM

gravenewworld

Dec9-04, 12:04 PM

Also on a philosophical level--how do we know what we observe is true or not? For example, someone may not be able to see the color red as the majority of the population does. Does the color red really exist as we normally define it to be, or is that person who is "color blind" not really color blind, rather the rest of the majority of the population is color blind and sees "red" as we define it to be, although red is not really that color. The true color of red maybe the color that the "color blind" person sees.

Kerrie

Dec9-04, 12:08 PM

any particular reason this was posted in social sciences as opposed to philosophy?

Tom McCurdy

Dec9-04, 10:14 PM

any particular reason this was posted in social sciences as opposed to philosophy?
My last post about Religon as a weakness in society was moved to Social Sciences and it was a follow up to it, so I thought it might as well stay in the category, although I agree this fits better.

Tom McCurdy

Dec9-04, 10:20 PM

How much can you really trust the results of science though? I don't know if this is entirely correct, but my geometry teacher was explaining to our class about Einstein's use of non-euclidean geometry for his theory of relativity. She said that Einstein assumed that the axioms of ordinary Euclidean geometry hold. Mathematicians have never found an inconsistency in the system created by Euclid's axioms yet, but that doesn't mean that an inconsistency doesn't exist. If an inconsistency could be derived from the regular axioms of euclidean geometry, than Einstein would have a problem then with his theory of relativity, since he assumed Euclid's axioms formed a consistent system (again this was a very simple explanation from my geometry teacher. I don't know how well this holds.) Things like this bother me. I know quantum mechanics also rests uppon a list of axioms that are taken as automatically being true. Science to me has just the same amount of faith that religion does when it comes to certain things.

I am not an expert in the area of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity, and I don't claim to be, but your examples are extreme cases of science. Science differs from religon in the facet that it is tested throughly, things remain theory until proven, whereas in the bible things are automatically taken as fact. How can you compare the faith in someones words 2,000 years ago to the faith that people see red the same. Science is something that is not written in stone, not gifted from a divine connection, is not told through a messenger, it is something that is sweated through. Science is built on fact and experimentation where as religon is built on believng stories of the past. Einsteins theory's on reltivty may be complicated, but they are constantly being tested.... same is true in the field of quantum mechanics. Also both theories don't claim to be pefect as we still are on a quest for TOE to unify them. However I have faith in what research has been going on because the research is there for me to check if I wanted to. You can't do that with religon it is a blind faith.

gerben

Dec10-04, 12:56 AM

I think the major difference is that science does not mind to change its theories if someone propose theories that work better, while religion never checks whether its theories work, the effects of those theories are not in a realm where things can be checked. They mostly promise that their methods will produce some results in another realm (which you will enter after you die) that has no contact with our world.

Nereid

Dec10-04, 07:49 AM

This is a pretty deep topic, IMHO.

To make much headway though I think it would be important to be clear about what we mean by 'faith in religion' and 'faith in science'. Personally, I think I get the former, but I've no real idea what the latter means! For example, is it about whether (and to what extent) people will take the peer-reviewed results from science as 'true', based solely on their source (ie 'faith' is more or less synonymous with 'belief')? or is it the role of 'faith' (whatever that is) in the real-world, nitty-gritty of how science is done today? Or something else entirely?

So far, it seems most posters mean 'belief that scientific theories are accurate statements about reality' (or something like that). If so, then perhaps extending gravenworld's first post may be useful ... as I understand it, a core principle in science is its uncertainty (not just Heisenberg and QM); another is that the theories - even highly successful ones like GR and QFT - do not, in themselves, say anything about 'reality' or 'truth'.

omicron

Dec10-04, 10:12 AM

Just a thought. Why is it that every time the word religion is mentioned, it is often referred to Christianity? :confused: I mean there are thousands of religions and many are much "older". To name a few, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Sikhism, taoism, so on and so forth.
Anyway just to add in my two cents, I think that 'faith in religion' and 'faith in science' are totally different. If you have your faith in science, and I tell you that a wall of fire came down from the heavens and destroyed my enemy's hideout (can't think of anything else), you definitely won't believe that! However if you have your faith in religion than its most likely that you'll believe that. The bottom line is your faith in religion and science just can't be mixed together. Its just like sports and politics can't be mixed together.

honestrosewater

Dec10-04, 11:17 AM

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/
Reading section 1 can help in establishing some definitions.

I think this question is ultimately about the limits of what any system can prove. I would tentatively define faith as a justification for an unprovable belief. But I will reread the article before making any further comments.

gravenewworld

Dec10-04, 11:24 AM

I am not an expert in the area of Quantum Mechanics or Relativity, and I don't claim to be, but your examples are extreme cases of science. Science differs from religon in the facet that it is tested throughly, things remain theory until proven, whereas in the bible things are automatically taken as fact. How can you compare the faith in someones words 2,000 years ago to the faith that people see red the same. Science is something that is not written in stone, not gifted from a divine connection, is not told through a messenger, it is something that is sweated through. Science is built on fact and experimentation where as religon is built on believng stories of the past. Einsteins theory's on reltivty may be complicated, but they are constantly being tested.... same is true in the field of quantum mechanics. Also both theories don't claim to be pefect as we still are on a quest for TOE to unify them. However I have faith in what research has been going on because the research is there for me to check if I wanted to. You can't do that with religon it is a blind faith.

Science is built on fact and experimentation where as religon is built on believng stories of the past.

That is what I had a problem with in the first place. Not all science is built upon fact, but theories/hypotheses that are assumed to be true. Are the examples I gave really that extreme? I don't believe so. QM is only built upon axioms that are supposed to be "inherently" true, they weren't derived from scientific experiments. That seems like faith to me. Another example would be the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has yet to be proved. Last time I heard there was still the "missing link." I'm not saying that I don't believe in evolution, but what I am saying is that evolution is still only a theory (a good one too), that most people believe without total proof. That is faith to me. The more you question the foundations of science the more sketchy things get. Right now I work in a chemistry lab at a pharmaceutical company, and many times the reactions that we carry out simply do not work according to the theory. Humans can write down all the theory about chemical reactions that we want in text books, but how well do they accurately reflect reality? It seems like there is a lot of faith that the theory will hold, but how come when I carry out reactions according to the theory a lot times it doesn't work?

russ_watters

Dec10-04, 11:55 AM

How much can you really trust the results of science though? Quite a bit considering they make testable predictions. The sources of error TENYEARS listed are all true and in some cases may be diffiult to account for - but the fact that theory agrees with observation to a high precision means the theories must be at least very, very close to correct. Random error would not yield consistent, precise results.

That is what I had a problem with in the first place. Not all science is built upon fact, but theories/hypotheses that are assumed to be true. Whoa, hold on there - you made a jump that isn't warranted. Theories/hypothese are not ever assumed to be true. Only postulates - and even then, postulates can be (must be) tested.

Relativity assumes C to be constant - well if C wasn't constant in reality, Relativity wouldn't work. Relativity uses previous work that leads to the conclusion that C is constant and turns that conclusion into an assumption for the purpose of expanding on that work - but if the previous work was flawed, then Relativity would have the same flaw. The theory of evolution has yet to be proved. Last time I heard there was still the "missing link." This is also a gross mischaracterization/misunderstanding. There are two evolutions: one is a fact the other is a theory that explains the fact. It is a fact that evolution occurs: it is directly observed in nature and in fossil records. The theory of evolution explains how it occurs: through natural selection.

The "missing link" argument is a creationist smokescreen: on any line, there is a point between any two other points. In fact, we have found loads of transitional species - but a creationist will always say 'but what came between those two...?' It is an invalid line of reasoning.

Nereid, I think perhaps trust would be a better word for believing science, but I'm not sure its that important a distinction for the purposes of this thread. Whatever you call it, the difference is that with science, it can be verified.

honestrosewater

Dec10-04, 12:18 PM

Well, I totally agree with russ. As I said in TENYEARS thread, Verification implies a system, but that system needn't be "reality". It can be a formal axiomatic system, for instance, about which the verifier can have perfect knowledge.
Just say that science only makes claims about logic and human observation. Then you just have to prove that humans can know logic and what they observe.
This is really all science does anyway, but the fact gets lost because some (most?) people believe an independent reality exists and scientific claims are true in that reality.

BTW Scratch my earlier definition. I'm not sure how I would define faith.

jammieg

Dec10-04, 05:06 PM

But what if people did have faith in science just as much as they typically do in religion, what would that mean?
They both claim to be the way to good things for one.

Sho'Nuff

Dec10-04, 05:22 PM

BTW Scratch my earlier definition. I'm not sure how I would define faith.

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

at least thats what the dictionary makes of it.....

3mpathy

Dec10-04, 10:18 PM

learningphysics

Dec10-04, 10:36 PM

i don't have time to read all of the other posts becuz im falling asleep right now, so I apologize if I repeat/ concradict anything that has been posted already. i will probably read this in full in the morning and i might edit my thoughts, but here they are.

faith (to me) is the same in each senario, no matter what words you put after it. you can not fully prove EVERYTHING in science, or at least we can't right now. and you can't prove EVERYTHING in religion( this is assuming that you do believe in what you religion says. I know i will get heckling from the aetheist but for right now i am leaving this be) So you have 2 cases, which in most ppl's eyes seem to be polar opposites. you don't know everything about either one, so you are making a leap of faith for wutever side you choose.

Now with that said the "distance of your leap of faith" might be greater/easier to justify for one senario over the other, but you still have to do it.

Well, I'm an atheist. You cannot "prove" anything in science (problem of induction). But science is an extension of common sense. We use science every day whether we consciously know it or not. We work against gravity every day. The faith that is involved in science is the same faith every single human being has. For example I believe that when I type something on my keyboard it will appear on the screen. I believe the sun will rise tomorrow.

As far as truth is concerned, some religious arguments have contradictions... Those that lead to contradictions are false. Those that don't may or may not be true. Scientific statements may or may not be true... but they are unprovable.

I'd say every human has this "scientific faith". Not every human has "religious faith".

honestrosewater

Dec10-04, 11:13 PM

But what if people did have faith in science just as much as they typically do in religion, what would that mean?
I'm not sure it would necessarily mean anything by itself; It's just a correlation. To establish causation, you would have to analyze people and their beliefs. And I don't know how you can analyze belief without considering its relation to knowledge. That's why I posted the link about knowledge. I may be wrong, though, so don't take my word for it. And no one else may want to take this discussion in that direction.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. Well, it's tricky because I'm assuming knowledge is justified true belief.
S knows that p iff
(i) p is true;
(ii) S believes that p;
(iii) S is justified in believing that p.
This is just a starting point. There are different places you can go with this definition (just read the bolded parts in the article). You have to deal with the Gettier problem and epistemic luck, for example. Epistemic luck is the reason for adding that knowledge be justified. A person could believe some proposition p, but have no justification for believing p, and p may end up being true by coincidence (epistemic luck). Did that person know p? Is it enough that knowledge be true belief, or must it also be justified? What exactly constitutes justification?
Defining faith in this context is difficult because I would normally consider faith a justification for belief, but I'm not sure it qualifies as a justification here. What do others think?

honestrosewater

Dec11-04, 12:14 AM

You cannot "prove" anything in science (problem of induction).
Why not? State your axioms/postulates and use deduction to prove theorems. I don't think anyone is arguing that science can prove anything and everything. But how can you claim that science can prove nothing? Perhaps I'm missing this point because I'm not assuming that science has to prove anything in particular. What is something you think science should be able to prove (that requires induction)?

You may consider science to mean physical science, but I also consider formal logic (and philosophy) to be a science. Either way, IMO the crucial distinction between science and religion is method- the method of determining a statement's truth-value in a system. This of course ties in with knowledge being a justified true belief.

Confusion arises because people are used to claiming some statement is true without mentioning the system in which it is true. They are implicitly assuming some system, whether it's formal, informal, or empty (ex. predicate calculus, common sense, ?).
When someone claims something is true, do you think it's prudent to ask, "True according to or based on what?" If I claimed Einstein was wrong and the Bible is right, would you ask for evidence?

wave

Dec11-04, 04:12 AM

I hold quite a few epistemological assumptions based on faith (i.e. belief without proof). For example, I take logic for granted because it's impossible to test or prove its objective truth.

To those who voted for "not at all" - can you prove that your reasoning is sound on an objective level? Can you prove to me that you exist? If not, then you must have some assumptions that are based on faith like I do.

My point is, the foundation of all human knowledge is based on some degree of faith. I exist and my reasoning is sound. Can I prove it? No...

gerben

Dec11-04, 06:49 AM

Wave, the question in the poll is:
Do you believe that Faith in Religon is the Same as Faith Science
not
Can you prove that Faith in Religon is the Same as Faith Science

Scientific theories are believed when they are shown to work.
Religious theories are simply believed (because they are felt?).

wave

Dec11-04, 05:28 PM

Wave, the question in the poll is:
Do you believe that Faith in Religon is the Same as Faith Science
not
Can you prove that Faith in Religon is the Same as Faith Science

I apologize for not making my point clear. I am not asking if you can prove that faith in religion is the same as faith in science. I am asking if you can prove or disprove my assumptions. The point of my challenge is to establish whether there is faith in both science and religion. It would be nonsense to ask whether they're the same if, for example, there is no faith in science.

So do you think your reasoning is objectively valid? If so, can you prove it? If you think your logic is sound but can't prove it, then your belief is based on faith (i.e. belief without proof). I should make it clear that by "proof" I mean deductive proof.

Scientific theories are believed when they are shown to work.

I agree. Scientific theories are confirmed or disconfirmed by evidence. I have no objections to that kind of inductive proof. Nonetheless, there remains some axiomatic assumptions of which science, as well as religion, is built upon. I hope we all agree that there is faith (i.e. belief without proof) in both religion and science at least to some degree.

Now we can answer the original question - are they equivalent? Faith is by definition faith (i.e. they're both belief without proof). That is the only non-subjective conclusion we can draw, since the equivalence of faiths is not a well defined concept.

The majority of voters must disagree with me since so many of you voted for "not at all". Please criticize my reasoning. :smile:

Integral

Dec11-04, 05:55 PM

meteor

Dec11-04, 06:34 PM

Some philosophers like Feyerabend tend to put science and religion in an equal footing. Feyerabend believes that the faith in science is not justified. Anyway, I live in modern society, and I like to hear my radio, and to drive my motorbike. I'm in eternal gratitude to scientists like Marconi or engineers like Howard Roper because thanks to them I can enjoy all the comforts of the modern society. I don't believe that I could have all of this praying, likewise I don't believe I could have all of this sleeping, for example

gerben

Dec11-04, 08:33 PM

So do you think your reasoning is objectively valid?

No, I do not think it is objectively valid (in the philosophical sense of objective). I think nothing is, objectivity is not something we have access to, we only have our human perspective on things. This is some mixture of different statements, in some of which we have a lot of faith and in others little. Having faith in one or the other statement affects your action and your life. You can choose in which you have more faith, therefore I believe they are different (i.e. you choose between different possibilities not between the same possibilities).

Now we can answer the original question - are they equivalent? Faith is by definition faith (i.e. they're both belief without proof).

You should see "faith in science" and "faith in religion" both as a single concept and not just focus on the word faith in both, obviously faith = faith, but "faith.in.science" \neq faith.in.religion.

learningphysics

Dec12-04, 12:00 AM

Why not? State your axioms/postulates and use deduction to prove theorems. I don't think anyone is arguing that science can prove anything and everything. But how can you claim that science can prove nothing? Perhaps I'm missing this point because I'm not assuming that science has to prove anything in particular. What is something you think science should be able to prove (that requires induction)?

Do you believe that if you drop and object, it will fall to the ground? You cannot prove it. For example the law of gravitation.... you've found by making observations that objects of mass attract each other... however there is no way to prove that in the future they will continue to do the same... no way to prove that the universe will behave in the future the same way it did today.

Look up "problem of induction" on the internet. You'll see a lot of stuff.

Yes, from experimental observations and a theory that fits those observations... you can then mathematically deduce new formulas and make predictions... however there is a basic assumption in "science" that what happened before will happen again. Not just in science.... all humans and some animals make this same assumption.

I'm not an expert in "truth"... but I believe that the axioms of mathematics, the first principles.. are true and self evident.

It's not self evident that tomorrow the universe will be the same as it is today... I definitely believe it will be the same, but I don't see any logical reason why it should.

honestrosewater

Dec12-04, 04:21 AM

learningphysics,
Okay, let "The sun will rise tomorrow" = Q.
I can prove P \Rightarrow Q. Proving P \Rightarrow Q is different from proving P or proving Q. That is the crucial distinction.
No, I cannot prove Q is true absolutely; I cannot prove anything is true absolutely. My proof can only be relative, or conditional. I can only prove that Q is true if P is true.
However, I can still know that P is true. I can observe P, for instance. If P = "I saw the sun rise today" I can know if P is true, and there is no proof involved in my knowing so.
Knowing that P is true, I can prove that Q is true, if I can prove that P \Rightarrow Q is true.
I hope I explained that correctly, you or someone else can check me.

The point is that science doesn't have to rely on induction. It can and often does, but it doesn't always have to. And even so, induction is not faith. Just as science can but needn't rely on induction, science can but needn't rely on faith.
The same can be true of religion. Why do you think people try to prove the Bible is true? Who's to say people cannot know supernatural things exist? What do you think philosophers do all day? Actually, don't answer that last one. :rolleyes:

honestrosewater

Dec12-04, 04:43 AM

however there is a basic assumption in "science" that what happened before will happen again. Not just in science.... all humans and some animals make this same assumption.

Yes, I believe it's a common assumption. However, an assumption is not faith. A belief based on an assumption is not a belief based on faith. This is what I explained above. Let P = "what happened before will happen again." You can use P (along with other axioms) to prove other statements. Assuming P to be true is different from believing P to be true, proving P to be true, or knowing P to be true.
This is why I object to the claim that science is based on faith. Define science! :approve: Er, same goes for religion, but theists have more explaining to do. :tongue2:

BTW I'd like to see you prove "All humans and some animals assume what happened before will happen again."

learningphysics

Dec12-04, 01:46 PM

learningphysics,
Okay, let "The sun will rise tomorrow" = Q.
I can prove P \Rightarrow Q. Proving P \Rightarrow Q is different from proving P or proving Q. That is the crucial distinction.
No, I cannot prove Q is true absolutely; I cannot prove anything is true absolutely. My proof can only be relative, or conditional. I can only prove that Q is true if P is true.
However, I can still know that P is true. I can observe P, for instance. If P = "I saw the sun rise today" I can know if P is true, and there is no proof involved in my knowing so.
Knowing that P is true, I can prove that Q is true, if I can prove that P \Rightarrow Q is true.
I hope I explained that correctly, you or someone else can check me.

I have no problem with saying P is true, if you say you saw the sun rise today. It is the P \Rightarrow Q I'm talking about.

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to prove P \Rightarrow Q is true... This is the basic assumption in science and everyday life.

Saying P \Rightarrow Q IS induction!

learningphysics

Dec12-04, 01:53 PM

Yes, I believe it's a common assumption. However, an assumption is not faith. A belief based on an assumption is not a belief based on faith. This is what I explained above. Let P = "what happened before will happen again." You can use P (along with other axioms) to prove other statements. Assuming P to be true is different from believing P to be true, proving P to be true, or knowing P to be true.
This is why I object to the claim that science is based on faith. Define science! :approve: Er, same goes for religion, but theists have more explaining to do. :tongue2:

BTW I'd like to see you prove "All humans and some animals assume what happened before will happen again."

I don't understand the distinction... How is faith different from "assumptions"?

I cannot prove all animals assume what happened before will happen again. I'm using induction here like other scientists do... so I might be wrong.

selfAdjoint

Dec12-04, 02:53 PM

I don't understand the distinction... How is faith different from "assumptions"?

An assumption is offered "for the sake of argument" and will be abandoned if it doesn't work out. Faith is not usually abandoned without a serious crisis of personality.

honestrosewater

Dec12-04, 03:28 PM

What I'm saying is that it is impossible to prove P \Rightarrow Q is true... This is the basic assumption in science and everyday life.
See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PropositionalCalculus.html
If you want to argue that human fallibility infests our systems of reasoning, I'm not sure how to handle that at the moment.
But Gödel has given you some other good points to argue. For instance, a sufficiently complex formal system cannot prove its own consistency. The P that would prove the system's consistency is undecidable in the system. I may have butchered that explanation BTW, I'm still learning. And Gödel is easy to butcher. Where's a mentor when you need one?
Saying P \Rightarrow Q IS induction!
Assuming the principle of bivalence (P is either true or false, but not both), (P \Rightarrow Q) \equiv (\neg P \vee Q)*. I can't find a source that explicitly says so, but implication (\Rightarrow) is not induction. It is inference, maybe that's what you're thinking of? I think you can say that implication is deduction; I can't see why not- you should confirm it though.
I don't understand the distinction... How is faith different from "assumptions"?
Faith requires belief. Assumptions do not require belief. Assumption is kind of suspended belief, if you will. Saying "assume P is true" is the same as saying "if P is true". You don't have to believe P is true.

Science doesn't require faith. Where your knowledge is lacking, you can work on assumptions. I know. Much of what I believe is conditional (based on assumptions). It's similar to admitting uncertainty. In fact, I think this is the best way for a scientist to work- suspending belief until they are certain.
I'm not arguing that science can prove or describe everything you know or everything you want it to. Actually loseyourname just changed his signature, and I think it sums this up nicely:
Do you believe that absolutely everything can be expressed scientifically?
- Hedwig Born to Albert Einstein

Yes, it would be possible, but it would make no sense. It would be description without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.
-Einstein's reply

*"(P implies Q) is equivalent to (notP or Q)" for anyone unfamiliar with the symbols. The "or" means "and/or";

Edit: Right, what SA said. You can even assume something that you don't believe or that contradicts something you know.

Integral

Dec12-04, 04:21 PM

It does not require faith to know that the sun will raise tomorrow. It requires understanding of angular momentum, I know that the angular momentum will be conserved, I know that a force must be applied to alter the rotation of the earth. So, barring a planetary catastrophe, the earth will continue to rotate.
As I stated in my initial post, the idea that physical observations have meaning and are repeatable is the key question.

For the lay person who has never studied Physics, what we know about the Universe must be taken on faith or the word of the scientists. But if you know about the key experiments and have learned a base level of Physics you can understand that everything that happens around us is due to forces of nature are not capricious but understandable and predicable. This is not the same as religious faith as the understanding and ability to predict is based upon repeatable observations.

Ivan Seeking

Dec12-04, 06:15 PM

An assumption is offered "for the sake of argument" and will be abandoned if it doesn't work out. Faith is not usually abandoned without a serious crisis of personality.

However, if we were forced to abandon any of our fundamental assumptions of mathematics or physics we would have a crisis just the same. Suppose for example that at we find that causality is not preserved - only an assumption but all of physics depends on it. On the other hand, people who have never studied physics take this sort of thing way out of context. We all know that we can still predict when the sun will rise thanks to the conservation of angular momentum; even if at some very deep level the model fails completely. So I think there are really two issues here. One is the "faith" in repeatable, predictable events, and the other "faith" is that our models are fundamental, and not just [more] crude approximations of deeper complexities.

learningphysics

Dec12-04, 07:13 PM

See http://mathworld.wolfram.com/PropositionalCalculus.html
If you want to argue that human fallibility infests our systems of reasoning, I'm not sure how to handle that at the moment.
But Gödel has given you some other good points to argue. For instance, a sufficiently complex formal system cannot prove its own consistency. The P that would prove the system's consistency is undecidable in the system. I may have butchered that explanation BTW, I'm still learning. And Gödel is easy to butcher. Where's a mentor when you need one?

Assuming the principle of bivalence (P is either true or false, but not both), (P \Rightarrow Q) \equiv (\neg P \vee Q)*. I can't find a source that explicitly says so, but implication (\Rightarrow) is not induction. It is inference, maybe that's what you're thinking of? I think you can say that implication is deduction; I can't see why not- you should confirm it though.

Faith requires belief. Assumptions do not require belief. Assumption is kind of suspended belief, if you will. Saying "assume P is true" is the same as saying "if P is true". You don't have to believe P is true.

Science doesn't require faith. Where your knowledge is lacking, you can work on assumptions. I know. Much of what I believe is conditional (based on assumptions). It's similar to admitting uncertainty. In fact, I think this is the best way for a scientist to work- suspending belief until they are certain.
I'm not arguing that science can prove or describe everything you know or everything you want it to. Actually loseyourname just changed his signature, and I think it sums this up nicely:

*"(P implies Q) is equivalent to (notP or Q)" for anyone unfamiliar with the symbols. The "or" means "and/or";

Edit: Right, what SA said. You can even assume something that you don't believe or that contradicts something you know.

Do you agree that science makes the assumption:
"The laws of the universe will remain the same in the future as they have been in the past"

If so, then we have no argument.

Science has a theory which has fit observations in the past (it has found angular momentum has been conserved in the past)... That theory is then used to predict the future.... This is the assumption part... Assuming that the theory will hold for tomorrow's observations..

I have no problem with propositional calculus and logic. I don't know why you included the principle of bivalence. Remember that we were using the example of P="Sun rises today". Q="Sun will rise tomorrow". With these two statements, it is impossible to prove P=>Q. And yes, in this case P=>Q is induction... making a prediction of the future based on past events is exactly what induction is.

Are you using P and Q like this:
P= "The laws of the universe hold tomorrow as they did today"
Q="Sun will rise tomorrow"

If so, then yes, I agree with P=>Q (obviously there will be steps in between etc). HOWEVER, this gives no justification for believing Q.

I'm pretty sure every scientist believes P... if they didn't then why would they do any science? P=>Q is useless for making predictions unless P is actually true. But how can we know P is true?? Are using that scientists are only saying P=>Q (where Q is some prediction of the future)??? I've never heard a scientists say "If the universe behaves tomorrow as it did today then so and so event will take place"...

The point I'm making is that the statement, "The laws of the universe hold tomorrow as they did today", is impossible to justify.

honestrosewater

Dec12-04, 09:13 PM

the statement, "The laws of the universe hold tomorrow as they did today", is impossible to justify.
Do you believe your statement is absolutely true? (I mean the entire statement quoted above.)

No, sorry, I didn't mean for the P's and Q's to keep the same definitions throughout, I was just giving temporary examples.

I'll reread all the posts and wait a while for someone else to jump in here because we aren't getting anywhere.

honestrosewater

Dec13-04, 12:16 AM

By an observable world (OW), I mean a world knowable by human observation.
By a real world (RW), I mean a world existing independently of an OW.
Can science prove anything about a RW? If not (as you seem to have said), then how can you claim a belief about a RW is a scientific belief? That is, if you have faith that a RW exists, and science cannot prove anything about a RW, how can your faith in a RW be considered faith in science? By faith in science, I mean faith in something science can prove.
It's late, maybe that didn't make sense. I'm trying to take a different approach, but I can't get it into the correct form.
Anyway, Nereid was the first to mention my point:
So far, it seems most posters mean 'belief that scientific theories are accurate statements about reality' (or something like that). If so, then perhaps extending gravenworld's first post may be useful ... as I understand it, a core principle in science is its uncertainty (not just Heisenberg and QM); another is that the theories - even highly successful ones like GR and QFT - do not, in themselves, say anything about 'reality' or 'truth'.
____
Okay, I've edited this post several times and reread your posts several times. I think we were both arguing the same point. :rofl: Sorry, I find that hilarious at the moment.
Just to clarify,
P: What happened today will happen tomorrow.
Q: The sun rose today.
R: The sun will rise tomorrow.
(P \wedge Q) \Rightarrow R is how I would have put the previous propositions together. Anyway, yes, I agree you have to assume P until you can falsify it by observation. Do we agree that an assumption is not faith, science cannot prove anything about a RW, and faith in a RW is not faith in science? If the answer is yes, this was at least an interesting learning experience.
___
Actually, I wouldn't have used "today" and "tomorrow", but something like t_0\ and\ t_1 whose meaning wouldn't depend upon the present time.

TENYEARS

Dec13-04, 10:36 PM

Who says the sun must show itself tomarrow? There may be something sight unseen which could destroy it or us in a moment. It is the arrogance of humanity which believes it understands all things but it does not. Better to be thankful that it rises for now because there may be a day when humanity curses it.

66 percent at the moment. LoL Is there that many people who actually would deny logic to sustain self? Science is not who you are it is what you do. It does not define you you define it. Until you become the thing you observe you will know nothing. What do you really think the trinity is? Father - the conciousness that is, son - all of creation, holy spirit - the power of the movement of the vibration of the universe itself. Until a human can say I am if but for a moment. You will "know" nothing of science. You will have faith and nothing more.

learningphysics

Dec13-04, 11:03 PM

____
Okay, I've edited this post several times and reread your posts several times. I think we were both arguing the same point. :rofl: Sorry, I find that hilarious at the moment.
Just to clarify,
P: What happened today will happen tomorrow.
Q: The sun rose today.
R: The sun will rise tomorrow.
(P \wedge Q) \Rightarrow R is how I would have put the previous propositions together. Anyway, yes, I agree you have to assume P until you can falsify it by observation. Do we agree that an assumption is not faith, science cannot prove anything about a RW, and faith in a RW is not faith in science? If the answer is yes, this was at least an interesting learning experience.
___
Actually, I wouldn't have used "today" and "tomorrow", but something like t_0\ and\ t_1 whose meaning wouldn't depend upon the present time.

I think the post was directed at me? Yes, we seem to have at least partial agreement. :smile: I'd like to present a link to an article about Hume, and the problem of induction:
http://www.princeton.edu/~grosen/puc/phi203/induction.html

I think it better presents the ideas I've tried to talk about.

honestrosewater

Dec14-04, 01:14 AM

There may be something sight unseen which could destroy it or us in a moment.
I agree.
It is the arrogance of humanity which believes it understands all things but it does not.
Well, if I count as a member of humanity, I know that isn't true. If everyone believed they already understood everything, wouldn't everyone ask only rhetorical questions?
Until you become the thing you observe you will know nothing.I don't really like the trinity example, but it is important to address this concept, IMO. Unfortunately, I don't yet know how to address it sensibly.

honestrosewater

Dec14-04, 04:56 AM

learningphysics,
The conclusion seems inescapable: Every inductive argument employs UN as a premise, so no inductive argument can ever justify UN.The author doesn't say what "justify" means (unless I missed it, and I double-checked), so I can't agree with this. But, yes, I agree regarding the circularity of such an argument.
We accept UN, the claim that our experience is a representative sample of the natural world.Unless the author means "we" as the person in the example, this is a delightful bit of irony. (At first, I thought the author meant we as "all people".)
It could be that there are two sorts of snow, the cold kind and the warm kind, but that the warm kind only exists on mars.
This actually also points out related problems with
D: In our extensive experience thus far, snow has always been cold.
1) If we define snow as being cold, a substance which isn't cold isn't snow. 2) The author has failed to mention different kinds of properties (color, texture, taste, plasticity, temperature, etc.) and types of sensory information (photic, chemical, mechanical, and thermal). How do we identify snow, or what we suspect is snow, in the first place? Anyway...
Our acceptance of UN* is not optional. It is, in Hume's phrase, a matter of custom or habit; but it might better be called a matter of instinct. We do not reason our way to the principle: we do not accept it on the basis of arguments. Rather, to accept the principle is a natural feature of all human and indeed all animal life.

*(UN) For the most part, if a regularity R (e.g., All Fs are Gs) holds in my experience, then it holds in nature generally, or at least in the next instance.
Yay, I get to enjoy the irony after all! The author is explaining the problem of induction and argues (partially through Hume) "In our extensive experience thus far, all humans & co. have always accepted X. Therefore, all humans & co. accept X. Furthermore, I can experience the basis on which all humans & co. accept X."
But wherever it comes from, it is so deeply engrained in us that we have no real choice about whether to accept it. We can temporarily suspend our intellectual assent to the proposition. But nature will soon reassert itself in us and force these doubts from our mind.Same as above.
He [Hume] has shown that from a strictly intellectual point of view, there is no real difference between common sense and science on the one hand, and religious belief on the other. In all three cases we find a system of belief based on a fundamental conviction that cannot be justified by argument. The most dramatic way to put the point is to say that Hume has shown that common sense and science are matters of faith.BTW I actually like Hume and James. Apparently the author equates acceptance with belief. BTW This means all animal life is capable of belief (faith, conviction), by the author's prior statements.
I would define acceptance, as it is used throughout this article, thus: A accepts B if
1) A behaves as if B were true or
2) A assumes B is true or
3) A believes B is true.
1 is there for several reasons, but basically because I can observe behavior. If you don't understand why 2 is there, I'll try to explain it, but I think previous posts already have.

I'm not sure why "for the most part" is included (to what does it refer?) in the author's statement of UN? It's no small matter either- it's the difference between some and all!

I have more to say on this topic, but I'll wait until we are clear on these points to proceed.

Moses

Dec14-04, 05:18 AM

Tom McCurdy, you ,me and TENYEARS were having a discussion about that there, and once you asked a question to me which i was almost was going to reply, before the thread is "Locked" ...[i do not kow why, but anyhow] and i can plot the asnwer for your question here:

Well, for me blind faith is no-way a faith to me. Yes, i do have a religion, and my faith in that religion is based on proof that i examined it by my mind. The logical way i use is the same as the scientific method, such both originated from the same "mind mechanism in thinking" [not sure if my usage of words is correct here, i was supposed to be native speaker!]

The way i used is: I make sure from the human who claimed to be sent from God that he is trustworthy first, since i will not waste my time listening to a lier about such an issue. Then i saw what he is saying and claims to be from the Universe-Master, while doing this i might accpeted it as "nice" thingy, but i will not accpet it as as True religion from God unless is show me a "miracle" or God-signature, to prove to me that this religion is actually is from God. On this i duild my faith in my religion.

About why other people beleive in religion and not following this way, i can say as some people wrongly follow wrong ways in searching/learning/believing or having faith in science, will that effect the correct method or discredit the true correct science, no simply.

Hope the post was not long to read.

Locrian

Dec14-04, 11:26 AM

Who says the sun must show itself tomarrow? There may be something sight unseen which could destroy it or us in a moment.

Really? Then why are you typing posts on a computer in a room? Why not get out and really live life? Why have a job, a family or responsibilities?

Arguments such as the one quotes are ultimately selfish and hypocritical. If anything might happen, then why aren't you preparing for anything?

Some people think knowledge is so insubstantial - until it comes to their bank accounts. Some people think science is so fallable - until they need a bigger hard drive. Some people love to critique things they don't understand - until they need them.

Not only does the above post contain a rather disgusting philosophy, but it contains blatant straw men. Humanity believes it understands all things? I dunno which humanity he's talking about, but no one I've ever met thinks they understand all things. I'm more disturbed by tenyears need to tell me what I think than I am about any supposed fallacy of science he proposes.

The original post in this thread cites a post made by tenyears that was unoriginal, made little sense and was nearly uninteligible until a moderator cleaned it up. The question this thread hangs around isn't particularly deep, either. I'm not saying it isn't worth asking, I'm saying the answer is short and simple. It is almost entirely wrapped around how you define faith - and as I expected, little work is actually spent defining it. While there are some interesting social issues concerning how much scientists take particular axioms for granted, these haven't even really been discussed.

I cannot help but to shake my head and think "Only in the philosophy forums..."

honestrosewater

Dec14-04, 12:10 PM

Really? Then why are you typing posts on a computer in a room? Why not get out and really live life? Why have a job, a family or responsibilities?
I agree with TENYEARS on this. Saying that something is possible isn't the same as saying it's probable. It's possible to flip a coin 1000 times and get all heads, isn't it? Does that mean it's probable?
How did you get the authority to say what is or is not "really" living life or what things people must value?

It is almost entirely wrapped around how you define faith - and as I expected, little work is actually spent defining it.
If defining faith is short, simple, and will go most of the way towards answering a question which you claim is not not worth asking, why did you not define faith?
I don't see how you can claim that little work has been spent defining faith. Did you actually read all the posts?
I cannot help but to shake my head and think "Only in the philosophy forums..."How is your post not selfish and hypocritical?

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 12:23 PM

Arguments such as the one quotes are ultimately selfish and hypocritical. If anything might happen, then why aren't you preparing for anything? That's not the way I would characterize it: for me, its simply a matter of probability. The odds of an unseen object hitting and destroying the sun tonight while I sleep are so remote as to not be worth considering.

Though I guess the hypocritical could come in when TENYEARS puts more stock into such an unlikely event than in something that is more likely (like his monitor working when he switches it on). To continue to deny the success of science while using it goes beyond even hypocritical - its laughable.

learningphysics

Dec14-04, 12:46 PM

learningphysics,
The author doesn't say what "justify" means (unless I missed it, and I double-checked), so I can't agree with this. But, yes, I agree regarding the circularity of such an argument.
Unless the author means "we" as the person in the example, this is a delightful bit of irony. (At first, I thought the author meant we as "all people".)

Yes, I agree the use of "we" and extending the argument beyond the first person to all people is ironic.

BTW I actually like Hume and James. Apparently the author equates acceptance with belief. BTW This means all animal life is capable of belief (faith, conviction), by the author's prior statements.
I would define acceptance, as it is used throughout this article, thus: A accepts B if
1) A behaves as if B were true or
2) A assumes B is true or
3) A believes B is true.
1 is there for several reasons, but basically because I can observe behavior. If you don't understand why 2 is there, I'll try to explain it, but I think previous posts already have.

The definition above is fine with me.

I'm not sure why "for the most part" is included (to what does it refer?) in the author's statement of UN? It's no small matter either- it's the difference between some and all!

The "for the most part" is included because although we generalize, we still accept exceptions... (ok by "we" I mean "I" lol... and I make the guess that others have the same experience as me)...

For example when I drop an object... I believe it will fall to the ground. But I still believe that exception is possible... for example someone may come along and catch it before it falls...

Or I believe that when I drive my car onto the highway, there'll be other cars there... although there have been a few situations when I haven't seen any other cars...

And so on...

By regularities the author is not referring to "fundamental laws of the universe" but the regularities we perceive day to day...

learningphysics

Dec14-04, 12:52 PM

That's not the way I would characterize it: for me, its simply a matter of probability. The odds of an unseen object hitting and destroying the sun tonight while I sleep are so remote as to not be worth considering.

Though I guess the hypocritical could come in when TENYEARS puts more stock into such an unlikely event than in something that is more likely (like his monitor working when he switches it on). To continue to deny the success of science while using it goes beyond even hypocritical - its laughable.

There is a difference between accepting induction, and pointing out the irrationality of it...

The use of probability here is still use of induction...

In the past, the probability of the sun being destroyed was remote... therefore the probability of the sun being destroyed in the future is remote...

There continues to be the assumption that the universe will be the same tomorrow, that it was today...

I accept this assumption... I'll live by it every day... But I have to intellectually point out that there is no logical justification of it!

Locrian

Dec14-04, 01:39 PM

That's not the way I would characterize it: for me, its simply a matter of probability.

Yes, that is exactly the point. Those who suggest that science is flawed because of its assumption of causal relationships are making a fundamental mistake, because science never argues that this assumption is anything but, and whats more those same people make the assumption every day.

It is all built around a cheesy straw man argument that says that society thinks it knows everything, science thinks it has all knowledge etc, etc.

Locrian

Dec14-04, 01:42 PM

How is your post not selfish and hypocritical?

Aprarently you aren't sure what the definition of those words are. We need less of that in this thread.

Can you show me where I presented an argument for a philosophy that I felt was superior but clearly did not follow? Tenyears is not just pointing out that something is possible, he is using that as an argument for why something else is flawed, and to do this he requires that this argument of possibility is not just true, but meaningful.

honestrosewater

Dec14-04, 04:15 PM

Locrian,
You made claims which didn't make sense to me so I asked for clarification. I didn't mean to offend you. Can you answer any of the questions I asked?
Aprarently you aren't sure what the definition of those words are. We need less of that in this thread.
Fine, will you help me/us to understand?
Can you show me where I presented an argument for a philosophy that I felt was superior but clearly did not follow?
Is that your definition of hypocrisy?

TENYEARS

Dec14-04, 04:41 PM

Locrain, my arugment stands why do you comment on a purpose and a post you obviously do not understand? I know the answer already so a response is not required only to make you think or not which would be more of the same. Science is not flawed as long as it follows it's own rules. In that case it is the best you can do. It does not have to be right but for the most part conforms to what is witnessed. It still does not mean that it is not based on faith because it is. Dictionary definition please. It is the same with religion for those have not had direct experience. It is faith.

Moses

Dec14-04, 05:14 PM

Tom Mattson

Dec14-04, 05:23 PM

I vote "maybe a little".

The one similarity I see between the two neither has propositions that can be known to be true with certainty, but they both have propositions that can be known to be false with certainty.

Beyond that the similarity ends. Scientific propositions are held to be true tentatively, and it is actually expected that they will be found false. And the standard for justification of hypotheses is repeatable demonstration under controlled circumstances. Religious propositions, on the other hand, are held to be true permanently. The most significant difference is that religious propositons serve as their own justification in the eyes of the religious. So the truth or falsity of all other propositions is judged in light of dogma.

Les Sleeth

Dec14-04, 05:32 PM

There is a difference between accepting induction, and pointing out the irrationality of it...

The use of probability here is still use of induction...

In the past, the probability of the sun being destroyed was remote... therefore the probability of the sun being destroyed in the future is remote...

There continues to be the assumption that the universe will be the same tomorrow, that it was today...

I accept this assumption... I'll live by it every day... But I have to intellectually point out that there is no logical justification of it!

I might point out that you logically jusified it quite nicely. You will never have any better information by which to judge than the history of things. Maybe you meant there is no proof, which is true. Such is life :cry: . . . we can never know anything for sure except how it has been in the past and how it is right now.

Moses

Dec14-04, 05:53 PM

Dudes, there is some people who accpet one way of proof, and reject others ways becuase it is not "fitting thier mode". I admit it, i cannot make any body "see" who the dog sounds like, or he can "touch" how the apple taste like.

Still, the faith should be build on a proof, blind faith to me is nothing, some people have a disputive way that they do not doubt to reach a result, but they doubt for the sake of doubting and they find this cool. If you show them a proof using the mind, with other tools, they would say: We will not believe until we see and touch what claimed, and IF and IF you make them see and touch that thing, they would say: Actually we are now in an illusion enviroment, sorry you proof is invalid.

This is bad, baaaad! :grumpy:

TENYEARS

Dec14-04, 07:05 PM

As for the sun not being there tomarrow do I believe it will be yes. Do I "know" at this point no. Am I comfortable with that belief yes. It does not deny that a black hole could come sight unseen or a massive amount of matter being added to the sun via reltive object(s) or there is something else which can happen which I discovered when I figured out what gravity and matter is.

Direct experience is the day I witnessed God, it is also my visions and some other experiences which I have not relayed on this forum. It includes my realization of gravity and that which occured for two days afterward. If you were to take just one vision I had and plot the points of potentiallity vs it's probability you would be quite stunned. One aspect of one vision alone has occured only once in 12 years of interaction. Other aspects of the same vision would raise the probability of such events to come true that your jaw would it the floor. While one is experiencing these things and afterward one is in total awe. You can't believe what is happening is happening and yet it is and you knew it would. Even the other experiences one in particular, it is "yea!! I did it I finally did it!".

I will directly challange any credible college to prove that which I know is invalid. I will also if they provide one piece of simple equipment proof that I am not talking out of my hat. Just proving that precogniction alone is a reality in itself proves a host of other things. Infact it proves it all. Do you know why? Can any of you deduce why if precognition is a reality that a host of other things are also true?

Tom Mattson

Dec14-04, 07:36 PM

Let's stick to the topic. Visions and personal theories of gravity aren't it.

russ_watters

Dec14-04, 11:25 PM

FZ+

Dec15-04, 08:35 AM

Maybe a little.

Ideally no. Ideally, science should be always accompanied by the provisor that everything we think we 'know' is probably wrong. Ideally, any sort of 'faith' in science should be really an unfaith, a sort of temporary ceasefire where we say that ok, this is the best we have, right now.

Realistically, once something like relativity ends up being proven so many times, we end up taking its truth for granted. To build up another level of detail, we begin to ignore the bottom layers, and we do need a sort of faith that our background is fully solid. And on a basic scale, we do exhibit a faith - which all philosophies exhibit - that we are in fact justified in thinking that science tells us something reasonable about the universe.

TENYEARS

Dec15-04, 01:54 PM

Relgion let us say metaphyical truth which is a God which is not separate from ourselves, one that does not think outside of ourselves and yet is concious. The concept of heavean and hell soul spirit, angels and other aspects of religous reality are seen by those who have gone before us and built a foundation of realization. That is what humanity does with so many things. Even with simple decisions. A personal saying of my own which has never been said before is "Decisions are what we make when we don't know what we need to do." It is not only interms of decisions but understanding. If you understand what decision is to make? The course is followed by nature of the path you fought hard to understand. To commit without actual knowlege/experience is faith/belief/trust. These are not bad things and yet sometime they are are they not?

loseyourname

Dec15-04, 06:27 PM

P: What happened today will happen tomorrow.
Q: The sun rose today.
R: The sun will rise tomorrow.
(P \wedge Q) \Rightarrow R is how I would have put the previous propositions together.

I'm being a bit of a stickler for logic here, but stricly speaking, that hypothetical conditional is not deductively true due simply to the truth of its antecedent and its consequent. If you state it in argument form, you get simply P AND R, therefore Q. Stated as such, the truth value of Q is independent of the truth values of P and R. It requires a different formulation of the propositions to produce a valid argument form. So let's start over.

What happened today will happen tomorrow.
The sun rose today.
Therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow.

First we'll restate this as:

For any x, If x happened today, Then x will happen tomorrow.
s happened today.
Therefore, s will happen tomorrow.

Where x is the general propositional variable and s is "the sun rose." We will use H to mean "happened today" and T to mean "will happen tomorrow." We can now translate to:

For any x, If Hx, Then Tx.
Hs.
Therefore, Hs.

Using symbolic connectives, the argument form is:

1. (x)(Hx \Rightarrow Tx)
2. Hs
\therefore Ts

We can then prove the validity of this argument by the following two steps:

3. Hs \Rightarrow Ts From line 1 by Universal Instantiation
4. Ts From lines 3 and 2 by Modus Ponens

This is the only way to capture the inner logical structure of the propositions, by virtue of which the conclusion "The sun will rise tomorrow" becomes deductively valid.

3mpathy

Dec15-04, 07:54 PM

you guys kept arguing about something and tried to prove yourself with logic. it went something like: i can prove that the sun orbits the earth becuz of math and science and equations. but could you have a infinite regression on proofs? where do you draw the line on what requires a proof, to say that this is a absolute truth and not just some flaw from what we humans see.to say that there are no unknown wierd things that humans (don't know about)/( haven't experienced) is kinda of hypocritical. saying logic proves 1 thing but not another possibility. im not saying that there is anything out there that could destroy the sun or stop the earth from revolving around it, but that there could be. where do you get the FAITH to say that you are right and nothin will destroy the sun tommorrow? from probablity? prob is based on human perception and if this "thing", whatever it is, is unknown to humans how do you then say that is isnt probable? i agree with TenYears on this one, and also HonestRoseWater on the fact that ambiguity is , while mabye not my biggest or only enemy, it sure is a big one.

honestrosewater

Dec16-04, 12:58 AM

loseyourname,
Okay, thanks. For any x, If Hx, Then Tx.
Hs.
Therefore, Hs.is a typo, right?

3mpathy,
Yes, ambiguity is exactly why we haven't settled the question yet. Defining faith doesn't settle the question if the definition is ambiguous. We seem to have settled on "belief without justification" as the definition of faith, but still haven't clarified what belief and justification mean.
The talk about assumptions, provisions, tentative belief, etc. has gone towards clarifying what belief means, the talk about observation, verification, logic, etc. towards clarifying what justification means.
As others have pointed out, we're also taking the question to mean more than face value. Presumably, faith is faith regardless of the object. Most of the posts have assumed the question to be about justification.
Did anyone read all of http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/knowledge-analysis/? Our question is exactly what it discusses- belief and justification.

chound

Dec16-04, 03:56 AM

You know hinduism is mostly a mixture of science and religion. It used religion to propogate science. For eg. You r supposed to worship trees and animals. This prevented people from killing them. It says that neem leaves will bring godess to ur house. Neem is very good for health. It has virucidal effect. So many wonders are there in hinduism. Its basically science for the lay man. You cant tell everyone about the chemical composition of various products, the reactions with the body and so on. So instead indians used faith in god to promote this. Dont you think they were brilliant?

JPD

Dec16-04, 06:39 AM

russ_watters

Dec16-04, 07:53 AM

KaneOris

Dec16-04, 08:41 AM

SOMEWHAT:

If knowledge is only belief because you dont know anything you believe it then like you believe in religion you believe in science, except the two are on different levels, science has an extreme amount of backing to it, thats why i believe yes it follows the same concept as having faith in religion but they are two different things.

owl3951

Dec22-04, 06:16 PM

I believe that we make the same mistake in this discussion for which we condemn those who believe with blind faith. We are accepting a particular slant on what "faith in religion" means from a source we view with scepticism. Further, we do not account for our own, perhaps unresearched, biases. You may normally expect a leaning towards the material or pragmatic view of the universe from a science forum. Maybe a little of the Heisenberg Principle takes effect in such discussions.
There must be a reason that, until recently, the major civilizations of the world were denoted by their religious affiliation. Western civilization was Christian. The Mideast was Islamic (which, by the way, is NOT older than Christianity). We had Buddhist and Hindu civilizations. And so on.
I think the difficulty stems from two unrecognized concepts: 1) There is a vast difference in a Faith at its inception and for several centuries following, then there is at its maturity. 2) Faiths are generally founded by a Central Figure who directs humanity on two levels: the spiritual and the earthly.
I can find no fundamental difference in the spiritual teachings of the major Faiths of the world. The differences that can be traced to the Founders of these Faiths have to do with earthly direction. For instance, Moses permitted divorce, Christ did not, Muhammed did. And I think what keeps these Faiths divided well after they no longer inspire and uplift is the fact that clergy need to maintain a separateness to maintain power and control.
Clearly the social laws and teachings of any of these Founders are meant to last but for a time, and to be replaced as needed by the succeeding Founders of the next Faiths. Further, I do not see these Founders being in conflict one with another. The Christ never said He was the only way to heaven, altho at His time He was, perhaps, the clearest and most direct route. Moses said of the Christ, "He will be like me." "He will be the same as myself." "He will be the same as I am." One of the first things the Christ did was to honor Moses. Christ spoke of others to come.
So what clearly happens is that a Faith has its seasons: spring (birth), summer (growth), harvest (attains the goals its Founder desired) and winter (continues on after it is doing more harm than good). Winter is caused by clergy needing the Faith to survive, and by some need in humanity--not endorsed by any Founder--to make themselves special, chosen, set apart and above the rest of humanity.
My perspective is that the Founders have all instructed the same type of investigation into truth we now call the scientific method. They were unafraid of serious and intense search into Themselves, Their lives and Their teachings. The concept of not investigating, of having to "believe what you know ain't so" (Mark Twain) comes from the winter time of a religion, when clergy, powerless to create good, unable to inspire the human heart to strive for spiritual worth, unable to explain or perfect the realities of a world that has progressed beyond its knowledge, attempts to stamp out investigation.
Mohammed appeared in the 7th century A.D. Christianity has been in its winter ever since. Similar to Judaism when the Christ appeared in what we now call the Holy Land (home of four major religions). Was Moses bad because His followers, wishing to maintain authority and position, rejected Christ? Do you see anywhere where Moses Himself instructed people to believe INSTEAD of learning? No.
So the concepts of religion that seem to cause revulsion in today's scientist are actually the same concepts that cause revulsion in the Founders of Faiths. One of the main differences, of course, is that it is this blind dogmatism that gets these Founders persecuted, tortured, reviled, exiled, and martyred. They hate what you hate. Without realizing, you, as a proponent of rational thought, and believing based upon conscious knowledge, are propagating one of the major tenets of the Founders of Religion. What you cast behind you is not Religion, but churches, superstitious sects, mindless ritual, worthless rites, power-hungry clergy. It is no more the fault of the Founders of these Faiths that Religion deteriorates into this black hole of the spirit than the atom bomb was the fault of Relativity. Humanity can corrupt anything.
There is still at least one religion that believes you cannot know without investigation of truth. It also believes one of the greatest tools of humanity is science, and that science must be fostered at every opportunity. Perhaps there are more religions such as this.
A word on miracles. Miracles have nothing to do with Religion. They are not, and were never intended to be, a proof of anything. You do not see any Founders of Faiths telling anyone, "See? I can do this, so you must believe me." Universally, the Founders of Faiths made little of their miracles, encouraged their followers to tell no one, and never spoke of them Themselves.
My guess is that most everything that has to do with true Religion has nothing to do with the churches you have grown to distrust and reject.
Just like Religion needs to change with the times, science, too, must update itself as knowledge grows. Failure to do so is the same as a religion turning into a church. This does happen in science. Scientists form their own sort of clergy, and control power, funding, publication and the like. There is no human endeavor we will not chisel down from its ideal form. So Science in the ideal is similar to Religion in the ideal, and science deteriorated is as religion corrupted.
Thus, there is no other answer to the poll than "very much."

loseyourname

Dec22-04, 08:38 PM

loseyourname,
Okay, thanks. is a typo, right?

Yeah, that's a typo. It should read "Therefore, Ts." Sorry about that.

Sabine

Dec28-04, 12:38 AM

i chose not @ all for the following reason, faith in science needs poofs , evidence, logic.
but faith in religion is beleiving without seeing, and this is make us different, this is what "JESUS" wanted in the first place,he could proove that he existed but i won't make any sense we'll all beleive in him and then what? what will happen?

honestrosewater

Dec28-04, 03:16 AM

The thing is that a standard of justification applies to all beliefs, whether their objects are "scientific" or "religious". For example, if direct observation is a justification for belief, and someone has directly observed X, they are justified in believing X, whether X is the risen sun or the risen Son.
And since a standard of justification applies to all beliefs, if we want to show a difference between scientific and religious belief, we must compare their standards of justification. In science, the standards of justification are expounded in the scientific method. Is there a "religious method" that serves the same function in religion as the scientific method serves in science?

BTW, simply defining "religious belief" as "not scientific belief" doesn't show an actual difference between them, it just assumes one by definition and won't lead us anywhere but in circles.

phoenixthoth

Dec30-04, 12:31 AM

While I agree that there is a certain amount of faith in Science it is of a much different sort of faith then religious faith. For Science I must have some faith that my existence and the existence of the universe has some validity. I must have faith that the universe will continue to work tomorrow as it did yesterday. So far my believing or not believed that a object will fall to the ground with constant acceleration has had no effect. It appears that the fundamental laws of the universe work whether we believed in them or not. So for science I must have faith that repeatable physical observations have meaning.

Religious faith on the other hand is faith in unverifiable and unobservable assumptions. Religion is all about the unobservable, Physics is about the observable. Trouble arise when concepts which traditionally have been considered unobservable and explainable only with religious faith become observable and explainable through science.

Euclid's axioms are observable or not? Can you ever observe a line, circle, point, etc? If a line is not observable (and it isn't), are you saying faith in religion is the same as faith in mathematics? I don't think you're saying that but I thought I'd like to give you a good belly laugh.

So if I interpret you correctly, the two faiths are different. One is a faith in falsifiable claims and the other is a faith in non-falsifiable claims?

Why do you think that religion involves unverifiable and unobservable assumptions? And why do you call them assumptions rather than conclusions? I mean, can you back this statement up that they're assumptions and they're unverifiable? Can you prove they're unverifiable? I hope so otherwise some mentor might come along to delete your post; oh, wait, that's only done when a mentor disagrees with what is written but can't come up with a counterargument. j/k

Now if you assume that there is an unobservable pink elephant living on Alpha Centauri (or Santa Claus), key part of the assumption being that it's unobservable, then you can't use science to prove this PE exists.

It seems to me you are assuming that only what is observable is verifiable. Well, have you ever seen an electron? I bet the answer is no but you have seen things that imply an electron exists, right? Is an electron observable? I question what you mean by observable.

However, to suggest that in religion the claims are about the unobservable is a gross misunderstanding of it IMO. Consider so called religious experiences or as I would prefer to call them spiritual experiences. If one were to witness God, what would one expect it to be like?

I have a friend who claims to have "seen God", ie, observed God. She had a powerful experience, like a NDE, that changed her life. Now was it God she observed or was that just , well, something else? How do you know?

You might as well ask me to prove that when I'm talking to my friend Marc, that I am actually talking to Marc. How can I prove the voice on the phone belongs to Marc or is even human? Likewise, how can I prove I observe God? I can't. Maybe you can.

So I have faith that what I and others have observed is God and I have faith that when I talk to Marc I am talking to Marc. But I do not believe that the claims made by religion are unobservable. At least not all of them.

And since the claims made by religion are observable, at least some of them, your rationale would then equate the two kinds of faith.

honestrosewater

Dec30-04, 06:31 AM

Well, Integral can respond for themselves ( :rofl: is Integral a him or her?) I just have a few quick questions.
How are others supposed to verify your statement, or how can they reproduce your experience for themselves? Presumably, science can give detailed instructions on how to detect an electron- you follow the instructions, and you can detect an electron for yourself. Same goes for math and logic; If you follow the instructions, you can prove 1+1=2 for yourself. Same goes for at least some religions; If you follow the instructions, you can experience some religious object for yourself. So what if someone has followed the instructions, but they don't detect or prove or experience? How do science, logic, and religion handle that situation?

Edit: I'm just getting all the "instructions," to line up. I am SO cool. :cool:

misogynisticfeminist

Dec30-04, 06:39 AM

I would like to make a statement which I am not too sure about and might be wrong but if it is somewhat valid, at least it would start some sorta discussion.

In the case of energy conservation, it is a fundamental principle in physics, but are we taking it on faith? As in, there are certain phenomena which obey conservation laws, but what about those which don't (not really energy time uncertainty thing because energy is conserved throughout) and we don't know what they really are?

So, are we taking COE by faith?

Hurkyl

Dec30-04, 07:06 AM

So what if someone has followed the instructions, but they don't detect or prove or experience? How do science, logic, and religion handle that situation?

And, before you respond to this, consider how your answer applies to other formally similar situations. For example, experincing winning the lotto.

phoenixthoth

Dec30-04, 10:20 AM

The observation of said things (eg the experience of winning the lottery and God) is at first glance rare even when the intstructions are followed.

Here's what my friend did before she had that particular religious experience which was a NDE. She said, "'god', if you don't show yourself to me, I'm going to kill myself," and she, being quite depressed, actually may have meant it. Then the religious experience followed.

I have never tried that nor will I nor do I suggest you do so.

But if you do and you don't have a religious experience, then what? I would say that, for some reason I do not know, the religious experience is rare to start with not unlike winning the lottery.

However, enough people have "won the lottery" so that I don't think Integral is correct when he says the claims are unobservable. I will grant that observing God is rare, it seems, but it is also rare to observe an electron for what percent of the population has observed one?

Les Sleeth

Dec30-04, 11:13 AM

How are others supposed to verify your statement, or how can they reproduce your experience for themselves? Presumably, science can give detailed instructions on how to detect an electron- you follow the instructions, and you can detect an electron for yourself. Same goes for math and logic; If you follow the instructions, you can prove 1+1=2 for yourself. Same goes for at least some religions; If you follow the instructions, you can experience some religious object for yourself. So what if someone has followed the instructions, but they don't detect or prove or experience? How do science, logic, and religion handle that situation?

I think there are a couple of issues: the ability to recognize correct instructions and one's predilections.

If one is instructed improperly, then one might dedicatedly practice incorrect instructions forever and get nowhere. I've seen, for example, people practice racquetball for many hours. When they complain they aren't improving yet practicing so much, the better players will say "yes, but you aren't practicing correctly, and so you are actually reinforcing all your bad habits." Often they will stubbornly continue their own way anyway and continue to improve at bad habits.

Something along these lines that seems relevant was a link here (http://www.lingsoft.fi/~reriksso/competence.html) Tom posted in another thread about the bliss of incompetence. The opening paragraphs claim:

There are many incompetent people in the world. But a Cornell University study has shown that most incompetent people do not know that they are incompetent.

People who do things badly, according to David A. Dunning, a professor of psychology at Cornell, are usually supremely confident of their abilities -- more confident, in fact, than people who do things well.

One reason that the ignorant also tend to be the blissfully self-assured, the researchers believe, is that the skills required for competence often are the same skills necessary to recognize competence.

Since they don't recognize they are incompetent, they also don't know they are unqualified to teach others. And then, if not many people really know what the correct instructions are, they don't know how to chose an instructor. So just because there are lots of instructors, or because one has an instructor, doesn't mean someone is following the correct instructions.

The other issue, that of one's predilections, is also important. I personally do not "enjoy" math beyond what I need to use in my everyday life. I did well in it in school, but I couldn't wait to get to classes which to me were more concrete (say, history). We tend to enjoy what we naturally excel at, which means we will return to it and apply ourselves. So even if someone receives perfect instructions it doesn't mean they are going to apply themselves in such a way that it produces results. One can't fault the instructions in such a case.

In terms of faith in science and religion, I don't believe there is any difference in the faith principles. I have faith in science because it seems to "work" every time it is properly applied to the proper circumstances. To me, that is the basis of faith (in a practice) . . . if something works.

Religion, that is a tough one because for lots of people it works on a personal level. Some anthropologists, for instance, might say it "works" because it helps people have morals, be calmer, do good works, etc. But that's not all religion claims it is supposed to do for people. How does it "work" for getting people to God (or whatever term one prefers . . . for me it's "something more")? Personally, religion has never worked for me in the slightest that way. But the meditation I practice has. So I don't have faith in religion because it hasn't worked, and I do have faith in a specific type of meditation (when practiced correctly).