Is science grounded on faith?

[Geremia]

In Aristotle’s bk. 1Posterior Analytics ch. 3, he says:

Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. …] Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration.

To which St. Thomas Aquinas says in his , lib. 1 l. 7Expositio Posteriorum:

Therefore, if someone were to ask how the science of immediate principles is possessed, the answer would be that not only are they known in a scientific manner, but knowledge of them is the source of a science. For one passes from the knowledge of principles to a demonstration of conclusion on which science, properly speaking, bears. But those immediate principles are not made known through an additional middle but through an understanding of their own terms. For as soon as it is known what a whole is and what a part is, it is known that every whole is greater than its part, because in such a proposition, as has been stated above, the predicate is included in the very notion of the subject. And therefore it is reasonable that the knowledge of these principles is the cause of the knowledge of conclusions, because always, that which exists in virtue of itself is the cause of that which exists in virtue of something else.

Does this mean that the “science of principles is possessed” by faith? Would not this be fideism, since it “affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith” (Sauvage, G.)? Since St. Thomas says that “faith is more certain than science and the other intellectual virtues” ( IIª-IIae q. 4 a. 8Summa Theologica), which is good if “demonstration must be based on premisses prior to and better known than the conclusion,” as Aristotle said" in the above-cited chapter of his Posterior Analytics, is it proper to say “Science, therefore, is grounded on faith?” Is this a type of fideism? Read this for more background. Thanks

 

[Moonstruck888]

In Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics bk. 1 ch. 3, he says:To which St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Expositio Posteriorum, lib. 1 l. 7oes this mean that the “science of principles is possessed” by faith? Would not this be fideism, since it “affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith” (Sauvage, G.)? Since St. Thomas says that “faith is more certain than science and the other intellectual virtues” (Summa Theologica IIª-IIae q. 4 a. 8), which is good if “demonstration must be based on premisses prior to and better known than the conclusion,” as Aristotle said" in the above-cited chapter of his Posterior Analytics, is it proper to say “Science, therefore, is grounded on faith?” Is this a type of fideism? Read this for more background. Thanks

I personally think that it’s safe to assume that I exist as some kind of conscious process that has freedom of movement in a world with many properties of variable magnitude that can be examined and learned from.

 

[Geremia]

I personally think that it’s safe to assume that I exist as some kind of conscious process that has freedom of movement in a world with many properties of variable magnitude that can be examined and learned from.

I am sorry, but I have no clue how that answers my questions. Could you please elaborate? Thanks

 

[AntiTheist]

No, science is not grounded on faith. Science is based on observable evidence and the conclusions that follow from it.

The word “faith” necessarily refers to things for which there is no evidence. For example, if there were incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, there would be no “faith” required to believe in him.

 

[donsnow]

No, science is not grounded on faith. Science is based on observable evidence and the conclusions that follow from it.

The word “faith” necessarily refers to things for which there is no evidence. For example, if there were incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, there would be no “faith” required to believe in him.

I think that your second paragraph is a commonly accepted fallacy. In Hebrews 11;1, (and what better source for defining faith than this?) in the NAB we read, “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”
So, faith is evidential in and of itself.

To give a secular example, we don’t see the wind blow, but we do see what the wind blows.
Another secular example, is that atomic particles were an unproven idea from the fourth century BC until the mid twentieth century. That is, for 2,400 years the idea of atoms was carried by faith. So, I respectfully submit, that some science can be based on faith.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, faith is evidential in and of itself.

It’s not. The fact that Hindus have faith in their gods isn’t evidence that Shiva exists. The fact that the Greeks had faith in their gods isn’t evidence that Zeus exists, and so on.

You can try to redefine “evidence” and “faith” if you want, but if you’re going to make them the same thing, then we might as well give up on trying to communicate in any meaningful way.

To give a secular example, we don’t see the wind blow, but we do see what the wind blows.

And yet we can detect and measure the wind. That is to say, we have evidence of it.

Another secular example, is that atomic particles were an unproven idea from the fourth century BC until the mid twentieth century. That is, for 2,400 years the idea of atoms was carried by faith. So, I respectfully submit, that some science can be based on faith.

But “science” – as we use the term today – didn’t exist until a very few hundred years ago. The idea of the atom was a philosophical concept dreamt up by ancient Greeks, not some sort of scientific finding. You’re all over the place here.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Richard Dawkins actually makes some good points on why science is not like religion and/or faith.

See here.

 

[buffalo]

No, science is not grounded on faith. Science is based on observable evidence and the conclusions that follow from it.

The word “faith” necessarily refers to things for which there is no evidence. For example, if there were incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, there would be no “faith” required to believe in him.

**Biting the Hand That Feeds You
**

…The silliness never ends as Coyne has now drifted into the deep end. Does Coyne not have the slightest idea of his own internal contradictions? Does Coyne not realize that he cannot simply swap his silly theistic notions for atheism or Aristotelianism without losing his proofs of evolution? The entire premise of his recent book is a belly-flop. **Religion drives science and it matters.
**

 

[buffalo]

No, science is not grounded on faith. Science is based on observable evidence and the conclusions that follow from it.

The word “faith” necessarily refers to things for which there is no evidence. For example, if there were incontrovertible evidence of the existence of god, there would be no “faith” required to believe in him.

Catholics define faith as “opening one’s heart and mind to God.”

Religion - means “to bind oneself to God”.

If there was incontrovertible proof as you say then free will could not exist. We would be robots. God wants a free response to His love.

 

[buffalo]

Richard Dawkins actually makes some good points on why science is not like religion and/or faith.

See here.

One thing Dawkins gets right is that theistic evolution cannot be real.

It is an either or proposition. Materialism or God. That is it. Atheists see it, many Catholics don’t.

 

[AntiTheist]

Religion drives science

Prove it.

Catholics define faith as “opening one’s heart and mind to God.”

I prefer “belief without sufficient evidence,” since if we had sufficient evidence, then faith would be unnecessary.

If there was incontrovertible proof as you say then free will could not exist. We would be robots. God wants a free response to His love.

I disagree that we would be robots. If there were sufficient evidence of god, then it would be impossible to be an atheist. But a person would still be free to choose whether or not to love and worship god.

As an example, take Satan from Christian mythology: he was a being with “incontrovertible proof” that god exists and he was not a robot – he was still free to choose not to worship that god.

So this god of yours really doesn’t have a good reason for not providing sufficient evidence.

 

[buffalo]

Prove it.

I prefer “belief without sufficient evidence,” since if we had sufficient evidence, then faith would be unnecessary.

I disagree that we would be robots. If there were sufficient evidence of god, then it would be impossible to be an atheist. But a person would still be free to choose whether or not to love and worship god.

As an example, take Satan from Christian mythology: he was a being with “incontrovertible proof” that god exists and he was not a robot – he was still free to choose not to worship that god.

So this god of yours really doesn’t have a good reason for not providing sufficient evidence.

Oh, we do have sufficient evidence. Did you change your wording from proof?

God does not allow Himself to be examined on an empirical lab table for us to examine.

Have you examined the evidence?

 

[AntiTheist]

Have you examined the evidence?

The “evidence”? You mean a bunch of personal experience anecdotes (i.e. getting the warm fuzzies), arguments from ignorance and incredulity, misunderstood teleological arguments, attempts to define god into existence (the “ontological argument”), applications of false dichotomy (pascal’s wager), historical “evidence” from a bunch of documents written decades after supposed events and not by eyewitnesses, and a bunch of wide-eyed credulous miracle stories with no evidence?

That “evidence”? Yeah.

Things that exist manifest in some way. If your god exists, he either manifests or he’s indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist.

 

[buffalo]

The “evidence”? You mean a bunch of personal experience anecdotes (i.e. getting the warm fuzzies), arguments from ignorance and incredulity, misunderstood teleological arguments, attempts to define god into existence (the “ontological argument”), applications of false dichotomy (pascal’s wager), historical “evidence” from a bunch of documents written decades after supposed events and not by eyewitnesses, and a bunch of wide-eyed credulous miracle stories with no evidence?

That “evidence”? Yeah.

Things that exist manifest in some way. If your god exists, he either manifests or he’s indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist.

Which one do you have an issue you wish to discuss?

1. 
   *] The Argument from Change
   *] The Argument from Efficient Causality
   *] The Argument from Time and Contingency
   *] The Argument from Degrees of Perfection
   *]The Design Argument
   *]The Kalam Argument
   *]The Argument from Contingency
   *]The Argument from the World as an Interacting Whole
   *]The Argument from Miracles
   *]The Argument from Consciousness
   *]The Argument from Truth
   *]The Argument from the Origin of the Idea of God
   *]The Ontological Argument
   *]The Moral Argument
   *]The Argument from Conscience
   *]The Argument from Desire
   *]The Argument from Aesthetic Experience
   *]The Argument from Religious Experience
   *]The Common Consent Argument

 

[buffalo]

Things that exist manifest in some way. If your god exists, he either manifests or he’s indistinguishable from something that doesn’t exist.

I assume you are aware of the flatlanders.

How does a 3D guy show himself to a flatlander?

 

[AntiTheist]

Which one do you have an issue you wish to discuss?

Each one of them is flawed, and none of them are evidence – they’re chains of reasoning, each either invalid or unsound in some way.

I’m talking about evidence, which is the crucial thing that distinguishes science from religion.

If you want to start a discussion with me about the flaws of one of those arguments, pick one and start a thread. Right now, I’m going to stick with the subject of this thread: “Is science grounded on faith?”

You made a statement earlier that “religion drives science.” Defend that statement already – or even better, explain what the heck it means because from where I sit, it sounds like gibberish.

 

[buffalo]

Each one of them is flawed, and none of them are evidence – they’re chains of reasoning, each either invalid or unsound in some way.

I’m talking about evidence, which is the crucial thing that distinguishes science from religion.

If you want to start a discussion with me about the flaws of one of those arguments, pick one and start a thread. Right now, I’m going to stick with the subject of this thread: “Is science grounded on faith?”

You made a statement earlier that “religion drives science.” Defend that statement already – or even better, explain what the heck it means because from where I sit, it sounds like gibberish.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was you who claimed there was no evidence.

I like all the evidences.

I gave the link where it came from. Read it.

 

[AntiTheist]

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was you who claimed there was no evidence.

And if those links are anything to go by, you have supported my claim over and over and over.

As i said, none of those “arguments” is evidnece – there is no data presented – it’s just a bunch of word games, and each one is either invalid or unsound.

Just look at your first link, the “argument from change.” This is an argument from ignorance. Watch: “The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by “God.””

The argument is invalid because it presumes that just because something is true of every individual thing in the universe, it is true of the entire universe itself. But more to the point, no one knows what happened before the planck time directly after the Big Bang. It may or may not be reasonable to speak of “outside” the universe – scientists are currently toying with hypothetical concepts like alternate universes “outside” this one that some speculate may have actually “caused” this universe to form, but these ideas are little more than hypotheses with no evidence to confirm them.

But this argument simply asserts the existence of a god in the face of our ignorance about origins. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang, but there is no way to logically get from “No one knows” to “God did it.”

The argument certainly gets us no closer to the claim that a supernatural intelligence exists “outside” the universe (if that even makes sense).

Now, seriously. Are you going to make me refute every one of these ridiculous arguments when each one is nothing but a silly word game?

You made a statement – “religion drives science” – let’s see you explain what this means and defend it.

 

[buffalo]

And if those links are anything to go by, you have supported my claim over and over and over.

As i said, none of those “arguments” is evidnece – there is no data presented – it’s just a bunch of word games, and each one is either invalid or unsound.

Just look at your first link, the “argument from change.” This is an argument from ignorance. Watch: “The whole universe is in the process of change. But we have already seen that change in any being requires an outside force to actualize it. Therefore, there is some force outside (in addition to) the universe, some real being transcendent to the universe. This is one of the things meant by “God.””

The argument is invalid because it presumes that just because something is true of every individual thing in the universe, it is true of the entire universe itself. But more to the point, no one knows what happened before the planck time directly after the Big Bang. It may or may not be reasonable to speak of “outside” the universe – scientists are currently toying with hypothetical concepts like alternate universes “outside” this one that some speculate may have actually “caused” this universe to form, but these ideas are little more than hypotheses with no evidence to confirm them.

But this argument simply asserts the existence of a god in the face of our ignorance about origins. No one knows what happened before the Big Bang, but there is no way to logically get from “No one knows” to “God did it.”

The argument certainly gets us no closer to the claim that a supernatural intelligence exists “outside” the universe (if that even makes sense).

Now, seriously. Are you going to make me refute every one of these ridiculous arguments when each one is nothing but a silly word game?

You made a statement – “religion drives science” – let’s see you explain what this means and defend it.

Yup. I am confident you cannot. Many others have tried and failed. But perhaps you are the special one to do so.

“To a physicist like me, life looks to be a little short of magic: all those dumb molecules conspiring to achieve such clever things! How do they do it? There is no orchestrator, no choreographer directing the performance, no esprit de corps, no collective will, no life force – just mindless atoms pushing and pulling on each other, kicked about by random thermal fluctuations. Yet the end product is an exquisite and highly distinctive form of order. Even chemists, who are familiar with the amazing transformative powers of molecules, find it breathtaking. George Whitesides, Professor of Chemistry at Harvard University, writes, ‘How remarkable is life? The answer is: very. Those of us who deal in networks of chemical reactions know of nothing like it.’ ”
—Paul Davies, from The Eerie Silence quoted by Leslie Mullin in Astrobiology Magazine last month

Moving on to the multi-verse theory. Are you prepared to consider that there will have to be fake universes. Are you prepared to concede you may be living in a universe with a God?

 

[AntiTheist]

So, just to be clear, you refuse to explain and defend your absurd statement “religion drives science”?

Are you prepared to concede you may be living in a universe with a God?

Of course I may be living in a universe with a God. I may also be living in a universe where leprechauns are after me lucky charms. I may be a lot of things. I’m not going to believe them until there is evidence, and there is a hug difference between evidence and faith.

EDIT: Oh, and your quote (and what I’m assuming is your intended purpose behind quoting it): nice argument from incredulity! You’re racking up quite a few logical fallacies here. Not that I ever expect you to understand or acknowledge it.