Taking Science on Faith

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

In doing so it treads on the toes of science, and does so incredibly badly.

only for fundies. Catholics & many mainstream protestants don't use the Bible as a science textbook.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[JackC 0]

Quote

Quote

In doing so it treads on the toes of science, and does so incredibly badly.

only for fundies. Catholics & many mainstream protestants don't use the Bible as a science textbook.

Well, Jesus' alleged birth from a virgin is a scientific question and it's not just fundies who believe that. But for me, the over-riding point is the way you have to think in order to believe in god. That suspension of rationalism and abandonment of reason needed to believe in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent supernatural being with absolutely no supporting evidence whatsoever is distinctly unscientific. Actually, I think it smacks of gullibility and I can't understand why ordinarily intelligent, rational people would do it.

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

Quote

Rubbish.

A little too easily dismissed given the pedigree of the scientist.


Followed by more rubbish...
Hint: the authority principle is worthless in a scientific context. Not so in faith-based belief systems where it is preeminent.
Cheers,

Vale

I don't think your logic stands as I was not arguing that the assertions made by the authority are right or wrong, but simply a conclusion was presented without a supporting argument. The person is a recognised expert in his field and he may have something worthwhile to say.

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

***.... no supporting evidence

Hi Jack - just interested in exploring your statement, what type of evidence would satisfy you of an existence of a Biblical God?

[nerdgirl 0]

Davies is a fascinating character (& that’s not a cynical dig or set-up). Thanks for bringing up his writings.

For those who want to find rationalization or vague support for fundamentalist Christian view of a Biblical God (or any other fundamentalist human religious concepts) or “intelligent design” are likely to be very disappointed.

He’s a deist – a lot closer to Unitarian Universalists than fundamentalist Protestant sects. Davies is also perhaps closer to Rep Dennis Kucinich than Gov Mike Huckabee – a prime theme of Davies’ research is theoretical (not experimental) astrobiology, i.e., searching for extraterrestrial life, which is an endeavor less X-Files and more interstellar germ & nucleic acid hunter. He’s actually suggested “multiple terrestrial genesis events,” metaphorical-technical use of 'genesis' not literally referring to Judeo-Christian account.

Another popular piece (i.e., Op-Ed) by Davies from June 2007: Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it, seems like what the NYTimes Op-Ed was derived from. It’s interesting (to me, at least) to compare his recent NY Times Op-Ed, which prompted this thread, and his Guardian (UK) Op-Ed … one can speculate perhaps more on the nature of the American versus British newspaper-reading public than a clear vision of Davies' deism.
“We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships. I propose instead that the laws are more like computer software: programs being run on the great cosmic computer. They emerge with the universe at the big bang and are inherent in it, not stamped on it from without like a maker's mark.”

“In the first split second of cosmic existence, the laws must therefore have been seriously fuzzy. Then, as the information content of the universe climbed, the laws focused and homed in on the life-encouraging form we observe today. But the flaws in the laws left enough wiggle room for the universe to engineer its own bio-friendliness.”

“Thus, three centuries after Newton, symmetry is restored: the laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself [emphasis nerdgirl].”

---- ---- ---- ----

Davies also seems to have an ongoing, public intellectual sparring with Prof Richard Dawkins, who is another award-winning, prominent scientist and avowed atheist. Anecodotal evidence perhaps on the inherant nature of smart humans to argue? Yes, intentional reference to akarunway's thread.

Another piece by Davies from Nature is much more circumspect than his NY Times Op-Ed, although far from dismissing Ray Kurzweil’s transhumanist idea of “singularity.”

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[steveorino 7]

Quote

My concern is more with people who take faith as science.

Moving on.

same here

steveOrino

[JackC 0]

Quote

what type of evidence would satisfy you of an existence of a Biblical God?

Hi Dann,

Oh I don't know, something unambiguous that could be prodded and poked (scientifically speaking) by anyone. Something that would yeild the unavoidable conclusion that goddidit. The sort of evidence that leads people to believe that gravity exists.

Actually, you'd do better if you dropped the "biblical" condition to your question since the bible isn't up to much as a book. Steven King writes better prose without divine inspiration.

Getting into this conversation in here usually results in an empty can and worms all over the floor, the walls, ceiling and half way down the street. Get out while you still can!

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

In doing so it treads on the toes of science, and does so incredibly badly.

only for fundies. Catholics & many mainstream protestants don't use the Bible as a science textbook.

Does your faith lead you to think that God actually exists and has power over the universe?

If yes, my statement still stands.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>So, the current state of affairs on Global Warming could be considered
>"faith based", then?

If it had not produced testable hypotheses which have since been validated - yes, you could claim that. Unfortunately . . . .

...too many of the GW 'faithful' spend time and money trying to cast doubt on any theory that doesn't fit their "gospel"... perhaps you're familiar with the "type 1" "type 2" and "type 3" 'denier' labels?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[JackC 0]

Quote

"Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from “that’s not a scientific question” to “nobody knows.” The favorite reply is, “There is no reason they are what they are — they just are.” The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality — the laws of physics — only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science.
……..

But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."

I think this is based on a definition of science that is actually bogus. The universe exists, that's pretty obvious; but why the universe is the way it is is not so obvious. Science basically takes the universe as we can measure it and tries to use logic and reason to figure out what makes it tick. It doesn't take faith (in any usual sense) to recognise that the universe exists and it doesn't take faith to take that information and say "with the universe as we see it, what can we find out about how it works". We don't know if the universe is even understandable at the ultimate level but we have reason to believe that it might be given that we can at least understand parts of it. In it's purest form, science is faith free.

Now there may well be scientist who believe certain things about the nature of the universe but can't prove them. That is their own personal belief but it isn't anything to do with science in it's purest form.

Many people quite happily drive their cars without even the slightest knowledge of how they work. But cars do work, that's usually the way of things. Driving a car doesn't require faith.

Similarly, people can add up their grocery bills. They don't need to be experts in number theory or even be aware that number theory exists to be able to do that. You don't need faith to know that within the usual axiomatic mathematical system: 2+2=4.

Just because you can ask more and more detailed questions about science until you are confronted with the answer "I don't know", doesn't mean faith lies at the centre of it all. "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable and faith-free answer. If you have to invent an unknown thing, mechanism or event to link all your theories about how the world works, then and only then have you invoked faith.

[GreyLake 0]

I was talking to someone about the use of the word "miraculous" and I meant to play less on its religious connotations, going more with the absurd: not outside the physical realm, but indeed extraordinary. That sort of "miracle." A miracle needn't be divine. (Indeed, science shows us otherwise).

Of course physical reality remains what it is; whether or not anyone can determine in fact what it is, or how it works. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about the time before scientific evidence is produced during which a scientist believes that science can prove a thing. You still have to believe that science can prove things. In all likelihood it shall, as it typically does, but you still have to believe that it can and will explain the unknown.

On another note, I've seen Jesus in enough grilled cheese sandwiches to know that there's no miracle in it.

Again, I think words are to blame here:

Faith (according to m-w.com)

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

I mean the word in the terms I've made bold. In this I mean that scientists have faith in science, or take science on faith.

Let's go to candy mountain.

[JackC 0]

Quote

A miracle needn't be divine. (Indeed, science shows us otherwise).

Can you give us an example of where science has shown us that miracles do happen? You'll need to tell us which definition of the word miracle you are using.

Quote

I'm talking about the time before scientific evidence is produced during which a scientist believes that science can prove a thing. You still have to believe that science can prove things.

You also have to believe that 2+2 will equal 4 next time you add them up. Scientists don't randomly start researching in any arbitrary area. They choose an area of research based on what has been learned before and where a there is "gap in the market". A gap that stands a good chance of being filled. You wouldn't just randomly start a business without a proper business strategy and a good level of market research, what makes you think science is any different?

Quote

Faith (according to m-w.com)

1 a: allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1): fidelity to one's promises (2): sincerity of intentions
2 a (1): belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1): firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2): complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

I mean the word in the terms I've made bold. In this I mean that scientists have faith in science, or take science on faith.

If you insist in defining faith as "something that is believed especially with strong conviction" then absolutely anything could be an article of faith. If you're a Republican and you have strong convictions, you have faith; believe gravity will pull you towards the planet when you exit the plane, you have faith; think chocolate ice-cream is tasty, you have faith. You definition is so wide that absolutely anything and everything could be an article of faith. You definition is therefore pretty useless.

Keep it simple:
to know requires proof,
to believe requires evidence,
to have faith requires neither.

[DannHuff 0]

Quote

Quote

what type of evidence would satisfy you of an existence of a Biblical God?

Hi Dann,

Oh I don't know, something unambiguous that could be prodded and poked (scientifically speaking) by anyone. Something that would yeild the unavoidable conclusion that goddidit. The sort of evidence that leads people to believe that gravity exists.

Jack - thanks for the reply. I'm not sure I'm taking your advice but here goes.

Science is obviously the study of things physical. I find it interesting that the Bible presents Jesus as "God in flesh", or the physical presence of God that walked on this earth. So in a sense during this time God could be prodded and poked. I guess doubting Thomas was conducting a scientific experiment when he was prodding the resurrected Jesus (as the story is told). It should be noted while Jesus walked on this earth many chose not to believe, including religious leaders of the day. Clearly today the same experiment cannot be conducted but the words and deeds of Jesus (ie God in flesh) are recorded for all to examine.

[JackC 0]

Quote

Science is obviously the study of things physical. I find it interesting that the Bible presents Jesus as "God in flesh", or the physical presence of God that walked on this earth. So in a sense during this time God could be prodded and poked. I guess doubting Thomas was conducting a scientific experiment when he was prodding the resurrected Jesus (as the story is told). It should be noted while Jesus walked on this earth many chose not to believe, including religious leaders of the day. Clearly today the same experiment cannot be conducted but the words and deeds of Jesus (ie God in flesh) are recorded for all to examine.

That's all well and good but that's not how science works. If I perform an scientific experiment and publish the results, to be of any use at all they have to be reproducable. That means that I can go back to my notes and do the experiment again and get the same result. Or someone 2000 years in the future can read my notes, do the same experiment and get the same results. The mere recorded words on their own are actually worthless, the work has to be reproducable to stand up to scrutiny.

The words and deeds of Odysseus are written in Homer's Iliad and Odyssey. That doesn't mean Odysseus' was real and his life was toyed with by real live Greek Gods. I'll bet you agree that the story is clearly absurd. In the same way that Homer's Odyssey is worthless as evidence for Greek Gods, the Bible is worthless as evidence for the Christian God.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I was talking to someone about the use of the word "miraculous" and I meant to play less on its religious connotations, going more with the absurd: not outside the physical realm, but indeed extraordinary. That sort of "miracle." A miracle needn't be divine. (Indeed, science shows us otherwise).

…. Uh, yes a “miracle” is an act of a supernatural being outside physical realm. Again, that’s outside the realm of science – for the mystics, madmen, philosophers of the world, and late night campfire discussions in the thin air of the Rockies.

“Hope” is another fundamentally unscientific concept – doesn’t mean it isn’t good, isn’t a powerful force in human behavior, nor can reason be part of the calculus (at times) … but it’s still not science.

Quote

I'm talking about the time before scientific evidence is produced during which a scientist believes that science can prove a thing. You still have to believe that science can prove things. In all likelihood it shall, as it typically does, but you still have to believe that it can and will explain the unknown.

You seem to be stuck on the some imagined moment of existential “proof” – your word, not mine. You’re (selectively?) ignoring the methodology – the repeated, observable, measurable, & public portion of science along with the causality in the physical realm portion.

Do you “believe” in gravity? Would you be willing to test your “belief” in gravity by leaving a plane w/out some method to radically slow your rate of fall before impacting the planet? (Of course, not! ... I hope!) Because exactly how gravity works results from interplay of subatomic particles and fundamental forces is not understood. Nonetheless, gravity has been used to detect the existence of (initially) unseen (via EM-spectrum, mostly ‘light’) planets … because those planets had enough mass to have an effect on the stars about which they rotate ... the planet's gravity caused small wobbles.

Quote

Again, I think words are to blame here:

Concur. Your mixing proverbial apples and the petrochemical industry.
We’ve also left science and firmly entered the realm of philosophical ontology.

Quote

I mean the word in the terms I've made bold. In this I mean that scientists have faith in science, or take science on faith.

Can one have faith is science? Yes. Then it’s not science, it’s faith … (... & examined through ontology).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[maadmax 0]

Faith has to be the first point of contact for both science and spirituality. In the case of science its faith in a higher order, in the case of spirituality its faith in a higher power. The scientific method will never produce spiritual enlightenment, just as the inward quest necessary for spiritual self awareness will never produce scientific discovery. The reality we create for ourselves requires input from both areas.

[billvon 3,111]

>In the case of science its faith in a higher order . . .

Not really. I can do an experiment right here in my lab that proves one of Maxwell's equations. That's the opposite of faith - questioning and subsequent proof.

[beowulf 1]

I think its pretty funny when people attempt to equate the use of science to religious faith. All they are trying to do is give their religious faith the same credibility as the scientific process. This is a pretty silly proposition. Religious faith is not based on logic. While scientific research is based on logic and subject to scrutiny by anyone, either it works or it doesn't. You can't test for existence of any god. All scientific discoveries can be tested in one way or another. Faith requires the you stop questioning. Science requires you to continue questioning.

[JackC 0]

Quote

The scientific method will never produce spiritual enlightenment,

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

[jakee 1,594]

Quote

Quote

The scientific method will never produce spiritual enlightenment,

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

A flaming sambuca?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[ExAFO 0]

Quote

Rubbish.

Rabbits.
Radish.
Rodents.

Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW.

[livendive 8]

Asking the question "why" till one reaches the end of knowledge is a common activity for 4 year olds. The fact that questions remain which the parents cannot answer does not make the answers they have provided faith-based or any less valid.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Why is that?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[livendive 8]

Quote

Why is that?

Just because.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[maadmax 0]

Quote

Quote

The scientific method will never produce spiritual enlightenment,

Spiritual enlightenment eh... What exactly is that?

_______________________________________________

For starters it is the absence of hate, anger, fear, greed, vindictiveness, dishonesty, lusts, envy, and self deification. If you valued spiritual development then you would know that humility, love, honesty, charity, reverence, peace, transparency, and joy are some of the characteristics manifested by those who do.