How much of science is faith based?

[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?

 

[Hurkyl]

Cute, but I'm reasonably certian you know what I meant.

I have a guess. If right, your comment appears to be a non sequitor.

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.

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.

That's because it's not subjective! For the most part, given a piece of evidence, everyone will agree whether or not it is based on scripture. Evaluating that criterion doesn't depend on your own personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

I think you're confusing the criterion itself with the choice to adopt a certain philosophy.

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

I think you're being overly specific. Any choice of philosophy on what class of evidence to accept as leading to knowledge, and what quality to attach to it, is going to differ from person to person. You pick on the religious person who accepts only scriptural evidence -- but the scientist who rejects everything but empirical evidence is just as "guilty". And so is the scientist who accepts empirical evidence and other sorts of evidence...

By definition, not objective. 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.

For the record, before this post, I had assumed you did not mean "religious" in this strict sense.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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.

AH HA! So now you're calling it 'religious evidence.' Before this post everyone was labeling it 'evidence' which I had a problem with. I'm not questioning whether people using the Bible consider it 'religious evidence' or not. It's pretty obvious it would be considered 'religious evidence,' but again 'religious evidence' is far different from ACTUAL evidence.

 

[LightbulbSun]

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

Good. I was quite upset that you didn't understand my previous post.

So what makes what YOU say much more valid than what a religious person says?

Evidence.
Repeatable and verifiable conclusions.

None of which religious claims possess.

Because YOU don't accept their evidence it must necessarily be wrong and untrue?

It's not that I choose not to accept it. It's the fact that it has no basis and no explanatory or prediction power in reality. Religion is there to give people solace and a false sense of entitlement.

Well then. sounds like YOU have a faith of your own going on.

I'd love to see evidence that supports this claim. :-)

 

[russ_watters]

Is it not faith, a belief in the supremacy of a process, where one is reinforced by the continuing success of the scientific method?

I can't understand why you can't see how that sentence is straightforwardly self-contradictory: Yes, the scientific method is a success. Therefore, concluding that it is superior is not a belief/belief.

Does it not help to have faith in one's colleagues in science?

Sure. But that has nothing to do with how the scientific method works.

Cannot faith evolve into scientific knowledge, as charts of wandering gods became planetary data?

Most certainly not. Religion speculates about the natural world. Scientific discovery replaces it. Regardless of why they were taken, records that charted the location of the planets had nothing whatsoever to do with what people believed about them. Position data is just that: data.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

All I ask is that people be consistent and objective in their judgements. Can religious people make that claim?

I don't trust science because people I trust make claims about it, I trust people who make claims about science because they make scientific claims.

 

[russ_watters]

That's because it's not subjective! For the most part, given a piece of evidence, everyone will agree whether or not it is based on scripture. Evaluating that criterion doesn't depend on your own personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice.

Huh? You are saying "I believe X because it says so in the scripture" is an objective criterion? That makes no sense. Especially since the scripture contains contradictions! Feelings, interpretations, and prejudice are the only way a person can overcome the contradictions in the information they are evaluating (or choosing not to evaluate).

Please explain this to me in more detail. Why did the Pope pardon Galileo 20 years ago? What makes a person choose to worship the Bible vs the Book of Mormon vs the Koran? What objective criteria can I use to make such a choice? We're losing sight of this. The scientific method is an objective set of rules for pursuing science. What is the objective set of rules for approaching religion?

I think you're confusing the criterion itself with the choice to adopt a certain philosophy.

No. The choice being made is not to adopt a philosophy, it is to adopt a faith. Philsophy is based on logic. Faith is not.

I think you're being overly specific. Any choice of philosophy on what class of evidence to accept as leading to knowledge, and what quality to attach to it, is going to differ from person to person.

Ding, ding. Now you're talking about evidence and not the method. Again, that's the point! Religious people choose the evidence, scientific (and philosophical) people choose a method and the evidence follows from the method.

Heck, even the choice of method should be an objective one. Consider what happens when you are driving in a car and you get to a fork in the road. You can go left or right. Which do you choose? Quite obviously, you choose whichever direction gets you to where you want to go. That's the choice we face with a strictly scientific or strictly religious worldview. One works and one doesn't. People choose the one that doesn't strictly because it makes them feel good.

And that's even assuming people make the choice. How many people actually choose their religion? Have you ever met a Jewish family that had Catholic kids? A Presbyterian family with Hindu kids? Of course not. The vast majority of people take the religion of their parents. Like I said: by fiat. They don't choose at all, much less use some objective criteria by which to choose.

You pick on the religious person who accepts only scriptural evidence -- but the scientist who rejects everything but empirical evidence is just as "guilty". And so is the scientist who accepts empirical evidence and other sorts of evidence...

That is only true if you can define for me an objective set of rules by which I can evaluate religious evidence to determine its vailidity.

For the record, before this post, I had assumed you did not mean "religious" in this strict sense.

Honestly, Hurkly, I'm confused. You must know that there are religious people who accept science and there are religious people who do not. Just saying "religious" is so general, it can't be useful in a discussion like this.

 

[Hurkyl]

I can't understand why you can't see how that sentence is straightforwardly self-contradictory: Yes, the scientific method is a success. Therefore, concluding that it is superior is not a belief/belief.

Belief in empiricism a prerequisite for that argument...

 

[Hurkyl]

Huh? You are saying "I believe X because it says so in the scripture" is an objective criterion?

No. I am saying that "Does scripture say X?" is an objective criterion, just like "Is X the result of an experiment?" and "Is X the conclusion of a logical argument?"

What makes a person choose to worship the Bible vs the Book of Mormon vs the Koran? What objective criteria can I use to make such a choice?

I don't know. Nor do I know what makes a person choose to accept empiricism, to accept rationalism, or to reject any evidence that is not an empiricial, rationalist, or Buddhist.

Philsophy is based on logic.

No; logic is simply one of the primary tools of philosophers, and is only usable if we presuppose rationalism.

 

[JoeDawg]

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.

Actually the Christian accepts studying CHRISTIAN scriptures as a means of aquiring knowledge.

In other words, you're not supposed to really think and compare, just feed and digest.

 

[Crosson]

AH HA! So now you're calling it 'religious evidence.' Before this post everyone was labeling it 'evidence' which I had a problem with. I'm not questioning whether people using the Bible consider it 'religious evidence' or not. It's pretty obvious it would be considered 'religious evidence,' but again 'religious evidence' is far different from ACTUAL evidence

Imagine in a religious discussion, someone claims that he has evidence that the story of Noah's Ark is a myth. Then the elders scold him because he what he was calling 'evidence' should be called 'scientific evidence' which is of course very different from ACTUAL evidence (in the religious discussion).

As far as the difference between faith and trust in the case of the skeptical pupil who cannot learn even one principle, I see your point. After all, the behavior of the teacher does not suggest lying, and besides the pupil still has to be taught to recognize lying.

But don't I accept on faith that I am writing words in English whose meaning I know? For I don't know what proposition I am more sure of then that one, that I may take as evidence for it.

Another example is my faith in the proposition 'I have 5 fingers on my right hand'. You might think I have evidence for this claim, such as my past memories or the ability to look at my hand with my vision and count the fingers. But couldn't I just as well use the fingers on my hand to check my vision? And suppose my memory disagreed and suggested 4 fingers only on that right hand, or my vision suggested 8 fingers, then I would declare these faculties to be in error! Evidence which contradicts our faith is automatically suspect.