Is Science a Faith System?

[Amethyst]

For a religious person, belief is a binary system, either you believe everything or you don't believe at all.

 

This is not how I see it.

 

I don't believe in Big Bang as the ultimate and only truth. If new science proves Big Bang to be false, I can easily accept that.

 

True, and this is what separates scientists from religious people. If religious folks found a new scroll that disproved the Bible (for example, it was translated to say "this is all just a great big work of fiction, sorry -- Paul" or something), then they'd just say it was a heresy. But scientists are willing to accept things that challenge their views of reality, if those things can be proven true more than once.

[Ouroboros]

Hey Han,

 

I’m not questing science, rather the clamis that we know something when we do not. If you use a computer or drive a car which demonstrates science, then certainly you have firsthand knowledge. Perhaps if you are an electrical engineer, you can incur  knowledge of atomic theory. I am not at that level of understanding. I do not know why computers work (it’s all 0’s and 1’s, right?) I only know they do. Are you maintaining that because our consumer goods are reliable and inexpensive, science as a whole is proved?

I’ve already agreed to that. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...indpost&p=57602

I’m not denying science or atoms or computers I’m saying without personal experience, we are truly believing in the wisdom of others. Will try and get to the language thing next week.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

Believe me BTR, I'm not trying to trick you or anything, and I know what you're trying to say. You want to get to the point that every kind of information that we read or take in we will value and judge based on our preconditioned beliefs and trusts.

 

When I read a scientific journal I presume that author present the facts accurately, and the scientist behaved ethical during his tests of the theory and not fudged the numbers to fit his wishful thinking.

 

Everything we take in on a daily basis is filtered through our mind, and we give different kinds of information a different value. We are skeptical to different degrees to different sources of information.

 

For instance, I'm more readily approving and accepting a scientific journal talking about quantum entanglement than I would be from a preacher talking about a mysterious miracle.

 

This priming of our mind is built over time based on trust and results from the trust, like the Bible says "from the fruit you will know the tree". So over time I have built a trust to certain sources of information, prioritized and ranked higher than other sources.

 

This is of course the human mind, how it works, something we can't avoid. We choose what we trust.

 

Now, why would I choose to trust scientific journals information and accept it as a truth rather than a religious book? Experience!

 

I have tried both systems, and I know the fruit of both of them. When science gives me things that work, and faith doesn't work; I make my preference based on ROI (Return of Investment) each system gives me.

 

True, I know how the computer works and therefore I don't just "believe" the science behind it, but know it to be true. And compared to a rookie that doesn't know how the computer works, of course he has to trust what the scientists says rather than experience the theories firsthand.

 

This problem exists in the medical industry and car manufacturing industry, when many of the statistics you see of how a medicine is safe or how safe a car is, many times are fudged and not honest reporting.

 

The only way to find the truth is that you have to look at facts from many sources. Say for instance one car is said to be safe, if you only take the manufacturers word for it, you can be fooled, but if you get the information from other independent sources, the likelihood it being true increases dramatically.

 

You see I agree that trust and belief exists even for the common man when it comes to science, the big difference is that in religion even the clergy can only base their knowledge of belief, while in science the deeper involved you get the less belief in someone else’s work it becomes, and it grows in knowledge and trust in nature instead.

 

One thing you can see with science is that it’s open and honest even about its mistakes. When you in some cases have a scientist that fudged and faked the numbers or the testing, you’ll see it sooner or later revealed by other scientists that show how wrong the proof was and the error is corrected. Science is a self correcting process that doesn’t take anything for granted. You can see this (without being a scientist), so it’s just easier to trust science and what comes out from it than from religion that doesn’t adjust to new evidence.

 

When religion is criticized, instead of the Church realigning with the new evidence, the critics (the messenger) get blamed from being sent from the devil. If there is no evidence that Jesus really existed, the religious person still believes the text that says he did, while a scientist only see this as a hypothesis until more evidence is given.

 

A scientist doesn’t bet his livestock on a farfetched idea until he has more to build on. Take the example from the scientists that thought they had made cold fusion, and within a few days it had been proven they were mistaken. It wasn’t accepted by the scientific community by face value, and everyone shouted “now it’s done!” They tested it until and checked the numbers until it could be proven that the people claiming the discovery had made a boo-boo.

 

If a scientist fakes discoveries, not only does he risk being exposed and shamed publicly, but further research will be trashed when the foundation is wrong. Compare this to the Biblical “build on rock and not on sand.” The scientist LIVES this analogy. If a scientist invent a false theory and then try to build something on top of it, the house of cards will very soon collapse. And this comes back to the computer. You only need to learn a little bit about computers or just open one up, and you start to realize how intricate the knowledge is behind it, and since it is built on scientific discoveries, you know those discoveries to be solid enough to build the computer.

 

Unless you’re trying to argue the extreme philosophical question if we really exists, or if everything we see, hear, use, eat, feel is just illusions? Does you finger exist? Does the computer exist in front of you? Does the text come up when you type on the keyboard? Who built the computer? And what knowledge did they have to build it?

[dogmatically_challenged]

I don’t know you so I can’t say with any certainty, but I highly doubt anyone could function this way. The world is presented to us at an alarming pace, we accept that from reliable sources as knowledge unless we have reason to suspect. It’s still a faith.

I can give real world reasons for confidence in what I believe and you can not. Everything that I believe in can be tested. Your belief in bible god can not.

 

Your faith in bible god is not equal to our faith in things.

 

I have faith in UFO's. But I can at the very least give a logical argument for aliens based on real world knowlegde, that give me reason for at least a little confidence its possible, were you can not give anything for confidence outside of your fantasy world prison that is your mind.

 

Also I won't let you hide in philosophy or use contingent faith that all humans have to have to get by as a means for you to hide from bible problems.

 

If bible god is love and has the superpowers as described in scripture, then atheists would not exist....cut and dry. Also hell would not exist. Also god would have simply forgiven adam from the very start. Bible god would be consistent with us, as well as never making sweeping judgments and executions of masses of people. Sin bleeding into all of humanity from the actions of two people would be impossible in a universe created by a god who IS love.

 

The difference between your beliefs and ours is that yours are dishonest. Total self deceit on your part. You believe despite logical reasons not to. This is key to the differences between your faith and contingent faith.

Our faith is contingent on at least some tangible evidences were yours is not.

 

Your faith in bible god is inferior in every way to anything in which I might happen to believe.

 

You are a junky listening to the song dream weaver while gakking on dope.

[Ouroboros]

I disagree. Take for example Fermilab (www.fnal.gov) the Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago. There is no way, given my track record in science I have the resume to merit employment in any significant role at their fine institution.

Depends on how fast you’re running, and your track time… just playing with words there

 

Certainly I do not have the resources (let alone the space) to build an accelerator myself.

Even though it would be a lot of fun. But it’s a bit expensive…

 

Even if I did, I don’t have the intellect to interpret my  data. It is virtually and forever impossible for me to recreate those experiments. It’s an extreme example, but there are thousands and thousands of assumptions we accept as knowing which we have neither the time, or the knowledge, or the resources or interest to investigate ourselves.

Yes, I’m not knocking science. I agree it changes as old theories are disproved and I wholeheartedly believe (although I don’t know) it is becoming more and more accurate as the body of knowledge increases. My issue is that we accept much on belief. Although Han describes, very eloquently I might add, distinctions between the two, I understood at the baseline he agreed that faith is required for the average individual.

Yup, you could put it that way, even though I personally choose to use the word trust (which is to have faith in someone else).

 

I think we could break up the level of trust (or faith) in a sliding scale rather than on/off positions.

 

It’s not a matter of believing every scientific article you read, even as a reader you keep a critical mind, and you try to be somewhat skeptical to new theories and findings.

 

And also, there are different levels of science and theories that requires different amounts of “belief”. Say, it’s easy to trust that science behind electronics works, because (me being repetitive) the computer in front of you confirms it, while trusting the theory of quantum entanglement requires a little bit more effort. Or take the General Relativity, I’m sure just a few on the board have done any studies in it, or done any research in the field. So we trust that the theory is correct, and the information of different tests that has been done are true also, and not made up to make the theory to look good.

 

In a way you can put it this way, for a layman that has no pre-knowledge of the science in a certain “high-level” field has to take a lot of things for granted in the beginning, but the further he studies and investigate, the more he reads other scientists confirming reports, he’s “belief” turns to knowledge, since it’s not plausible that the whole world is part of a big hoax scheme to trick him. But still he bases his knowledge on trust on people and the reported information rather on personal experience.

 

To sum up, everyday, or common experience from the equipment and things around you confirms at least the science that can be used for practical things. While the science that goes outside our ability to personally experience or test, requires a trust in the people from the field and trust in the reporters giving us the information.

 

In another thread he said:

Clearly we don’t see eye-to-eye, and I’m not attempting to oversimplify his statements there is a lot more there if you choose to follow the snap-back link.

In a nutshell, and I'm printing it in bold because I think this may be one of our main sticking points. I'm not claiming "we don't know alot of what we think we do" out of arrogance but humility.

 

My take would be something more like "Since I lack the interest to study the subject of science due to laziness, or actual personal inability, I prefer to trust people who are smarter than I am rather than assuming I know it all.”

 

As for the rest of the board, I need to get a move on. Have great weekends! Peace! BtR

I appreciate you took time to answer my post, and I’m looking forward to see next week what you have to say in response to this one.

 

Most likely we have similar view on the subject, but it’s hard to convey it in written text, and there are plenty of philosophers that spent page after page trying to break these issues down to be less confusing. And yet we are confused.

 

I’m also glad that you took the brave step of being on the “other side of the table”, so to speak, otherwise it’s hard to refute and state arguments.

[Ouroboros]

True, and this is what separates scientists from religious people.  If religious folks found a new scroll that disproved the Bible (for example, it was translated to say "this is all just a great big work of fiction, sorry -- Paul" or something), then they'd just say it was a heresy.  But scientists are willing to accept things that challenge their views of reality, if those things can be proven true more than once.

read my sig. you seen it right?

[Samurai Tailor]

Do we have access to all the evidence? Do I believe people have walked on the moon? Yes, I do. Can I experience it? No, I can’t. Is my faith based on reason, yes. I have seen video and still photos. I have read about it. As a little boy I had a poster in my bedroom of the Apollo XI crew; Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins. I even had a little square “record” (remember those) that came inserted in a copy of National Geographic. Countless times I heard, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for small step for man, one giant leap for...Maybe that’s why most records were round. Lastly, I trust there is invaluable data gathered from the experiments they performed. Can I prove they were there? No. Can someone can? Yes. Do I know they were there, or do I believe?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This is a good example because it invites hypotheticals at several levels of abstraction. You have set up a binary situation - your level of understanding which you categorize as belief, and the understanding of someone who can "prove" the landing occurred.

 

I think there is a considerable continuum of knowledge. The engineer who worked on the Saturn V knows something different from the technician who fueled it. The radar operator knows something different from the communications tech. The only people who actually know what Armstrong and Aldrin did - in the experiential sense of knowing that you have already established - are Armstrong and Aldrin (and Collins, I suppose). Everyone else is operating at some experiential distance.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Actually, technically it could be tested with the scripture I gave above; however, I doubt we'll have any willing Christian guinea pigs.  Not even the charismatics will pick up poison snakes or drink deadly poison.  You know what?  There outta be a disclaimer before any Christians are allowed to post.  If you do not fit the criteria as outlined in Mark 16, carry on, you disbelieve just like I do.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

HAHAHAHAHAAHA!!!! LOL!!!!!

 

They can never come up with positive evidence for thier belief in biblegod, and the people who put the bible together shot themselves in the foot if thier intentions were for an honest belief in the mangod.

 

Yet we can prove a negative if we are talking about the bible claims in some instances.

[Ouroboros]

Actually, technically it could be tested with the scripture I gave above; however, I doubt we'll have any willing Christian guinea pigs.  Not even the charismatics will pick up poison snakes or drink deadly poison.  You know what?  There outta be a disclaimer before any Christians are allowed to post.  If you do not fit the criteria as outlined in Mark 16, carry on, you disbelieve just like I do.

Unfortunately the test only can prove or disprove the Biblical God, but not Jahweh or Allah or any other kind.

 

I come back to something I said in another topic, God can only be proven or disproven when we know what God does or does not do.

 

So if someone says "God drops pink slippers on every pet store once a year on the 31st of July", it can be tested. But if we say God doesn't have any known attributes or known behvaiors, then we can never prove or disprove him.

 

This is part of the scientific theory, you have to find the properties of the subject area you're testing. Otherwise you can't establish falsifiable tests.

 

As soon we know the way God is, then we can know if he exists.

But how can we know the way God is, when we don't even know if he exists?

 

God can only exist unproven as long as we accept that he is nothing.

[Ouroboros]

Han, I, 100% agree with you, all the way. 

 

My point was directed toward belief in the Christian God.  It isn't that I want anyone to drink poison, I know that they would become very sick or die.  My point was that in this case, the "faithful" and yes even fundamentalist, trusts and believes more in science than it does the deity it upholds as true.

I hope you didn't take my post as me trying to correct or refute you, if that's the case, then I'm sorry. I just took what you said and added on my own little spin on it.

 

Because I knew you knew, and I hope you know that I knew now!

[MrSpooky]

Having "faith" in someone means you trust that said someone will not lie to you.

 

However, this is dependant on the person existing in the first place. You can't "have faith" in someone that doesn't exist.

 

Ergo, this usage of "faith" is useless in the context of "having faith in God" to demonstrate his existence. When we "have faith" in scientific authorities, we first of all know that said authorities exist and second of all know that we can trace the claims of the authority back to hard evidence. A valid appeal to authority is dependant on rational means.

 

Religious faith, as a suspension rational means, can do neither.

 

Again, ONLY by conveniently ignoring the distinctions between these two different applications of the concept of "faith" does the Theist make a claim, and a specious one at that.

[MrSpooky]

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

 

Again, Burry, you only make this claim by conveniently ignoring the distinctions that DO EXIST between the two applications of these terms.

 

Faith in scientific authorities:

1. Dependant on the authority existing in the first place (after all, the authority would have to exist to make the scientific claim in the first place).

2. Dependant on EVIDENCE. Faith in this manner is NOT the stopping point in any citation of an authority. Testable, repeatable evidence IS.

 

Faith in God:

1. Baselessly presupposes the existence of God.

2. Is not dependant on evidence and cannot even be traced back to a foundation of evidence at all.

 

Meaningful language makes draws distinctions, Burry. If discourse is performed with vague and muddled terms, one does not have meaningful ideas. The cry of "Faith can justify a belief in God" is like saying "The thing with that thing exists."

 

The major error that theists make, I think, is that they mistake pragmatic means with epistemic means. Faith in authorities is practical (though certainly it alone cannot justify scientific claims) while faith in God is supposed to be epistemic. Again, a huge qualitative difference.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Having "faith" in someone means you trust that said someone will not lie to you.

 

However, this is dependant on the person existing in the first place.  You can't "have faith" in someone that doesn't exist.

 

Ergo, this usage of "faith" is useless in the context of "having faith in God" to demonstrate his existence.  When we "have faith" in scientific authorities, we first of all know that said authorities exist and second of all know that we can trace the claims of the authority back to hard evidence.  A valid appeal to authority is dependant on rational means.

 

Religious faith, as a suspension rational means, can do neither.

 

Again, ONLY by conveniently ignoring the distinctions between these two different applications of the concept of "faith" does the Theist make a claim, and a specious one at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thier faith in bible claims is inferior in every way to our contingent faith in things. We can change our minds also when given logical or evidential reasons to do so. They do not with thier bible belief. Aint very many apostates.

 

Also I do not center my whole life around my Faith in alien visitations to earth like the xers do jesus and the bible. I have fath in UFO's but have no fear or shame in saying there may be no alien visitors from outerspace and that I just think its only slighlty more than possible at the very least. hehe. I have more to go on than the xers do thier god.

[Checkmate]

Hey TK,

 

I have, I’m guessing I’m #4 The Platypus? Well, I’ve been called worse. In my defense, I truly am not attempting to play anyone for a sucker. I do gotta ask, what does

 

mean?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

Just an insult. Don't worry your head about it, I got plenty more where that came from.

 

What are you? Well I wasn't going to say, but since YOU asked me...Actually after reveiwing the goings on within THIS thread alone, I may well have discovered a Fifth Category. "The Braggadoccio(Braggart)".

 

This type of person glories in assuming impossible odds. You seem to be getting off on being the "lone gunman" Xian, taking on the hostile atheists on their turf. And of course, in YOUR mind YOU believe you are "winning". You probably sing yourself to sleep with praise for yourself, believing you trounced all comers. You've lost sight of your commission to "preach the gospel", as you take more delight in "stirring up the pot".

 

(Suggested actions?: Ignore with extreme prejudice. Not even worth a nasty retort, as such will only fuel his/her ego into believing s/he has again "won" something.)

 

P.S. - YOU asked for it!

[Amethyst]

read my sig.  you seen it right?

 

Yep.

[Antlerman]

This has always been the issue I wish to cut through. I hear Christians try to charge the argument by using the word "faith" in the context of people accepting the veracity of science. What I see is an attempt to suggest "So why is it that you criticize it when we have faith, if you have faith with science too?"

 

Look, this is a game of semantics. I avoid using a charged word like that in the context of religion versus science. I try to use words like "credible", "reliable", "verifiable", "acceptable", etc. I accept as credible science the Theory of Evolution. The Bible on the other hand is "incredible". It makes grandiose claims of the supernatural then offers unreliable evidence as proofs. To accept that requires an act of pure faith. Reason is abandoned. Science is the exact opposite of that.

 

"Faith" really isn't the right word to use when referring to science, and I refuse to be corralled into a game of semantics by apologists.

[dogmatically_challenged]

This has always been the issue I wish to cut through.  I hear Christians try to charge the argument by using the word "faith" in the context of people accepting the veracity of science.  What I see is an attempt to suggest "So why is it that you criticize it when we have faith, if you have faith with science too?" 

 

Look, this is a game of semantics. I avoid using a charged word like that in the context of religion versus science.  I try to use words like "credible", "reliable", "verifiable", "acceptable", etc.  I accept as credible science the Theory of Evolution.  The Bible on the other hand is "incredible".  It makes grandiose claims of the supernatural then offers unreliable evidence as proofs.  To accept that requires an act of pure faith.  Reason is abandoned. Science is the exact opposite of that.

 

"Faith" really isn't the right word to use when referring to science, and I refuse to be corralled into a game of semantics by apologists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree.

[Ouroboros]

Burry,

 

Another interesting part of your argument is that you use rational thought and try to reason your way into this subject, which is exactly the same thing the scientist does, and what we do to.

 

You could say the only really strong faith I have in anything, is rational thought. Reason that you get to by arguing and reasoning until you are convince you have receive a better knowledge of something.

 

And another difference between the "faith" in science and faith in religious matter is that in science, I can read several sources that complement each other. It's not just one source you trust but many. If the Bible for instance would be taken into a scientific study, it has to be acknowledged and supported by other sources outside itself, like a secular historical document that can confirm its stories. In science you can read different independent people at different times doing different tests resulting in the same proofs of a particular scientific field.

 

What does this lead to? It means as a person that believes in a Holy Book, only have one source to rely on, while a person trusting science have a huge amount of confirming documents from many different times and in many different ways.

 

Then you must agree that even if you look at which one is most trustworthy, it must be the one that is confirmed over and over again of independent parties.

 

Now, in religion, the only confirmations you get are people’s internal feelings, which is not reliable as evidence since the mind can be easily fooled. Humans are extremely gullible and emotions can’t be trusted as evidence.

[white_raven23]

This has always been the issue I wish to cut through.  I hear Christians try to charge the argument by using the word "faith" in the context of people accepting the veracity of science.  What I see is an attempt to suggest "So why is it that you criticize it when we have faith, if you have faith with science too?" 

 

 

Not to mention if "Faith" was honestly considered applicable to both science and religion equally as Burry suggests, this duality would very much fly in the face and up the butt of that whole "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" crap.

 

How do you weasel out of that one? According to the religion, there's only one god, so there's no "Well it just means the Christian god is to be worshipped above all others". That would have been the only possible loophole. Obviously it fails.

[qadeshet]

A Scientific Theory is tested and retested over the course of many years. Since I am not a Scientist, I have to take the word of experts in the various fields of Science. But Scientists are perfectly willing to abandon a Theory if it is disproven, unlike followers of most Religions. Through Science we learn about the Universe through testing, not faith.

[MrSpooky]

Evidence itself makes faith unnecessary. If you can read the evidence and it makes sense in pointing out a scientific fact, what is the use of faith? It has no function. There's no "leap of faith" that people must perform given certain facts that formulaically point to specific premises. Faith in this field plays no role.

 

The only "faith" that we use, then, is the trust that authorities are not lying to us, and even then this "faith" must be based on rational grounds. This is entirely different from the "faith" that Christians place in God.

[Antlerman]

I think it's pretty clear that the initial question of "Is Science is a Faith System?" has been shown that it is not. Again, the whole use of the word "Faith", though in a strict definition of language might apply in certain specific contexts, it absolutely cannot be used in the same sense Christianity uses it. It is a hugely *connotative word* in religious circles, and that implied definition has absolutely nothing to do with science.

 

Any Christian who tries to use this to trick people in a discussion into showing their "faith" approach is nothing less that people who accept the credibility of the scientific method, are either confusing themselves by not understanding how language works, or they're out intellectually dishonest and trying to confuse others. Shame on you! Have you run out of real arguments to stoop to this crap?

[Vigile]

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.

 

 

MrSpooky, et al, perhaps this has already been addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating something here.

 

The institutions of science have long established infrastructures of verification. If scientist A presents findings, these findings are then verified and attempts to repeat take place within the scientific community. In other words, peer review takes place. So I, a layman, may not have an understanding of scientific proofs that are presented to the body of peers, but if I have an understanding of the process of peer review (even a rudimentary one as is mine) I would not need to have an understanding of the findings themselves. I have an understanding that the process of acceptance is a pretty high bar and that experience has shown this system to be reliable. Therefore, am I not relying on my experience and "trust" in a system that has established itself with a good record rather than putting blind faith in the community and processes of science?

[MrSpooky]

I think the peer review process earns it a greater DEGREE of trust, but one should not dispense with trust entirely.

 

After all, the "scientific community conspiracy" theory is still valid. Stupid and unfounded, but valid.

[Vigile]

For a religious person, belief is a binary system, either you believe everything or you don't believe at all.

 

 

I think you nailed it. It's their paradigm or filter through which they process thought and most have been taught to think this way to some degree since they were children so it seems natural. Good vs evil. God vs Satan. Demons vs angels. Hell vs heaven. Nuance is lost on them, which is why Ws speeches resound with them (really, not intended to be a political poke, just an observation).

[Antlerman]

I think you nailed it.  It's their paradigm or filter through which they process thought and most have been taught to think this way to some degree since they were children so it seems natural.  Good vs evil.  God vs Satan.  Demons vs angels.  Hell vs heaven.  Nuance is lost on them, which is why Ws speeches resound with them (really, not intended to be a political poke, just an observation).

Yes, I agree that largely what is happening when they try to argue the use of the word "faith" applied to people accepting the veracity of science, is because in their worldview "faith" has a very distinct meaning they filter the world through. Consequently they wind up applying that to everyone.

 

An open system such as science is incomprehensible to them. I think that freaks them out, they anyone could possibly think there is no ultimate source of knowledge. After all, emotionally we need daddy to tell us everything is under control, even though we may not fully understand him with our child-like minds. They can't get past that concept and break free into a world that is an open system, where anything, or any answer is possible. That's the core of this argument - operating in an open system, versus operating in a closed system.