1. 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!

Featured Faith in science?

Discussion in 'Science and Religion' started by Jaiket, Jan 11, 2021.

  1. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,348
    Ratings:
    +21,372
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Yes, of course. I have opinions just like everyone else. I have a goal of understanding, but to have a goal is to have a subjective opinion on something.

    Sorry, but it seems like a triviality to me that is ultimately beside the point.
     
  2. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,390
    Ratings:
    +4,412
    Religion:
    none
    We need a "shut up and measure" mentality to start working. Philosophers, at least in this question, are like @mikkel_the_dane, they try to prevent any progress. They are not goal oriented. I think those who think something can't be done, should get out of the way when people are actively doing what they think is impossible.
     
  3. exchemist

    exchemist Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2018
    Messages:
    10,695
    Ratings:
    +9,611
    Religion:
    RC (culturally at least)
    Mikkel I think you may be jumping to conclusions here. Anyone who has done any experimental science will be fully aware that every person's view is at least partly subjective. The reason science insists on reproducibility of observations is to try to eliminate, as far as possible, the subjective element from what it relies on. There is no reason to imagine that scientists think of themselves as occupying some godlike sphere of pure objectivity. If you are in any doubt, read the critiques of scientific papers. Personal beliefs, ambitions and antagonisms can all be present!

    But the settled findings of science (which are a collective effort by humanity) are the closest things the human intellect has produced to objectivity about nature. The only other field, in my experience, that aspires to similar objectivity is the law.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  4. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,554
    Ratings:
    +7,860
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    You questioned science with nebulous undefined use of 'faith' in English does not apply to science. Other than the layman anecdotal use of 'faith.' like; 'I have faith that airplanes are safe,' faith applies to subjective belief outside science in terms of religion and philosophy.

    Yes, there are many unanswered questions, but 'arguing from ignorance' claiming what science does not know is not productive, nor considers what the continually advancing science knows.

    Basic understanding of science leads to the ability to understand what science does and does not know, and understanding the limits of science.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    5,437
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Well, I am of a different subjective opinion. :)
     
  6. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    5,437
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    How authoritarian of you. Who made you the master of humanity? You can take your authoritarian world view and start your own world. :D
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,658
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    Religion:
    Something else
    I talked about neurophysiology and neurotransmission and alluded to the importance of the ordering of the nervous system in my post. We know lots about the brain - I don't mean to imply otherwise. We don't have a theory of how the brain gives rise to experiences nor even a good guess as far as I can see.

    I don't think this explains it at all. What is it about neurons firing in patterns that implies feels?

    Aye, I generally think along these lines myself. Science is an ever-growing box of tools and processes that we have adapted to fix so many problems and answer so many questions and on that basis I am confident that we'll get somewhere with this one. I do have a niggling feeling that this one is a bit special though.

    But is the pattern the smell of coffee?

    I see this a lot. Some of us can't understand how some others can't see the problem and some others can't understand why we're having a problem to begin with. It might just be something to do with the ways we frame the world. That and words can be misleading slippery things.

    Regarding that last paragraph, do you categorise seeing red as the same thing as sensing red?

    What I mean is, I could train a machine to correctly identify red objects (in theory). Maybe it has a light detecting system and can just pick the object that reflects light in the right part of the spectrum. But it isn't 'seeing' red. There is no experience of redness or of anything else. Is this difference meaningful to you?
     
    #107 Jaiket, Jan 12, 2021
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2021
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,658
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    Religion:
    Something else
    I'm not questioning science. I'm asking if my confidence that science can solve a problem without evidence is faith or something like it.

    Maybe I don't understand faith.
     
  9. Heyo

    Heyo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    5,390
    Ratings:
    +4,412
    Religion:
    none
    I might if I can figure out how to get out of this gravity well.
    And I'm not so authoritarian to expect you to come along. Just don't stand in the way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    5,437
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Likewise. :)
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  11. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,658
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    Religion:
    Something else
    Maybe those things are physical properties. Or maybe the expression x is physical, y is not physical isn't really true but simply useful.
     
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    18,348
    Ratings:
    +21,372
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I see them as being very close. I guess it is possible to 'detect red' on a subconscious level that never gets into consciousness.

    Or, for example, the redness can be detected by the retina, but never gets processed by the brain. There is a sense in which the redness is detected but not 'seen'.

    Since the light detector doesn't have a complex analysis of the redness and its relation to other aspects of its existence, it is not conscious of the redness.

    It is interesting that Chalmers said that thermostats might be considered to be conscious precisely because of detection like this. I think that is pushing the matter.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  13. mikkel_the_dane

    mikkel_the_dane Shadow Wolf's Aspie sibling

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2018
    Messages:
    5,437
    Ratings:
    +1,192
    Religion:
    The Wrong One
    Yes. But useful comes in many versions. :)
     
  14. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,554
    Ratings:
    +7,860
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    The evidence of ou technology world demonstrates the confidence science by its nature solves problems.

    I defined and clarified the use of 'faith' in previous posts. It does not apply to science.
     
  15. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    11,542
    Ratings:
    +9,058
    Religion:
    Humanist
    Be born.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,658
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    Religion:
    Something else
    "Science by its nature solves problems" doesn't entail "science will solve this one". So, again what I'm asking isn't whether science involves faith but whether the confidence that science will solve this particular problem without evidence is akin to faith.

    You see the difference? I'm applying the idea of faith to me not to science.
     
  17. Jaiket

    Jaiket Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    8,658
    Ratings:
    +2,219
    Religion:
    Something else
    Always a good opening move, imo.
     
  18. Altfish

    Altfish Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2014
    Messages:
    11,542
    Ratings:
    +9,058
    Religion:
    Humanist
    I don't believe that expecting science to solve problems is based on a belief without evidence.
    For example ...
    Prior to COVID 19 coming along we didn't have a vaccine for it; but I was confident BASED ON PREVIOUS SUCCESSFUL VACCINES, not on faith, that science will come up with the goods.
    And it did.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  19. WalterTrull

    WalterTrull Godfella

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2017
    Messages:
    2,695
    Ratings:
    +1,087
    Well... That I perceive is scientific. What I perceive is not. I seem to have some control over what I perceive but not total control. Scientific analysis would suggest that I am not alone or perhaps more accurately, not the center or creator of perception.
     
  20. shunyadragon

    shunyadragon shunyadragon
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2017
    Messages:
    16,554
    Ratings:
    +7,860
    Religion:
    Baha'i Faith
    This the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance' I previously referred to. It does not work to be hypothetical as to what science can nor cannot know know nor in the future. This is the problem, particularly when you lack the education needed to understand the present knowledge of science, and the limits of science.

    No, and 'faith' does not apply to the sciences involved with consciousness, nor any other science..
     
Loading...