How do we know the truths about science and faith?

[Oreoracle]

When a phd student writes his doctoral thesis, the first thing he has to show is how it is relevant to the reader and to general society. Why should anyone read his study and take it seriously?

A defense of the usefulness of research is generally not a requirement for a dissertation. Again, most research is not of immediate practical importance. Ideas in science proceed from hypothesis to conclusion, not problem to solution.

If he can’t do this, his thesis will be rejected. Why should we as a society fund something that will produce no value? How will it affect technology or affect our society for the better?

Certainly people will have to care about the research, but caring about it isn’t an endorsement of its utility.

Maybe I should apply to the govt. for a 1 million dollar grant to study the pentatonic scale on the guitar. There might not be anything of value produced, but why should that prevent the govt. from giving me a bunch of money to sit around and play my guitar?

The degree of paranoia here is incredible. Look, research is cheap. The price of our failing health care system and our bloated military far eclipses anything research costs could ever dream of. It’s very telling that we as a society are willing to pay more for our military than the next 15 most expensive militaries in the world combined, pay 10 times more for medical procedures than the Japanese, yet people have to be coaxed to contribute to our understanding of the universe.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Over the past few years I have become very cynical about what others tell me I should believe. On the one hand there are Christians telling me to believe one thing because the bible says so, at least according to their interpretation. I have relatives who point out all the ‘signs’ that the world is about to end. ‘Its in the bible.’ There is nothing you can say to convince them they are wrong. They will deny everything that doesn’t accord with their interpretation of the bible. The world is 6500 years old, and if you believe that dinosaurs existed before that then you lack faith. And when it comes to doctrine they often make their interpretation of the bible or the past into an absolute. They will read into the bible and past saints their own beliefs, and them tell me that I am a heretic.

On the other hand there are the pro-science people arguing that I should believe something because some scientist said so. It doesn’t matter how counterintuitive it is. I should believe the Higgs boson exists because some scientists in France said so. And they are just as rabid as the Christians. If you don’t accept evolution (which I accept) or the accepted ideas of anthropomorphic global warming you are a flat earther. I had someone tell me he didn’t like Ron Paul because he heard that Ron Paul didn’t believe evolution. It doesn’t matter that the acceptance or non-acceptance of evolution doesn’t make a difference in my life or anyone else’s. According to the scientific view I should doubt what my experiences tell me because someone did a study somewhere that contradicts it. The result is that you have a bunch of people supporting things that they have no idea about. They support global warming regulations because someone else told them it was caused by man, despite the fact that it may contradict their experiences.

Ultimately they are both the same. They both tell me to trust them when they tell me the truth. In reality I trust my own senses and my own reason to tell me the truth. I really don’t care if evolution is true, because it has no effect on my life one way or another.

What I would like to know is, if you are scientifically minded, why should I accept the scientific view of the world? Why should I care that the Higgs boson exists? As long as it doesn’t affect future technology it is completely irrelevant to me. If you are a Christian why should I accept that your interpretation of the bible or the faith is any more relevant than any other? Why should I trust that what the pope says about dogmas? I can understand morality and why that is important, but why is it iperative that I accept every dogma on the doctrine of Christ, the Church and Mary? In the past murder was justified (yes it was murder) because people couldn’t accept the official doctrines on these issues. Why is it imperative to accept these doctrines?

The answer of course is that if you want to prove every truth for yourself before you believe it or live by it then you will end up leading a pretty stone age sort of life-style cos it will take you too long to come up to speed.

Most people accept that education (literally “to be led”) is a wise way to come to a lot more truth in a much faster way. Sure, education requires trusting your teacher enough to try out his method until you can see it for yourself. (eg 12 x 12=144 is not something we know to be true at first…we accept it on faith and learn the principles…eventually we see it for ourselves. That knowledge took 1000s of years to perfect, you would never work that out by yourself without a teacher).

So no, you don’t have to trust anybody about anything - yet this is the way to be educated. The mistake is either:
(a) never trusting a teacher
(b) never getting beyond faith and using what you’ve learnt to see if that trust was well founded
(c) never looking for a new teacher when the current one is looking shaky cos even after some time your faith hasn’t ended in vision.

Religion is a bit different from Science.
We won’t know whether what we have agreed to “try out” is proven true until after we die.
Nevertheless there are some good signposts such as congruity, beauty, joy, peace, miracles (if you are lucky), unlikely coincidences (prayers answered) etc.

 

[jimmy]

Oreoracle, it’s realism and a bit of pragmatism. Scientists are no different than politicians. No one has a problem recognizing that a politician can be bought, why would it be a surprise that a scientist could be? Most people can be bought. Money is a major driving factor in modern society. This isn’t paranoia, it’s realism.

That said, I really have no problem with evolution and most other subjects in science. My problem is with the expectation that everyone agree and the mob mentality.

 

[Aloysium]

Not to bore people with repetition, but science is an operating manual for matter.
Because it speaks to the mysteries of creation, in spite of its methods, it attracts people.

The truth about science is the politics, the economics, and the public relations. Anyone who thinks otherwise is not involved with science.

Consider Bell Labs; in its heyday it was amazing and what people imagine science should be like. Unfortunately, it was a one-of-a-kind anomaly. BTW: their work was recognized with the awarding of seven Nobel prizes and included the transistor, the laser, radio astronomy, information theory, operating systems and programming languages. It was privately funded at a time when corporations had some social interest and not just the temporary enrichment of their investors.

The problem is how science is used. You know all those dystopic science fiction movies. That is what they are addressing, the unconscious fears of where we are being taken by those in power in both totalitarian and consumerist societies.
Not wanting to end up sounding like the guy with a sign that says the end is near, I should add, Love will win out.

The Church has the Holy Spirit guarding and guiding it.
Science is out there, not really an entity in itself;
and as an approach, it is up to the moral choices of individuals, what it will produce.

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreoracle, it’s realism and a bit of pragmatism. Scientists are no different than politicians. No one has a problem recognizing that a politician can be bought, why would it be a surprise that a scientist could be?

I’m not sure where you’re getting your information, but research scientists make pocket change compared to those who work directly in an industry. It’s not generally a lucrative profession considering the amount of time and effort that one puts into the research and education to maintain it.

It seems to be a common misconception that scientists are billionaire, snake-oil salesman rivaled only by those on Wall Street. But I assure you that it’s a complete fabrication. In fact, it’s the politicians themselves–the true sell-outs–who try to reinforce this image of scientists as dishonest and greedy.

 

[Nixbits]

Aloysium said “The Church has the Holy Spirit guarding and guiding it.”

If this is true then the Holy Spirit needs to be re-calibrated. After nearly two thousand years the calibration must be wayyyy out of date.

 

[Aloysium]

Aloysium said “The Church has the Holy Spirit guarding and guiding it.”

If this is true then the Holy Spirit needs to be re-calibrated. After nearly two thousand years the calibration must be wayyyy out of date.

Not a member of the church, never attending mass, nor the sacraments, but an expert in his own mind and prejudices.

 

[Nixbits]

So you think that the Holy Mother Church has followed an unerringly good and truthful path throughout its history? That’s a novel viewpoint.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

So you think that the Holy Mother Church has followed an unerringly good and truthful path throughout its history? That’s a novel viewpoint.

In fact it’s a two-millennia-old viewpoint shared by billions on Earth, but this is relatively inmaterial…
We believe that the true Church is not based on Earth, but in Heaven; this is why we call it a “pilgrim” Church. Look, you even said it yourself: she “has followed an unerringly good and truthful path.” The path the Church follows is perfect–“unerringly good”–established in Heaven, given to us by God. Mankind, including those accepted as members of the Church through baptism, follow it imperfectly. For example, the sins of the Spanish Inquisition were not the Church’s; they were our own.
This is what Aloysium ment when he said the Church had the Holy Spirit’s guidance. “Re-calibration” is certainly an urgent need today, but on our part–not on God’s.

 

[buffalo]

Consider this: (arrows indicate information flow) Human reasoning of science is the weak area. Science is provisional, limited to our 5 senses, 3 dimensions and time. By its own definition it cannot say anything about the supernatural. Revelation is not provisional.

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=639&pictureid=7720

 

[Gregory_Olson]

I am not a solipsist. I don’t expect everything to be ‘proven’ either. But I do trust my own reason and my own perception. And I believe that any knowledge that is worth knowing is at least somewhat practical; in some sense it can be put into practice or be useful to a persons life (not to say that I don’t know a bunch of useless information, but I don’t place more significance on that info than it is worth.). As far as science goes, it comes down to convincing me. Why should I accept the existence of the higgs boson as anything more than an academic curiosity if someone is unwilling or unable to convince me of its existence and why it should matter to me? People get so worked up about these ideas that they don’t understand in most cases, and even if they do understand them, the ideas are completely irrelevant to them. They become apologists for evolution, but they don’t know anything about evolutionary biology other than that dinosaurs once existed. Nor could they explain how it affects their lives other than that they believe it.

When I say ‘why is it imperative’ I am saying ‘how is it relevant to me and the way I live?’ What makes it more than just an arbitrary fact? What difference does the knowledge make?

Jimmy, I know you’re an old vet here, and I’m just a newbie, but I think you’re confusing yourself unnecessarily. “Science” or knowledge matters to you because you are matter–a work of God interconnected with other works of God. (Mankind can also use parts of it to increase its living conditions or lifespans.) But you certainly don’t have to care about it if you don’t want to; this is completely up to you. A few people will try to force ideas that they themselves don’t understand on you, but as you’ve already pointed out, this is senseless and in their own error. So don’t get worked up about it.

What difference does the knowledge make?

On another note, keep in mind that indifference is the opposite of love. To the perfect Christian, all knowledge or science would be infinitely important, and out of love of God, he would “care” about all of it infinitely.

-Greg