Faith In Religon vs Faith in Science

[selfAdjoint]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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]

____
Okay, I've edited this post several times and reread your posts several times. I think we were both arguing the same point. 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. 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]

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]

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]

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 believe 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]

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 don't know 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 what's 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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

I have a comment on what you have said, but before that: Can you clarify to mean what do you mean exactly by "Direct experience", Thx.

 

[quantumdude]

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]

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 . . . we can never know anything for sure except how it has been in the past and how it is right now.

 

[Moses]

Dudes, there is some people who accpet one way of proof, and reject others ways becuase it is not "fitting their mode". I admit it, i cannot make anybody "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!

 

[TENYEARS]

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 occurred 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 occurred 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. In fact 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?

 

[quantumdude]

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

 

[russ_watters]

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!

Why isn't induction itself a logical justification for it?

 

[FZ+]

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]

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?