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 Is faith the backbone of Science?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by paarsurrey, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. Labourwave

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,553
    Ratings:
    +3,507
    Yeah I understand that.

    My point is we base our lives under the assumption that what we perceive is real and that is putting faith in something to some extent.
     
  2. Bob the Unbeliever

    Bob the Unbeliever Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2017
    Messages:
    7,139
    Ratings:
    +4,489
    Religion:
    unbeliever
    The problem, here-- is that the word "faith" covers a very large swath of human behaviors.

    There is a very fine nuance between, say, faith in 'chairs' (or chair-like objects) and faith in Garden Gnomes.

    For the former, we have a mix of experiences; we observe people sitting on chairs, we have photos/paintings of chairs being used, and we have personally sat upon chairs.

    But make no mistake: sitting upon a chair is an exercise of faith: Until you actually sit on the chair in question, you truly do not know if it will hold your weight, or collapse... or some other undesired result. So it's a kind of faith-- but one based on lots of experience. And more to the point? The consequences are just not that dire either way-- even the worst: collapse -- isn't all that bad. (obviously, this ignores the possibility that the chair is actually a bomb--but unless you are Famous, that one is pretty safe to ignore too)

    But look at faith in Garden Gnomes: do you have experience of these, directly? If not, then why do you think they are real? Who said, and what qualifies them as Gnome Experts? Do they have proof of Gnome Sightings? If not, why not? And so on.
     
  3. David T

    David T Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2011
    Messages:
    7,532
    Ratings:
    +2,813
    Experience is. How experience is interpreted can like religion be way off in fruitloop land.
     
  4. ThePainefulTruth

    ThePainefulTruth Romantic-Cynic

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    3,220
    Ratings:
    +451
    Religion:
    Agnostic-Deist
    Reason and faith (emotions) are a necessary pair. Reason must guide faith, while faith is the motivation to exercise reason. Without reason at the controls of a ship, it will run off course and onto the rocks. And without faith as the motive power, the ship will be dead in the water. Reason feeds on knowledge, while faith consumes desire, and their ports of call are the aspects of Truth--knowledge, justice, love and beauty.
     
  5. Jeremiahcp

    Jeremiahcp Well-Known Jerk

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,293
    Ratings:
    +2,389
    "Yeah I understand that."

    I don't think you do. All you are doing is playing semantics, swapping in the word "delusion" for the word "reality", your argument is a moot point and changes nothing. If the scientific approach is based on reason in "reality" then it is based on reason in "delusion". It is a rational examination of the available evidence, and you calling that evidence a "delusion" does not change the fact that it is still a rational examination of the available evidence.

    "My point is we base our lives under the assumption that what we perceive is real and that is putting faith in something to some extent"

    Maybe that is what you do, but it is not what I do. I realize that everything I think I believe is likely wrong in some way and really is just an approximation of "reality".

    That is how the scientific method works, it helps us analyze the data, but it does not tell us what is truth, as nothing is ever final in science and everything is up to be rebuked. Truth is final and it cannot be rebuked (people can deny it or not see it but you can't make truth untrue).

    What we are doing is creating our best approximation give the available evidence if you want to decide that is the truth then that is up to you. Science is just a methodology for examining the evidence; people are the ones making claims about what that evidence proves.
     
  6. vijeno

    vijeno Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +29
    For arriving at the scientific method (after about a million years of struggle), you need exactly three assumptions:

    * The universe exists.
    * Logical rules are possible.
    * Logical rules can be applied to the universe.

    If you want, you can call "belief" in those three premises "faith".

    However, it is extremely unlikely that you can come up with any worldview, or alternative method, or really any meaningful sentence, without first assuming those three.

    So, as a fun sidenote: In essence, what "presuppositional apologetics" does, is based on fact, only twisted into absolute madness: Yes, there are premises ("presuppositions, assumptions, axioms"), without which we cannot make sense of anything. However, god is not one of those: Even the presuppositional apologist has to FIRST rely on the above three, before she can even talk about god, or about rationality, or about worldviews, or about anything. The rhetorical trick of presups is only to demand this of their opponent, but then deny applying the same demand to themselves.

    Of course, the more interesting question is this:

    Is logic a matter of faith? You cannot argue your way out of logic without using logic, so you don't actively have to hold a belief for logic to be applied - you simply cannot think without it. Well... you CAN think without it, but it won't make sense... but then again, how do we judge if your thought makes sense? By applying logic... It's an unescapable circularity.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. vijeno

    vijeno Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2010
    Messages:
    94
    Ratings:
    +29
    That depends a bit on whether you're talking theory or practice.

    In theory, no, it is not faith: Since solipsism would provide exactly the same experiences as realism, there is precisely no difference except for your hypothesis of what the universe is. In other words, solipsism is exactly the same as realism, only in one case you presuppose that the whole universe IS your consciousness. In the other case, you presuppose that your consciousness is a small part of the real material universe.

    In both cases, it's monism.

    Now, we might be able to use Occam's razor to say that one of those theories is simpler or more descriptive than the other: If everything happens in your own consiousness, then the question of why you bothered to make us all up is unanswerable. If you are part of a larger universe, then duh, you're just another coincidence, problem solved.

    But that is really the only argument, and it is not precisely strong, which is why the problem of solipsism is unsolvable.

    But... In practice: Hell yeah I rely upon my senses. It works, *****es. I'm old enough to have other problems. ;-)
     
  8. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,708
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    It should be... but it seems based more on superstition!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. miodrag

    miodrag Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    115
    Ratings:
    +41
    In a way yes, it is. That is the way things are, regardless how counterintuitive they seem to be. Just like the myth is the backbone of economy. Money is the myth we all accept, although we all know that banknotes does not really worth the amount they carry.


    Science is based on experiment, which is like a recipe everyone can repeat and verify by getting the same results. First, if we repeat an experiment and it works a million times, we have to believe that a million-and-first time it will also work. Because we trust our experience. Which is not perfect. But still we depend on it and hope it will work, since it already served us well. We even have to believe that Sun will rise up again tomorrow. Next, experiment itself relativized the whole science. The double slit experiment showed that the result depends on whether it was observed or not. The outcome depends on the choice of the observer. So the topmost scientific knowledge we ever had, a quantum theory, relativizes the very foundations it sprouted from.

    Descartes explained this a long time ago: cogito ergo sum - that is the only truth we can have. We can only prove that we are real, and we can prove that to ourselves only. And that is the starting point in philosophy. Every other knowledge is founded on belief. We have to believe that if I am certainly real, then there may be others, who know the same, and we can get in a relationship and explore further etc. But if one is a radical skeptic, refusing to accept even that, then no other knowledge is possible except cogito ergo sum. Radical skeptic can know nothing else. Faith is the backbone of all other knowledge.
     
  10. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man with a little bit of Bushido.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    26,398
    Ratings:
    +10,234
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Faith is confirmation bias. Plain and simple.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,128
    Ratings:
    +5,454
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    How so?
     
  12. Guy Threepwood

    Guy Threepwood Mighty Pirate

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2014
    Messages:
    6,518
    Ratings:
    +1,708
    Religion:
    Non atheist
    With superstition, you accept a premise as default truth first, look for anything that can possibly be interpreted to support it, and disregard the rest,

    With faith, we acknowledge our beliefs as such from the get go, allowing ourselves to follow the evidence where it leads
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,881
    Ratings:
    +5,458
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    It's not the same. Although conspiracy theorists assert otherwise science isn't based on tradition and agreement of those on power. Ohm's law and atomic theory for example.

    What if someone told you that the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow but it would keep on the opposite side of the earth, or start moving from south to north? If it happened and for no known cause, if we survived we would have to expand our knowledge.

    At this point in many areas it's as much hope as hoping we can walk if we get up from our chair (assuming our lower body works normally).

    That is a misunderstanding. It doesn't matter if the observer has beliefs. Imagine instead using laser penetration imaging to observe something that slightly heats up particles, or better yet tagging a bird by putting a camera on it's head with some weight on it. Will the bird behave the same? It doesn't matter who is the observer here or if there is 1 or 100 000 people watching the bird go about it's business.

    Meditation disproves this in my opinion. Because we exist "more" when we are in meditation while our thinking isn't as active.

    We can think that, but most of us are sure other minds exist because of other people's ability to surprise us and based on other observations.
     
  14. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    16,814
    Ratings:
    +1,909
    Is meditation from science or related to and from faith? Please
    Regards
     
  15. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    30,410
    Ratings:
    +13,423
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    No.

    Objectively-derived evidence is.
     
  16. Jenny Collins

    Jenny Collins Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2017
    Messages:
    427
    Ratings:
    +51
    Religion:
    Christian
    Science is man's endeavor to understand the world around him! It is a process of study that sometimes takes him in the right direction, and other times in the wrong direction! Science is hampered by the frail nature of man and his limitations, and huge egos that get in the way! However science has definitely done amazing things for mankind and when wielded correctly is a wonderful thing! You will find those who come to correct conclusions are able to set aside bias, not be swayed by mob thinking, and who are able to resist the peer pressure of other scientists who may be wrong! If you can remove the dogma from science, we would be further ahead than we are! If you could remove the idea that we are the generation that has "arrived", we could see more clearly! So in answer to your question, yes a lot of science is based on faith! Some is faith based on conjecture, that is belief with little evidence, and some is faith based on deserved trust! Being able to see the difference is important
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. The Emperor of Mankind

    The Emperor of Mankind Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,417
    Ratings:
    +6,472
    Religion:
    Greek Paganism
    Never have so few words garnered so many frubals...
     
  18. Jeremiahcp

    Jeremiahcp Well-Known Jerk

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,293
    Ratings:
    +2,389
    You obviously have no clue how science works.
     
  19. Jeremiahcp

    Jeremiahcp Well-Known Jerk

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,293
    Ratings:
    +2,389
    "Science is based on experiment"

    Then how do you explain observational studies?

    Science is not based on experiment. Experimentation is a method in science used to explore causes and effect and one of the two types of commonly practiced studies in science. There are experimental studies and there are observational studies and science is not based on either, as science is the methodology. The conclusion people make may be based on these studies but the studies themselves are just an examination of the evidence.
     
    #59 Jeremiahcp, Apr 4, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 5, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  20. Jeremiahcp

    Jeremiahcp Well-Known Jerk

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    4,293
    Ratings:
    +2,389
    If science is based on faith then religion is based on jelly beans.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
Loading...