Is science grounded on faith?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Geremia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
You are renderring the word “proof” (and in the process, “knowledge”) meaningless by offerring a radically skeptical and impossible standard of evidence as something that is supposed to literally compell belief–as though evidence can be so powerful that to deny it would be to go instantly into cardiac arrest.

Even if you are applying statistical methods in a study, the evidence CAN be strong enough to get rid of all our real doubts (if a p-value of .01 doesn’t convince you, then how about .0001? or .000001? or .000000000001? etc.) What it can’t do no matter what is get rid of the fake doubt of the Cartesian skeptic who may or may not be a brain in a vat. For example, I think you are being disengenuous about your doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is fake doubt. You are just playing that brain-in-a-vat skeptic pretending that everything you believe could be false (which is silly considerring the broad success we have in coordinating our behavior to get what we want–certainly most of our beliefs are true). Such a skeptic is a philosophical bogie-man who we no longer need to fear once we realize that such doubts need to be justified just as beliefs do.

Best,
Leela
I am replying to this post only so that anyone who is reading this thread will understand science.

First, the p value is not equal to .01. If you look at my post you will see it is written as p<.01. p<.0000000000001 does not exist. Scientific method is limited; philosophy may not have the same limits. I never stated that everything I believe could false; that is only one of many assumptions you have made. I have told you twice that I am not allowed to discuss personal revelation. I’m not going to break forum rules to please you. I have my evidence for belief in God and I stand by that evidence, my belief, and every other statement I have made in this thread.

I’m not an expert on Descartes, although I think his behavior when “researching” dogs was deplorable. I have taken one philosophy class in my entire life and that was Ethics. I have no desire to study more about a “scientist/philosopher” who tortured animals and laughed while they screamed in pain. I don’t care about his supposed justification for his behavior or any philosophical constructs he presented. He tortured animals and laughed - that is enough for me.

Your ad hominems don’t bother me in the least because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about re science. It’s like you’re throwing marshmallows at me.
 
behavioral psychology huh? my hat is off to you sir. have you studied the theory of 8 circuit levels of consciousness?

i completely agree. it comes down to cause and effect relationships though. we know the effects of gravity, these are observable in a sense, maybe not by measurements (don’t quote me on that) but we do not know the cause of gravity. (have you read the hypothesis that we are in a wormhole, which would give us this gravity?)

thanks for the feedback
To be honest, I’ve never heard of the 8 circuit levels of consciousness, but I’ve googled it and the idea fascinates me. I want to read up on this. I’ve heard something about the wormhole but I’ll leave that to the experts.

Thanks for the reference. I’m surprised I’ve never run across it before because according to Wiki (which is a source I try to avoid as much as possible) Timothy Leary is credited with at least proposing the concept, so it’s been around for quite awhile. And I was never taught anything about it at all. That is disappointing. It really sounds fascinating. Can you recommend any books about it?

I was surprised to find that there may perhaps be a developmental stage of morality higher than the universal stage. I don’t think it’s been accepted by many psychologists because it brings religion into the picture and I have some problems with that. I don’t think a person has to be religious to be a good, moral person and to know universal law. I wasn’t religious when I learned universal law. IMHO the universal stage is the top stage. It could even encompass Kohlberg’s final stage, though not for all people.

Anyway, here is a reference (sorry, it’s Wiki again):

Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning. Kohlberg’s difficulties in obtaining empirical evidence for even a sixth stage,however, led him to emphasize the speculative nature of his seventh stage.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development

Yeah, I bet he had problems obtaining empirical evidence!

BTW, I’m not a “sir.” I thought you should know. 😉
 
I think a believe-in versus believe-that distinction may indeed be helpful. Believe-that is just a factual matter which may have few important implications, while believe-in seems to entail a more significant pattern of behavior involving trusting someone or some ideal. If we reserve faith for these sorts of believe-ins, it then would be silly to talk about accepting certain scientific facts as true being faith in science. I think the :is science grounded on faith?" question suffers from a lack of distinction in our language between different sorts of believing. Perhaps distinguishing “believe-that” facts versus “believe-in” ideals will clear up some conflation of meaning.
Thanks, Leela,

I also think there would be less confusion. Because my credibility regarding science does state, “I believe that science…” etc.
 
You are renderring the word “proof” (and in the process, “knowledge”) meaningless by offerring a radically skeptical and impossible standard of evidence as something that is supposed to literally compell belief–as though evidence can be so powerful that to deny it would be to go instantly into cardiac arrest.

Even if you are applying statistical methods in a study, the evidence CAN be strong enough to get rid of all our real doubts (if a p-value of .01 doesn’t convince you, then how about .0001? or .000001? or .000000000001? etc.) What it can’t do no matter what is get rid of the fake doubt of the Cartesian skeptic who may or may not be a brain in a vat. For example, I think you are being disengenuous about your doubt that the sun will rise tomorrow. It is fake doubt. You are just playing that brain-in-a-vat skeptic pretending that everything you believe could be false (which is silly considerring the broad success we have in coordinating our behavior to get what we want–certainly most of our beliefs are true). Such a skeptic is a philosophical bogie-man who we no longer need to fear once we realize that such doubts need to be justified just as beliefs do.

Best,
Leela
Does belief in God fall into your category of “most our beliefs are true”?
 
Does belief in God fall into your category of “most our beliefs are true”?
Yes, it includes all of our beliefs. But even though most of our beliefs must be true (given the success we have in coordinating our behaviors using sentences to help us get what we want), the problem is that saying so suggests no way of figuring our which ones are true and which ones are false. Our situation is always such that we already have beliefs and we need to determine which ones are earning their keep in guiding us to successful action and which ones to drop. The only way we have to make that determination (true or false) is the practice of coming up with arguments for believing what we do and of defending our beliefs against counterarguments. What we don’t need in making that determination is any consideration of the radical skeptic who, for no good reason, wants us to prove that we are not in The Matrix and that all of our beliefs are false and perhaps is likely to also claim that science never proves anything. Given the success we have with scientific contributions to making our lives better, it must be true that most of our scientific beliefs are likewise true whether we have a way of convincing the radical skeptic about which ones those are which are actually true. By I see no reason to worry about such a person since the radical skeptic is the sort that is not even sure she exists. Nothing ever constitutes “proof” to such a person.

By the way, you keep saying that you are not allowed to discuss revelation? Are you sure? I can’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed. If you know something that we don’t know I hope you please tell us. Don’t hide your light under a bushel.
 
I am replying to this post only so that anyone who is reading this thread will understand science.

First, the p value is not equal to .01. If you look at my post you will see it is written as p<.01. p<.0000000000001 does not exist. Scientific method is limited; philosophy may not have the same limits. I never stated that everything I believe could false; that is only one of many assumptions you have made. I have told you twice that I am not allowed to discuss personal revelation. I’m not going to break forum rules to please you. I have my evidence for belief in God and I stand by that evidence, my belief, and every other statement I have made in this thread.
As I told you before, I never doubted that you believe what you do for many good reasons.
I’m not an expert on Descartes, although I think his behavior when “researching” dogs was deplorable. I have taken one philosophy class in my entire life and that was Ethics. I have no desire to study more about a “scientist/philosopher” who tortured animals and laughed while they screamed in pain. I don’t care about his supposed justification for his behavior or any philosophical constructs he presented. He tortured animals and laughed - that is enough for me.

Your ad hominems don’t bother me in the least because you obviously have no idea what you are talking about re science. It’s like you’re throwing marshmallows at me.
I don’t know where you see ad hominems, but I can assure you that no personal attack has ever been intended.
 
Yes, it includes all of our beliefs. But even though most of our beliefs must be true (given the success we have in coordinating our behaviors using sentences to help us get what we want), the problem is that saying so suggests no way of figuring our which ones are true and which ones are false. Our situation is always such that we already have beliefs and we need to determine which ones are earning their keep in guiding us to successful action and which ones to drop. The only way we have to make that determination (true or false) is the practice of coming up with arguments for believing what we do and of defending our beliefs against counterarguments. What we don’t need in making that determination is any consideration of the radical skeptic who, for no good reason, wants us to prove that we are not in The Matrix and that all of our beliefs are false and perhaps is likely to also claim that science never proves anything. Given the success we have with scientific contributions to making our lives better, it must be true that most of our scientific beliefs are likewise true whether we have a way of convincing the radical skeptic about which ones those are which are actually true. By I see no reason to worry about such a person since the radical skeptic is the sort that is not even sure she exists. Nothing ever constitutes “proof” to such a person.

By the way, you keep saying that you are not allowed to discuss revelation? Are you sure? I can’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed. If you know something that we don’t know I hope you please tell us. Don’t hide your light under a bushel.
What about scientific contributions to make our lives better? People still make bad choices all the time, including those that are highly educated.

God bless,
Ed
 
Yes, it includes all of our beliefs. But even though most of our beliefs must be true (given the success we have in coordinating our behaviors using sentences to help us get what we want), the problem is that saying so suggests no way of figuring our which ones are true and which ones are false. Our situation is always such that we already have beliefs and we need to determine which ones are earning their keep in guiding us to successful action and which ones to drop. The only way we have to make that determination (true or false) is the practice of coming up with arguments for believing what we do and of defending our beliefs against counterarguments. What we don’t need in making that determination is any consideration of the radical skeptic who, for no good reason, wants us to prove that we are not in The Matrix and that all of our beliefs are false and perhaps is likely to also claim that science never proves anything. Given the success we have with scientific contributions to making our lives better, it must be true that most of our scientific beliefs are likewise true whether we have a way of convincing the radical skeptic about which ones those are which are actually true. By I see no reason to worry about such a person since the radical skeptic is the sort that is not even sure she exists. Nothing ever constitutes “proof” to such a person.

By the way, you keep saying that you are not allowed to discuss revelation? Are you sure? I can’t see why you shouldn’t be allowed. If you know something that we don’t know I hope you please tell us. Don’t hide your light under a bushel.
Before you said it was most of our beliefs, now you say it’s all. Would you please elaborate on that?

It’s a violation of forum rules to discuss private revelation. I’m sure. I could be suspended or banned for doing so (I would probably be banned because I’m obviously aware of the rule). I don’t really want to discuss it anyway - what I would wish is that you could feel what I have felt and if you haven’t felt it, you won’t understand. I wouldn’t understand if I hadn’t felt it.

One thing that bothers me a bit about your post is that you seem to think that belief in something gets us what we want. I don’t understand. This may seem like a weird question, but do you think that getting what you want is the driving force behind your beliefs? Is scientific research always geared toward manipulating the environment in order to obtain what we want? Is faith in God something we use as a tool to get what we want? You seem to be speaking from a philosophical stance and it’s hard for me to understand what you’re saying because I’m not any sort of expert on philosophy. My field is behavior psychology although I can see that the two disciplines can overlap in some cases.

I will be honest here - I have a real problem dealing with my belief that I exist and it’s all because an anaesthesiologist didn’t do his job properly. It’s my understanding that a person isn’t supposed to dream while unconscious during surgery. Of course I could be wrong about that. But general anaesthesia does some weird things to me, especially when it’s administered in a sloppy manner by someone who should know what he’s doing. During surgery I dreamed and my dream was just as real as what is really real or at least it seems that way to me. I was walking down a street I knew very well and just as I stepped off the curb to cross a street, just before my foot hit the street I found myself on a gurney with my foot caught on a door. It was a horrible experience because it was like being taken from one clear reality into another in a split second. I’ve had plenty of surgeries and this hasn’t happened again. I haven’t dreamed again (that I can remember) and becoming conscious is a slow process, especially for me because I’m one of those people who has problems coming out of anaesthesia. Something went wrong during that first surgery and I blame the anaesthesiologist.

Ever since then I’ve had anxiety disorder and panic attacks during which I don’t believe I exist; not really. I have no identity, I know I’m dying and at the same time I don’t even think I’m alive. It’s hard to explain but it’s very uncomfortable and it got to the point where I couldn’t function. I was hospitalized but it didn’t help. I’ve been on medication for years and it’s somewhat under control, but if I start to think about my existence or infinity or many parts of what I would term philosophy, I can guarantee you that I will go into a panic attack.

Maybe I’m in a unique situation here. It has certainly changed my ideas about existence and identity and I know that it’s abnormal. So I’m probably not the person to even be discussing these things. Maybe I grab onto scientific method because it’s clear, it’s there, and I understand the rules. My belief in God is in a different category. Does that make sense? I do believe in God but in a different, stronger way than the tentative beliefs I have about every other aspect of my life, including the simple belief that I exist.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if I closed my eyes for one second and opened them to find myself in a completely different place. It’s happened once and it affected me so strongly that I still honestly believe it can happen again. And that is very, very frightening to me.
 
As I told you before, I never doubted that you believe what you do for many good reasons.

I don’t know where you see ad hominems, but I can assure you that no personal attack has ever been intended.
I apologize for accusing you of attacking me. I misread your post. I’m very sorry.
 
Before you said it was most of our beliefs, now you say it’s all. Would you please elaborate on that?
“Most of our beliefs must be true” applies to all of your beliefs, all of my beliefs, and all of everyone else’s beliefs with whom we can successfully communicate., otherwise we wouldn’t be able to successfully communicate. The problem is that we don’t know which of our beliefs are true and which are false. The ones we hold under the heading “science” are those that we think are most likely to be true since they get held to our best methods of justification.
 
“Most of our beliefs must be true” applies to all of your beliefs, all of my beliefs, and all of everyone else’s beliefs with whom we can successfully communicate., otherwise we wouldn’t be able to successfully communicate. The problem is that we don’t know which of our beliefs are true and which are false. The ones we hold under the heading “science” are those that we think are most likely to be true since they get held to our best methods of justification.
Only if they are void of any a priori bias.
 
Only if they are void of any a priori bias.
Well, no, that is not how it works at all. How does one enter into any sort of inquiry with no prior beliefs whatsoever? Call it bias if you want, but the fact is that questions can only ever be asked based on premises, but those premises can also be questioned. Everything can be questioned–just not all at once.
 
Well, no, that is not how it works at all. How does one enter into any sort of inquiry with no prior beliefs whatsoever? Call it bias if you want, but the fact is that questions can only ever be asked based on premises, but those premises can also be questioned. Everything can be questioned–just not all at once.
Thanks! 👍

Right - a history is presumed.

There are questions man cannot answer without information from outside our frame.So we can flip a coin and be happy. 🙂
 
I loved the Vatican Council’s document that God’s existence can be known through natural reason, but what is natural reason? Our human nature is pretty fallen, but sometimes I think it hasn’t fallen so badly that we no longer have any sort of human reason to work independently of God’s grace, but even if it has, God is infinitely merciful and can still turn that bad into good only if we are allowed to use faith as a means to knowledge, right?
St. Thomas Aquinas says that unbelief does not destroy natural reason in unbelievers, so our human nature can never be so fallen as to be unable to have enough natural reason to prove God’s existence (: Whether every act of an unbeliever is sin?Summa Theologiæ, ad 3):
Unbelief does not so wholly destroy natural reason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them
 
Originally Posted by Geremia forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I loved the Vatican Council’s document that God’s existence can be known through natural reason, but what is natural reason? Our human nature is pretty fallen, but sometimes I think it hasn’t fallen so badly that we no longer have any sort of human reason to work independently of God’s grace, but even if it has, God is infinitely merciful and can still turn that bad into good only if we are allowed to use faith as a means to knowledge, right?

St. Thomas Aquinas says that unbelief does not destroy natural reason in unbelievers, so our human nature can never be so fallen as to be unable to have enough natural reason to prove God’s existence (Summa Theologiæ: Whether every act of an unbeliever is sin?, ad 3):
Quote:
Unbelief does not so wholly destroy naturalreason in unbelievers, but that some knowledge of the truth remains in them
As a start, I would suggest that one reviews the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Section Edition, paragraphs 355-421 for what is involved in human nature and how Catholicism treats the word “fallen” in regard to present-day humans.

Coincidentally, I am looking at “fallen” human nature from the Catholic position in thread “Churches rejecting science altogether”, starting around post 451, in the Philosophy Forum.

As for natural reason, I am assuming that from the Catholic position this would refer to the rational faculties of the spiritual soul which were not totally lost due to Original Sin. Humans still have intellect and will just as Adam has. However, we are wounded in the natural powers proper to human nature. The effects of Original Sin include being subject to ignorance, suffering, and the dominion of death. Also there is an inclination to evil. (refer to CCC 405)

I am not sure about disproving reliance on faith alone because faith and science are both-and and not a mutually exclusive or.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top