- #106
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 8,142
- 1,755
Russell has faith in his defintion.
No. The difference is that science as a principle welcomes the opportunity to be wrong.Brin said:Science itself requires a "leap of faith" - we assume that the universe is constant. Based on what? We use our past experiences as inductive evidence for the future - don't know about you, but that sounds like a "leap of faith."
Brin said:I'd like to bring up the topic of "The Spaghetti Monster," and Santa Clause. I am going to assume you are all somewhat acquainted with these figures, and I want to know why anyone would not believe in these? Why is a god so much more believable over the existence of the Spaghetti Monster? Or Santa Clause? Especially to any single one individual here...
What evidence? Popularity and familiarity does not represent evidence. Bad example with the Standard Model, which has oodles of hard-core experimental evidence to back it up.DaveC426913 said:For the same reason that we follow The Standard Model rather than Mr. Gravity-is-a-Push; there is a preponderance of evidence that points towards The Standard Model, and that is factored in.
As with deities, there is a preponderance of evidence that weighs heavily in favour of God over the FSM.
Ivan Seeking said:You mean that you ran out of objections, and you know that existence can't be explained.
That's right. It's a choice based on faith either way.
Hurkyl said:So, in your silly science versus faith flowchart... which side are we using if we have the idea
The scientific method can be used to help us explain the universeand we continue to keep that idea, despite all of the errors it had previously led us to believe?
No. I'm making the claim I actually implied. :tongue:LightbulbSun said:What errors exactly? Are you creating the strawman claim that science should automatically be omniscient to begin with otherwise it's useless? Religious people use that strawman all the time.
Hurkyl said:No. I'm making the claim I actually implied. :tongue:
When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?
The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.LightbulbSun said:Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.I don't have any unwavering faith. Scientific theories and laws are not meant to be sacrosanct. Look at that flowchart again. Do you see an end on the science side?
Hurkyl said:The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.
The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".
There is your faith.LightbulbSun said:I don't.Hurkyl said:The point is whether or not you even considered that possibility.LightbulbSun said:Now why would science be the flawed idea and not the theory being proposed itself?
Hurkyl said:There is your faith.
Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.LightbulbSun said:That's not faith. That's recognizing the fact that against all other methodologies that it's the best one,
Hurkyl said:Nuh-uh. I'm not letting you squirm out of it that easily.
You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.
DaveC426913 said:I think Hurkyl's point is that, if you don't consider the possibility that science is flawed, then you have no method by which you will examine any other methodologies that come along.
In order to consider alternatives, you must allow that there's a reason to even look at them.
It's a pretty fine point. Seems to me that Hurkyl could say you are hoisted on your own pitard, while you could point out that, with a pitard only three feet tall, it less 'hoisting' you than merely poking you in the belly while you eat your sandwich.
Actually, you and I agree on this point. AFAIC, the word "supernatural" has no meaning. If there is a God, then it would be natural. But at this time we have no way to address or test the claims of a deity.
I am saying that you can choose science as a religion, or not. Do you only believe what your mother tells you when she offers scientific proof [for example], or do you make leaps of faith every day?
One point that I suspect is lost on many here is that people do have reasons for their beliefs. People don't believe just because someone said so. They couple the history of religion with their own experiences and feelings. People go to church and pray because they feel that when they do, they can sense the presence of God. For them, this is evidence.
We do take gravity on faith. Theories can only be falsified; they cannot be proven true.
If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.
I should add that gravity doesn't exist [well, not the classic idea]. There is spacetime curvature...that is if spacetime exists. One day we may have have a more sophisticated description of whatever it is.
What bothers people here is the idea that we are not logically bound as humans to accept only scientific evidence. But, if you think about it, you will certainly conclude that it's not even possible to live this way. We have to make judgements about what we choose to believe every day.
Russell has faith in his defintion.
When science runs into problems (e.g. incompatability of GR and QFT), do you even consider the possibility that science itself is the flawed idea? Or do you retain an unwavering faith in science itself, and insist that a new scientific theory will be discovered that doesn't have the known problems?
[...]
I never said you treated any particular scientific theory or law was sacrosanct. I'm saying you treat science itself as sacrosanct.
The left hand flow chart indeed has no end -- which means there is no provision for the possibility that science itself is flawed. When contradictory evidence appears, you blissfully go back to your "Get an idea" box on the left hand flow chart -- that is the means by which you "keep idea forever".
You said that you don't even consider the possibility that science is flawed. That's not the same thing as simply going along with science because you think it's better than the alternatives.
Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.
DaveC426913 said:Question: do you examine other methodologies to see if they are better? A simple yes or no will suffice.
Moridin said:The term supernatural certainly has meaning; it is simply something above nature, or for our intent, above scientific inquiry.
We certainly have ways to address and test some claims of the features of certain deities, such as special creation, age of Earth and so on.
I think this is a somewhat fussy statement. An operational definition of religion could be "a social systems whose participants avow belief in a supernatural agent or agents whose approval is to be sought. (Dennett 2006), even though this is not set in stone. Science would not qualify as a religion.
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Be so that it may, not all possible deities can be true; some 4 billion people on Earth would therefore have a delusion no matter how you put it.
No, you take gravity on evidence. Tons and tons of mutually supporting evidence that you experience every day. You be convicted of the reality of gravity, but you certainly do not accept it without evidence.
No one is claiming that science can prove something beyond truth, but it is all about the evidence. The evidence makes a certain position reasonable and others less reasonable. Just because you cannot prove something to be true does not make it any less approximately correct in its explanatory and prediction power.
Be so that it may, if it can be shown that religion is a natural construction, any attempts at inference or justification via religion becomes less convincing.
Indeed, GTR makes more accurate predictions than NM, but according to instrumentalism, all that matters is its explanatory and prediction power. That is why we still make use of Newtonian Mechanics today. To my knowledge, the first shuttle that landed on the moon made use of NM, exclusively.
Not quite - your brain makes constant updates on your life and future based on the available evidence - even if you do not consciously think of it.
Faith as in conviction; not faith as in blind acceptance without evidence. This is a crucial semantic difference.
Ivan Seeking said:Something else struck me today that was funny [well, at least to me]. It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that this is absolutely true. So in this sense it is a logical choice and not one based only on faith.
Do you mean magic? Sorry, I don't believe in magic, and you certainly can't produce any evidence that it exists. It is also a leap of faith to conclude that if a deity exists, it can't be described by science. In fact we have already attempted to do so with Type IV civilizations. It is said that a type IV being would meet our expectations for a deity.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability. Do we have good reason to have faith? Of course.
Perhaps the problem is the perception and not the essence of that allegedly perceived.
I have faith that I will survive the day, that my house will be here tonight, that my wife won't leave me, that my father is telling the truth, that the world won't end... We make dozens or even hundreds of little leaps of faith a day... all the way down to having faith in other drivers on the road and that the traffic signals are working properly.
It can be argued that people choose religion because they find it to be a model that produces good results. One of the promises made by churches is that faith will improve your life. Millions of people will tell you that based on their own experience, this is absolutely true. So in this sense belief is a logical choice and not one based only on a leap of faith.
Moridin said:"The fact that a religious man is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that that a drunken man is happier than a sober one" Kipling, I think.
Would being an alcoholic be a logical choice because alcoholics think their drinking improves their life? I am sure that millions of people believe this as well?
Ivan Seeking said:If God exists, his existence does not depend on faith.
Ivan Seeking said:Not at all. The people depend on faith. According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.
Explain existence without using faith.
The belief had to exist for the God to have pre-existed. The believers had to exist for the belief to exist. Ergo, the believers are a neccesary condition for the pre-existence of the deity.Ivan Seeking said:According to most beliefs, God was around before there was anyone to have faith.
And you take a deity on faith based on what?Ivan Seeking said:There is no guarantee that gravity will work tomorrow as it did today. We take it on faith based on the history of repeatability.
Gokul43201 said:And you take a deity on faith based on what?
4000 years worth of untestable claims?
This despite the fact that the overwhelming majority of these claims also come with baggage that is scientifically refutable by a high-schooler.
Does it not worry you that over these 4000 years, more and more magical things that have been attributed to the divine hand of a deity have subsequently been shown to have natural explanations?
Does it not worry you that more people today than the entire total that existed over most of the last 4000 years, will tell you they are certain that man was made before insects...and they are as certain of this as they are of the existence of the deity?
Ivan Seeking said:First of all, I didn't say what I do or don't accept. Next, no one is claiming that anecdotal evidence is more compelling than scientific evidence. Are you disputing the specific point about gravity?
You are confusing doctrine with faith. Threre has been no attempt to support or dispute specific religious beliefs. In fact I think that a review of religious beliefs would demonstrate that the basis for faith usually has very little to do with specific beliefs.
If you are saying that all claims of miracles or divine intervention are false, then you are making a simple leap of faith. And I hardly see how historical claims could have been tested or attributed to natural explanations. If you are talking about people who see apparitions in a slice of toast or in a shadow on a wall, then I wouldn't worry because I doubt that toast has ever created a convert.
I have always been interested in exploring the intersection of science and religion, and as a scientist, I have encountered many debates and discussions about the existence of a higher power. Through my own personal journey, I found that my beliefs shifted from theism to atheism, and I wanted to share my story and insights with others who may be going through a similar journey.
I hope that readers will gain a greater understanding of the complexities of belief and the importance of critical thinking when it comes to matters of faith. I also hope to encourage open-mindedness and respectful dialogue between those with different beliefs.
One of the biggest challenges I faced was finding a balance between my personal experiences and scientific evidence. I wanted to share my story, but I also wanted to present factual information and research to support my arguments. It was a delicate balance, but I believe it was important to maintain both aspects in order to provide a well-rounded perspective.
As a scientist, I am trained to question and seek evidence to support my beliefs. This mindset naturally led me to critically examine my own beliefs and the evidence for the existence of a higher power. I also found that my understanding of scientific principles and the natural world made it easier for me to accept a naturalistic worldview.
I do not intend for my book to be controversial or offensive, but I understand that the topic of belief and religion can be sensitive for some individuals. My goal is not to attack or discredit any particular belief system, but rather to share my personal journey and insights in a respectful and thought-provoking manner. I hope that readers of all beliefs can find value in my book and engage in productive discussions about the intersection of science and religion.