Scientific Faith
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=21172
Printed Date: 14-May-2024 at 02:29
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Scientific Faith
Posted By: Paul
Subject: Scientific Faith
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 19:48
|
If I was to make the claim the dark side of the moon is green with pink poker dots. A scientist would demand I back up this statement. If I refuse to back it up and say I just believe it to be true, he would consider the statement unfounded superstition and me a crank.
If a scientist was to make the claim, scientific methods (impiricism, logic and so on....) were methods of proving something. I would quite naturally ask him to back this statement up and provide proof his believes were true not mere superstition. The scientist would brand me a postmodernist and irrationalist for not simply believing in his methodoloy without proof.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Replies:
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 11-Aug-2007 at 21:55
|
What's the problem here exactly? ------------- |
Posted By: Serge L
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 10:17
| I did not understand too, sorry |
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 12:05
|
before you equate religious beliefs w/ irrationalism, can i suggest you read through Aquinas' five proofs for the existence of God. not all logic necessarily depends on matter or material existence for verification. for instance, your assumption that we can only be certain of those truths that can be scientifically verified is a theoretical statement, an assumption, that cannot be scientifically verified. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 12:29
They are all invalid. ------------- |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 12:53
I think your assumption, polar bears are really dinasaurs diguised as 3 foot high green goblins that wear tutus and live on the moon is a statement that can't be verified. ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 12-Aug-2007 at 23:25
Technically according to physics everything is in motion to a certain degree. This doesn't make the statement invalid, it is perfectly logical to assume that there can not be an infinite set of cause and effect sets(mathematicians did I use that correctly) in a finite system. If that is the case, eventually these near infinite effects will have a singular cause.
This I believe in the light of modern thought is a weak point. As we know in our modern ideas that things we observe can come from forces seemingly independent of the actions of a being, then we must assume that there is a possibility actions exist independent of beings, although a being could still have set another action which brought that action into being....Anyway, this arguement I still think holds some validity, although its arguement is a bit weak in my opinion.
This arguement is valid because it agrees with popular science in that everything that exists in this universe came from the greatest force this universe has known, the Big Bang.
Ah yes the old intelligent design theory, this is in fact not invalid, because it is logical to assume that an orderly world has to have some sort of inate plan of order to set it right (in fact Cosmos in greek thought implied order, contrary to disorder or Chaos, so even the ancient greeks founders of modern science believed in intelligent design.)
 That's awesome Paul, all scientists function under faith that the scientific method is flawless and is the absolute truth in determining anything. While they disregard the fact that there could be a problem in the methodology that can mess up their data. I like that idea.------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 00:10
It seems you forgot to mention what you meant by 'system' and why it is finite.
No, that's totally baseless and therefore, invalid.
Except Big Bang is not a being or a 'force', but a theory which deals with energy, formation of regular matter etc. as opposed to 'static universe' idea.
I reconsidered. It's not simply 'wrong' as it doesn't necessarily contradict with evolution. Yet it's too weak and therefore, invalid, to be a proof of anything. ------------- |
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 01:10
|
paul, could you be more shallow? janus, go ahead, explain fundamentals...define cause and effect while your at it. like Hegel said, those who haven't studied an iota of philosophy or theology feel no shame in making sweeping pronouncements on lofty matters in these fields...i think Hegel called them... |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 06:03
Plenty, shallow is my middle name.
Could you look at someone else's statement in more jaded way, decide and quote that person saying they said the exact opposite of what they really said, more often in future please? ------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 06:48
"anything moved is moved by another" - not argumented. There's no need for a first mover if everything is in motion.
"and there can't be an infinite series of causes" - says who? That would mean that there's no need for a first cause so there's no need for God.
"Every contingent being at some time fails to exist" this doesn't mean that the contingent being turns into nothing. If you burn a sheet of paper it ceases to exist as sheet of paper, yet that doesnt mean it turns into emptiness.
Rephrase:
4 - SMALLEST BEING: Some things are smaller than others. Whatever is small to any degree gets its smalness from that which is the smallest. So there is a smallest being, which is the source of all smallness. This is God. This argument is not invalid, as some say, it's just not functional. God is supposed to be unlimited so you can limit him to a concept like "the greatest" which basically states that "God is limited to His greatness". Of course you could say that "God is limited to His greatness which is unlimited". Note that I did not used "infinite".
"Many things in the world that lack intelligence act for an end" - that doesn't mean that everything in the world act for an end. Humans are maybe a good counterxample since in many situations they seem to act without a purpose. And they're supposed to be intelligent. "Whatever acts for an end must be directed by an intelligent being" - that's something yet to be proved. It's basically the axiom of ID so it can't be used to explain the ID. The logic used here is circular so it's not functional.
The problem with those who are faithful(religious) is that when they ask people if they have faith in science they consider this kind of faith similar with the faith they have in their divinity. And, btw, the scientists don't function under any kind of faith and they certainly do not think of the scientific method as being flawless. They merely use methods that are adequate to prove something.
The hilarious part is when religious people are using scientific methods and try to prove the existence of their God.
|
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 08:26
You appear to be addressing Scientists as if they are all of one mind, many Scientists hold religous beliefs themselves, in fact I would argue that the great majority of scientists have a faith of some description. There is no magical divide between those of religous convictions and those whose proffession is science to believe so requires a great deal of blind faith. Regards, Praetor. ------------- |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 08:54
A scientist can be a religious man, there's no doubt about it. The point is that that they don not worship science as they do their divinity. That's why I stated that scientist, being religious or not, are not mistaking faith with science.
Blind faith is what religion requires, not science.
I certainly do not fully comprehend all scientific theories. But I trust those who scientifically brought them up.
Newton's mechanics, for example, are quite easy to follow and understand. Also that part of physics is known to offer sufficient support to be useful. It surely has been brought down by later developements but only to the extent that it is a theory that doesn't explain everything. I don't need to have faith to believe in quantum physics and neither to fully comprehend it. I only trust the scientists who developed the theory. Therefore I have faith in people, not in God. A scientist, of whatever level, who believes in God, only trusts science, he doesn't believe in it.
|
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 16:18
|
seems like you have a misconception of religion when you say it requires blind faith. btw, in some languages, to trust and to believe are the same word, and mostly synonomous anyways. not that there's anything wrong w/ trust. in fact, it is a good thing, and it's relevant that you point that out, that a fair amount of scientific research and such depends upon mutual human trust. we assume their best intentions. why isn't this good faith applied to other areas of knowledge and research. i'm not saying be naive, i'm saying casting aside radical skepticism and not making ppl prove their good intentions if there is no cause to doubt. cezar, motion is a state of change, how can something always be in a state of change? it has to start from someplace, from something to change to another. why there cannot be infinite regression? are you mormon? if you burn a sheet of paper, it doesn't cease to exist as a paper? greatest doesn't gauge size exclusively, it also gauges excellence and perfection - and the spiritual not being contained by the material, size doesn't matter. and on the intelligence part, it doesn't mean their bright and shining, it simply means there is a will behind the actions. yes, ppl do different things for seemingly purposelessly, but they do utilize their wills - perhaps we can say their actual intelligence was dim or resting. |
Posted By: Lmprs
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 17:03
It's called 'dialectics'.
It turns into ash and heat, not 'nothingness'. ------------- |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 17:52
A great scientist once said "The only thing that can be proven is that something is wrong" - or words to that effect. I think thats' what Paul's interesting little speech is supposed to be getting it. You can't ultimatley proove anything - all scientific proof is essentially theory that seems to work. If some wonderful discovery were made (things like they are finding in CERN, but don't ask me because I'm terrible at science!), then it could shake the foundations of our current "theory". Everything is theory and there is no solid base for belief in anything. It's like with Metaphysics - there is no solid definition within that branch of philosophy because everything can be interpreted in an equally valid and equally logical way and still come out differently.
As I said in my above post, accepted scientific method is only a theory that has seemed, up until now, to work. These scientists who people have "faith" in work for theory, and theory is just...theory - down the line, the further one goes (which I think is what Paul's little analongy was trying to say) nothing can be fully proven because to do so, you need something else to compare it to which is certainly true - and nothing is, so thus, nothing can be done apart from theories which seem to have produced the desired result. ------------- |
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 18:49
|
so your conclusion is "there is no truth we can be certain of"? |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 19:11
|
Yes - and it's the conclusion of a great many. "We can only advance on what we know" as Descartes said (at least I think that's it...). "Truths" can be interpreted in a great many ways. I consider spirtualism and other philosophies as trying to find a mix of them which suits you in a guise (cultural or otherwise) that you feel is appropriate. ------------- |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 20:00
|
Indeed, that is where Paul makes a mockery of the original thought that he is trying to emulate. The idea that there are truths, but its the intepretation which is difficult. We can all agree that things happen, things are and facts must be out there, its just finding them that is difficult or finding a structure to deconstruct them accurately. However, Paul takes it too far into the realms of fantasy. There is only so far to which one can seperate from at least some truths when creating a theory or statement.
This statement can actually be verified. The Truth is that "Polar Bear" is a word attributed to a creature that lives around the North Pole. Because this is so, your statement is false. Its possible that Polar Bear Like creatures are disgused as dinasaurs or even dinosaurs on the moon, but the original statement is false.
This one is more difficult because it is so subjective. Its difficult to even agree for instance that the moon does have a colour that could be considered a fact. Anyhow, whatever statements you make, it is still vital to have some sort of underlying evidence. It doesn't matter what framework you have used to create a statement, its merely important to present how your subjective statement is closer to the Facts than anothers statement. That is the differents between rational and irrational, it is why the Scientist in your example is rational and you are not. |
Posted By: The_Jackal_God
Date Posted: 13-Aug-2007 at 21:40
|
good points ovidius... aster, the absurdity of "there is no truth that we can be certain of" is the absurdity of relativism. there are truths that we can know, there are other things that are unclear, but the fact that everything is not perfectly clear doesn't mean nothing is. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 02:51
|
which truths are there that we can know? When one questions everything, you simply can't proove it all the way down the line. I don't think it's absurd - everything is based on theory, that's all. Of course, some things are more clear than others - I never said that they weren't - I'm just saying that ultimatley, we've got to proceed on what we know because there has never been any single mathematical basis for much of our scientific knowledge - much of it's just tinkering and experiements that threw up certain results. ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 03:42
Sorry I thought it was implied that by system I meant the universe and it is finite because science tells us in order for their math to be correct it must be finite.
No it's just based in the assumption that a divine being exists which is why it is faulty logic, it's like using the same word to define itself.
Did I ever say Big Bang Theory? No, I said Big Bang referring to the incredible force of all matter coming into existence from nothing.
Weak arguements are not invalid. They just don't hold as much proof as strong arguements.
But there is a point in time when said objects were not in motion, therefore a first mover is necessary. If you disregard Big Bang Theory though, I won't press this matter on you.
Because in order to have infinite causes it would mean that an infinite amount of time would have to have elapsed so that all of these causes could come into being, as time is not infinite there cannot be infinite causes.
Aha, but the paper did not exist before it was turned into paper.
I think that that is basically what that statement is saying. Of course I would counter that because the concept of God is contained in differing states of "greatness" I would say that smallness is the absence of God's greatness, so an unlimited smallness would be the total absence of God.
Notice my correction 
Agreed circular reasoning is poor logic for proving a point, but still valid, since I can say the ball is red because it's red. The ball will never be blue even if I can't explain why it's not.
So your telling me if I told a biologist that there is no hard evidence that life can come about naturally from non-living matter that he'd argree that his theories about the origin of life may be flawed? I doubt it instead he would talk about the "water bubbles" created in laboratories or how the organic soup of the early earth "magically" combined in a thunderstorm to create life. And then he would say that this was "proof" his theories weren't flawed. And I'll be damned if I believe scientists don't operate under a faith in their methods. They have their entire careers, their livelihoods staked on their ideas, and if they even act like they're turning back on their own theories, then they could lose funding for their research.
 ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Cezar
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 04:20
OK, it requires clearvoyant faith. Being convinced that there is a (one or more or something undefined by numbers) supreme being without an irefutable proof is what the religious mind is about. So, yes, religion is blind faith. It's not something wrong, or necessary bad.
Mostly, not entirely. We can stick to the dictionary but I think it's better to define what I mean since English is not my native language:
I trust a lot of people. I don't trust a lot too, some of them being not religious. I wasn't speaking about trusting people but trusting what people do, the case being scientific research.
"Motion" or "state of change" is what is. At least that's what nowadays science states. Imobility is only a concept while mobility is the state of our universe. I know of religion to contradict this but it's doing it doesn't come with a proof for it.
Where did I stated that?
And I consider myself an agnostic.
Did I wrote something else?
Therefore "God is perfect" is the same as "God is the Greatest"? Is there a limit to greatness/perfection?
Intelligence=purpose/will? That would make no difference between a slug and Einstein. How would you like to be called "smart as an amoeba?"
|
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 05:37
|
No, but the matter of which the paper is comprised of did in a different form
God isn't infinity in this metaphysical term- god represents infinity as humans perceive and comprehend it. God ultimatley is the infinity and wonder of the knowledge out there and how much of it there is for humans to explore. Humans, being so small and puny perceive this knowledge and space to be infinitate - we think that it's not because of scientific theorems etc - but frankly, humans can percieve something that great anyway, so it must be infinate to their comprehension. So, for all intensive purposes, god is infinity insomuch as the concept relates to humans.
Yes, to all intenses and purposes, that ball is red. To our perception that ball is red. To almost every single test that humans can carry out that ball is red, but there is no way to prove it indisputably - you've just got to assume on the assumption that the ball is red. This assumption seems so obvious that people think it's fact - nothing is fact, only seemingly working theorems.
------------- |
Posted By: Ovidius
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 08:00
thats totally untrue. You are taking relativism too far with these statements. There are facts, there has to be facts. The problem is in the intepretation of those facts. Things have to happen, those occurances are facts. For instance, the World exists, thats a fact - it might be difficult to explain its creation, its history, its make up, its colour or its size, but it does exist. Or do you argue with me and will present that it is not a fact that the world Exists? You, yourself, you exist. Or do you deny that it is a fact that you exist? Yes, in the case of a red ball, the ball might not be red because colour is generally subjective and an intepretation of what our eyes see. However, the ball is there, the ball is there to be chosen and the ball has a colour. All of these are facts. Seemingly working theorems is not really a useful way of looking at it, because things are not theories. It is not a theory that I got out of bed at a certain time and had breakfast, its fact. Now if there are facts in daily life, that ultimately means there can be facts in Science. The problem is proving that they are facts and creating a framework in which to accurately and absolutely prove that something is a truth and not a theory. |
Posted By: Aster Thrax Eupator
Date Posted: 14-Aug-2007 at 08:11
|
Yes - I see now. Metaphysics was never my strong point in reading philosophy. As to if I exist - that's one fact that I do agree with - "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think therefore I am) must be true because I can answer that question in the first place. I don't much like Descartes - he was very much of his own time and much of his stuff is outdated but that quote and some of the theories behind it are good. You explain the point very well, Ovidius! ------------- |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 15-Aug-2007 at 02:55
No, the paper is a defined object. The materials that the paper is made from only had the potential to become the paper. Until that point the paper had yet to exist.
God doesn't represent infinity or near infinity what he represents is the ultimate being of perfection, that can achieve anything the human mind can think of and more. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |