Is science grounded on faith?

[donsnow]

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.

Your contradiction does not surprise me, although I disagree. I’ve seriously been wondering if there’s either a secular faith and a religious faith with separate definitions; or if there’s the jewel of faith, with different facets, like a diamond.

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.

I have to concede, that since faith feeds on evidence, then, they’re not the same.

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

Precisely, seeing what the wind blows without seeing the wind, imho, gives us the faith to try to measure that “…evidence of things unseen”.

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.

True, but science as conceived in their day provoked much philosophical discussion, then, didn’t it?
No, my view has me in one place, because I recognize Classical science as a precursor to the Renaissance organizing of data from centuries of investigation by pagans; and from centuries of investigations by Christians in the Church before the Reformation; which organization became modern science.
It seems we differ, in that I do not discard the meanings of early histories of science and religions. I think they give context to the present.
Heh, adds diversity, as it were, to the overall historical view.

 

[stenlis]

But really now that is what a non-believer has to think. He is fast running out of places to go due to what physics is finding. Sort of the “last frontier” - they can be safe in the fantasy of multi-verses for a while. (the odds are just crazy) But eventually…

Non-believer does not have to think that.

You are operating under the assumption that in order for a world-view to be valid it needs to explain why universe exists - or in other words - why there is something rather than nothing.

I am a non-believer who does not hold that assumption. I could not accept any all-encompassing explanation of how universe came to be that I encountered. Multiverse theory does not help there either. And here we magically get back to the topic of this thread:

I don’t believe that multiverse theory is science. The reason is that it does not provide any mechanism of how to demonstrate it, or at least how to attempt to disprove it. That’s a necessary property that distinguishes science from non-science.

Multiverse theory is an [educated] speculation. Because it cannot be demonstrated and no test can be made to disprove it, the only way to convince yourself it is true would be to have faith in it.

The same can be said of the theory that god created the universe.

Most modern atheist do not subscribe to that kind of thinking. If a theory describes something retrospectively, even if it describes it flawlessly, it may still be false. A theory needs to describe things predicatively - only then you can validate it.

For instance, 130 years ago, people formulated the theory of aether to describe the behavior of light. It was the only theory that did explain light at the time. It turned out that even though it was the only one, it was wrong .

Now you are considering two theories - the multiverse theory and the ‘god created the universe’ theory.

I say they both might be wrong. The fact that I do not have an alternative explanation, does not change a thing.

 

[buffalo]

Non-believer does not have to think that.

You are operating under the assumption that in order for a world-view to be valid it needs to explain why universe exists - or in other words - why there is something rather than nothing.

I am a non-believer who does not hold that assumption. I could not accept any all-encompassing explanation of how universe came to be that I encountered. Multiverse theory does not help there either. And here we magically get back to the topic of this thread:

I don’t believe that multiverse theory is science. The reason is that it does not provide any mechanism of how to demonstrate it, or at least how to attempt to disprove it. That’s a necessary property that distinguishes science from non-science.

Multiverse theory is an [educated] speculation. Because it cannot be demonstrated and no test can be made to disprove it, the only way to convince yourself it is true would be to have faith in it.

The same can be said of the theory that god created the universe.

Most modern atheist do not subscribe to that kind of thinking. If a theory describes something retrospectively, even if it describes it flawlessly, it may still be false. A theory needs to describe things predicatively - only then you can validate it.

For instance, 130 years ago, people formulated the theory of aether to describe the behavior of light. It was the only theory that did explain light at the time. It turned out that even though it was the only one, it was wrong .

Now you are considering two theories - the multiverse theory and the ‘god created the universe’ theory.

I say they both might be wrong. The fact that I do not have an alternative explanation, does not change a thing.

and now we have come full circle - religion drives science and it matters.

And I was claiming that currently many physicists like the multi-verse theory.

You might want to consider this:
Aether Physics

http://www.16pi2.com/joomla/images/stories/aether_unit2.jpg

 

[Moonstruck888]

You are claiming that the extinguishing of all life in the universe is inevitable? What do you base that on?

How do you know?

Catholics understand and seek eternal life.

The laws of thermodynamics vis a vis observations on type 1a Supernovae.

 

[Moonstruck888]

In many cases science do overstep their bounds. They claim things they cannot possibly know. They have the arrogance.

Now what have I made up?

I have asked several times now for data that I can test with a view to verifying or falsifying on God.

What height is he? What weight? What colour? What shape? What is his composition?

I keep waiting for an answer to these simple questions. How about you answer a few, friend?

I think man created God, not the other way round. That’s what I think you’ve made up and I seem to be having a hell of a time getting a straight answer to these simple questions to find out if there is any veracity to what you claim.

 

[buffalo]

I have asked several times now for data that I can test with a view to verifying or falsifying on God.

What height is he? What weight? What colour? What shape? What is his composition?

I keep waiting for an answer to these simple questions. How about you answer a few, friend?

I think man created God, not the other way round. That’s what I think you’ve made up and I seem to be having a hell of a time getting a straight answer to these simple questions to find out if there is any veracity to what you claim.

The simple answer is we cannot measure God. He does not subject Himself to a lab table.

Here are attributes of God:

1. 
   *]The Attributes of God in General
   *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
   *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
   *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
   *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
   *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
   *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
   *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
   *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
   *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
   *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
   *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
   *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
   *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
   *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)
   
   Now if you want to know how we understand all this we can discuss them one at a time.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The simple answer is we cannot measure God. He does not subject Himself to a lab table.

Here are attributes of God:

1. 
   *]The Attributes of God in General
   *] The Divine Attributes are really identical among themselves and with the Divine Essence. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Being
   *] God is absolutely perfect. (De fide.)
   *] God is actually infinite in every perfection. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely simple. (De fide.)
   *] There is only One God. (De fide.)
   *] The One God is, in the ontological sense, The True God. (De fide.)
   *] God possesses an infinite power of cognition. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Veracity. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolutely faithful. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute ontological Goodness in Himself and in relation to others. (De fide.)
   *] God is absolute Moral Goodness or Holiness. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is absolute Benignity. (De fide.) D1782.
   *] God is absolute Beauty. D1782.
   *] God is absolutely immutable. (De fide.)
   *] God is eternal. (De fide.)
   *] God is immense or absolutely immeasurable. (De fide.)
   *] God is everywhere present in created space. (De fide.) The Attributes of the Divine Life
   *] God’s knowledge is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God’s knowledge is purely and simply actual.
   *] God’s knowledge is subsistent
   *] God’s knowledge is comprehensive
   *] God’s knowledge is independent of extra-divine things
   *] The primary and formal object of the Divine Cognition is God Himself. (Scientia contemplationis)
   *] God knows all that is merely possible by the knowledge of simple intelligence (scientia simplicis intelligentiae). (De fide.)
   *] God knows all real things in the past, the present and the future (Scientia visionis). (De fide.)
   *] By knowledge of vision (scientia visionis) God also foresees the free acts of the rational creatures with infallible certainty. (De fide.)
   *] God also knows the conditioned future free actions with infallible certainty (Scientia futuribilium). (Sent. communis.)
   *] God’s Divine will is infinite. (De fide.)
   *] God loves Himself of necessity, but loves and wills the creation of extra-Divine things, on the other hand, with freedom. (De fide.)
   *] God is almighty. (De fide.)
   *] God is the Lord of the heavens and of the earth. (De fide.) D 1782.
   *] God is infinitely just. (De fide.)
   *] God is infinitely merciful. (De fide.)
   
   Now if you want to know how we understand all this we can discuss them one at a time.

1. 
   Not one of my questions was answered…
   
   Height?
   Weight?
   Colour?
   Shape?
   Composition? (what is he made out of? Subatomic particles and forcefields like us? Something else?)

 

[stenlis]

and now we have come full circle - religion drives science and it matters.

And I was claiming that currently many physicists like the multi-verse theory.

You might want to consider this:

I disagree.

Speculation drives science (among other things like curiosity and skepticism), not religion. There is no multiversist religion.

 

[Moonstruck888]

The simple answer is we cannot measure God. He does not subject Himself to a lab table…

How very convenient… However, he wouldn’t have to. If someone was transmutting mass/energy on a scale necessary to come thundering out of hyperspace and set bushes on fire and materialize stone tablets out of thin air, not to mention creating and then subsequently destroying enough water to cover the Earth, the signs would be there to be measured, you can be quite sure of that.

 

[donsnow]

Faith is subjective, and therefore not admissable as evidence. Evidence must be objective…

I see that you’re coming from an empirical viewpoint. As with most restrictions, this viewpoint has both its strengths and its weaknesses. One weakness, is that the empirical viewpoint throws out valid data, which data may well serve as evidence in other than the empirical view. That is to say, the empirical viewpoint blinds itself to much of reality.
ie, I have valid evidence which a prejudice for empirical reasoning refuses to recognize. The empirical view, then, presents itself to me as in clinical denial of much of reality.

We can detect the wind. We can feel it, we can understand it, we can measure it…

Our spirits can detect God. Our hearts can feel God. Our minds can reason out the existence of God. Theologians attempt to study (a form of measurement) God.

Scientists would suspend judgement on the idea of the atom until such time as it could be tested… As you probably know, the model of the atom we have now bears no resemblence to the idea proposed 2,400 years ago…

Yes, the philosophical concept of the atom then was much different than the ever changing models for the atom, which science has gone through since I was in Junior HIgh school in the mid '50’s

To address the first sentence of this paragraph of yours, Moonstruck, I have tested God and He has satisfied me not only that He exists, but also that He cares about me and my loved ones; and cares about other people, too; and cares about animals, plants and all of His creation. Of course, all my tests were ‘subjective’. In my book, subjective has it’s place.
I have also tested Him objectively. It’s called, ''putting out the fleece":…there’s the Bible story of the Patriarch who, after God spoke to him, prayed he would put out a lamb’s skin (fleece). If he had heard God right, it would be dry in the morning. If he had not heard God, it would be damp with the dew, like everything else. As the story goes, the following morning, on grass soaked with dew, the fleece was dry. The Patriarch had proved our God to himself.
To me, that is an objective test.
I have put out my own fleece(s), and God responded every time.
Further more, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, “God is spirit”…then, “Test the spirits, try them one by one.”
God is testable. He has been tested by countless people through out the millenia.
Just because the limited empirical viewpoint cannot think of a test for God, does not preclude others from doing so. But, the clinical denial of that viewpoint claims that a different type of evidence that puts a different light on every topic, both secular and religious, is not at all evidence. A very shaky ploy, if you ask me.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I see that you’re coming from an empirical viewpoint. As with most restrictions, this viewpoint has both its strengths and its weaknesses. One weakness, is that the empirical viewpoint throws out valid data, which data may well serve as evidence in other than the empirical view. That is to say, the empirical viewpoint blinds itself to much of reality.
ie, I have valid evidence which a prejudice for empirical reasoning refuses to recognize. The empirical view, then, presents itself to me as in clinical denial of much of reality.

I will accept any evidence, provided it can be proven resistant to falsification.

Our spirits can detect God. Our hearts can feel God. Our minds can reason out the existence of God. Theologians attempt to study (a form of measurement) God.

Our spirits can detect something, but it’s never told me that I have to make fawning professions every Sunday morning or I’ll go to hell when I die. What I perceive is beautiful, and natural. Absolutely nothing like the capricious and malevolent deities you find in ancient Middle Eastern texts. It’s a fantastic triumph of the mind at large and our interconnectedness in the Quantum Hologram.

Yes, the philosophical concept of the atom then was much different than the ever changing models for the atom, which science has gone through since I was in Junior HIgh school in the mid '50’s

The model of the atom accepted in science now is the one proposed by Niels Bhor in the 1920’s…

To address the first sentence of this paragraph of yours, Moonstruck, I have tested God and He has satisfied me not only that He exists, but also that He cares about me and my loved ones; and cares about other people, too; and cares about animals, plants and all of His creation. Of course, all my tests were ‘subjective’. In my book, subjective has it’s place.
I have also tested Him objectively. It’s called, ''putting out the fleece":…there’s the Bible story of the Patriarch who, after God spoke to him, prayed he would put out a lamb’s skin (fleece). If he had heard God right, it would be dry in the morning. If he had not heard God, it would be damp with the dew, like everything else. As the story goes, the following morning, on grass soaked with dew, the fleece was dry. The Patriarch had proved our God to himself.
To me, that is an objective test.
I have put out my own fleece(s), and God responded every time.
Further more, in the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus says, “God is spirit”…then, “Test the spirits, try them one by one.”
God is testable. He has been tested by countless people through out the millenia.
Just because the limited empirical viewpoint cannot think of a test for God, does not preclude others from doing so. But, the clinical denial of that viewpoint claims that a different type of evidence that puts a different light on every topic, both secular and religious, is not at all evidence. A very shaky ploy, if you ask me.

There is a lot in the Bible that is beautiful. There is also a lot in that is vile. I choose to walk my own path.

 

[donsnow]

Well, in addition to other supernatural explanations (Zeus created the universe, Cthulhu created the universe, leprechauns created the universe), there are other potential natural causes (for example, the Big Bang was caused by some natural law that we don’t know about) or other options that no one knows yet.

To present two choices as the only options is simply wrong.

Oh, good grief, a choice is an option. Now you’re the one splitting hairs.

Talk about a shaky position: “It’s either we don’t know yet” is very flimsy indeed.
If I may wax historical, for a moment:
Historical, anthropological and paleontological evidence all show the rise and either demise or destruction of civilization after civilization throughout thousands of years from either natural, military, political or ideological causes.
That is to say, in the historical context, we may not have time to ever find out, “what we don’t know, yet”.
In our age right now, one ideological theistic world power is attacking Western civilization. And, if they win, their concept of God will rule. The scary part is, they treat very cruelly any who disagree with their concept of God.

So, we need to know, now, if there truly are other options/choices than God or the Big Bang. We don’t have tomorrow, it’s not here yet.

 

[Moonstruck888]

So, we need to know, now, if there truly are other options/choices than God or the Big Bang. We don’t have tomorrow, it’s not here yet.

There is no option other than the big bang. We know from the data collated by Hubble and galactic Doppler Fitzhu shifts that the Universe was once a singularity. We know that it exploded because of the data collated by Penzias and Wilson on the echo left behind by that explosion.

What we don’t know is what exploded and why. I would suggest it is proper to suspend judgement until we have data, if we ever do. You of course are free to draw your own conclusions about what the big bang means.

 

[buffalo]

Not one of my questions was answered…

Height?
Weight?
Colour?
Shape?
Composition? (what is he made out of? Subatomic particles and forcefields like us? Something else?)

Did you not read the first line?

He is not measurable.

There are many things right in the universe we cannot know or measure. How about the 5th or 6th dimension? God is outside time and space. Humans are not able to measure or contain God. We shouldn’t expect to.

 

[buffalo]

How very convenient… However, he wouldn’t have to. If someone was transmutting mass/energy on a scale necessary to come thundering out of hyperspace and set bushes on fire and materialize stone tablets out of thin air, not to mention creating and then subsequently destroying enough water to cover the Earth, the signs would be there to be measured, you can be quite sure of that.

There is one thing you can do for me. Go outside and point out to me one thing you see that man created ex nihilo.

Now the times that God had entered space and time we had observers here to record it.

The signs are all around you. You fail to distinguish them.

 

[donsnow]

I will accept any evidence, provided it can be proven resistant to falsification.

There you go, putting arbitrary limits and then designating different kinds of evidence. It’s like you deal yourself out of the conversation.
Look, I think it’s an unreasonable expectation to require people to think like scientists, because people need to learn other than scientific restrictions to make a living, feed themselves, provide for loved ones and get along in an ever more complicated society.
(Let me wander: just like cops wish everybody would see things their way; it can’t happen. Cops don’t judge the law and in a free country the populace must judge the production of the politicians who legislate the law, to decide whether or not to reelect said politicians.)
I’m saying that it’s right and just that a minuscule percentage of the billions of people on this planet think like scientists. (Some of the best science fiction examines the fallacy of a rule by elite scientists).

Our spirits can detect something, but it’s never told me that I have to make fawning professions every Sunday morning or I’ll go to hell when I die. What I perceive is beautiful, and natural. Absolutely nothing like the capricious and malevolent deities you find in ancient Middle Eastern texts. It’s a fantastic triumph of the mind at large and our interconnectedness in the Quantum Hologram.

I never found a capricious and malevolent spirit, other than Satan and his demons, in the Holy Bible.
I’m not that strong in mathematics, so I really can’t comment on the interconnectedness of the Quantum Hologram.

The model of the atom accepted in science now is the one proposed by Niels Bhor in the 1920’s…

Well, according to some articles I’ve read, the electrons are no longer thought to move in rigid orbits, as theorized by Dr. Bhor, but to weave all around the atom’s nucleus, or something like that.
Which change would effect the theory of an electron change of orbit causing a photon.

There is a lot in the Bible that is beautiful. There is also a lot in that is vile. I choose to walk my own path.

Now, we are communicating.

 

[buffalo]

I will accept any evidence, provided it can be proven resistant to falsification.

Our spirits can detect something, but it’s never told me that I have to make fawning professions every Sunday morning or I’ll go to hell when I die. What I perceive is beautiful, and natural. Absolutely nothing like the capricious and malevolent deities you find in ancient Middle Eastern texts. It’s a fantastic triumph of the mind at large and our interconnectedness in the Quantum Hologram.

The model of the atom accepted in science now is the one proposed by Niels Bhor in the 1920’s…

There is a lot in the Bible that is beautiful. There is also a lot in that is vile. I choose to walk my own path.

\

Would you rather we take out the unpleasant parts of the Bible. Or should we try to understand their meaning? Humans are capable of great sin, should we strike out all references.

Perhaps we need the help of the Magisterium so we do not fall into the errors of private interpretation.

 

[buffalo]

There is no option other than the big bang. We know from the data collated by Hubble and galactic Doppler Fitzhu shifts that the Universe was once a singularity. We know that it exploded because of the data collated by Penzias and Wilson on the echo left behind by that explosion.

What we don’t know is what exploded and why. I would suggest it is proper to suspend judgement until we have data, if we ever do. You of course are free to draw your own conclusions about what the big bang means.

In the beginning - time
God created the heavens - space
and the earth - matter.

There you have it. First line of the bible. It took thousands of years for science to verify what the Bible said all along.

 

[Geremia]

Skimming the thread, I haven’t noticed anyone actually answering your question, so I’ll give it a shot. A science of principles is grasped immediately by the intellect (understanding). This is more like immediate intuition than faith. Faith is “more certain” because it is based on God’s revealed word. But that certainly doesn’t imply that what natural reason grasps is based on revelation; rather, it is based on *the effective exercise of our own intellectual powers *- and this is, in a sense, the opposite of fideism, which declares that there is no such thing (at least when it comes to certain questions).

Thank you for the reply.

What do you think of faith being one of the “two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth,” the other being reason (Fides et Ratio 1.)? Does this imply that reason—and science, too—can never build on faith, only vice versa?

What bothers me is that if the lower sciences are the handmaidens of theology ( Iª q. 1 a. 5 s. c.Summa Theologica), unified in this study of God, and if faith affords knowledge of God and His revealed truths for theology to adopt as its principles, then why does it seem the truths of theology don’t help the lower sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology, or vice versa? If they would and if the sciences are indeed ultimately unified in theology, the supreme science, then the ultimate source of all the sciences’ principles would be grounded on Revelation, obtained by faith. This is fideism. I guess I struggle with why it is wrong.

 

[donsnow]

There is no option other than the big bang. We know from the data collated by Hubble and galactic Doppler Fitzhu shifts that the Universe was once a singularity. We know that it exploded because of the data collated by Penzias and Wilson on the echo left behind by that explosion.

What we don’t know is what exploded and why. I would suggest it is proper to suspend judgement until we have data, if we ever do. You of course are free to draw your own conclusions about what the big bang means.

In my opinion, both ‘science’ and religion have their different Creation stories. Each story has its accompanying set of evidence. Frankly, I think some people who claim to follow science but who throw out the Holy Bible and personal experience of believers, are quite rude.

I am a simple man, with a complex mind. My savior is a simple man, who died to please His Heavenly Father, a most gruesome death, when he could have just stayed incorporeal in Heaven. The love that action speaks of is more wondrous than than the Big Bang.

Frankly, I have no problem with the Creator applying the Big Bang to effect His Creation.

So, I keep my humble opinion, based on history as well as science, that, yes, science is historically grounded on faith. Or does the empirical or skeptical view throw out all of history, too, as evidence?

Now, today I have spent four hours of my 24 hours of rationed time, on this thread.
Enough.
I’ll be back tomorrow.