Present Science seems like Faith ...

[Eric Vaxxine]

Science at the present requires us to believe in the existence of up to 96% of the universe as invisible and as yet undiscovered but necessary to prove existing models.

Doesn't this percentage almost then qualify present science as a Faith or Religion, of which the proofs are 100% invisible? (according to science)

...

It reminds me of the Celestine Prophecy nuggett, that science has overtaken Religion.

I think I am more of a believer in science than any religion. I am closer to being a believer in a modern form of Paganism, I have great admiration and belief in Nature and the science that explains the sun, it's movement, the earth and how it changes.

Human sacrifice by the ancients to appease Gods and affect their weather is as outdated to me as believing blindly the old books.

Rightly or Wrongly.

[worzel]

If you have faith that jumping off a tall building will result in you going splat on the pavement below then you have all the faith that science requires.

If you have trouble believing that your own arms and legs are real then science may not be the "religion" for you.

[beskeptical]

If you have faith that jumping off a tall building will result in you going splat on the pavement below then you have all the faith that science requires.

If you have trouble believing that your own arms and legs are real then science may not be the "religion" for you.

This is soo good. I love it. If you don't mind I think I'll share it with some friends.

[worzel]

This is soo good. I love it. If you don't mind I think I'll share it with some friends.

No problem, I'm sure I'm paraphrasing someone else anyway.

[jhwegener]

One question about some parts of contemporary "science"(which is not some solid rock, but rather like a tree with very diverse branches) is about some of the "cornerstones" - scientists image their therories as solid founded in experiments and observation (very few would object, I guess). But then in some branches there is a lot of talking about unobserved - and probably unobservable (even in principle) - "entities" (Phenomena they can hardly be).
"Dark Matter" (not reacting with other), "Dark energy", "Alternative Multiverses", "Strings". And there may be a lot more examples.
It is hard to see we can be so sure about what all these "things" are - If they are anything more than imagination. Evidence just do not seem so "rock-solid" as in other cases.

[GOURDHEAD]

There can be neither science nor religion without faith, and just because we believe "it", does not guarantee its truth nor can we ever be sure that our most strongly held axiom is valid. The quantization of hallucination does not preclude infatuation pre- nor post-falsification.

[Spherical]

There can be neither science nor religion without faith, and just because we believe "it", does not guarantee its truth nor can we ever be sure that our most strongly held axiom is valid. The quantization of hallucination does not preclude infatuation pre- nor post-falsification.

Huh? You want to provide us with a line of reasoning for this remarkable statement?

[worzel]

There can be neither science nor religion without faith, and just because we believe "it", does not guarantee its truth nor can we ever be sure that our most strongly held axiom is valid. The quantization of hallucination does not preclude infatuation pre- nor post-falsification.

Tis true, it is only faith on my part that tells me that the pixels lighting up on my monitor actually represent someone else's thoughts on the matter and that you're not just a figment of my science faith warped imagination.

[Ken G]

There can be neither science nor religion without faith, and just because we believe "it", does not guarantee its truth nor can we ever be sure that our most strongly held axiom is valid.

The problem with statements like this is that in their purest form they are too obviously true to be of any value, and if you try to apply them to anything useful they quickly break down. The reality is, science and religion must both be judged entirely on their value to humanity. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. Unfortunately, even that is a highly debatable issue, and if one is objective about it, one must seek objective measures, but then one is doing science and that might not be an agreed on approach. The only role of faith is if one needs faith in order to obtain the value of the pursuit. That is certainly much more true in religion than in science-- an experiment may have the same result no matter what you believe will happen, yet many would agree that religion without faith is rather empty. The question hinges on a very precise definition of what one means by faith-- for example, if experience has taught us a lesson, like hot stoves will burn our fingers, is it faith to believe in that lesson? Surely religious types would not be terribly impressed by that type of faith, and scientists would also be hesitant to use the term in that context.

[Spherical]

The problem with statements like this is that in their purest form they are too obviously true to be of any value, and if you try to apply them to anything useful they quickly break down.

I can't see anything remotely true about such statements.

[Ken G]

The statement, like many, can be made tautologically true by using the appropriate definitions of the terms, but then it has nothing important to say. For example, if I define faith to include a belief that inductive logic is of any value for scientific conclusions, then of course science is impossible without faith, in practice. Let's be realistic, all scientists believe that if an experiment supports a given theory, the theory is more likely to apply to other experiments as well. This is the principle of inductive logic, and it is an essential component of science. Yet inductive logic may be equated with faith in the widest sense of the term. But that's not the type of faith that is used in religion, and it is too encompassing a definition to be useful in this thread. So what I'm saying is, can GOURDHEAD suggest a definition of "faith" that makes the above statement both useful and correct at the same time?

[Spherical]

The statement, like many, can be made tautologically true by using the appropriate definitions of the terms, but then it has nothing important to say. For example, if I define faith to include a belief that inductive logic is of any value for scientific conclusions, then of course science is impossible without faith, in practice. Let's be realistic, all scientists believe that if an experiment supports a given theory, the theory is more likely to apply to other experiments as well. This is the principle of inductive logic, and it is an essential component of science. Yet inductive logic may be equated with faith in the widest sense of the term. But that's not the type of faith that is used in religion, and it is too encompassing a definition to be useful in this thread. So what I'm saying is, can GOURDHEAD suggest a definition of "faith" that makes the above statement both useful and correct at the same time?

Okay, we have fallen afoul over epistemology. This comes as no surprise as there is little agreement on the subject. However, faith is the belief in things unseen and therefore not subject to reason. Faith and science cannot therefore, mix. One destroys the other.

If you have a faith, you should NOT try to mix science with it, for then it will not be faith. On the other, the scientist cannot accept anything on the basis of faith.

[Ken G]

However, faith is the belief in things unseen and therefore not subject to reason.

This is the opposite approach, of defining faith so narrowly that GOURDHEAD's statement is categorically false. The presumptions are that unseen things are not subject to reason, and that things that are seen are not subject to faith. The very definition eliminates debate on both those topics. So you see, the definition of faith is the crucial issue, and I do not think that GOURDHEAD is taking your meaning. The real issue is, what is the definition of faith that will allow for the most meaningful dialog between science and religion? Presupposing an interest in such a dialog, which does not seem to be in place in this thread.

[Eric12407]

Hello ...

I guess I'm still alive on this thread ... I certainly don't want to break any rules and hope this comment is within the guidelines.

Here is a description of faith that we may be able to work with ..

Faith - Conscious knowledge in action

My original post postulated that scientific models of our reality science requires the belief in invisible forces that influence that material reality. These invisible forces we have proved through the use of our mind and logic.

I think we need to open up our concept of reality to include the incredible tool that allows us to make these observations .... and that is the mind.

Perhaps the existence of the mind itself is a proof of a metaphysical existence. The power of the mind is also invisible and influences our reality.We will never be able to dissect a brain and find the mind. The mind has shaped and created all the fruits of our civilization and has discovered the invisible secrets of nature. This is what i mean by the transcendance of the mind over nature. All other things in nature are subject to the strict laws of physics and instinct. Only the power of our minds can contemplate, investigate and reveal the hidden secrets of our reality. You really have to ask yourself ... where does this capacity come from. No other being that we know of can do this .. so how can it have arisen from nature.

Animals live in complete harmony with nature and are the perfect creation for material existence. All their needs are met by their environment. We on the other hand ... because of our consciousness ... ask the bigger questions .... What"s it all about .. Alfie?

The evolution into consciousness would be a regressive form of natural selection .. unless there is some meaning out there ... other than only the material. If it's all just material we'd be better off as animals ...

It's the mystery and source of the invisible that draws us .. the same source ... but it has its material and metaphysical components. When both work together then we have a true picture of reality ...

But both science and the concept of faith have to progress before this is understood ...

Perhaps science is starting to get close to that metaphysical reality but doesn't know it yet ...

[Spherical]

This is the opposite approach, of defining faith so narrowly that GOURDHEAD's statement is categorically false. The presumptions are that unseen things are not subject to reason, and that things that are seen are not subject to faith. The very definition eliminates debate on both those topics. So you see, the definition of faith is the crucial issue, and I do not think that GOURDHEAD is taking your meaning. The real issue is, what is the definition of faith that will allow for the most meaningful dialog between science and religion? Presupposing an interest in such a dialog, which does not seem to be in place in this thread.

I am giving you the scriptural definition of faith. "Belief in things unseen and unknowable." There is no room for such a dialogue if one is to maintain one's faith. There certainly cannot be room for anything like this in the realm of science.

[Spherical]

Hello ...

I guess I'm still alive on this thread ... I certainly don't want to break any rules and hope this comment is within the guidelines.

Here is a description of faith that we may be able to work with ..

Faith - Conscious knowledge in action

Why should this be considered faith?

w can it have arisen from nature.

Again, there is absolutely no proof of mind existing separate from a body. The mind is not, therefore in any way immune to the laws of nature. Wishing will not make it so and as I pointed out once before, every time I have ever thrown myself at the ground I hit the target.

Animals live in complete harmony with nature and are the perfect creation for material existence. All their needs are met by their environment. We on the other hand ... because of our consciousness ... ask the bigger questions .... What"s it all about .. Alfie?

Have you ever been outside of a city for any length of time?

The evolution into consciousness would be a regressive form of natural selection .. unless there is some meaning out there ... other than only the material. If it's all just material we'd be better off as animals ...

You never have been outside of a city for any length of time, have you?

It's the mystery and source of the invisible that draws us .. the same source ... but it has its material and metaphysical components. When both work together then we have a true picture of reality ...

But both science and the concept of faith have to progress before this is understood ...

Perhaps science is starting to get close to that metaphysical reality but doesn't know it yet ...

So far as I am able to tell at this point, you mean completely different things when you use the word "science" or the word "faith". You do so without adequate explanation or even illuminating us as to what your underlying philosophy is.

How did you arrive at these notions? Do you know?

[Ken G]

I am giving you the scriptural definition of faith. "Belief in things unseen and unknowable." There is no room for such a dialogue if one is to maintain one's faith.

But all this definition does is replace the need to define "faith" with the need to define "belief" and "unknowable". But in any event, the issue is not what is your definition of faith, it is what is the definition being used by GOURDHEAD in that controversial statement. Since we haven't heard anything more on that, we can't carry the conversation forward. Meanwhile, Eric12407's definition of faith is so broad that it is again going to make every statement about faith in science true, without carrying any importance in the process. If you peruse definitions of faith on the web, you again see as many different ideas as websites. The moral of this story is that before entering into any useful discussion, care must be taken in the definitions. And don't be surprised if finding useful definitions is the most difficult aspect of the whole endeavor, because the rest is just logic and experience.

[beskeptical]

As long as we are into defining things, lets define science and religion. Then go on to apply faith and belief. Forgive my oversimplifications.

Religion:
A philosophy, set of beliefs, and rituals and rules if you want to include organized religion. Those things, while they change over time, are not thought of as changing by some inherent process.

Science:
A process by which the natural world is explored, tested, and understood. That understanding of the natural world is ever more refined by the evidence discovered and the scientific process.


Science is a process. Science is not a set of beliefs or a set of facts. Science is one thing.

Religions are sets of beliefs. Religions are many.


Now look at the words faith and belief in the context of the above definitions. As Worzer said, science relies on the belief that your arms and legs are real. Religion relies on the belief that some text, teaching, or however one came to believe, represents the "real". The text, etc. is the evidence. The evidence in science is something you touch, see, hear, measure with instruments, compare, and so on.

So if you want a definition of faith in science or faith in religion, you can use the word faith in either context. It is merely an argument over the definition of the word "faith".

But if you want to compare faith in science to faith in religion, now you cannot say the definition of faith is equal in both cases. One relies on teachings, texts, etc., and is faith in a [noun, the religion]. The other relies on testing, human senses, etc., and is faith in a [verb, carrying out the process].

(I know process isn't a verb, but it describes an active dynamic thing vs a complete non-changing thing. You could also say one is an end and the other a means to an end but not the end.)

[Ken G]

Yes, I agree, the difference between science and religion is the methods used, and the way of knowing that passes for enlightenment in the two regimes. The differences are epistemological, and given what most people mean by "faith" in this context, there is no need for faith in science, as I said at the outset of the thread. What I am waiting to hear is what definition of the term did GOURHEAD have in mind, and is there a definition that makes his statement both true and useful at the same time.

[Spherical]

In light of what both Ken G Beskeptical have said, I am obliged to reiterate. The word faith has a very specific meaning. In that regard it is completely incompatible with science. Misuse of the word is not license to muddy concepts. Down that road lies epistemelogical ruin and the inability to communicate in a precise way.

Belief, on the other hand, is a completely different thing. One may believe in a variety of things for a variety of reasons. Some times those reasons may not even be recognized or acknowledged by the believer, but belief does not necessarily constitute faith. Faith, on the other hand, relies on belief.

It is necessary to keep the two separate.

[Eric12407]

Spherical wrote:
"The word faith has a very specific meaning. In that regard it is completely incompatible with science. Misuse of the word is not license to muddy concepts. Down that road lies epistemelogical ruin and the inability to communicate in a precise way."

My perspective is that as our minds, consciousness, and capacities evolve, everything about our reality must also evolve ... including the way we describe and practice science and understand the concept of faith.

Both will shed their dogmas and narrow definitions and embrace each others perspective on the investigation of reality.

In the end ... neither has anything to fear from the other ..

Where do my thoughts come from? .... That's the whole gist of my posts ...
The mind and its ability to use logic for both physical and metaphysical investigation.

[beskeptical]

I suppose faith requires belief without evidence in some definitions. I am a more practical person when it comes to language. The purpose of language is to communicate. If you believe a word to be very specific when in reality it has a broad usage, then be careful to note in a discussion such as this whether you are arguing the meaning of the word itself or the the subject you are applying the word to.

In other words, the thread started with the claim that one believes in certain scientific conclusions on faith and not on evidence and that was based on an inaccurate premise that without 'certain' evidence there was 'no' evidence.

In that case the definition of the word faith did indeed mean belief without evidence. But then the thread got sidetracked into a discussion about the qualities of the word, faith, when it was really about faith vs evidence.

[Van Rijn]

Where do my thoughts come from? .... That's the whole gist of my posts ...
The mind ....

"Thoughts" and "mind" are two words that refer to the same thing. All available evidence points to the operation of the physical brain as the key for the operation of the mind. Brain damage and drugs have profound effects on how we think and we don't see people with massive brain damage talking and walking normally.

[worzel]

In light of what both Ken G Beskeptical have said, I am obliged to reiterate. The word faith has a very specific meaning. In that regard it is completely incompatible with science. Misuse of the word is not license to muddy concepts. Down that road lies epistemelogical ruin and the inability to communicate in a precise way.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think we're all big enough and ugly enough here to acknowledge that philosophically one can argue that faith is required even in science (and in the existence of ones arms and legs) without getting trapped into equating that with the faith required in religions. The aggravating thing is that all religious people share exactly the same faith in science that us skeptics^* do - they just don't realize it.

^*My spell checker wanted to change that to "sceptics"

[worzel]

Animals live in complete harmony with nature and are the perfect creation for material existence. All their needs are met by their environment. We on the other hand ... because of our consciousness ... ask the bigger questions .... What"s it all about .. Alfie?

Anyone who's owned a dog can't really believe that animals don't have an (as yet) inexplicable conscience too, even if they score a little lower on the IQ tests. The idea that we're not just a very clever chimpanzee but some sort of supernatural being with god given powers of thought just because we're better with tools and languages is, quite frankly, ridiculous IMO.

[Spherical]

I understand where you are coming from, but I think we're all big enough and ugly enough here to acknowledge that philosophically one can argue that faith is required even in science (and in the existence of ones arms and legs) without getting trapped into equating that with the faith required in religions. The aggravating thing is that all religious people share exactly the same faith in science that us skeptics^* do - they just don't realize it.

^*My spell checker wanted to change that to "sceptics"

Certainly it may be argued. I have elected to argue against it. Science relies upon evidence. Faith only counts if evidence is absent. Faith is belief absent evidence or reason. How can such a thing be fit into science? Belief is another matter altogether. Faith is a form of belief and so is science, but they are by no means the same thing.

[worzel]

Certainly it may be argued. I have elected to argue against it. Science relies upon evidence. Faith only counts if evidence is absent. Faith is belief absent evidence or reason. How can such a thing be fit into science? Belief is another matter altogether. Faith is a form of belief and so is science, but they are by no means the same thing.

I can't believe I'm being dragged into making this point, but I could argue that I have no evidence that you or I exist in the physical sense if I am to be properly skeptical. Every system of logic requires axioms. The axioms of science are our sensory input. Silly, but that's what it boils down to when people argue that science requires faith too. And unless you want to define faith as only applying to religions then there's no escape from the fact that we all share this faith--not that I think that science is therefore on a par with religion, of course.

[Spherical]

I can't believe I'm being dragged into making this point, but I could argue that I have no evidence that you or I exist in the physical sense if I am to be properly skeptical. Every system of logic requires axioms. The axioms of science are our sensory input. Silly, but that's what it boils down to when people argue that science requires faith too. And unless you want to define faith as only applying to religions then there's no escape from the fact that we all share this faith--not that I think that science is therefore on a par with religion, of course.

So, then, are you a skeptic or solipsist? I'm always here, but sometimes you go away. I'll just reiterate, faith and belief are two easily seperable concepts and for good reason. You may doubt that I exist, but that is anything but faith. You may believe I exist based on limited evidence, but that isn't faith either. The only way you could exercise faith while acknowledging my existence is to accept my existence without any proof whatsoever, but you are out of luck in that regard because we are engaged in this amusing correspondence.

[worzel]

So, then, are you a skeptic or solipsist? I'm always here, but sometimes you go away.

Yeah the latter. I enjoy talking to myself because I am constantly amazed by my own vocabulary

[Van Rijn]

I can't believe I'm being dragged into making this point, but I could argue that I have no evidence that you or I exist in the physical sense if I am to be properly skeptical. Every system of logic requires axioms. The axioms of science are our sensory input.

The solipsist argument. Yes, I've seen that one before, but I don't see how it makes a difference. Whether or not it is a computer program, a dream, or whatever, things work in certain ways: If I do something that appears to be dropping a hammer on what my senses tell me is my unprotected foot, I can fully expect to receive what appear to be pain signals from what appears to be a foot soon after.

We can easily imagine how it might be if the hammer sometimes floated up, or events were obviously changeable by thinking about it, or in other fashion "broke the rules." Until I see evidence that things do break the rules, I need no faith to consider that the "world" works in certain ways. Philosophical arguments over the deeper meaning of the word "world" don't change that.