Science as faith

[donsnow]

Whoa!
Slow down.
Don’t want anybody going off half-cocked, now.

Let me develop my OP, here. I’ll try to keep it brief.

I’m pretty sure that most of us have become aware, that atomist theory started in 4thBC century, in Greece.
Also, about that same era, a couple of Greeks came up with the thought that everything began as slime.

Both of those are philosophical observations, about the substance of nature and also how things started. And, for over 2,000 years, these concepts were carried forward by faith, because there were no way to substantiate them. I’m saying that for 2,400 years, atomic theory and evolution theory were principles, held on faith and unprovable.

In saying that, I would like to point out that different people in that intervening time did discuss those two philosophical observations. I just don’t know who they were. And, for thousands of years reason and faith communicated in a friendly fashion. And, since the Reannaisance, religion and science communicated in a friendly fashion, except where it came to the atomist theory (atomic theory). But, all in all, religion and science were on cordial terms. I do know, that the alleged discussion did produce efforts after the Industrial Revolution, when people had more time, to go out and look around God’s creation.

As we know, by the nineteenth century, two different schools of evolution had formed. One was uniformtarianism, stating that things developed gradually, over long periods of time. The other was catostrophic, stating that things changed suddenly and violently. At this time, people were going out to find data in support of their two contentions.

Yes, for two thousand years, different philosophers had been keeping an eye out, to see if there were anything on earth to substantiate evolution and atomic particles. People were looking for data, to confirm the philosophy. That’s how evolution was researched, to find data to fit the uniformtarian theory and others to find data to fit the catastrophic theory. And all during those searches, reason and faith stayed friends and Church and Science were cordial with each other.

Do I want to say, that people were trying to fit information to the theory? Yes.

That’s the first half of the OPj, about the past. The second half is, I say it still happens in the present with science.

 

[AntiTheist]

Science is pretty young. So it’s not exactly surprising that one of the first things that scientists did was confirm and deny ideas that had been held by people throughout history.

But you make it sound as if scientists were desperate to prove that the “atomic theory” – which I guess just happened to be their favorite? – was true. That’s just not the case. Democritus’ idea of “atoms” – in fact, he defined an atom as an indivisible particle – has very little in common with modern knowledge about atoms (which we know, in fact, are divisible).

Further, other ancient ideas, like the “elemental theory” of Thales and Anaximenses, are not accepted by any scientists because there’s no evidence to support them and a lot to contradict them.

And that’s the key word. Evidence. The fact that some people anticipated scientific discoveries in some small ways – while other people were wildly off the mark – is neither surprising nor relevant. The fact that scientists rely on evidence means that science and faith will always be fundamentally different things.

 

[donsnow]

Hi, AntiTheist -

It may not surprise you, that young science took it upon itself to confirm or deny ideas long held by people, for ages. But, why should science arrogate itself to such a position?

I did not make it sound like scientists were desperate to prove there were atoms. I took two paragraphs of philosophy and millenia, where reason and faith were friends, to come to the Reannaisance, where science started coming together. Scientists soon developed from internationally organized science and after Einstiens theories were published in the early 20th century, then curious scientists went looking for the atom. Which, they were surprised it could be divided.

What kind of elements? The natural ‘elements’ of earth, fire, air and water? Or the elements of the periodic table? No, I’m not a mind reader, I don’t know which ones you mean.

The key word is not Evidence. Not in this OP. You could say that research is a key factor, because without it, you don’t find any evidence. This OP is about how people do things. Not the things, so much, that they do it with, such as evidence or technology.
Since this is a philosophy thread and not a court of law, and you are a member and not the judge in an imaginary court, I’ll ignore your comment about what is relevant. How people do things remains very germane, to this thread. I would remind you, that for over 2,000 years, both philosophers and religious relied upon existing natural evidence for their beliefs.

The substance of this thread will remain, that for millenia, reasonable people and people of faith were compatible. Doesn’t it bother you that no longer seems the case?

 

[AntiTheist]

The substance of this thread will remain, that for millenia, reasonable people and people of faith were compatible. Doesn’t it bother you that no longer seems the case?

No.

In my estimation, faith is a bad thing. It wasn’t always a bad thing, back when humans didn’t have any ways of seriously learning anything about the universe. But now that we have evidence-based inquiry, I think that faith is a positively harmful thing, and I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep if it disappeared entirely tomorow.

 

[Duong_Nguyen]

No.

In my estimation, faith is a bad thing. It wasn’t always a bad thing, back when humans didn’t have any ways of seriously learning anything about the universe. But now that we have evidence-based inquiry, I think that faith is a positively harmful thing, and I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep if it disappeared entirely tomorow.

I have to disagree here. Evidence-based inquiry depends on evidence we can observe. What about something that is not contained within our five senses? We are finite creatures constrained by length, width. depth and time. What if there is evidence that doesn’t fall under those restraints? Do they simply not exist? For the sake of science’s neutrality, all you can say is “Inconclusive. No comment.” You can’t deem that faith is positively harmful. You can’t prove it.
So just let us do what we want as long as it is outside your sphere of inquiry.

 

[G01]

No.

In my estimation, faith is a bad thing. It wasn’t always a bad thing, back when humans didn’t have any ways of seriously learning anything about the universe. But now that we have evidence-based inquiry, I think that faith is a positively harmful thing, and I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep if it disappeared entirely tomorow.

Faith isn’t about explaining the physical universe.

It’s about explaining the non physical parts of reality. The areas science, by definition, doesn’t cover.

 

[edwest2]

Faith isn’t about explaining the physical universe.

It’s about explaining the non physical parts of reality. The areas science, by definition, doesn’t cover.

From the Catholic perspective, faith is not generic, like having faith in someone. It involves a physical reality, Jesus Christ, who is alive today.

Peace,
Ed

 

[donsnow]

No.

In my estimation, faith is a bad thing. It wasn’t always a bad thing, back when humans didn’t have any ways of seriously learning anything about the universe. But now that we have evidence-based inquiry, I think that faith is a positively harmful thing, and I wouldn’t lose an ounce of sleep if it disappeared entirely tomorow.

Hi, AntiTheist -

OK, it doesn’t bother you.

But, remember, the closing lines of the OP, point out that science still holds, to research data, some data in faith while going out, not desperately but in curiosity, to find data that matches or falsifies the operating hypothesis. You think that provisional faith that science holds is a bad thing?

I think faith is a gift of God, and a good thing.

 

[donsnow]

Good morning, everybody -

Thank you for your posts, I find all of cogent and applicable.

 

[G01]

From the Catholic perspective, faith is not generic, like having faith in someone. It involves a physical reality, Jesus Christ, who is alive today.

Peace,
Ed

Yes, I agree. I think our disagreement is semantic in nature.

I define two different aspects to reality:

Physical reality and Spiritual reality. Both are integral and true parts of the world around us.

Here are the definitions I’m using:

Physical Reality (or Scientific Reality): Can be measured by the 5 senses and quantified. Can be scientifically disproved. i.e. The realm of science.

Spiritual Reality: That which is still a true and integral part to the world, but cannot be scientifically measured or quantified. It, cannot be scientifically disproved.

As an example, let’s take the Eucharist:

I’m Catholic and believe, as you do, that Jesus is truly and physically present in the Eucharist. However, as we know, scientific tests and measurements on the consecrated hosts will never reveal anything other than pieces of bread. Hence, Jesus’ presence is a spiritual reality, not a physical reality, in the sense defined above. Again, to stress, I am by no means saying that Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist is any less true or real than my presence of the moon orbiting around the Earth. As Catholics, we believe that both of these presences are true and real. However, Jesus presence in the Eucharist, is fundamentally different kind of Truth than the presence of the moon near the Earth. The first is a spiritual truth or reality. The second is a scientific reality.

If it helps, replace my use of the word physical with the word scientific.

Also, if I haven’t bored everyone yet, to give some idea of why I’m defining these terms:

I have been working on an argument against the position that atheism is more scientifically credible than other belief systems. (I’m sure someone has though of all that follows already. So, this is just for my own entertainment really.)

In my personal experience, most atheists I have met, justify their belief in no God by the fact that science says He shouldn’t exist. However, this isn’t true. God is not a scientific reality, he is a spiritual reality and so, science says nothing about God.

Thus, atheists (at least the one’s I’ve met and debated with), reject the entire notion that the spiritual reality exists at all. (i.e. Scientific Materialism) It’s the only way they can justify a position that says that science can explain everything without God.

So, really, the position that science can explain everything is a philosophical position, not a scientific one, or religious one. Since atheism is based off of this philosophical (not scientific) premise, it is not, scientifically, anymore valid than any other belief system.

Science alone is a methodology, a body of facts, data, and methods. It can’t be a faith.

However, scientific materialism is indeed be a belief system, where one must have believe that the only aspects to reality are physical (as defined above) aspects.

 

[donsnow]

GO1! -

Thank you! Yes, atheism remains a philosophical position, neither scientific nor religious.
Do you mind my adding ‘nor religious’ to your statement? OK, that’s my opinion, not trying to change what you were saying.

Anyway, thanks again for the meat in the above post of yours.

 

[AntiTheist]

donsnow:

But, remember, the closing lines of the OP, point out that science still holds, to research data, some data in faith while going out, not desperately but in curiosity, to find data that matches or falsifies the operating hypothesis. You think that provisional faith that science holds is a bad thing?

Science works by developing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses. That is very different from faith (at least the kind of faith that religions deal with).

I have to disagree here. Evidence-based inquiry depends on evidence we can observe.

It sure does. Pretty wild concept, eh?

What about something that is not contained within our five senses?

Well, we can demonstrate the existence of things that we can’t directly observe with our senses. For example, I can’t directly observe electrons, but I can do an experiment that shows that electrons manifest in a way that affects the world.

I imagine, though, that you’re talking about something that can’t be observed, measured, or demonstrated at all. How, then, do you know it exists? I define “exists” to mean “manifesting in some way, such that it affects the world.” Anything that conforms to that definition must be observable or measurable in some way; anything that doesn’t manifest in a way that affects the world is indistinguishable from something that does not exist.

You can’t deem that faith is positively harmful. You can’t prove it.

In fact, I assert that accepting claims without evidence – which, as you’ve indicated above, is precisely what faith means – is generally a harmful thing for society.

Religious terrorism, religiously-motivated child abuse, religiously-motivated discrimination, etc. are just the icing on the cake – there are plenty of positively harmful examples that result from ignoring evidence and believing in stuff you want to be true. And it’s the “moderate believers,” the people who aren’t hurting anyone directly and who think faith is just dandy, who provide cover to the folks who do the real damage.

So just let us do what we want as long as it is outside your sphere of inquiry.

That would be all well and good, except for the fact that the faithful want temporal power – i.e. power within my “sphere of inquiry.” They want to legislate their morality, they want to censor the opinions of others, and they want to take over the world by force in some cases.

When the religious stop wanting power in this world and instead stick to ruling the imaginary heavenly kingdom in their heads, then I’ll stop criticizing them so vocally. Until then, expect wild claims to be challenged.

 

[edwest2]

What is it about human beings that compels any of us toward faith in a spiritual reality? Could it be actual encounters with that spiritual reality in physical ways? Could it be that even primitive peoples, some still around today, understand something about the world around them that leads them to conclude that there is something about reality beyond our five senses?

Now, recently, science, which I keep hearing is silent about faith, has come out against it.

So, what compels you to live your life? What assumptions and data do you believe? It would be false to say that science is neutral. It’s part of what gets things done. It’s the “experts” who are consulted that shape domestic and foreign policy. People build their lives around it. Science shapes their worldview and affects how they see themselves and other human beings.

Jesus Christ. Who is He?

Liar.
Lunatic.
Lord.

Of course, you can claim He never existed but there’s good, non-Christian scholarship that refutes that.

I had a phone conversion with an old friend. I said, “Do you believe in God?”
He said, “I believe in evolution.”

A little later, we spoke again, and he said, “The cell. It’s too complex to have evolved on its own.”

You see. This can change your entire view of yourself and others, not to mention the natural world around you.

Peace,
Ed

 

[AntiTheist]

What is it about human beings that compels any of us toward faith in a spiritual reality?

The desire for things to be the way we imagine.

Jesus Christ. Who is He?

Liar.
Lunatic.
Lord.

Legend, in my estimation. In the same way that King Arthur was probably a real person around whom legends grew up, it is likely the “Jesus Christ” was probably a real person around whom legends grew up.

“The cell. It’s too complex to have evolved on its own.”

Even if this were true (which it’s not), it would simply mean that we don’t have all the answers. It wouldn’t demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is any more likely to be true.

 

[G01]

OK. Two points here.

Science has not come out against religion. Science is a body of facts. A product of human thought. There are certain scientists who have spoken out against religion, possible trying to use science to support their view. However, as I tried to show above, I think that science only supports their view if you hold the same philosophical position as an atheist.

Also, some people of faith have done bad things, sure. However, it is extremely unfair to blame religious people and religious thought for the actions of a minority of crazy individuals.

Just because some crazy members of a certain religious cult at some point in time molested somebody or murdered somebody, does not make all people of faith horrible people. Also, neither is it religion’s fault. Those people may have used religion to justify their actions, but, even without religion, they would have found some other excuse for their actions.

So, please let’s not make broad sweeping generalizations about people of faith or about science based on what only a few people say and do.

 

[donsnow]

donsnow: Science works by developing hypotheses and testing those hypotheses. That is very different from faith (at least the kind of faith that religions deal with).

Well, maybe it looks like you’ve agreed that science works with a provisional faith in hypothesis, to look for data with which to confirm or falsify the hypothesis. However, I would submit, that there’s really not ‘different kinds’ of faith. It’s just that different people exercise faith differently in different contexts.

Oh, GO1 -
I need to correct my first reply to your meaty post. You’re right, some atheists are religiously militant .

Let me see, theist means a belief in a God’
atheist means without God?
And our friend AntiTheist is honest enough to plainly label his position. Not a very smart nor tactful position, but an honest one.

 

[AntiTheist]

OK. Two points here.

Science has not come out against religion. Science is a body of facts. A product of human thought. There are certain scientists who have spoken out against religion, possible trying to use science to support their view.

Yes, all this is correct.

[quoteAlso, some people of faith have done bad things, sure. However, it is extremely unfair to blame religious people and religious thought for the actions of a minority of crazy individuals.
[/quote]No, you didn’t understand, and perhaps I was not being clear enough. It’s not just that religious people do bad things – it’s that faith, the acceptance of claims without evidence, is in and of itself a bad thing for both individuals and society.

Just because some crazy members of a certain religious cult at some point in time molested somebody or murdered somebody, does not make all people of faith horrible people. Also, neither is it religion’s fault. Those people may have used religion to justify their actions, but, even without religion, they would have found some other excuse for their actions.

So, please let’s not make broad sweeping generalizations about people of faith or about science based on what only a few people say and do.

dosnow:

Well, maybe it looks like you’ve agreed that science works with a provisional faith in hypothesis, to look for data with which to confirm or falsify the hypothesis. However, I would submit, that there’s really not ‘different kinds’ of faith. It’s just that different people exercise faith differently in different contexts.

It’s not a “different kind” of faith – it’s not faith at all.

Gathering evidence and evaluating a hypothesis has no relation to religious faith, which is the acceptance of claims without evidence.

To label evidence-based inquiry as “faith” and then to imply an equivalence to a completely different phenomenon (the one usually labeled “faith”) is disingenuous in the extreme.

 

[donsnow]

Yes, all this is correct.

[quoteAlso, some people of faith have done bad things, sure. However, it is extremely unfair to blame religious people and religious thought for the actions of a minority of crazy individuals.

No, you didn’t understand, and perhaps I was not being clear enough. It’s not just that religious people do bad things – it’s that faith, the acceptance of claims without evidence, is in and of itself a bad thing for both individuals and society.

Just because some crazy members of a certain religious cult at some point in time molested somebody or murdered somebody, does not make all people of faith horrible people. Also, neither is it religion’s fault. Those people may have used religion to justify their actions, but, even without religion, they would have found some other excuse for their actions.

So, please let’s not make broad sweeping generalizations about people of faith or about science based on what only a few people say and do.
[/QUOTE]
dosnow: It’s not a “different kind” of faith – it’s not faith at all.

Gathering evidence and evaluating a hypothesis has no relation to religious faith, which is the acceptance of claims without evidence.

To label evidence-based inquiry as “faith” and then to imply an equivalence to a completely different phenomenon (the one usually labeled “faith”) is disingenuous in the extreme.

Hi, AntiTheist -

Are you hung up about faith? And, yes, by the Biblical definition of faith, which I go by and doesn’t require your endorsement, it is faith. Hebrews 11, 1 (NAB): “Faith is confident assurance concerning what we hope for, and conviction about things we do not see.” That is faith. And I, nor that definition nor my claims can be labeled disingenuous.
I will repeat, for over 2,000 years that faith led philosophers and then scientists to seek data confirming or falsifying the existence of atoms and the evolution of life. They had no evidence toward the existence of either. I repeat, faith can be held by scientist and religious alike, and still is. Although I disagree that all and any kind of faith is bad, you have a point of bad faith when it comes to the atom, considering the nuclear arsenals on this planet still capable of turning the whole planet into a large, radioactive cinder. Furthermore, when you say faith is bad, and I have shown that faith carried the concept of evolution without codifed evidence for 2,000 yrs and led paleontologist and archaeologists to find data confirming evolution, then evolution is bad. Because it came from the, you say, bad thing faith.
Congratulations, Anti-Theist, you have just ripped the underpinings out from under two major tenets of modern science.:clapping:
Are you sure that you wish to continue your rant that faith is bad?

 

[edwest2]

The desire for things to be the way we imagine.

Legend, in my estimation. In the same way that King Arthur was probably a real person around whom legends grew up, it is likely the “Jesus Christ” was probably a real person around whom legends grew up.

Even if this were true (which it’s not), it would simply mean that we don’t have all the answers. It wouldn’t demonstrate that a supernatural explanation is any more likely to be true.

“The desire for things to be the way we imagine.”? Human beings do that all the time. The initiation of the national effort to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960s was precisely such an endeavor. The British, who believed it could not be done, wrote an apology to the Americans after they accomplished the feat.

Most people wish to follow their dreams, and make things the way they imagine.

Peace,
Ed

 

[G01]

No, you didn’t understand, and perhaps I was not being clear enough. It’s not just that religious people do bad things – it’s that faith, the acceptance of claims without evidence, is in and of itself a bad thing for both individuals and society.

If you are of the opinion that science has the ability to explain everything in reality, then yes, faith would be a bad thing.

All I am trying to argue however, is that this opinion is not more scientifically accurate than the opinion that there are things in the world that science can’t explain.

For instance, to scientifically justify that Science has the ability to explain everything, you would be using science to prove the applicability of science. This is a circular argument. You can’t use science to justify science. It doesn’t make sense.

Also, even if we accept this circular argument. You couldn’t scientifically justify the applicability of science over everything in reality without assuming that science does have applicability everywhere. Thus, you’re begging the question. (Petitio Principii) You can’t assume what you are trying to prove.

So atheism is a philosophical position, not a scientific one. It can’t be backed up by science without running into several huge logical fallacies in the argument.

Anyway, I believe you have every right to be an atheist. It’s you free will and it is what you believe makes sense. I happen to disagree, but still you have a right to your philosophical position.

However, you can’t say that faith is all bad, because, in a way, to hold your position, you have to have a kind of faith that science can explain all of reality.