Is Science a Faith System?

[MrSpooky]

Their inability to distinguish between open and closed systems is probably also the same problem they have when arguing about the 2nd law of thermodynamics. *snicker*

[Ouroboros]

And also between closed minded and open minded!

[Druid]

Just my two cents. (I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if it has been said before).

 

Faith in scentific knowledge is independent of the source.

Faith in religious knowledge is totally dependent on the source.

 

For example the theory of relativity is valid independent of whether Albert Einstein came up with the theory or some drunk on the side walk. It has been tested independently of the source and is therefore considered correct. Faith in science requires only faith that the assumptions and analysis of the data are correct. That the statements we are told are correct.

 

For another example the faith that Jesus is the saviour of mankind is dependent not only on the statements being correct but also on the source of these statements. If the source is not who it is said to be then statements are incorrect.

 

As it is possible to test statements we require less faith to believe these true than to have faith in statements that are totally dependent on their source.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Board,

 

I have skimed the recent posts but regret I am unable to reply at this time. I will be traveling this week and most of the next, and much remains to be done before I leave. After I return I will begin replying to your thoughts, just know I'm not baliling out on 'yall!

 

Peace

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Board, glad to be back.

 

Hey thankful,

 

Wait, who's the Christian here?  That's right, I'm an ExC because I know the bible.  (Just giving you a hard time, but here is that scripture)

 

Mark:6

 

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well."

 

So, do you believe or don't you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I main we are not to tempt God. Had I a reason to drink Draino, I maintain God could deliver me.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[white_raven23]

Hey Board, glad to be back.

 

Hey thankful,

I main we are not to tempt God. Had I a reason to drink Draino, I maintain God could deliver me.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

 

I saw the after-story of a guy who drank draino. It ate his esophagus and his stomach clean away.

 

He survived.

 

The doctors jerry-rigged his digestive system. He now has a length of intestine attached to where his throat used to be. It is laid on top of his sternum creating a weird looking lump right under the skin, but it has to be accessable so he can physically squeeze his mushy food along with his fingers down to where it's supposed to go.

 

His nourishment doesn't change much from entry to exit. It's not in his system long enough. So he has to eat little mini-meals every hour.

 

He's alive though.

 

So......since his original intent was suicide, who saved him? The paramedics who reached him in time? The doctors who reworked his digestive system?

 

All he can do for the rest of his life is eat and sit on the couch. So what is god's plan for him? An example to others perhaps?

[Burry The Rag]

Hey DC,

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I beg to differ, I will throw this quick statement out, with the hopes of sparking some conversation.

 

Not everything you believe in can be tested.

 

A man in is 50’s is diagnosed with terminal Cancer.

 

There are no known risk factors other than the documented fact that he was a heavy smoker for 30 years.

 

Admittedly, it would be illogical and irrational to assume anything else, however I can’t prove smoking caused his disease? Can you?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Asimov]

Hey DC,

I beg to differ, I will throw this quick statement out, with the hopes of sparking some conversation.

 

Not everything you believe in can be tested.

 

A man in is 50’s is diagnosed with terminal Cancer.

 

There are no known risk factors other than the documented fact that he was a heavy smoker for 30 years.

 

Admittedly, it would be illogical and irrational to assume anything else, however I can’t prove smoking caused his disease? Can you?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

 

Uh...you're equating "prove" with "confident belief". You can test certain things to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking causes cancer, but you can't prove it 100% absolute.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Hey DC,

I beg to differ, I will throw this quick statement out, with the hopes of sparking some conversation.

 

Not everything you believe in can be tested.

 

A man in is 50’s is diagnosed with terminal Cancer.

 

There are no known risk factors other than the documented fact that he was a heavy smoker for 30 years.

 

Admittedly, it would be illogical and irrational to assume anything else, however I can’t prove smoking caused his disease? Can you?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Anything I believe is built on way fewer assumptions or leaps of faith than your belief in bible god. That is money you can take to the bank.

 

Are you trying to cheapen and mock the human abilty to know things just to try and make your faith in bible god seem just as credible as dependable beliefs?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Uh...you're equating "prove" with "confident belief".  You can test certain things to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking causes cancer, but you can't prove it 100% absolute.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Religionists are "absolute truth" addicts and that is what makes it so hard for them to appreciate the scientific method as it really is.

[Ouroboros]

Uh...you're equating "prove" with "confident belief".  You can test certain things to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking causes cancer, but you can't prove it 100% absolute.

Just to be a little picky here... maybe I misunderstood you but to clarify...

 

The statistics show that smoking increases the chances of cancer, it's not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to in 100% cause cancer. If that was true then it means all smokers get cancer, and that's not the case.

 

Coffee, fried food, chips, alcohol and diet sodas increases the chances of cancer too, but are they to be said 100% proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to cause cancer? Nope, they're not.

 

What about the people that doesn't get cancer? Like the old guy we had in sweden that died at 110 years of age, smoked a cigar and had a glass of whiskey every day. He died of old age, not cancer.

 

My dad is dying in cancer though, but he never smoked, never drank, never cursed, never cheated on my mom, was Christians since he was a kid, never hurt anyone, help out in Church, and so on. And he's dying of cancer at the age of 75...

 

I think the whole "cancer scare" that's going on right now will cause more sickness and problems. And they have already found out that smoking reduces the risks of alzheimers and clogged arteries. So smoking is good for you too...

 

I think it's best to live a good life, however long it may be.

[Asimov]

Just to be a little picky here... maybe I misunderstood you but to clarify...

 

You did misunderstand me.

[Ouroboros]

You did misunderstand me.

Ok, good.

[MrSpooky]

Those who equate proof with absolute and infallible knowledge is wholly misrepresenting science and rational inquiry.

 

Okay, so let's say scientist discovers what is believed to be factually true, say, Newton's model of how gravity behaves. He uses models, experimentation, and presents hard evidence that meets the approval of the scientific community. But, of course, he cannot "prove 100% absolutely" his claims, so, as the Christian claims, we must have "faith" that his findings are correct.

 

But... UH OH! As scientific inquiry progresses, Newton has been proven wrong! His model has some inconsistencies that cannot be corrected using his equations! It is only modern scientists, such as Einstein, who are able to come up with a new set of equations that better describe how gravity works.

 

As a result, Newton is wrong. Furthermore, what EXACTLY has "faith" done to correct this problem? What has "faith" done to verify Newton's claim and prevent us from being wrong? What EXACTLY has "faith" done to link our ideas to ultimate metaphysical reality?

 

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.

 

It was EVIDENCE itself that gives us knowledge in the first place, and EVIDENCE itself that corrects the flaws that we will inevitably make. Closing your eyes and singing "lalalalala I'm right" won't keep you from being wrong, neither will "having faith" (whatever that means in an epistemic context).

 

Rational inquiry (such as science) is about getting epistemically valid reasons for believing in our facts. Requiring that metaphysics stand alone and aloof from epistemology is the exact same mistake that the skeptical British Empiricists such as Berkeley and Hume made.

[Amanda]

It was EVIDENCE itself that gives us knowledge in the first place, and EVIDENCE itself that corrects the flaws that we will inevitably make.  Closing your eyes and singing "lalalalala I'm right" won't keep you from being wrong, neither will "having faith" (whatever that means in an epistemic context).

 

Rational inquiry (such as science) is about getting epistemically valid reasons for believing in our facts.  Requiring that metaphysics stand alone and aloof from epistemology is the exact same mistake that the skeptical British Empiricists such as Berkeley and Hume made.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr. Spooky, could there be a certain amount of 'faith' from scientists, that there will be a scientifically evolving 'end result' of mutual definitive understandings? Otherwise, where do they think this is all leading? Maybe not an end result in our lifetime...

 

Couldn't one basically approach spiritual faith that way? It seems that there are principles and ideas that can be tested today and see if they work/apply in one's life. If they do, ok. There are some things that are still illusive, beyond one's cognitive grasp, not because it isn't right in these teachings... but because we haven't figured them out. Yet I do have faith that knowledge will be refined and/or awakened, there will be a 'spiritually' evolving definitively mutual 'end result' someday. Maybe not in our lifetime...

 

Mr Spooky, I'm curious to know... could it be possible... there will be one day a unifying theory for science and spirituality? Or do you think that spirituality will be eventually totally replaced by scientific theories/knowledge?

[dogmatically_challenged]

Mr. Spooky, could there be a certain amount of 'faith' from scientists, that there will be a scientifically evolving 'end result' of mutual definitive understandings? Otherwise, where do they think this is all leading? Maybe not an end result in our lifetime... 

Is it superstitious faith or confidence based on past observations that the sun will come up tommorow? Please stop using the "F" word when speaking of scientists and science.

 

Also, I think you are talking about the impossible. Thats just me.

 

Couldn't one basically approach spiritual faith that way? It seems that there are principles and ideas that can be tested today and see if they work/apply in one's life. If they do, ok. There are some things that are still illusive, beyond one's cognitive grasp, not because it isn't right in these teachings... but because we haven't figured them out. Yet I do have faith that knowledge will be refined and/or awakened, there will be a 'spiritually' evolving definitively mutual 'end result' someday. Maybe not in our lifetime...

Have you considered seeing a shrink? hehe!

 

Mr Spooky, I'm curious to know... could it be possible... there will be one day a unifying theory for science and spirituality? Or do you think that spirituality will be eventually totally replaced by scientific theories/knowledge?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With any luck some day...hopefully.... all superstition will be replaced by scientific theories/knowledge. Perhaps it will come in a pill. Hehe!

 

You know Amanda since you did not ask me this question you do reserve the right to tell me to go play in traffic? Hehe!

[MrSpooky]

No, Amanda. Science is the methodology of objective description of reality. I see spirituality is the subjective INTERPRETATION of reality in poetic and artistic ways.

 

Scientific facts are glorious, be it the elegance of genetics or astrophysics, but this percieved elegance is an internal, subjective fuction.

 

What EXACTLY do you mean by the idea that "that there will be a scientifically evolving 'end result' of mutual definitive understandings"?

 

EDIT: Sexy avatar, BTW, Amanda.

[dogmatically_challenged]

No, Amanda.  Science is the methodology of objective description of reality.  I see spirituality is the subjective INTERPRETATION of reality in poetic and artistic ways.

 

Scientific facts are glorious, be it the elegance of genetics or astrophysics, but this percieved elegance is an internal, subjective fuction.

 

What EXACTLY do you mean by the idea that "that there will be a scientifically evolving 'end result' of mutual definitive understandings"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I thought she was asking if we will ever have a perfect understanding on everything. I dunno.

 

I say 42 is the perfect understanding of everything.

 

I see spirituality is the subjective INTERPRETATION of reality in poetic and artistic ways.

Too bad most religionists don't see it that way.

[Amanda]

No, Amanda.  Science is the methodology of objective description of reality.  I see spirituality is the subjective INTERPRETATION of reality in poetic and artistic ways.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr Spooky, I consider you an authority in science beyond my realm of understanding... so I will appreciate your response immensely. I look at these spiritual teachings with their principles, and apply these principles to my life and receive a benefit that attributes rational truth to the teaching... so do others, hence a following. That seems to be evidence of the methodology presented to find inner peace. I appreciate ALL spiritual teachings. BTW, what makes scientific interpretations NOT subjective? Science wouldn't be evolving if it clearly came up with initial difinitive answers. So is the quest for spirituality, IMO.

Scientific facts are glorious, be it the elegance of genetics or astrophysics, but this percieved elegance is an internal, subjective fuction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Mr Spooky, I too appreciate science. I always did poorly in math... but did well on theory and labs... yet the math secured me in another direction than science. It just seems that the scientific theories presented are always evolving, changing, sometimes completely different findings appear. They seem to delve into areas that NO ONE could possibly KNOW! I guess their is a mathmatical basis to prove these? Einstien's theory of gravity, being that existence is on a 'blanket', and who can SEE that? Yet, I believe... because of the peers who challenge him every step! I have 'faith' that they know!

(BTW, speaking of astrophysics... I suppose everyone knows about an astrology incident that is culminating at the 27th of this month, by 12:30am Mars will be as big as the moon in the sky! It will not happen again for 60,000 years!)

What EXACTLY do you mean by the idea that "that there will be a scientifically evolving 'end result' of mutual definitive understandings"?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Scientist seem to maintain some state of skepticism in everything, because everything is always changing depending on new evidence or exceptions to the rules... right? Yet, it seems to me that scientist must have 'faith' that EVENTUALLY there is a world-wide, mutually difinitive conclusion on each subject... otherwise they are using a method that is leading no where, but going with the ever-changing winds of the current times... wouldn't they?

EDIT:  Sexy avatar, BTW, Amanda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks Spooky! :wink:

[Skankboy]

Scientist seem to maintain some state of skepticism in everything, because everything is always changing depending on new evidence or exceptions to the rules... right? Yet, it seems to me that scientist must have 'faith' that EVENTUALLY there is a world-wide, mutually difinitive conclusion on each subject... otherwise they are using a method that is leading no where, but going with the ever-changing winds of the current times... wouldn't they?

 

Not to butt in here, but I've always seen the progress of science as a continual process of refinements to our understanding of the world. Is there an "end result" to Science? I don't believe so, I think the goal of science is to provide a more accurate description of the universe around us.

 

Like Mr. Spooky said, Newton's laws were found to be inaccurate, but they were still correct enough to get us to the moon.

 

IMOHO,

[Amanda]

Is it superstitious faith or confidence based on past observations that the sun will come up tommorow? Please stop using the "F" word when speaking of scientists and science.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

DC, we have 'confidence' the sun will rise tomarrow, a reliance built on past consistent eye witness performances and a belief in others' declaration of such from the past. I ask you, isn't that different than MY personal belief that these electrons orbit the nucleus in an atom? Maybe you are able to come up with mathmatical calculations to validate such ideas (which is the probable model of evidence that comes to my mind)... I certainly don't have that luxury. So because I'm mathmatically challenged by nature, I ask you... what must I depend on to believe in such a scientific theory?

 

Yet, I can study the deeper understandings of Spiritual teachings, apply them to my life, notice and feel positive internal results benefiting me emotionally, physically, and socially. These teachings may be refined, evolving with additional spiritual knowledge. I see others attain the same thing, when it is understood a certain way. The study of spirituality, the study of science... one of these I have a reliance based upon a consistent eye witness performance and a belief in others' declarations... one I have virtually a blind confidence. (BTW, this is not to validate spirituality, but to offer a different perspective to those of you standing in a different scientific arena than I and others regarding 'faith')

Also, I think you are talking about the impossible. Thats just me.

Have you considered seeing a shrink? hehe!

With any luck some day...hopefully.... all superstition will be replaced by scientific theories/knowledge. Perhaps it will come in a pill. Hehe!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are many spiritual teachers combining all spiritual teachings with a congruent message. Yogananda is one who easily combines Krishna, Buddha, Christ, and Muhammed. I've read his book, and a little about him is at this site http://kriyayoga.info/. Dr. Depak Chopra and Dr. Wayne Dyer are two authors/speakers melting spiritual beliefs together, often times with science! All religions seem to have much, much more in common than different, possibly eventually merging with science... so I don't see a universal spiritual embodiment that far away... probably not in my lifetime, this time around anyway. hehe.

You know Amanda since you did not ask me this question you do reserve the right to tell me to go play in traffic? Hehe!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OH NO! ...Of course the traffic around here is often at a 'stand still', so that might not be so hard for us to do. Then again, we might start a new trend here at 'rush hour'?

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Asimov,

Uh...you're equating "prove" with "confident belief".  You can test certain things to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that smoking causes cancer, but you can't prove it 100% absolute.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I would maintain it can be proved that smoking causes cancer. However, unless tobacco leaves a discernable pattern, in any one case, I could only deduce rationally, if smoking was, or was not, the likely cause.

 

In my example:

 

A man in is 50’s is diagnosed with terminal Cancer.

 

There are no known risk factors other than the documented fact that he was a heavy smoker for 30 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Assuming I was a qualified physician charged with rendering a determinant, I would likely state “tobacco”. But it can’t be known it let alone proven. This assumption, conclusion, deduction, judgment, call it what you will, is all very reasonable and logical. So suitable that, in this scenario, no other diagnosis would seem feasible. But simply because a heavy smoker develops lung cancer, it can’t be known for certain if one of the many other causes was indeed the culprit. Although it can be logically concluded after all of the risk factors are considered and dismissed. But wouldn’t this pronouncement be closer to a belief than a knowledge?

 

I maintain we all accept many things on faith yet because “faith” sounds so unstable, we think we know these beliefs. Are our assuming, hunches, hypothesis, postulations, deductions, premises, rationalizations, suppositions, theories, or sneaking suspicions truly knowledge?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[MrSpooky]

BTW, what makes scientific interpretations NOT subjective? Science wouldn't be evolving if it clearly came up with initial difinitive answers. So is the quest for spirituality, IMO.

 

Objectivity means that a field is NOT dependant on (or actively attempts to minimize its dependance on) personal opinion, experience, or bias. In particular, it seeks to eradicate dogma. As such, people who study objective fields appeal to forces OUTSIDE of their personal, subjective psyches as an ultimate arbiter of truth (that is, reality. This is where experimentation, presentation of empirical evidence, and peer-review comes in).

 

Subjectivity means that a field is NOT objective. That is, it IS dependant on personal opinion, experience, or bias.

 

I don't see spirituality as necessarily evolving or refining itself because it has nothing to refine. It has nothing to appeal to that is external to people's personal experience. In fact, spirituality is BY DEFINITION an internal function of emotional, psychological, and personal well-being (even if it is excercised communally). What works for you spiritually might not work for someone else. Some enjoy pluralism and study all sorts of spiritual beliefs, no matter how they conflict, and some stick to one particular aesthetic. In the end, there is nothing that spiritual aestheticism can appeal to.

 

I love black licorice, you might hate it. Overall though there is no common ground between our differing opinions on the matter.

[Burry The Rag]

I saw the after-story of a guy who drank draino. It ate his esophagus and his stomach clean away.

 

He survived.

 

[snip]

 

All he can do for the rest of his life is eat and sit on the couch. So what is god's plan for him? An example to others perhaps?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Hey white_raven23,

 

I don’t think God parades folks around to shame them. I don’t know what His plan might be. But, if I was a paramedic, or other individual charged with this guy’s rehabilitation, I would do everything in my ability to restore him the best I could.

 

I have three close friends who are disabled. Two have advanced degrees. I have no idea what this individual is capable of. Presumably can think, create and dream. I wouldn’t want to whack him off simply because in a moment of despair he did a really stupid thing.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[dogmatically_challenged]

DC, we have 'confidence' the sun will rise tomarrow, a reliance built on past consistent eye witness performances and a belief in others' declaration of such from the past. I ask you, isn't that different than MY personal belief that these electrons orbit the nucleus in an atom? Maybe you are able to come up with mathmatical calculations to validate such ideas (which is the probable model of evidence that comes to my mind)... I certainly don't have that luxury. So because I'm mathmatically challenged by nature, I ask you... what must I depend on to believe in such a scientific theory?

 

Yet, I can study the deeper understandings of Spiritual teachings, apply them to my life, notice and feel positive internal results benefiting me emotionally, physically, and socially. These teachings may be refined, evolving with additional spiritual knowledge. I see others attain the same thing, when it is understood a certain way. The study of spirituality, the study of science... one of these I have a reliance based upon a consistent eye witness performance and a belief in others' declarations... one I have virtually a blind confidence.  (BTW, this is not to validate spirituality, but to offer a different perspective to those of you standing in a different scientific arena than I and others regarding 'faith')

 

There are many spiritual teachers combining all spiritual teachings with a congruent message. Yogananda is one who easily combines Krishna, Buddha, Christ, and Muhammed. I've read his book, and a little about him is at this site http://kriyayoga.info/. Dr. Depak Chopra and Dr. Wayne Dyer are two authors/speakers melting spiritual beliefs together, often times with science! All religions seem to have much, much more in common than different, possibly eventually merging with science... so I don't see a universal spiritual embodiment that far away... probably not in my lifetime, this time around anyway. hehe.

 

OH NO! ...Of course the traffic around here is often at a 'stand still', so that might not be so hard for us to do.  Then again, we might start a new trend here at 'rush hour'? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From now on I'll use a lot of smilies to indicate that I am teasing you. hehe.

 

Meh..I'll just kick back and learn from your discussion with Mr. Spooky. He is a very nice and intelligent man isn't he?

 

 

You have troubles with math? Math is sexy, because it is more cut and dry than anything else. English suxors, but math is beautiful. How can anyone not have a heart for math? I bet you can do anything you put your mind to. I think we choose what we are "not good at". MHO.