Is Science a Faith System?

[Ouroboros]

Burry, Dogmatic and me started to discuss science vs religion.

 

And one thing we were trying to establish was if you have to have some level of faith or belief to trust science.

 

There might be more things to discuss here, to clearify the line between religion and science, and the benefits/downsides of each.

 

It would be nice to have this thread to referrence everytime the argument "but you believe in gravity" comes up.

[Mythra]

Anything that can be proven does not require faith. Much of science is like mathematics. It doesn't take faith to believe that 1+4=5.

 

Now, I defer to anyone who can offer something beyond meaningless drivel.

[MrSpooky]

No.

 

More later.

[Burry The Rag]

Thanks for creating this, Han.

 

I was maintaining if we come to our assumptions via any route other than personal discovery, it is technically a belief and not a knowledge.

It seems the most basic definition is; believing is placing your faith in something else, knowledge is gained through personal research. If we hear something on the news, do we believe it or know it? What about scientific facts? I have no way of personally testing any but the most rudimentary scientific truths. Even if I had the equipment and time, I don’t have the expertise to interpret the data. So is trusting the experts belief or knowledge? Apparently I don’t draw a clear distinction between the two.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Mythra, thankful & Mr. Spooky,

Anything that can be proven does not require faith.  Much of science is like mathematics.  It doesn't take faith to believe that 1+4=5. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, facts come into play, as you indicated, Mythra. Clearly, even someone with rudimentary mathematical skills, like myself, can grasp “1+4=5”. I can apply my limited understanding of the scientific method, and use my fingers, to arrive at a definitive answer. However, many things science has proved are outside of our ability to observe, let alone test (The obvious exception being the few individuals with the proper training, equipment and time to investiage firsthand). When this is the case, which is most of the time, aren’t we actually believing, rather than knowing, these truths?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Mythra]

OK, let me see if I get what you're saying. As an example, it takes a measure of faith to believe in, say, protons, neutrons, and electrons as the components of an atom. Is this in the ballpark of what you are getting at Burry?

[Burry The Rag]

OK, let me see if I get what you're saying.  As an example, it takes a measure of faith to believe in, say, protons, neutrons, and electrons as the components of an atom.  Is this in the ballpark of what you are getting at Burry?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes Mythra, I believe that would be trusting the experts.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Madame M,

Science takes alot less faith than religion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Certainly, I agree! But is it required for the typical individual to have any faith (in science) to accept the truths science reveals? If so, than to what extent?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[MrSpooky]

First it must be said that "Faith" arguments such as this are a fallacy of equivocation. Faith has many definitions, and always the Theist mixes definitions. The Theist will note that everyone "has faith," but then argue that this entails a special kind of faith ("religious faith") is therefore shared by everyone as well.

 

The only way religious faith can be validated in this manner is to demonstrate that not only MUST everyone have faith, but they must use the QUALITATIVELY SAME KIND of faith.

 

Furthermore, this "religious faith" needs to distinguish itself from rational inquiry, otherwise, why distinguish between the two? (more on this later)

 

There are two main ways that I understand are relevant to the "Faith in Science" argument.

 

1. Faith in Authority: It is true that we must place a lot of heavy trust in authorities on abstract topics given that not all of us are cosmologists, chemists, biologists, etc. However, is this method of "faith" the same as "religious faith?" That is, is this kind of "faith" the kind that must appeal to something OUTSIDE of rational inquiry?

 

First, suppose we have two authorities: Scientist A and Scientist B. Each scientist has their own theories about something (Theory A and Theory but those two theories contradict each other. So how do we solve this dilemma?

 

Trust in authority alone cannot solve the problem... instead, we must look to the EVIDENCES that Scientist A and Scientist B present. "Faith" in authority as a methodology does NOT automatically stop at the point of trusting someone, it must be placed on a solid foundation of evidence.

 

When we say "I have faith in this scientist" it means that we trust the scientist to be competent and truthful in his inquiry. But this does NOT mean that faith is an alternative to rational thought: rather, it must be grounded in rational thought. Even though we are not experts in the respective fields that the scientists study, we must still choose between competent scientists and pseudoscientists, real doctors and quacks.

 

Needless to say, "I have faith in this scientist" without understanding at least some of the strength of logic in his work is hardly a valid claim at all. You can have rational faith in authority and irrational faith in authority, and without recognizing the need to appeal to the evidences behind such faith, one's "faith" in this manner is irrational.

 

Ergo, faith is not an alternative to reason, it is a SUBSET of reason and DEPENDANT on reason. In no way is faith alone as a methodology in this context valid.

 

 

 

2. Faith in the metaphysical correctness of science: That is, faith in that our understanding of the universe is correct. Scientists are only human, after all, and have the potential to misinterpret data handed to them. Ergo, we must have "faith" that we need to trust that the products of human reasoning are correct models of reality.

 

This one is done away with pretty easily. "Faith" in this context is utterly useless. Yes, humans are imperfect, yes, humans will make mistakes. However, this does not SOLVE the problem, but it IGNORES it. It is a matter of PRETENDING we are metaphysically correct rather than determining whether something IS correct in a manner relevant to human inquiry.

 

In this manner, "faith" is extraneous, unnecessary, and has no function at all.

[NotBlinded]

Since I love philosophy so much I will post this philosophical definition of faith:

 

Faith

When accepting a statement as true, there are two basic methods. The first is reason. It is when the known evidence points to the statement being true, and when the truth of the statement doesn't contradict other knowledge. The second is faith. It is when one accepts a statement as true without evidence for it, or in the face of evidence against it.

 

There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.

 

The result of using faith consistently is the complete inability to think. Without any criteria for accepting a statement as true, every random idea, whether true or false, would be just as likely to be accepted. Contradictions would exist. No higher level abstractions could be made. Faith nullifies the mind. To the degree ideas are taken on faith, the process of thinking is subverted.

 

Are there any ideas we take on faith? As a friend once asked, if we've never been to Afghanistan, how do we know it actually exists? Even if we were to meet people from Afghanistan, they could always be lying. This is taken to be an act of faith, since we have no direct evidence for the existence of Afghanistan.

 

This is mistaken, though. The evidence we have for accepting the existence of Afghanistan does exists. The evidence is based on the knowledge that other people have shared. First, there is universal acceptance of the fact that it exists. It is possible that everyone on the planet is lying, but there is no evidence for that claim. Also, there is reason to believe that if Afghanistan didn't exist, people from the bordering countries would say so. And since satellite imagery shows that there is land there, and the area around it is occupied, it is reasonable to assume that land is occupied as well. Furthermore, there is absolutely no known evidence that it doesn't exist. There is no known motive for the entire world to try to trick us. So in fact, the evidence we have suggest it does exist. Acceptance of it is an act of reason.

 

There's an important distinction here, though. When we accept the evidence from others, we must have reason to believe that they know the truth. In the case of Afghanistan, I mentioned bordering countries. But there are people who claim to have been there, or that lived there.

 

Other cases are fundamentally different. When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells you what god demands, you have no reason to accept it as true. In fact, it should be rejected. If he claims to have knowledge which you are incapable of achieving, his beliefs must be rejected. If one has to accept the knowledge of others, he must use reason in order to decide which others to listen to. Again, if there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith.

 

Faith is an act of mental destruction. If there is no evidence for a claim, then accepting it is irrational. It is more likely to be false then [sic] true (since there are more false ideas then [sic] true ones, being that their [sic] is only one reality). Building a structure of knowledge on such a flimsy foundation will leave it shaky and unstable. Eventually, even if confronted with evidence against it, one's mind will be so dependent on the belief that fear of one's world view collapsing will encourage one to reject the evidence. When this happens, one acts against reality. This is an act of destruction.

[Ouroboros]

We also have to see the difference between the different groups of people involved. And also the books and documentation they're founded on.

 

Documents and Artifacts

Religion

Static Artifacts:

Books written by a few handpicked people, and when the book is closed, no additions can be made.

 

Science

Dynamic Artifacts:

Books written by many people, new material being made all the time, sometimes old documents are replaced by new improved documents.

 

 

Groups

Religion

- Religious Authority (RA), leaders, preachers etc

- Religious Participants (RP), the regular church member

- Outsiders (OS), people that don’t participate or believe the same as the religious

 

Science

- Scientist (SC), the authority of testing and validating the theories.

- Common People (CP), people that are not scientists

 

So let’s compare…

 

Science is an open knowledge system where every SC can modify and test the theories.

Religion is a closed knowledge system where no RA or RP can question the accepted dogmas.

 

In Science, the SC doesn’t need Faith or Belief because they can test previous stated theories and they can confirm the theories in the artifacts, so they can trust their own findings and proofs. While the CP need to trust the SC to behave ethically and not make up theories that are unsupported by the evidence.

 

SC: No Faith, Evidence and Proofs speak.

CP: Trust the SC to report correctly and research ethically. A form of belief is needed.

 

In Religion, the RA and RP need to trust their artifacts (holy books) to be true, without any evidence, and sometimes even against evidence that contradicts the holy book. The OS doesn’t trust at all what the religionist says or beliefs, or their holy books.

 

RA: Need faith, regardless of evidence.

RP: Trusts RA to behave ethically and tell the truth, belief is needed, in the RA and the holy books.

OS: Doesn’t trust the religionist at all or their holy books.

 

So you can see, science only deals with a form of trust or belief when it comes to the people not involved in the “religion of science”. The people (scientists) is not dealing with faith or belief, they can see the evidence scream in their face. It’s up you the individual to trust groups of scientists that independently have proven theories, and hopefully have reported it to the public in a correct manner.

 

But when it comes to religion, even the most involved person, and the authority of the religion itself still need large amounts of belief to maintain their faith system. Here you don’t have someone at the top with the complete evidence and true answers. You can easily decide to trust no one in this system. Because there is nothing tangible to base the ideology on that can be proven.

 

The trust has to go MUCH further to believe in religion than in science. You have to trust a book written by unknown people long time ago, instead of a steady stream of information on a daily basis through thousands of Scientific Journals. Just subscribe to one scientific magazine and you’ll see the difference.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Thanks yall! This goes in my files!

[Ouroboros]

And how do we know that Science actually works and they don't lie to us?

 

Look at your screen, type some keys on the keyboard, look at the characters show up on the screen.

 

It took more scientists and theories than you can count, to come up with the computer in front of you.

[NotBlinded]

can be applied to the car one drives, the toilet one flushes and the paper used to wipe one's ass, a bicycle, COOKING, telephone, radio, microwave, vcr, dvd, tv, book printing, voice recorders, musical instruments, lights, camera, and so on and so on and so on.

But not to the dragon in my garage?? Dang-it!

[dogmatically_challenged]

Yea! Even laymen like myself has real reasons for confidence in science. Religion has no real miracles and has no prophets of its own who can make predictions based on knowlege. Just had to rub it in a little, because I feel like being a jerk today. hehe.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Mr. Spooky & Board,

 

Please let me propose the definitions I believe to be correct for faith and knowledge:

 

faith n.

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.

3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.

6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=faith

 

knowledge n.

1. The state or fact of knowing.

2. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.

3. The sum or range of what has been perceived, discovered, or learned.

4. Learning; erudition: teachers of great knowledge.

5. Specific information about something.

6. Carnal knowledge.

Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=knowledge

 

When I refer to “faith” I am in no way implying “faith in God.”

 

The only way religious faith can be validated in this manner is to demonstrate that not only MUST everyone have faith, but they must use the QUALITATIVELY SAME KIND of faith.

 

Furthermore, this "religious faith" needs to distinguish itself from rational inquiry, otherwise, why distinguish between the two? (more on this later)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For the record, I do not see a distinction between “religious faith”, and “Faith in Science” as different kinds of faith.

That is to say, “I trust the friendly-looking dog, whom I do not know, will not bite me.” is the same kind of faith with which “I trust that Jesus exists.” is the same kind of faith when “I trust the Earth orbits the Sun.” I suspect you have a significantly different perception.

It is true that we must place a lot of heavy trust in authorities on abstract topics given that not all of us are cosmologists, chemists, biologists, etc. [snip] Even though we are not experts in the respective fields that the scientists study, we must still choose between competent scientists and pseudoscientists, real doctors and quacks. [snip] Trust in authority alone cannot solve the problem... instead, we must look to the EVIDENCES that Scientist A and Scientist B present.  "Faith" in authority as a methodology does NOT automatically stop at the point of trusting someone, it must be placed on a solid foundation of evidence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If we are unqualified to interpret the data, how can we look to the evidence rationally? It then necessitates the need to look to the body of experts, and trust them, to demonstrate when an individual is performing bad science. Is it still trust after they have demonstrated the error? Yes, if we do not understand their area of study, and it is not if we do.

 

2.  Faith in the metaphysical correctness of science:  That is, faith in that our understanding of the universe is correct.  Scientists are only human, after all, and have the potential to misinterpret data handed to them.  Ergo, we must have "faith" that we need to trust that the products of human reasoning are correct models of reality.

 

This one is done away with pretty easily.  "Faith" in this context is utterly useless.  Yes, humans are imperfect, yes, humans will make mistakes.  However, this does not SOLVE the problem, but it IGNORES it.  It is a matter of PRETENDING we are metaphysically correct rather than determining whether something IS correct in a manner relevant to human inquiry.

 

In this manner, "faith" is extraneous, unnecessary, and has no function at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree we should use scientific discovery to expand our knowledge of our environment and this is far superior to “pretending we are metaphysically correct”. Please unpack this thought, “we must have ‘faith’ that we need to trust that the products of human reasoning are correct models of reality.”

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

And how do we know that Science actually works and they don't lie to us?

 

Look at your screen, type some keys on the keyboard, look at the characters show up on the screen.

 

It took more scientists and theories than you can count, to come up with the computer in front of you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey Han,

 

I maintain when we experience something, like using a computer, it becomes a knowledge for us. However, until I had firsthand experience, I could only have faith computers worked.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[dogmatically_challenged]

“I trust the friendly-looking dog, whom I do not know, will not bite me.” is the same kind of faith with which “I trust that Jesus exists.”

You are trying to anchor your fantasies to real life situations.

 

The friendly-looking dog can give confidence because of real things experienced in the past with real live dogs that would justify confidence. Everyone can share your confidence here.

 

Your godman is based on zero real things in the real world to draw on . What you speak of here is all in your mind and you can not coherently demonstrate otherwise.

[Checkmate]

Hey Han,

 

I maintain when we experience something, like using a computer, it becomes a knowledge for us. However, until I had firsthand experience, I could only have faith computers worked.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

Ah, but, when you DID apply your hands to the keyboard, did it NOT work as advertised? You were indeed able to PROVE that a computer works.

 

If you had a mind to, you could even MAKE one yourself.

 

Your "faith" in god can NOT be so empirically tested. It will forever remain guesswork.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Hey Han,

 

I maintain when we experience something, like using a computer, it becomes a knowledge for us. However, until I had firsthand experience, I could only have faith computers worked.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you never seen a computer yet have heard folks talk about using them, then you have witnesses can demonstrate to you that they work.

 

In religion all you get is how it works with no tangible demonstration. All mindless mental masterbation is what we get from religionists.

 

“I trust the friendly-looking dog, whom I do not know, will not bite me.” is the same kind of faith with which “I trust that Jesus exists.”

You are trying to anchor your fantasies to real life situations.

 

The friendly-looking dog can give confidence because of real things experienced in the past with real live dogs that would justify confidence. Everyone can share your confidence here.

 

Your godman is based on zero real things in the real world to draw on . What you speak of here is all in your mind and you can not coherently demonstrate otherwise.

[Burry The Rag]

You are trying to anchor your fantasies to real life situations.

 

The friendly-looking dog can give confidence because of real things experienced in the past with real live dogs that would justify confidence. Everyone can share your confidence here.

 

Your godman has zero real things to draw on in the real world. What you speak of here is all in your mind and you can not coherently demonstrate otherwise.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey dogmatically_challenged,

 

I maintain the confidence I have as a Christian is experienced. I can not prove it to you, it is a belief. There are many other things, we no doubt both accept as true, which neither of us can demonstrate, let alone prove. I'm not saying they are un provable, I'm saying you or I can't do so. (i.e., Mythra’s example of components of an atom.) Until we can, those feelings, no doubt correct, remain in the realm of belief.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Ah, but, when you DID apply your hands to the keyboard, did it NOT work as advertised?  You were indeed able to PROVE that a computer works.

 

If you had a mind to, you could even MAKE one yourself.

 

Your "faith" in god can NOT be so empirically tested.  It will forever remain guesswork.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey TK421,

 

I can agree with that. I'm not building up to make the jump that Christianity can be proved. It's a belief. Yet I maintain many things we accept as " our knowledge" are actually belief in the knowledge of others.

Peace!

 

BtR

[dogmatically_challenged]

Hey dogmatically_challenged,

 

I maintain the confidence I have as a Christian is experienced. I can not prove it to you, it is a belief. There are many other things, we no doubt both accept as true, which neither of us can demonstrate, let alone prove. I'm not saying they are un provable, I'm saying you or I can't do so. (i.e., Mythra’s example of components of an atom.) Until we can, those feelings, no doubt correct, remain in the realm of belief.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I can't prove it to myself then I have at least some doubt. Especially if its something that I want to be true. You can't say the same. Not when it comes to your jesus or holybook. You are hiding behind the fact that we can't know everything we hear to true yet we still might have confidence in unproven things. Fine. Then if I can't prove something then I will say I don't know for myself of certain things. So now you. Do the same with jesus.

 

Your beliefs are nothing more than your reactions to a story as well as interactions with others who re-enforce the "validity" of the unproven story to you and themselves. Brainwashing and mental masterbation is what religion is. Yall are spinning your wheels in your belief in jesus. Yall have no miracles to demonstrate, your prophets are long dead and can not be questioned, and jesus is an unvarifiable story only. Your invisible friend is silent and yall have no prophets as representatives of your invisible friend. All you have is a house of cards.

[NotBlinded]

Hey Mr. Spooky & Board,

 

Please let me propose the definitions I believe to be correct for faith and knowledge:

Let's take #2...Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. This couldn't be more true and notice it does not use reason in the definition.

 

When I refer to “faith” I am in no way implying “faith in God.”

It doesn't matter what faith you are referring to, it is still belief without reason.

 

For the record, I do not see a distinction between “religious faith”, and “Faith in Science” as different kinds of faith.

That is to say, “I trust the friendly-looking dog, whom I do not know, will not bite me.” is the same kind of faith with which “I trust that Jesus exists.” is the same kind of faith when  “I trust the Earth orbits the Sun.” I suspect you have a significantly different perception.

Would you trust a dog without any understanding of what a dog is? What if you didn't know what "friendly looking" meant? You 'believe' the dog is friendly based on what you know about dogs and that knowledge is not privy only to you. Others can access that knowledge. That is the key to understanding the difference. Reason must be used.

 

If we are unqualified to interpret the data, how can we look to the evidence rationally? It then necessitates the need to look to the body of experts, and trust them, to demonstrate when an individual is performing bad science. Is it still trust after they have demonstrated the error? Yes, if we do not understand their area of study, and it is not if we do.

You have every reason to believe the scientist because there is knowledge that can be had by anyone willing to understand it. It is not privy to the group of scientists. And, if there is evidence to suggest they are wrong, then one's belief changes with the evidence.

 

I agree we should use scientific discovery to expand our knowledge of our environment and this is far superior to “pretending we are metaphysically correct”. Please unpack this thought, “we must have ‘faith’ that we need to trust that the products of human reasoning are correct models of reality.”

Noooooooo, we have a reason to 'believe' that the products of human reasoning are correct models of reality because everyone can gain access to this knowledge. It is reality you are referring to here not the supernatural. Faith is used when there is no way to gain access to any evidence, or reason, to believe it is true...you just accept that it is.

[Checkmate]

Hey BtR,

 

On a totally different topic, have you seen this post?

 

The Answer

 

I'd like to know what you think.

[NotBlinded]

If I can't prove it to myself then I have at least some doubt. Especially if its something that I want to be true. You can't say the same. Not when it comes to your jesus or holybook.

That is exactly where the difference is...in the use of reason. We used reason to test the belief in Jesus and dismissed it because there was not evidence to support it.

 

What is to stop anyone that believes in the supernatural from believing in the absurd? We can still say we don't know but if/when there becomes evidence for something we consider absurd and supernatural, then there is reason to believe it because everyone would have access to that evidence (whether one can understand it or not...it is there).