DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
No, but many/most scientists do assume evolution is correct and many people have actually been deceived into thinking it is fact. That is a fact and it's not right.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
No, but many/most scientists do assume evolution is correct and many people have actually been deceived into thinking it is fact. That is a fact and it's not right.
Continuing from where I left off in my previous post....
Scientific theories "live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing", to quote one prominent cosmologist George Ellis. In contrast, religious truths that derive from a purported divine intervention outside the known laws of physics, cannot in principle be subjected to testability or found to have predictive power.
But what happens when you have an idea or theoretical framework arising from an attempt to explain, say, a fine-tuning problem in physics (where the values predicted by calculations and the actual measurements don't match up, such that scientists can't discover the value of the parameter from first principles) which is elegant and exhibits all kinds of beautiful mathematics.....but has no possibility of ever being "observed" or making testable predictions or for that matter being falsified?
The math works out, the framework is elegant and it may fill a gap in the standard model...but the catch is that you are possibly unable to ever test your beautiful, "explanatory" idea against actual observable physical reality?
The history of science is brimming with unfortunate examples of mathematically workable and logically elegant "ideas" that turned out to be dead wrong when empirically tested. Fred Hoyle's "steady state theory" of the universe, which he and his colleagues formulated as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, is a famous historical case in point. It was beautiful...and just plain wrong when its predictions failed to match up with our discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the 1960s, which validated the Big Bang Theory.
Simply put, no matter how elegant or beautiful the idea or the maths involved, nature is our only guide - she doesn't care what we think or prefer, our only way to find out if an idea is a scientific description of the world is to experimentally test it - or at least demonstrate that it can produce testable consequences if not direct testable observations.
If your idea can never hope to produce such testability and cannot be falsified then, is that a "scientific theory" like General Relativity or does it consist essentially in "faith"?
That's no hypothetical question. It's become a dilemma at the heart of debates in modern theoretical physics.
To frame our discussion on this particular point, consider the following from the cosmologist Paul Davies as to why multiverse theories are, in his assessment, enterprises in speculative philosophy that - while not lacking in merit if recognized as such, since philosophy is very useful - lie outwith the bounds of science:
The inflationary multiverse arising from a "string landscape" is certainly plausible and indeed compelling if viewed as a purely philosophical hypothesis. After all, it has explanatory power and makes good sense of the data - so there is a logical possibility of us living in an ever expanding megaverse of unlimited physical possibilities, which might explain why the cosmological constant has an unnaturally small, knife-edge value in our universe.
However, does it make any testable scientific predictions within the observable universe? Umm, no.
Allow me to explain the "why": in essence, the multiverse is fundamentally beyond the realm of empirical test just like God, with no possibility of direct or indirect testability, predictive power and observation which renders it inherently "unfalsifiable". This is a crucially important point. A number of leading scientists are therefore either opponents or highly critical of the "multiverse hypothesis" including: David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, Neil Turok, Viatcheslav Mukhanov, Michael S. Turner, Roger Penrose, George Ellis, Joe Silk, Carlo Rovelli, Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, Jim Baggott, and Paul Davies. Now here's the "how":
On account of their particle horizons and the larger expansion rates in an inflationary multiverse, the "bubble" universes which comprise any hypothetical multiverse would be separated from each other by enormously space-like distances that preclude casual contact, making communication between them or observation impossible forever. Light could never traverse those infinite distances, since inflation causes the universe(s) to expand at a rate exceeding the speed of light. Excepting the improbable circumstance in some kind of discrepancy discovered in the cosmic microwave background and interpreted as evidence of a "bubble collision" between two universes...the idea is untestable.
This is the reason why the physicist and mathematician Peter Woit has bluntly dismissed it as being: "grandiose nonsense" and "Not Even Wrong" like Fred Hoyle's steady state theory, since it cannot be falsified.
See:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/
See also this essay in NATURE by two of the world's most prominent and respected cosmologists: Joe Silk and George Ellis. They are clear about what should be regarded as outside the bounds of science:
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
Scientific theories "live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing", to quote one prominent cosmologist George Ellis. In contrast, religious truths that derive from a purported divine intervention outside the known laws of physics, cannot in principle be subjected to testability or found to have predictive power.
But what happens when you have an idea or theoretical framework arising from an attempt to explain, say, a fine-tuning problem in physics (where the values predicted by calculations and the actual measurements don't match up, such that scientists can't discover the value of the parameter from first principles) which is elegant and exhibits all kinds of beautiful mathematics.....but has no possibility of ever being "observed" or making testable predictions or for that matter being falsified?
The math works out, the framework is elegant and it may fill a gap in the standard model...but the catch is that you are possibly unable to ever test your beautiful, "explanatory" idea against actual observable physical reality?
The history of science is brimming with unfortunate examples of mathematically workable and logically elegant "ideas" that turned out to be dead wrong when empirically tested. Fred Hoyle's "steady state theory" of the universe, which he and his colleagues formulated as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory, is a famous historical case in point. It was beautiful...and just plain wrong when its predictions failed to match up with our discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background in the 1960s, which validated the Big Bang Theory.
Simply put, no matter how elegant or beautiful the idea or the maths involved, nature is our only guide - she doesn't care what we think or prefer, our only way to find out if an idea is a scientific description of the world is to experimentally test it - or at least demonstrate that it can produce testable consequences if not direct testable observations.
If your idea can never hope to produce such testability and cannot be falsified then, is that a "scientific theory" like General Relativity or does it consist essentially in "faith"?
That's no hypothetical question. It's become a dilemma at the heart of debates in modern theoretical physics.
To frame our discussion on this particular point, consider the following from the cosmologist Paul Davies as to why multiverse theories are, in his assessment, enterprises in speculative philosophy that - while not lacking in merit if recognized as such, since philosophy is very useful - lie outwith the bounds of science:
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
The inflationary multiverse arising from a "string landscape" is certainly plausible and indeed compelling if viewed as a purely philosophical hypothesis. After all, it has explanatory power and makes good sense of the data - so there is a logical possibility of us living in an ever expanding megaverse of unlimited physical possibilities, which might explain why the cosmological constant has an unnaturally small, knife-edge value in our universe.
However, does it make any testable scientific predictions within the observable universe? Umm, no.
Allow me to explain the "why": in essence, the multiverse is fundamentally beyond the realm of empirical test just like God, with no possibility of direct or indirect testability, predictive power and observation which renders it inherently "unfalsifiable". This is a crucially important point. A number of leading scientists are therefore either opponents or highly critical of the "multiverse hypothesis" including: David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, Neil Turok, Viatcheslav Mukhanov, Michael S. Turner, Roger Penrose, George Ellis, Joe Silk, Carlo Rovelli, Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, Jim Baggott, and Paul Davies. Now here's the "how":
On account of their particle horizons and the larger expansion rates in an inflationary multiverse, the "bubble" universes which comprise any hypothetical multiverse would be separated from each other by enormously space-like distances that preclude casual contact, making communication between them or observation impossible forever. Light could never traverse those infinite distances, since inflation causes the universe(s) to expand at a rate exceeding the speed of light. Excepting the improbable circumstance in some kind of discrepancy discovered in the cosmic microwave background and interpreted as evidence of a "bubble collision" between two universes...the idea is untestable.
This is the reason why the physicist and mathematician Peter Woit has bluntly dismissed it as being: "grandiose nonsense" and "Not Even Wrong" like Fred Hoyle's steady state theory, since it cannot be falsified.
See:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/
Horgan: Are multiverse theories not even wrong?
Woit: Yes, but that's not the main problem with them. Many ideas that are "not even wrong", in the sense of having no way to test them, can still be fruitful, for instance by opening up avenues of investigation that will lead to something conventionally testable. Most good ideas start off "not even wrong", with their implications too poorly understood to know where they will lead. The problem with such things as string-theory multiverse theories is that "the multiverse did it" is not just untestable, but an excuse for failure.
The problem with such research programs isn't that of direct testability, but that there is no indirect evidence for them, nor any plausible way of getting any. Carroll and others with similar interests have a serious problem on their hands: they appear to be making empty claims and engaging in pseudo-science, with "the multiverse did it" no more of a testable explanation than "the Jolly Green Giant did it". To convince people this is science they need to start showing that such claims have non-empty testable consequences, and I don't see that happening.
Woit: Yes, but that's not the main problem with them. Many ideas that are "not even wrong", in the sense of having no way to test them, can still be fruitful, for instance by opening up avenues of investigation that will lead to something conventionally testable. Most good ideas start off "not even wrong", with their implications too poorly understood to know where they will lead. The problem with such things as string-theory multiverse theories is that "the multiverse did it" is not just untestable, but an excuse for failure.
The problem with such research programs isn't that of direct testability, but that there is no indirect evidence for them, nor any plausible way of getting any. Carroll and others with similar interests have a serious problem on their hands: they appear to be making empty claims and engaging in pseudo-science, with "the multiverse did it" no more of a testable explanation than "the Jolly Green Giant did it". To convince people this is science they need to start showing that such claims have non-empty testable consequences, and I don't see that happening.
See also this essay in NATURE by two of the world's most prominent and respected cosmologists: Joe Silk and George Ellis. They are clear about what should be regarded as outside the bounds of science:
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics
16 December 2014
Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.
This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.
Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains ...
These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy.
The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid6 and cosmologist Sean Carroll7 have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.
MANY MULTIVERSES
The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will be a biofriendly universe like ours, however improbable that is. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain, for instance. ...
... [Sean Carroll] argues that inaccessible domains can have a “dramatic effect” in our cosmic back yard, explaining why the cosmological constant is so small in the part we see. But in multiverse theory, that explanation could be given no matter what astronomers observe. All possible combinations of cosmological parameters would exist somewhere, and the theory has many variables that can be tweaked.
The consequences of overclaiming the significance of certain theories are profound — the scientific method is at stake (see go.nature.com/hh7mm6). To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements.
16 December 2014
Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.
This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.
Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains ...
These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy.
The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid6 and cosmologist Sean Carroll7 have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.
MANY MULTIVERSES
The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will be a biofriendly universe like ours, however improbable that is. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain, for instance. ...
... [Sean Carroll] argues that inaccessible domains can have a “dramatic effect” in our cosmic back yard, explaining why the cosmological constant is so small in the part we see. But in multiverse theory, that explanation could be given no matter what astronomers observe. All possible combinations of cosmological parameters would exist somewhere, and the theory has many variables that can be tweaked.
The consequences of overclaiming the significance of certain theories are profound — the scientific method is at stake (see go.nature.com/hh7mm6). To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements.
Last edited:
No, layman's terminology nor assertions have nothing to do with science. No scientists do not assume evolution is correct nor proven. The is not the assumption scientists make concerning any scientific discipline.
DavidFirth
Well-Known Member
If you really believe that statement you must be going through life with blinders on and earplugs in.
Find me a quote from one secular scientist besides you that says evolution is not correct. You might be able to find one but it will most likely take you a while to find it.
The multiverse is not typically mooted as a viable possibility in its own right, on the basis of its own aesthetic merits (for that's not how science operates), rather it can only be plausibly conceived if the underlying hypotheses of eternal inflation and string theory/M-Theory are already accepted a priori as valid descriptions of nature.since at least some of their potential iterations predict an "eternal inflation" which would in theory allow multiple spacetime separated universes to be generated in the first place.
And here's where we hit the next major roadblock: String theory, by comparison, with General Relativity is yet to produce any prediction that can be subjected to empirical test (e.g. like predicting the masses of current or yet-to-be-discovered particles), after forty years of academic paper after academic paper, being worked on by about 90% of theoretical physicists at some point in their careers.
And yet during that long span of time, it has so far not made any independently testable predictions. Let's just remember the standard we hold theories in science up to: the idea is not "I predict xyz" and get a rough estimation. No! It's: "I predict this exactly to ten decimal places..." You predict exactly what's going to happen for a theory to be classed as scientifically tested. And General Relativity does, it predicts the motion of the planets to a spectacular degree of accuracy.
There is no experiment you can point to for String Theory and say, "Aha! String theorists predicted this number and we got this number".
Worse, for String Theory to work (which is necessary for the multiverse to exist) you need to prove that there is such a thing as "supersymmetry": the idea that for every particle we discover in nature, they should have a twin particle. None of those twin particles have been found by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) ar CERN despite it being world's largest and most powerful particle collider and most complex experimental facility ever built (and despite all the money that's been poured into it). Supersymmetry needs to be true for String Theory to work.
Worse, String "Theory" amounts in the eyes of some scientists to being a "Theory of Anything" that infringes Occam's Razor, as Peter Woit notes:
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/
The "string theory inflationary multiverse" argument begins to look every bit an article of faith the more you dig into it, than it does a testable theory like natural selection or general relativity. Postulating an almost infinite number of unobservable universes, just to explain our own universe, is contrary to Occam's razor.
Does it amount to some kind of "faith" as described by the Book of Hebrews?
(Continued...)
And here's where we hit the next major roadblock: String theory, by comparison, with General Relativity is yet to produce any prediction that can be subjected to empirical test (e.g. like predicting the masses of current or yet-to-be-discovered particles), after forty years of academic paper after academic paper, being worked on by about 90% of theoretical physicists at some point in their careers.
And yet during that long span of time, it has so far not made any independently testable predictions. Let's just remember the standard we hold theories in science up to: the idea is not "I predict xyz" and get a rough estimation. No! It's: "I predict this exactly to ten decimal places..." You predict exactly what's going to happen for a theory to be classed as scientifically tested. And General Relativity does, it predicts the motion of the planets to a spectacular degree of accuracy.
There is no experiment you can point to for String Theory and say, "Aha! String theorists predicted this number and we got this number".
Worse, for String Theory to work (which is necessary for the multiverse to exist) you need to prove that there is such a thing as "supersymmetry": the idea that for every particle we discover in nature, they should have a twin particle. None of those twin particles have been found by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) ar CERN despite it being world's largest and most powerful particle collider and most complex experimental facility ever built (and despite all the money that's been poured into it). Supersymmetry needs to be true for String Theory to work.
Worse, String "Theory" amounts in the eyes of some scientists to being a "Theory of Anything" that infringes Occam's Razor, as Peter Woit notes:
The possible existence of, say, 10500 consistent different vacuum states for superstring theory probably destroys the hope of using the theory to predict anything. If one picks among this large set just those states whose properties agree with present experimental observations, it is likely there still will be such a large number of these that one can get just about whatever value one wants for the results of any new observation.
With "eternal inflation", here is the verdict from Paul Steinhardt, the scientist who thought up the "inflationary multiverse" hypothesis in the 1980s (but who has since turned against it and is far more critical of the idea than I am, denying that it is even "explanatory"):
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/
Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive
Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University
Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.
We have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. Instead we have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).
I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong.
To me, the accidental universe idea (the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another), is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.
Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.
Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University
Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.
We have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. Instead we have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).
I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong.
To me, the accidental universe idea (the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another), is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.
Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.
The "string theory inflationary multiverse" argument begins to look every bit an article of faith the more you dig into it, than it does a testable theory like natural selection or general relativity. Postulating an almost infinite number of unobservable universes, just to explain our own universe, is contrary to Occam's razor.
Does it amount to some kind of "faith" as described by the Book of Hebrews?
Hebrews 11: 1-3
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
(Continued...)
Professor Sean Caroll, a renowned American cosmologist, science communicator and avowed atheist also happens to be a very firm believer in both the multiverse and string theory: the explanatory use of entities that are unobservable in principle and have failed to demonstrate any testable predictions.
To this end, he published an article in 2014 in Edge magazine where he takes aim at those whom he deems "the Popperazi" (a neologism comprised of 'Popper,' as in Karl Popper the science philosopher who pioneered the theory of falsifiability and 'Nazi') and their inconvenient demands for falsifiable scientific predictions (or as he puts it himself: "somber pronouncements about non-falsifiability from fuddy-duddies"):
Edge.org
Here’s his 2nd paragraph above with only a few point modifications, to illustrate how a Theist might argue using similar logic to Professor Carroll:
I believe, contrary to Professor Carroll, that rigorous science should involve falsifiable hypotheses—ones that can be confirmed or disproved by data.
That is the reason why Professor George Ellis, a greatly respected cosmologist and mathematician, has long been a strident opponent of the multiverse and string theory being touted as 'science', for instance in this peer-reviewed article from 2008:
Opposing the multiverse | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic
To this end, he published an article in 2014 in Edge magazine where he takes aim at those whom he deems "the Popperazi" (a neologism comprised of 'Popper,' as in Karl Popper the science philosopher who pioneered the theory of falsifiability and 'Nazi') and their inconvenient demands for falsifiable scientific predictions (or as he puts it himself: "somber pronouncements about non-falsifiability from fuddy-duddies"):
Edge.org
2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT?
Sean Carroll
Theoretical Physicist, Caltech; Author, The Big Picture
Falsifiability
"...Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.
The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.
The falsifiability criterion gestures toward something true and important about science, but it is a blunt instrument in a situation that calls for subtlety and precision...String theory says that, in certain regions of parameter space, ordinary particles behave as loops or segments of one-dimensional strings. The relevant parameter space might be inaccessible to us, but it is part of the theory that cannot be avoided. In the cosmological multiverse, regions unlike our own are unambiguously there, even if we can't reach them. This is what distinguishes these theories from the approaches Popper was trying to classify as non-scientific.
It's the "empirical" criterion that requires some care. At face value it might be mistaken for "makes falsifiable predictions." But in the real world, the interplay between theory and experiment isn't so cut and dried. A scientific theory is ultimately judged by its ability to account for the data—but the steps along the way to that accounting can be quite indirect.
Consider the multiverse. It is often invoked as a potential solution to some of the fine-tuning problems of contemporary cosmology. For example, we believe there is a small but nonzero vacuum energy inherent in empty space itself. This is the leading theory to explain the observed acceleration of the universe, for which the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded. The problem for theorists is not that vacuum energy is hard to explain; it's that the predicted value is enormously larger than what we observe.
If the universe we see around us is the only one there is, the vacuum energy is a unique constant of nature, and we are faced with the problem of explaining it. If, on the other hand, we live in a multiverse, the vacuum energy could be completely different in different regions, and an explanation suggests itself immediately...
In complicated situations, fortune-cookie-sized mottos like "theories should be falsifiable" are no substitute for careful thinking about how science works. Fortunately, science marches on, largely heedless of amateur philosophizing..."
Sean Carroll
Theoretical Physicist, Caltech; Author, The Big Picture
Falsifiability
"...Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.
The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.
The falsifiability criterion gestures toward something true and important about science, but it is a blunt instrument in a situation that calls for subtlety and precision...String theory says that, in certain regions of parameter space, ordinary particles behave as loops or segments of one-dimensional strings. The relevant parameter space might be inaccessible to us, but it is part of the theory that cannot be avoided. In the cosmological multiverse, regions unlike our own are unambiguously there, even if we can't reach them. This is what distinguishes these theories from the approaches Popper was trying to classify as non-scientific.
It's the "empirical" criterion that requires some care. At face value it might be mistaken for "makes falsifiable predictions." But in the real world, the interplay between theory and experiment isn't so cut and dried. A scientific theory is ultimately judged by its ability to account for the data—but the steps along the way to that accounting can be quite indirect.
Consider the multiverse. It is often invoked as a potential solution to some of the fine-tuning problems of contemporary cosmology. For example, we believe there is a small but nonzero vacuum energy inherent in empty space itself. This is the leading theory to explain the observed acceleration of the universe, for which the 2011 Nobel Prize was awarded. The problem for theorists is not that vacuum energy is hard to explain; it's that the predicted value is enormously larger than what we observe.
If the universe we see around us is the only one there is, the vacuum energy is a unique constant of nature, and we are faced with the problem of explaining it. If, on the other hand, we live in a multiverse, the vacuum energy could be completely different in different regions, and an explanation suggests itself immediately...
In complicated situations, fortune-cookie-sized mottos like "theories should be falsifiable" are no substitute for careful thinking about how science works. Fortunately, science marches on, largely heedless of amateur philosophizing..."
Here’s his 2nd paragraph above with only a few point modifications, to illustrate how a Theist might argue using similar logic to Professor Carroll:
“Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories [about a Theistic Fine-Tuning God] are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable.
The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe Him directly, the Creator involved in this theory is either real or He is not. Refusing to contemplate His possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though He might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.
It's the "empirical" criterion that requires some care. At face value it might be mistaken for "makes falsifiable predictions." But in the real world, the interplay between theory and experiment isn't so cut and dried. A scientific theory is ultimately judged by its ability to account for the data—but the steps along the way to that accounting can be quite indirect.
The Creator might be inaccessible to us, but He is part of the theory that cannot be avoided”
The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe Him directly, the Creator involved in this theory is either real or He is not. Refusing to contemplate His possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though He might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets.
It's the "empirical" criterion that requires some care. At face value it might be mistaken for "makes falsifiable predictions." But in the real world, the interplay between theory and experiment isn't so cut and dried. A scientific theory is ultimately judged by its ability to account for the data—but the steps along the way to that accounting can be quite indirect.
The Creator might be inaccessible to us, but He is part of the theory that cannot be avoided”
I believe, contrary to Professor Carroll, that rigorous science should involve falsifiable hypotheses—ones that can be confirmed or disproved by data.
That is the reason why Professor George Ellis, a greatly respected cosmologist and mathematician, has long been a strident opponent of the multiverse and string theory being touted as 'science', for instance in this peer-reviewed article from 2008:
Opposing the multiverse | Astronomy & Geophysics | Oxford Academic
Opposing the multiverse
George Ellis
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 49, Issue 2, 1 April 2008
The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation. This is a dangerous tactic. Two central scientific virtues are testability and explanatory power. In the cosmological context, these are often in conflict with each other and there has been an increasing tendency in theoretical physics and cosmology to say it does not matter whether a proposal is testable: if it fits into our other theories in a convincing way, with great explanatory power, then testing is superfluous. The extreme case is the multiverse proposal, where no direct observational test of the hypothesis is possible...
In this context one must re-evaluate what the core of science is: can one maintain one has a genuine scientific theory when direct and indeed indirect tests of the theory are impossible? If one claims this, one is altering the meaning of science.
The key observational point is that the domains considered are beyond the visual horizon and are therefore unobservable. You cannot receive signals of any kind from beyond the horizon, as there has not been time for messages to reach us from there since the universe began. Hence no object out there is detectable by any kind of astronomical observation...
The multiverse idea is provable neither by observation, nor as an implication of well established physics. It may be true, but it cannot be shown to be true. It does have great explanatory power — it provides an empirically based rationalization for fine tuning, developed from known physical principles — but one must distinguish between explanation and prediction. Successful scientific theories make predictions that can be tested. The multiverse theory cannot make any testable predictions because it can explain anything at all.
Even though multiverse proposals are good empirically based philosophical proposals for the nature of what exists, they are not strictly within the domain of science. There is nothing wrong with empirically based philosophical explanation — indeed it is of great value provided it is labelled for what it is — but I suggest that cosmologists should be very careful not to make methodological proposals that erode the essentialnature of science in their enthusiasm to support specific theories
George Ellis
Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 49, Issue 2, 1 April 2008
The very nature of the scientific enterprise is at stake in the multiverse debate. Its advocates propose weakening the nature of scientific proof in order to claim that the multiverse hypothesis provides a scientific explanation. This is a dangerous tactic. Two central scientific virtues are testability and explanatory power. In the cosmological context, these are often in conflict with each other and there has been an increasing tendency in theoretical physics and cosmology to say it does not matter whether a proposal is testable: if it fits into our other theories in a convincing way, with great explanatory power, then testing is superfluous. The extreme case is the multiverse proposal, where no direct observational test of the hypothesis is possible...
In this context one must re-evaluate what the core of science is: can one maintain one has a genuine scientific theory when direct and indeed indirect tests of the theory are impossible? If one claims this, one is altering the meaning of science.
The key observational point is that the domains considered are beyond the visual horizon and are therefore unobservable. You cannot receive signals of any kind from beyond the horizon, as there has not been time for messages to reach us from there since the universe began. Hence no object out there is detectable by any kind of astronomical observation...
The multiverse idea is provable neither by observation, nor as an implication of well established physics. It may be true, but it cannot be shown to be true. It does have great explanatory power — it provides an empirically based rationalization for fine tuning, developed from known physical principles — but one must distinguish between explanation and prediction. Successful scientific theories make predictions that can be tested. The multiverse theory cannot make any testable predictions because it can explain anything at all.
Even though multiverse proposals are good empirically based philosophical proposals for the nature of what exists, they are not strictly within the domain of science. There is nothing wrong with empirically based philosophical explanation — indeed it is of great value provided it is labelled for what it is — but I suggest that cosmologists should be very careful not to make methodological proposals that erode the essentialnature of science in their enthusiasm to support specific theories
Last edited:
Your definition is for blind faith. Soemone who believes in god without reason.
Faith is built from having an experience that while anecdotal, and can't be repeated, is proof enough for the believer.
Not a huge difference, but a very important one.
Not just shallow and simplistic, but also wrong.
Justified belief and unjustified belief are not the same thing even if both are called faith any more than two sisters are the same person just because they are both named Faith.
Belief that my car will start tomorrow is justified belief based on the last 200 tests of the hypothesis, and is radically different from the unjustified belief that a god ever walked this earth.
Science is a reaction to supernaturalism - a rejection of it.
Which of the fundamental ideas upon which the scientific method is based originated with Christianity? Skepticism, or the idea that all received wisdom should be questioned? Rationalism, or the idea that sound conclusions result from valid reasoning applied to true premises? Empiricism, or the idea that the truth about reality derives from consulting it - observing and testing it? The idea that if a dictum is valid, it ought to be able to make accurate and useful predictions about the outcomes of various situations and perhaps even affect outcomes?
I can't find those idea in the Christian Bible.
The idea that the universe might be ordered, its rules comprehensible to a rational mind, and that its various convulsions and eruptions might not be due to the caprice of malevolent gods goes back to at least the ancient Greeks.
They are antithetical. Faith is the suspension of reason. Scientists who happen to be theists must leave their faith outside of the laboratory or observatory door and do precisely the same work that an atheist would do to generate valid science. Newton was a theist, but the reason some of his writings remain valid centuries later is that no faith based ideas appear in those still considered good science.
Newton also did the opposite in other aspects of his musings. His work in alchemy, for example, is all faith based, and is as useless and sterile today as it was when it was written.
But Christianity has not.
Christians have also made significant contributions to athletics, for example, but not because they were Christians.
Scientists have no need to prove any theory. Empirical adequacy, or the ability to predict the outcomes associated with various choices made in various circumstances, is all that is required of any scientific idea for it to be considered useful and added to the growing collection of useful ideas, like the ones that make electric light at night and global communications possible.
Talk of proof, objective truth, absolute truth, and ultimate truth is all irrelevant. The light goes on when you flick the switch, and the email gets sent to the other side of the planet almost instantly. That's "proof" enough.
Besides, what is a faith based thinker's interest in proof? Or evidence, even? Faith bypasses such things. It arrives at conclusions without them, conclusions that are refractory to contradicting evidence. When dealing with a faith based thinker, one needs make any claim stronger than that he chooses to believe that science is correct on faith. He may have empirical evidence in support of his beliefs - evidence that is important to the reason and evidence based thinker - but even without it, the reason and evidence based thinker is on equal footing with the faith based thinker.
Long posts like this are difficult.
This not the severe problem layman outside science may perceive. Yes there are limits to what science may falsify in terms of theories and hypothesis, but science does not assume any such limits are impossible as far as falsification.
This is ok, and interesting, but I caution those who question science on more fundamental science of our physical existence, based on the 'argument from ignorance' because all the questions concerning our physical existence 'apparently' cannot be answered.
This not the severe problem layman outside science may perceive. Yes there are limits to what science may falsify in terms of theories and hypothesis, but science does not assume any such limits are impossible as far as falsification.
This is ok, and interesting, but I caution those who question science on more fundamental science of our physical existence, based on the 'argument from ignorance' because all the questions concerning our physical existence 'apparently' cannot be answered.
The definition is not for 'blind faith.' Religious beliefs have many basis for belief and reasons, which may be reasonable, but the foundation remains 'faith' in something or somethings, without the equivalent evidence that science is based on.
This remains not the equivalent to science,
I believe in God, and I know my belief has no equivalence in science.
Possibly, but not always. Which is why I make a distinction between blind faith and faith.
I should add that there is an interesting book by Sir Roger Penrose, the great theoretical physicist and mathematician, on this very topic:
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10664.html
Odd Man Out – Andrew Jordan – Inference
https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10664.html
Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe
By Roger Penrose
What can fashionable ideas, blind faith, or pure fantasy possibly have to do with the scientific quest to understand the universe? Surely, theoretical physicists are immune to mere trends, dogmatic beliefs, or flights of fancy? In fact, acclaimed physicist and bestselling author Roger Penrose argues that researchers working at the extreme frontiers of physics are just as susceptible to these forces as anyone else. In this provocative book, he argues that fashion, faith, and fantasy, while sometimes productive and even essential in physics, may be leading today's researchers astray in three of the field's most important areas—string theory, quantum mechanics, and cosmology.
By Roger Penrose
What can fashionable ideas, blind faith, or pure fantasy possibly have to do with the scientific quest to understand the universe? Surely, theoretical physicists are immune to mere trends, dogmatic beliefs, or flights of fancy? In fact, acclaimed physicist and bestselling author Roger Penrose argues that researchers working at the extreme frontiers of physics are just as susceptible to these forces as anyone else. In this provocative book, he argues that fashion, faith, and fantasy, while sometimes productive and even essential in physics, may be leading today's researchers astray in three of the field's most important areas—string theory, quantum mechanics, and cosmology.
Arguing that string theory has veered away from physical reality by positing six extra hidden dimensions, Penrose cautions that the fashionable nature of a theory can cloud our judgment of its plausibility. In the case of quantum mechanics, its stunning success in explaining the atomic universe has led to an uncritical faith that it must also apply to reasonably massive objects, and Penrose responds by suggesting possible changes in quantum theory. Turning to cosmology, he argues that most of the current fantastical ideas about the origins of the universe cannot be true, but that an even wilder reality may lie behind them.
Odd Man Out – Andrew Jordan – Inference
ROGER PENROSE IS well known for the Moore–Penrose pseudoinverse, the Penrose diagram, the Penrose–Rindler books on spinors and space-time, and the Penrose tile. He is also known for his argument that human consciousness is non-algorithmic.1 In Fashion, Faith, and Fantasy in the New Physics of the Universe, Penrose considers some recent developments in theoretical physics, appearing both as a stodgy conservative, reacting against flights of mathematical fantasy by string theorists, and as a maverick, with idiosyncratic ideas about quantum mechanics, gravity, and cosmology.
The book is organized into four chapters and an epilogue. The first chapter, “Fashion,” introduces particle physics. Penrose views string theory in particular as fundamentally wrong, but, as he notes, it has monopolized the attention, funding, and students of a generation...
PENROSE VIEWS AS fanciful most current theories in cosmology. The Big Bang was an incredible idea, one that Albert Einstein rejected until the mid-1930s. But Big Bang cosmology is far less incredible than inflationary models of the universe, brane worlds, and the multiverse.
The book is organized into four chapters and an epilogue. The first chapter, “Fashion,” introduces particle physics. Penrose views string theory in particular as fundamentally wrong, but, as he notes, it has monopolized the attention, funding, and students of a generation...
PENROSE VIEWS AS fanciful most current theories in cosmology. The Big Bang was an incredible idea, one that Albert Einstein rejected until the mid-1930s. But Big Bang cosmology is far less incredible than inflationary models of the universe, brane worlds, and the multiverse.
Scientists are highly skilled at learning. They read faster than most people and can make very accurate calculations on paper. When I say they are skilled I mean they have done so many calculations that they are like someone who has trained to walk on a tight rope. They can get to the other side every time with no mistakes. Not only that but they are widely read and have incorporated many facts from many journals and locations.
Most people are not like that. Most people can grasp the concept of evolution, and then they can grasp the concept of natural selection and that is about their limit. So when we talk about whether Scientists have faith in evolution it is not really the same question as to whether lay people do. Lay people have other things to do, so only some investigate the particulars of theories. Anthropologists, on the other hand, should be ashamed if they do not understand the basis and arguments for and against. They ought not to operate on faith of any kind except if it is faithful discipline and attention to detail, which are the traits necessary in a scientist.
Most people are not like that. Most people can grasp the concept of evolution, and then they can grasp the concept of natural selection and that is about their limit. So when we talk about whether Scientists have faith in evolution it is not really the same question as to whether lay people do. Lay people have other things to do, so only some investigate the particulars of theories. Anthropologists, on the other hand, should be ashamed if they do not understand the basis and arguments for and against. They ought not to operate on faith of any kind except if it is faithful discipline and attention to detail, which are the traits necessary in a scientist.
I will answer your OP with Christianity replaced with general religion
To your first point, holding different possible hypotheses in your head is part of scientific dogma, and can be applied to religions. Sometimes people do not know which of several religions to choose. They can believe in them both, even if they know they are mutually exclusive.
To your second point, just because they believe it so much in an umbrella doesn't mean they don't have reasons. Some parts of religion often are a foundation for the people to believe the rest of it.
To your third point, actually scientists do take things on faith. If you have a formula, you need to use your less-established beliefs or you'll never get to a new formula.
To say that people believe in religion the same way they believe in science would be mistaken. To say that walking by faith is part of all search for answers would not be.
I can understand the difference, which is related to fundamentalist Christians who reject science and accuse science of being 'faith' based, but the main distinction is on what religious belief is based, faith, and how the foundation of science has its base.
This problem of the unknowns of the world, or worlds beyond our immediate physical universe is the reason I responded to a previous post and recommended caution, and the 'argument from ignorance' that because of the unknowns in physics and cosmology, therefore science is 'faith' based, and than by this logic the science of evolution is 'faith' based.
Also, I will argue again the Penrose philosophical view of the science of Physics and Cosmology as demanding Newtonian like falsification in the realms of origins of the universe, and the multiverse. I agree that the concept of the multiverse may never be falsified by objective evidence as the more mundane sciences, but this is not an argument for 'faith' based science.
No it's not.
Grandliseur
Well-Known Member
The so-called scientits who keep peddling their religious nonsense are only scientists in their own minds and the followers of this delusion.
To claim that mineral rock water heated up becomes complex life - is a mind numbing teaching only the fanatical devout of this cult can accept. That they then try to hide it behind billions and billions of years to try to make the absolutely improbable - probable -- just goes to show how insensible this teaching is.
There was a sudden explosion, Cambrian, where all life that is today came to be, and so much of this has died off. That means we had a lot of kinds back then, and now have a lot fewer. This is not evolution. Some Christian PhDs have written fine material for those who want to learn. Even Richard Milton who isn't Christian has written against the accepted view - it's worth reading.
Evolution is no different from the theory that earth moves round the sun,established as true long before we put satellites in space.. precisely because there are lots of evidence for both theories and both theories have made enormous number of successful predictions that have been vindicated through experiment and observation.
Define kinds.