How much of science is faith based?

[Loren Booda]

Is the moon there when you cannot sense it? Does the great majority of nonscientists trust science? Has knowledge in general become so arcane as to divorce it from practicality?

In their lives, most of mankind has selected a few convenient facts to explain their world view and accept the crumbs that filter down from academia. I believe that human nature impels also the scientist, no matter how learned, to rely mostly on personal belief for plastering together observations.

Which governs our lives and institutions, secular faith or science?

 

[Crosson]

W.V.O. Quine summed it up quite well by saying "beliefs about numbers and beliefs about the gods differ in degree, but not in kind".

But you asked:

Which governs our lives and institutions, secular faith or science?

And the correct answer is science, if "science" is to have any meaning at all.

I believe that human nature impels also the scientist, no matter how learned, to rely mostly on personal belief for plastering together observations.

Do not over generalize the stereotypical dogmatic scientist. Incidentally, scientist do not "plaster together observations" the way laypeople think. For example Einstein's relativity was motivated by theoretical concerns about classical electromagnetism, not by the experimental data that already disagreed with the idea of the ether.

Has knowledge in general become so arcane as to divorce it from practicality?

Past practical inventions were invented often by trial and error e.g. Edison was mathematically illiterate. But in the 20th century quantum physics was an essential part of the discovery, construction, and continued production of critical household technologies (laser, transistor, modern materials), so the exact opposite of your question is true: applications have become so arcane that for the first time they are married to (similarly arcane) knowledge.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Is the moon there when you cannot sense it?

Yes?...

Does the great majority of nonscientists trust science?

No?...

Has knowledge in general become so arcane as to divorce it from practicality?

I'm not sure what you mean by this question.

In their lives, most of mankind has selected a few convenient facts to explain their world view and accept the crumbs that filter down from academia. I believe that human nature impels also the scientist, no matter how learned, to rely mostly on personal belief for plastering together observations.

Do you have any evidence for this? And science is based on evidence by the way. Evidence does not equal faith.

Which governs our lives and institutions, secular faith or science?

Science governs our lives. Seriously, what impels you to write this? Faith?

 

[JoeDawg]

Is the moon there when you cannot sense it?

If you are asking an epistemological question, about the nature of the abstract object 'moon', then its a good question.

If you are asking an ontological question, about the moons existence, then you are ignoring your ability to reason in favor of unjustified radical skepticism.

Does the great majority of nonscientists trust science?

If they didn't they wouldn't get into cars or airplanes or turn on lights in their home.
That said, the majority of non-scientists don't understand the scientific method and fear some of what science can accomplish. This fear is based on how effective people observe science to be. What we don't understand we fear.

Has knowledge in general become so arcane as to divorce it from practicality?

No, we just have more of it than one human mind can handle. Which is why we specialize and keep it in books and such. The internet is very practical.

Which governs our lives and institutions, secular faith or science?

You are trying to equate 'faith' with belief in the efficacy of scientific method. Faith is belief without evidence, or worse, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. Science works on evidence, repeatable evidence. Scientists take this evidence and build on it with their reasoning abilities, with logic, with their ability to extrapolate and understand the abstract, but it always comes back to evidence.

If it requires faith, it is NOT science.

 

[Crosson]

Yes?...

Do you have any evidence for this? And science is based on evidence by the way. Evidence does not equal faith.

You say "science is based on evidence" but how do we decide hat counts as evidence? Should we give evidence of our evidence and so on? Christians feel that the bible is evidence, but I am guessing that you don't think it is. They can say that your evidence is all fancy tricks, just as you can say about theirs.

At some point you will run out of evidence, and then all that's left is persuasion.

 

[JoeDawg]

You say "science is based on evidence" but how do we decide hat counts as evidence?

Is it repeatable?
Is it verifiable?
Is it consistent?
Is there a logical progression?

Evidence of this sort is useful, because it can be used to make predictions.

Claims about Osiris rising from the dead or Zeus birthing Athena from his forehead are NOT:

repeatable;
verifiable;
consistent with what we can observe;
and violate any kind of known logical progression.

The bible is not evidence, its a claim and a pretty fantastic one, which gets harder and harder the swallow the more we learn about the way things actually work.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You say "science is based on evidence" but how do we decide that counts as evidence?

Evident (adj): plain or clear to the sight or understanding.

Even things that are at the atomic levels can be seen and understood with microscopes. What limits us with our own sight can be made up with some powerful tools such as microscopes, telescopes etc. Is the idea of a deity plain and clear to our sights and understanding?

Should we give evidence of our evidence and so on?

New evidence builds on top of old evidence to help modify or subvert laws and theories. That's how science works. We don't ignore any piece of evidence.

Christians feel that the bible is evidence, but I am guessing that you don't think it is.

It's just a book without evidence.

They can say that your evidence is all fancy tricks, just as you can say about theirs.

Fancy tricks? If conducting experiments and recording our observations is 'tricks' then what religion attempts to do is above and beyond the meaning of 'tricks.'

At some point you will run out of evidence, and then all that's left is persuasion.

I'm sorry, but run out of evidence you say? I didn't realize there's an attrition rate with piling up evidence. You can't be serious about giving the bible equal merit.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Is it repeatable?
Is it verifiable?
Is it consistent?
Is there a logical progression?

Evidence of this sort is useful, because it can be used to make predictions.

Claims about Osiris rising from the dead or Zeus birthing Athena from his forehead are NOT:

repeatable;
verifiable;
consistent with what we can observe;
and violate any kind of known logical progression.

The bible is not evidence, its a claim and a pretty fantastic one, which gets harder and harder the swallow the more we learn about the way things actually work.

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ScienceVFaith.jpg/ScienceVFaith-full.jpg"

Just hand out these to people who think that science and religion can coincide.

 

[JoeDawg]

http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/ScienceVFaith.jpg/ScienceVFaith-full.jpg"

Just hand out these to people who think that science and religion can coincide.

Ha! That's Awesome.

 

[Loren Booda]

Great replies all. You have restored my "faith in science."

LightbulbSun

"I'm not sure what you mean by this question."

Much of popular teaching is displayed, if at all, as headline grabbers and far removed from the university class of the "privileged few." This thread is not so much about religion, but more of how nonscience helps us reason and survive.

"Do you have any evidence for this? And science is based on evidence by the way. Evidence does not equal faith."

The evidence will show best in history, when education becomes more democratic (e. g., the Internet) and there will be tolerance between science and the notion of secular faith. What I am trying to say is that scientists require objectivity, but need rely on subjective belief pretty much like the rest of us.

"Science governs our lives. Seriously, what impels you to write this? Faith?"

Faith and science. Certainty that theory replaces theory, and that belief sometimes supersedes it.

JoeDawg

"If it requires faith, it is NOT science."

Can I then say that science would exist without faith?

 

[Loren Booda]

Crosson,

Thanks for your inspiration in the manner of an accomplished philosopher.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Great replies all. You have restored my "faith in science."

LightbulbSun

"I'm not sure what you mean by this question."

Much of popular teaching is displayed, if at all, as headline grabbers and far removed from the university class of the "privileged few." This thread is not so much about religion, but more of how nonscience helps us reason and survive.

If you're talking about how the media simplifies every new finding in science to the simplest fraction and then forms misconceptions around it then I agree. It's actually quite dangerous in my book because once people find out those misconceptions are really wrong then people solidify there cynicism towards science.

As far as nonscience helping us reason and survive, I disagree. A nonscience mentality doesn't require you to think or question anything. Your existence is pretty much on autopilot. As far as the survival aspect is concerned it does give people solace, but it also gives them a false sense of entitlement.

"Do you have any evidence for this? And science is based on evidence by the way. Evidence does not equal faith."

The evidence will show best in history, when education becomes more democratic (e. g., the Internet) and there will be tolerance between science and the notion of secular faith. What I am trying to say is that scientists require objectivity, but need rely on subjective belief pretty much like the rest of us.

What subjective beliefs? Only a quack scientist would allow such subjective beliefs to filter into an experiment. There is a term for it called pseudoscience.

"Science governs our lives. Seriously, what impels you to write this? Faith?"

Faith and science. Certainty that theory replaces theory, and that belief sometimes supersedes it.

Beliefs don't tell us anything about our world or the universe. So why should it be looked upon as a source for information?

JoeDawg

"If it requires faith, it is NOT science."

Can I then say that science would exist without faith?

Of course it can survive without faith. Just like peace can exist without violence. Just because we haven't tried to live that way yet doesn't make these concepts impossible to conceive. A passive-aggressive mentality is the only thing that's hindering us now.

 

[Moridin]

You do not need faith in science, since you have verifiable evidence from repeatable experiments. What is and is not evidence is based on what works and how effective the models are in prediction and explaining phenomena. One of the beautiful things with science is that has a self-correction mechanism.

Faith and science. Certainty that theory replaces theory, and that belief sometimes supersedes it.

Accept that they don't really do that once you have explored the situation. Even today, we use Newtonian Mechanics because of its explanatory value and prediction power even though we know it is an approximation. The fact that it is an approximation does not hurt our case or the power of science.

 

[JoeDawg]

"If it requires faith, it is NOT science."
Can I then say that science would exist without faith?

I'm not sure what you are saying here.

Human beings believe all sorts of things they have no good reason to. That is a fact. Sometimes we benefit from this, sometimes not so much... We have discovered however, that scientific method is very useful and gives superior results to human intuition alone, or even human reason alone.

Emotions can be useful, intuition can be useful, but they can also be destructive and even readily manipulated.

Faith is superstition. Its a conceptual feedback loop. Its about not thinking, its about ignorance. Sometimes all we have is our gut to go on, but that's desperation, its not something to strive for.

Would scientific method exist without beings that can be superstitious? I don't know, but either way, so what?

 

[Crosson]

Evident (adj): plain or clear to the sight or understanding.

Exactly, so what is plain and clear to a religious person is not plain and clear to you.

Is the idea of a deity plain and clear to our sights and understanding?

Interesting choice of example, since Descartes said that he knew God exists precisely because his idea of God is clear and distinct. Who am I to argue with someone who says God's existence is plain and clear to his understanding? How would I even begin to give evidence to the contrary?

Inside of religious discussions their are different criteria for evidence then in scientific discussions. The fact that I feel intellectually quite distant from such people justifies my attempts to persuade them, but I should recognize this for what it is.

"If it requires faith, it is NOT science."

Can I then say that science would exist without faith?

No, it wouldn't exist. A pupil without faith in his teacher could not learn even one principle.

 

[JoeDawg]

Interesting choice of example, since Descartes said that he knew God exists precisely because his idea of God is clear and distinct.

It was also clear and distinct that in Descartes time they would tie you to a tree and set you on fire if you didn't say the idea of god was clear and distinct.

 

[Moridin]

Exactly, so what is plain and clear to a religious person is not plain and clear to you.

The validity of evidence is decided by how it works, not subjective interpretation.

No, it wouldn't exist. A pupil without faith in his teacher could not learn even one principle.

Do not mix faith as in blind acceptance without evidence with faith as in evidence-based conviction. Just because the definitions use the same words do not make them the same. The pupil can certainly learn plenty without faith in the first definition. Naturally, you have to have a conviction in your teacher, but that conviction can be supported by evidence (such as reasonable arguments, internal coherence and so on).

 

[Sorry!]

Ha! That's Awesome.

i actually did lol :D

 

[turbo]

There is an element of faith in science, if you define faith as belief in something that you have been told is true and you have not taken the time to examine the underpinnings of that idea to see how the idea developed and how it fit well enough with currently-accepted ideas to gain wide acceptance. Examining the underpinnings of commonly-believed concepts is epistemology, and Einstein was quite adamant about practicing it.

Epistemology might prompt us to look at the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and the excess gravitational binding and lensing in clusters - effects not predicted by GR - and reflect. First of all, the nature of the universe and its sheer size were unknown when Einstein formulated GR. GR grew out his understanding of gravitation at that time when the universe might reasonably have been thought to be limited to our galaxy, and the other visible galaxies were routinely called "nebulae". If Einstein had been privy to today's observations, would he have invoked Dark Matter to explain the missing mass required to keep GR predictive, or might he have started working on a more general formulation of gravity that is predictive on large scales dominated by matter? GR and even Newtonian gravitation are pretty predictive on Solar-system scales, but even so, the Pioneer anomaly, and anomalous un-modeled accelerations of spacecraft in planetary fly-by assists (in both accelerating and decelerating slingshots) hint that we don't yet know everything we need to know about gravitation on Solar-system scales.

When Roger Penrose lectures on unifying GR with quantum physics, he always says that in his opinion both GR and quantum theory will have to be modified before they can be made compatible with one another. When he gave this lecture at the grand opening gala of the Perimeter Institute, he was preaching to the choir. First link.

http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/

 

[russ_watters]

How much of science is faith based?

Is the moon there when you cannot sense it?

These questions are not related to each other and show that the real question to be addressed in this thread is "what is science?" The question of whether or not the moon is there when I'm not looking at it has nothing whatsoever to do with faith*, it is a conclusion based on a prediction. I don't believe the moon is there, I predict, based on Newton's theory of gravity, that it hasn't shot off into space, and I'm 99.999999% certain that my prediction is correct.

So then perhaps the answer to the title question is: far less than you appear to think.

As turbo suggests, the primary element of belief in science isn't really belief, it is trust in other people when they give you information. The word "believe" has separate/distinct meanings that should not be confused with each other. But the "trust" definition is still based on evidence.

There is virtually nothing in science that needs to be left to faith.

*I've been in this discussion before and the word "believe" tends to be used loosely. It can have a number of different connotations. It appears from the context of the OP that what is really meant is faith, which necessitates a lack of evidence for the belief.

 

[JoeDawg]

There is an element of faith in science, if you define faith as belief in something that you have been told is true and you have not taken the time to examine the underpinnings of that idea to see how the idea developed and how it fit well enough with currently-accepted ideas to gain wide acceptance.

If you were to take a random sample of the internet science chatter and 'believe' it, then yes, that would be faith, and pretty dumb. However, even in this forum, believing what others have said is based on an understanding of the rules in place... the knowledge that this is a moderated group and the experience of gaining information that you can then compare to other sources. Thats not faith. The peer review process is something that can be experienced and relied upon because it works, even here.

This is not about faith in science, it might be about faith in the person who has told you this truth, but even then it doesn't have to be, assuming one doesn't take everything one is told at face value. Comparing results is after all at the heart of science.

 

[turbo]

This is not about faith in science, it might be about faith in the person who has told you this truth, but even then it doesn't have to be, assuming one doesn't take everything one is told at face value. Comparing results is after all at the heart of science.

Absence of epistemology is evidence of faith in the accuracy of the ideas that you subscribe to. I do not equate this to irrational beliefs (as in religion or superstition), but to a lack of critical evaluation of the foundations of those ideas. As a wise man once said/sang "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer."

How does it happen that a properly endowed natural scientist comes to concern himself with epistemology? Is there not some more valuable work to be done in his specialty? That's what I hear many of my colleagues ask, and I sense it from many more. But I cannot share this sentiment. When I think about the ablest students whom I have encountered in my teaching — that is, those who distinguish themselves by their independence of judgment and not just their quick-wittedness — I can affirm that they had a vigorous interest in epistemology. They happily began discussions about the goals and methods of science, and they showed unequivocally, through tenacious defense of their views, that the subject seemed important to them.
Concepts that have proven useful in ordering things easily achieve such authority over us that we forget their earthly origins and accept them as unalterable givens. Thus they might come to be stamped as "necessities of thought," "a priori givens," etc. The path of scientific progress is often made impassable for a long time by such errors. Therefore it is by no means an idle game if we become practiced in analysing long-held commonplace concepts and showing the circumstances on which their justification and usefulness depend, and how they have grown up, individually, out of the givens of experience. Thus their excessive authority will be broken. They will be removed if they cannot be properly legitimated, corrected if their correlation with given things be far too superfluous, or replaced if a new system can be established that we prefer for whatever reason.

 

[Loren Booda]

Do concepts like "beauty" or "elegance" lack legitimacy in science as "faith" is claimed to?

 

[JoeDawg]

Absence of epistemology is evidence of faith in the accuracy of the ideas that you subscribe to. I do not equate this to irrational beliefs (as in religion or superstition), but to a lack of critical evaluation of the foundations of those ideas. As a wise man once said/sang "When you believe in things that you don't understand, then you suffer."

Name something then that you understand fully.

 

[russ_watters]

Do concepts like "beauty" or "elegance" lack legitimacy in science as "faith" is claimed to?

Yes, those concepts are not scientific.

And I object to your tone. There is no "claim" here besides the backhanded ones you are making - science is a well-defined concept. It does not, by definition, included "beauty".

 

[russ_watters]

The evidence will show best in history, when education becomes more democratic (e. g., the Internet) and there will be tolerance between science and the notion of secular faith. What I am trying to say is that scientists require objectivity, but need rely on subjective belief pretty much like the rest of us.

That quite simply isn't what science is or how it works.

 

[russ_watters]

You say "science is based on evidence" but how do we decide hat counts as evidence? Should we give evidence of our evidence and so on? Christians feel that the bible is evidence, but I am guessing that you don't think it is. They can say that your evidence is all fancy tricks, just as you can say about theirs.

At some point you will run out of evidence, and then all that's left is persuasion.

The Bible is, of course, evidence, and no one with a scientific mind would think otherwise. But you must understand that a scientist would judge the Bible by the same criteria with which they judge other evidence. A religious person would not.

Exactly, so what is plain and clear to a religious person is not plain and clear to you.

Yes, I think we would all agree that religious people do not think logically when it comes to their beliefs. They simply believe what they are told to believe or like to believe.

The Bible is evidence that there is a God. Eyewitnesses in it report his existence. But for a host of reasons, it cannot be considered good evidence. That's why it requires faith. And no thinking religious person (yes, I know some consider that an oxymoron) would assert that their beliefs require no faith.

No, it wouldn't exist. A pupil without faith in his teacher could not learn even one principle.

That's rediculous and irrelevant. The best beginning science teachers are those who teach by example. They don't need to be trusted - the examples speak for themselves.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Exactly, so what is plain and clear to a religious person is not plain and clear to you.

How is the idea of a God plain and clear to anyone? There's no good evidence to suggest one.

Interesting choice of example, since Descartes said that he knew God exists precisely because his idea of God is clear and distinct. Who am I to argue with someone who says God's existence is plain and clear to his understanding? How would I even begin to give evidence to the contrary?

Do you seriously not know the answer to those questions?

Inside of religious discussions their are different criteria for evidence then in scientific discussions. The fact that I feel intellectually quite distant from such people justifies my attempts to persuade them, but I should recognize this for what it is.

Religion has an illegitimate criteria. Nobody who truly seeks the truth will use that criteria to find authentic answers.

No, it wouldn't exist. A pupil without faith in his teacher could not learn even one principle.

You're incorrectly using the term "faith" here. Russ has already pointed this out.

 

[Hurkyl]

The Bible is evidence that there is a God. Eyewitnesses in it report his existence. But for a host of reasons, it cannot be considered good evidence.

You mean it cannot be considered good scientific (or logical) evidence. It is, of course, one of the best kinds of evidence for a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

 

[LightbulbSun]

You mean it cannot be considered good scientific (or logical) evidence. It is, of course, one of the best kinds of evidence for a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

So by your logic if in my head I think buildings talk then that becomes evidence.

 

[GleefulNihilism]

So by your logic if in my head I think buildings talk then that becomes evidence.

Yep, just very poor evidence. Very, Very Poor Evidence.

 

[Loren Booda]

If science has no basis in faith, can faith yet coexist with science? For instance, the prohibitions of eating pork or seafood were based on good science reflected in (religious) creed.

 

[LightbulbSun]

If science has no basis in faith, can faith yet coexist with science? For instance, the prohibitions of eating pork or seafood were based on good science reflected in (religious) creed.

No. Faith cannot coincide with science in any shape, way or form. Period.

 

[Crosson]

No. Faith cannot coincide with science in any shape, way or form. Period.

Then addess my example, how can a pupil learn even one principle if he does not have faith in his teacher?

You should think about what the word "faith" means. What I think you mean instead to say is "superstition".

 

[Hurkyl]

So by your logic if in my head I think buildings talk then that becomes evidence.

Huh? I can't figure out how you arrived at this conclusion.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Then addess my example, how can a pupil learn even one principle if he does not have faith in his teacher?

You should think about what the word "faith" means. What I think you mean instead to say is "superstition".

No. You incorrectly used the term "faith." Russ already pointed this out so go read his posts.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Huh? I can't figure out how you arrived at this conclusion.

Originally Posted by russ_watters
The Bible is evidence that there is a God. Eyewitnesses in it report his existence. But for a host of reasons, it cannot be considered good evidence.

Originally Posted by you
You mean it cannot be considered good scientific (or logical) evidence. It is, of course, one of the best kinds of evidence for a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

You seem to be categorizing evidence and giving each type a baseless equivocation. Hence I went by your logic system and considered me thinking that buildings could talk as a piece of evidence. Maybe not good scientific or logical evidence, but indeed evidence by your standards.

If I misinterpreted your meaning then please tell me more by what you meant.

 

[Hurkyl]

If I misinterpreted your meaning then please tell me more by what you meant.

A rationalist accepts using logical deduction as a means of acquiring knowledge.
A Christian accepts studying scriptures as a means of acquiring knowledge.
An empiricist accepts using experience as a means of acquiring knowledge.

 

[russ_watters]

A rationalist accepts using logical deduction as a means of acquiring knowledge.
A Christian accepts studying scriptures as a means of acquiring knowledge.
An empiricist accepts using experience as a means of acquiring knowledge.

The first and third are methods, the second is an object. The point I was making is that hyper-religious people do not have an objective method for acquiring knowledge. They have arbitrarily decided to accept only that one piece of evidence. So...

You mean it cannot be considered good scientific (or logical) evidence. It is, of course, one of the best kinds of evidence for a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

No. What I mean is it can't be considered good evidence by any objective criteria/method. A hyper-religious person considers it good evidence by fiat, not by comparing its quality with other evidence. That's the flaw - that's what enables a hyper-religious person to simply ignore things like evidence for evolution. They don't have a method for acquiring knowledge which enables them to analyze it.

 

[Hurkyl]

The first and third are methods, the second is an object.

Is it? Hrm, so if I go to the supermarket, I might have a chance to purchase a "studying scriptures"?

The point I was making is that hyper-religious people do not have an objective method for acquiring knowledge.

Huh? How is it not objective? You might not agree with it, but how can you argue that the method itself is not objective?

They have arbitrarily decided to accept only that one piece of evidence.

How is it any more arbitrary than, say, accepting empiricism as a means of acquiring knowledge? I would be extremely impressed if you could justify empiricism in a non-circular fashion. Heck, I'll even give you a handicap -- you may assume without justification that deductive logic is a good means of acquiring knowledge.

A hyper-religious person considers it good evidence by fiat, not by comparing its quality with other evidence.

How did you decide on the "quality of evidence"?


Oh, and why have you suddenly started talking about "hyper-religious" people (whatever that means), and not just religious people?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Is it? Hrm, so if I go to the supermarket, I might have a chance to purchase a "studying scriptures"?

A scripture is an object. You can't be seriously arguing against that?

Huh? How is it not objective? You might not agree with it, but how can you argue that the method itself is not objective?

Cause objective people don't ignore or at the very least omit contradicting evidence. Remember the flowchart?

How is it any more arbitrary than, say, accepting empiricism as a means of acquiring knowledge? I would be extremely impressed if you could justify empiricism in a non-circular fashion. Heck, I'll even give you a handicap -- you may assume without justification that deductive logic is a good means of acquiring knowledge.

Cause empiricism requires evidence as a means of confirmation. Religion's confirmation is "if you believe it, then it must be true." Are you honestly not seeing the fallacy in this? If not, then please explain to all of us how religion is objective and not arbitrary.

How did you decide on the "quality of evidence"?

Theories and laws are interconnected in someway with one another. Strong connections= good quality.

 

[Sorry!]

Cause empiricism requires evidence as a means of confirmation. Religion's confirmation is "if you believe it, then it must be true." Are you honestly not seeing the fallacy in this? If not, then please explain to all of us how religion is objective and not arbitrary.

i'm just going to throw my 2cents... i don't think this is what he's saying at all i think he is COMPARING the beliefs of a person who follows the scientific method and someone who follows 'scripture'. Ie. a scientist would would consider something that remains true after it can be compared and tested but remaining true. A religious person would consider (i assume since he talks of scripture) the word of God to be 'evidence' and since God said it was true it MUST necessarily be evidence ERGO, true.

I'm not saying it's a good way of thinking or studying or anything i just think your missing the point that the evidence for both methods is different and just because YOU personally don't accept it to be true doesn't mean to someone else it isn't

 

[LightbulbSun]

i'm just going to throw my 2cents... i don't think this is what he's saying at all i think he is COMPARING the beliefs of a person who follows the scientific method and someone who follows 'scripture'. Ie. a scientist would would consider something that remains true after it can be compared and tested but remaining true. A religious person would consider (i assume since he talks of scripture) the word of God to be 'evidence' and since God said it was true it MUST necessarily be evidence ERGO, true.

The Bible was not written by God first of all. It is an indirect interpretation of his words. There is a term used throughout the bible that's arcane now called "saith." Look it up. It means a "third person singular present tense of say." Third person means "A discourse or literary style in which the narrator recounts his or her own experiences or impressions using such forms: an essay written in the third person."

I'm not saying it's a good way of thinking or studying or anything i just think your missing the point that the evidence for both methods is different and just because YOU personally don't accept it to be true doesn't mean to someone else it isn't

Just because someone believes it to be true doesn't make something actually true.

 

[chrisina]

I think one issue which seems to be very naively ignored in this thread is the level of scientific litteracy of human beings.

Of course, science, when practiced by serious people, that adhere to its methods and accept the scrutiny of peer review, does not constitute per say, a faith based system. When it ventures into murky territories where no experimentation can be performed for now such as ultra high energy physics, multiverse theories, pre big bang cosmology and some aspects of abiogenesis, there is of course, an element of faith that is required, simply, faith in the fact that there is a natural explanation. Of course, science needs to assume that there is no supernaturalism in order to proceed, which is an important hypothesis (which has always been verified up till now).

Having said this, the "story" that then gets told to the lay public that explains the different aspects of nature, the observed phenomenas, gets highly distorted (please note for example that it is hard to find an article that does not refer to the big bang as an explosion). Moreover, most people have no way whatsoever to verify and understand fully what this really means. Moreover, we have a system to transfer this knowledge which is extremely inefficient, it works by stuffing people's brains when they are young with a series of facts and theorems, and when they get to a certain age, it's done. Result is that if you test the general scientific litteracy of people at the ages 30 and above (10 years or more after they left school), it is almost null. Moreover, the main scientific language, mathematics, is symply less well understood than Swahili. Just try it around you, ask how many people can say what is 1/3 + 1/2 and you will be surprised with the % that gets it right.

Now, in this context, knowing that most people neither have the capability, nor the will, of finding the answers by themself, the traditional faith based systems such as the main religions still seem, surprisingly in the beginning of the 21st century, to maintain an influence which is far supeior to the level of veracity on which they are based (ie an understanding of the world of people 2000 years ago, and a moral code where the key imperatives have now become mainly irrelevant (Why not eat pork ? Why not work on Sunday ? Why not put condoms ?) and surely need to be replaced with new ones (not overconsuming the resources of nature, having children when one is sure one is capable of educating them, etc...).

My conclusion is that faith based systems work better at telling the story (at least for the vast majority of people), science works best for finding what is the right story to tell, without cooperation, or assuming that everybody has a PhD in Physics, we are going to go down the drain.

And I won't even tell you if I am an Atheist or a Theist, its irrelevant. We should capitalize on the plus points, not make wrong assumptions about who we really are as a species.

 

[Sorry!]

Just because someone believes it to be true doesn't make something actually true.

Excuse me while i go and redo the experiemnts of every scientist who has done an experiment to find 'evidence' that i believe in about our world.

Just a moment.


also why did you bring The Bible into this? There are other scripture which are supposedly DIRECTLY taken from God. The mere fact that it seems absurd to believe in such 'stories' to you doesn't mean that it isn't 'religious evidence' to say that is VERY egocentric.

and just a side note in my post it didn't say ANYTHING about it being written by god.

 

[Sorry!]

and i just noticed that you said 'just because someone believes it to be true DOESN'T make something actually true'

So what makes what YOU say much more valid than what a religious person says? Because YOU don't accept their evidence it must necessarily be wrong and untrue? Well then. sounds like YOU have a faith of your own going on.

 

[turbo]

Excuse me while i go and redo the experiemnts of every scientist who has done an experiment to find 'evidence' that i believe in about our world.

Just a moment.

That is indeed the major obstacle to removing the element of faith from scientific pursuits. There is a huge body of assumptions that underly our sciences. Some have been questioned and tested and experimentally confirmed to the nth degree (quantum theory is remarkably well-verified) while some have not been critically examined for decades.

Example: Is the inverse-square law for gravitational attraction "good enough" or do we have to use GR? Since there seem to be gravitational anomalies observed in the movements of spacecraft (pioneer anomaly, anomalous spacecraft fly-by accelerations) when we use GR, do we need another theoretical model for gravitation? If we get a model that can explain these anomalies, can it be extended to explain the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and the too-strong binding of clusters and the too-strong lensing of clusters to obviate the necessity for DM? To investigate such possibilities, we would have to apply epistemology and critically re-examine General Relativity. I don't see this happening, except possibly with the researchers at the Perimeter Institute.

Another example: Einstein said in his 1920 book on relativity that GR requires that the speed of light in a vacuum be variable, depending on location, and that the fixed speed of light required by SR was an idealized case and not applicable in domains that contained massive bodies. Again, simplification and "incurious" attitudes to these fundamentals has put blinders on science. I would characterize this as a component of "faith" in science - willing acceptance of ideas that are widely accepted.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it? Hrm, so if I go to the supermarket, I might have a chance to purchase a "studying scriptures"?

Cute, but I'm reasonably certian you know what I meant. How one studies scripture is not relevant. What is relevant is the choice to study the scripture and ignore, say, fossils when forming an opinion about the age of the earth. That choice is not based on objective criteria.

Huh? How is it not objective? You might not agree with it, but how can you argue that the method itself is not objective?

The definition I'm using for "objective" is "not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased". I guess I can't see why it isn't self-evident that choosing to ignore all but a single piece of evidence is not objective.

How is it any more arbitrary than, say, accepting empiricism as a means of acquiring knowledge? I would be extremely impressed if you could justify empiricism in a non-circular fashion. Heck, I'll even give you a handicap -- you may assume without justification that deductive logic is a good means of acquiring knowledge.

You're talking about methods again. You missed my point.

How did you decide on the "quality of evidence"?

By setting objective criteria and following them. That's kinda my entire point here. Making a choice based on feelings/prejudices to ignore all but a single piece of evidence is arbitrary and biased. By definition, not objective.

Oh, and why have you suddenly started talking about "hyper-religious" people (whatever that means), and not just religious people?

I want to differentiate. It is too confusing and basically pointless to just say "religious people" because there are lots of different levels and ways of approaching the religion. Some accept science and some don't. For the purpose of this thread, I'm concerned with those who don't.

 

[Sorry!]

yeah that's my point turbo :) the scientific community accepts one set of evidence and the religious community MAY or MAY NOT differ from this evidence. (I'm certain in the Qu'arn has a lot of scientifically proven things)
That doesn't mean science because 'scientist' say so comes up with better evidence as well it doesn't mean religion has better evidence.

It may sound as if I'm biased towards religion but I'm actually atheist. I just hate when people make these claims that THEIR method is better and the other is crap and isn't 'actually' a method just because such-and-such a person said so.
Just because i don't believe in what religious people claim to be true or hold dearest doesn't give me the right to talk smack about them and their beliefs, no matter HOW absurd i think they may be.

 

[Loren Booda]

Is it not faith, a belief in the supremacy of a process, where one is reinforced by the continuing success of the scientific method? Does it not help to have faith in one's colleagues in science? Cannot faith evolve into scientific knowledge, as charts of wandering gods became planetary data?