Scientific Analysis/Faith

[gnc]

For me truth comes before faith and science, or else I could legitimately believe in false faith and false science. But that is nonsense.

Fantome Profane,
What is the underlying motivation for your questions? (What are you getting at?)

 

[uumckk16]

There is nothing in this world that is "True" or "False" (except in mathematics and computing). The way I follow my faith needs no proof to substantiate it for me. If it was proved tomorrow that Christ -for sake of example - failed in the excecution of a miracle, it would not make one iota of difference to me.

If you don't mind me asking, michel it really wouldn't make a difference? Do you mean it wouldn't make a different as in he'd still be Christ for you without that specific miracle, or that you'd still believe in the miracle even though it had been proven to be false?

 

[fantome profane]

Fantome Profane,
What is the underlying motivation for your questions? (What are you getting at?)

No dark hidden motive, I was just impressed with this particular statement from the Dalia Lama and I was wondering what other people thought.

And I have encountered people who have taken the opposite approach, that if the science contradicts what they believe then the science must be wrong. I find this interesting.

 

[Sunstone]

For me truth comes before faith and science, or else I could legitimately believe in false faith and false science.

The value you place on truth is admirable, but I am curious about two things here:

First, how do you establish what is true?

Second, are the methods you use to establish what is true the same for both science and faith?

 

[BruceDLimber]

Greetings!

The Baha'i scriptures, while endorsing the harmony and agreement of science and religion, also contain essentially the same statement (but in general terms, nto just about any single religion).

Best,

Bruce

 

[Yerda]

If there is reason for accepting sensory data to be true without the assumption of it being true in the first place then I will accept that this belief and scientific belief is a matter of reason and not faith.

There is good reason to trust sensory data; there is no other means of acquiring data at all. To say that we cannot trust our senses is to say "my senses tell me my senses are wrong". Accepting the foundations of science is both rational and practically useful, while the alternative is metaphysical nonsense.

 

[Booko]

This is a quote from the Dalai Lama, taken from “The Universe In A Single Atom”.

if scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.

So I would like to know what you all think about this. Do you agree? If scientific analysis showed some of your religious beliefs to be false, would you abandon those beliefs? Or would your faith come before science? Does your faith transcend the limits of science?

It's a principle that Baha'u'llah expounded in the 19th century, referred to in this passage, which is from a talk Abdu'l-Baha gave, I believe, around 1912:

The fourth teaching of Bahá'u'lláh is the agreement of religion and science. God has endowed man with intelligence and reason whereby he is required to determine the verity of questions and propositions. If religious beliefs and opinions are found contrary to the standards of science they are mere superstitions and imaginations; for the antithesis of knowledge is ignorance, and the child of ignorance is superstition. Unquestionably there must be agreement between true religion and science. If a question be found contrary to reason, faith and belief in it are impossible and there is no outcome but wavering and vacillation.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Baha'i World Faith - Abdu'l-Baha Section, p. 240)

This may also be relevant as it deals with the relationship between science and religion:

Fourthly: Religion and Science are inter-twined with each other and cannot be separated. These are the two wings with which humanity must fly. One wing is not enough. Every religion which does not concern itself with Science is mere tradition, and that is not the essential. Therefore science, education and civilization are most important necessities for the full religious life.

(Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 28)

 

[Booko]

No dark hidden motive, I was just impressed with this particular statement from the Dalia Lama and I was wondering what other people thought.

I find him to be an admirable person.

And I have encountered people who have taken the opposite approach, that if the science contradicts what they believe then the science must be wrong. I find this interesting.

I've never understood this myself, but then I was an atheist for years, so maybe I'm predisposed not to understand it.

I never took religious scriptures for science textbooks anyway. I don't know why anyone would bother.

 

[Fluffy]

There is good reason to trust sensory data; there is no other means of acquiring data at all.

That is not a good reason to trust sensory data. That our acquisition of data is limited to this one kind says nothing about the accuracy of that data. In fact since, as you point out, that this is the only way we can aquire data, we have no non-sensory data with which we could use to confirm our findings thereby furthering undermine our trust in them.

To say that we cannot trust our senses is to say "my senses tell me my senses are wrong".

I disagree with this on two accounts. Firstly, it can be seen that it is possible to doubt our senses without using sensory data itself. Secondly, doubting something does not equate to saying that the something is wrong.

Accepting the foundations of science is both rational and practically useful, while the alternative is metaphysical nonsense.

It depends for what purpose you are accepting them. If I am a cult leader then getting my followers to accept my decrees is both rational and practically useful but that does not mean that those decrees have any bearing on reality.

 

[JerryL]

Muhammed was a prophet, durring his dispensation the Middle East was the most prosperous part of the world both scientifically and spiritually.

1) Name the scientific breakthroughs during Muhammed's life.

2) How does the destruction of mellennia-old religious tradition in the region by Islam constitute "spiritually prosperous".

You've used a phrase with no real meaning, and no real measure. You cannot possibly support it.

Second, they have performed experiments with religion, more specifically, with the power of prayer and the effect it has on healing.

Even if true, would do nothing to establish the cause of the phenomina; however, they are long since discredited, none of the non-ambigious data showed any advantage in prayed-for patience unless one cherry-picks studies:

A 1997 experiment on “Intercessory Prayer in the Treatment of Alcohol Abuse and Dependence” found no measurable effect of intercessory prayer.
A 1998 experiment with arthritis patients reported that no significant effect from distant prayer was found.
A 1999 study of 990 coronary care patients -- who were unaware of the study --reported about 10 percent fewer complications for the half who received prayers “for a speedy recovery with no complications.” But there was no difference in specific major complications such as cardiac arrest, hypertension and pneumonia, with the median hospital stay the same 4.0 days for both groups.
A 2001 Mayo Clinic study of 799 coronary care patients offered a simple result: “As delivered in this study, intercessory prayer had no significant effect on medical outcomes,” the study said.
A 2005 Duke University study of 848 coronary patients found no significant difference in clinical outcomes between those prayed for and those not.

http://www.stnews.org/commentary-2776.htm

Finally, today we know that meditation is good for you. It improves your heart and blood pressure, reduces the amount of stress in your life, etc. etc. Who were the first people to start meditating? To the best of my knowledge, religious people thousands and thousands of years ago. Could it be that they knew something we didn't know? Or did they just have faith that what they were doing was good for them?

Today we know that getting bitten by snakes is bad for you. What were the first to start snake-handling because God told them?

You are making connections that don't exist. It's possible for somone to make a correct conclusion without scientific method. It's also possible that a random tradition might be benificial. Sometimes the reason for the tradition was because it was benificial; sometimes natural selection kicks in, and sometimes it's just a coincidence.

Not necessarily so, for a few reasons. One, our senses have been known to decieve us, take optical illusions for example. As a result, we need reason to tell us that those spirals on the paper must be stationary because there's no way they could swirl like they do. Without reasoning and intellect, perception is pretty much useless.

Reason gets you from A to B, it does not give you A.

How do we know that ink on a paper cannot move?
How do we know that ink and paper exist?

Ahh yes, sensory data. There's a statement about that in discussing a worldview that accepts reality as real: "generally accurate". We believe that our senses give us generally accurate information about reality.

Two, perception goes just beyond the five senses. For example, you can percieve someone to be kind or a jerk, intelligent or ignorant, and so on. There is no immediate sense that gives us those impressions, we have to arrive to them through logic and reasoning.

No. We have a neural network in our head that assigns weights and makes a judgement that someone is a jerk.

"sensory input" and "judgemental conclusions" are not synonyms.

So as you can see, Faith isn't necessarily blind faith and when it's approached propperly, it's not necessarily irrational.

Rational faith is called "reason". I have a rational faith that the atoms in my chair will not suddenly fly apart. This is based on both an understanding of the physics involved and an inductive belief that the fact that it's never happened makes it unlikely to happen now sans some reason to believe conditions have changed.

That is not a good reason to trust sensory data. That our acquisition of data is limited to this one kind says nothing about the accuracy of that data. In fact since, as you point out, that this is the only way we can aquire data, we have no non-sensory data with which we could use to confirm our findings thereby furthering undermine our trust in them.

I'm sorry. Did you just say "because it's the only viable choice" is not a good reason to do something?

That makes reasonable sense to you? OK. I'll bite. Why do you think there's text on a screen in front of you?

I disagree with this on two accounts. Firstly, it can be seen that it is possible to doubt our senses without using sensory data itself. Secondly, doubting something does not equate to saying that the something is wrong.

Doubts without sensory basis are acedemnic. Without input there is no output. All knowledge begins with senses.

 

[Yerda]

That is not a good reason to trust sensory data.

Trust it as in act on it on good confidence?

Behaving according to our senses is the only rational path since we are working on the best (only) information available.

That our acquisition of data is limited to this one kind says nothing about the accuracy of that data.

Therefore?

Firstly, it can be seen that it is possible to doubt our senses without using sensory data itself.

It can?

Secondly, doubting something does not equate to saying that the something is wrong.

Fair enough. What does it equate to?

 

[Fluffy]

I'm sorry. Did you just say "because it's the only viable choice" is not a good reason to do something?

No. I consider it a bad reason for considering it to be "true" or "real" since it does nothing to help distinguish between correct and incorrect perception.

That makes reasonable sense to you? OK. I'll bite. Why do you think there's text on a screen in front of you?

I don't know. My senses and experience tell me it is because of some sort of process in my moniter that I don't understand. This conclusion is based on the closed belief system I hold in which reality is true.

Doubts without sensory basis are acedemnic. Without input there is no output. All knowledge begins with senses.

Apologies but I'm not familiar with the word "acedemnic" and my dictionary has failed me.

It does appear to be the case that all our belief is based on our senses. I would not call it knowledge but that is probably a different debate. However, given this assumption, how would you go about countering the argument "we cannot support assumptions about the accuracy of our perceptions" since you believe that all our knowledge is based on these perceptions. Surely there is no ground left to stand on?

 

[JerryL]

No. I consider it a bad reason for considering it to be "true" or "real" since it does nothing to help distinguish between correct and incorrect perception.

That's what reason is for... reason and the experience of other perception.

But simply because reason is applied does not make reason a source of knowledge. All reason is is a mechanism for interpreting data from senses. We must trust that data or we have nothing to process.

When you don't trust what looks like a fling pig because you know pigs don't fly, the reason you know it is because of the previous sensory data and its analaysis. Even then it's not your vision that you doubt; it's your perception of your vision.

I don't know. My senses and experience tell me it is because of some sort of process in my moniter that I don't understand. This conclusion is based on the closed belief system I hold in which reality is true.

That entire belief system is founded in a trust of generally accurate senses.

Apologies but I'm not familiar with the word "acedemnic" and my dictionary has failed me.

academic

It does appear to be the case that all our belief is based on our senses. I would not call it knowledge but that is probably a different debate. However, given this assumption, how would you go about countering the argument "we cannot support assumptions about the accuracy of our perceptions" since you believe that all our knowledge is based on these perceptions. Surely there is no ground left to stand on?

You cannot establish presuppositions. If you could establish them, they would not be presuppositions, they would be conclusions.

I did not say tha tyou trusted them because you could support that they were accurate. I said you trusted them because you lacked any other viable option.

 

[JerryL]

It wasn't durring the time of Muhammed, but after his death when the people in the middle east embraced Islam. They were without equal in the world of science and they had breakthrough after breakthrough in math, medicine, and astronomy. Not only that, but they embraced philosophy as well and had quite a few influential philosophers in their time. Unfortunately I'm at work right now, so I don't have the time to go out and fetch you details right at this moment. However, if you're willing to be patient, I'll post some information later tonight.

This was not the claim of the original post. The original post was during Muhammed's life.

I agree that there was a golden age for Arabia, and I agree that one of its golden ages was during the latter half of the first melennia. Further, I think that the uniting of Arabia under a single country and religion effected this. Greece had at least one. The Asian stepps had at least one (under the Kahns), Europe had one after the Dark Ages ended. The Roman Empire experienced one. Many areas at different time have experienced periods of massive artistic, scientific, and/or philisophical activity.

There was an attempt made to tie this specifically into monotheism, and I don't see that there's any rational basis by which to do so.

2.) I don't understand what you're trying to ask me. Could you be a little more specific by what you mean? Are you talking about back then or today?

Back then. Muhammed's campaigns to spread Islam eradicated or nearly eradicated any number of previous religions. How many Zoroastrians are there still around?

Like I said in the post that you quoted, not all of the experiments give conclusive evidence. I readily admitted that. However, I also said that some of the results from other experiments were intriguing and well worth looking into. The reason I even used prayer as an example is because it's the only example I know of where you can repeatedly experiment with a religious concept.

Yes. And I looked at the experiments some time ago because of a few promising results.

Turns out that the results that were objective were likely cherry-picking. There were just as many similar studies which demonstrated that prayer was harmful. The net effect seems to be "no effect".

It was worth experimenting on, I agree. It was experimented on and we now know something we did not know for sure.. that prayer (at least prayer unknown to th patient) does not help.

Yes, all of those points are true. However, what you said does not prove that meditation did not have religious origins.

Tell me what would have been rejected in an imperical model that would have prevented experiments in meditation or the creation of the idea?

We use both reason and our senses to determine that the images are not moving. And "generally accurate" does not necessarily mean "always dependable and always accurate." There are exceptions to the rule and optical illusions are one of them.

Reason is a filter for senses. Reason alone tells us nothing.

We know that optical illusions are illusions because our other sensory data has caused us to conclude so. Reason is simply a filter that lets us determine which data should be used for what conclusions.

We do trust the sensory data when we look at an optical illusion. What you are actually discussing is trusting of the interpretation of that data.

Using an interpretation that workd for most vision on an optical illusion causes a false conclusion. The visual data is accurate, the processing is incorrect.

I never said those two were synonymous and in fact, I never will because I agree with you on that statement. However, if you go back to my post you'll see that I said they were both parts of perception. I'm sorry if I confused you.

Neurons fire giving stimulus to the brain. A sub-proccessing center in the brain turns these patterns into other patterns which are fed to the consiousnes. Our consious then interpretes those patterns.

The original firing neurons are generally relied upon and are the basis for all knowledge. Without them, there would be nothing for the consious to think.

And how is this faith different than religious faith? It's based on your knowledge and understanding of the world. It's based on your skills as an independent thinker, your ability to investigate, and most importantly, your ability to reason. Religious faith is no different.

Arbitray vs unarbitrary.

All around the world and throughout history, people have trusted their charis not to spontaniously disentigrate. No two people have ever independantly developed the same religion. Why?

 

[gnc]

First, how do you establish what is true?

Truth is what corresponds to reality.

Second, are the methods you use to establish what is true the same for both science and faith?

Sure. If I perceive a scientific truth corresponds with reality, I believe. If I perceive it does not or not yet, I don't. The same with religious faith truths.

 

[JerryL]

Because different religions popped up in different cultures at different points in time to address certain issues while at the same time reinforcing beliefs and concepts that some believe are important for the health of the individual and society as a whole. Once certain ground beliefs are laid out, for example the belief in the soul, they tend to be generally accepted by everyone, but sooner or later someone comes to expand upon those ideas and add further dimensions to it.

The same can be said of science. Take the greeks for example, they came up with the idea of atoms. Soon, it was generally accpeted by everyone that everything was made up of little particles that could no longer be broken down. Later down the road, people expanded upon that and added protons, neutrons, electrons, and quarks into the mix. Just like religion evolves over time as we come to discover, accept, and believe more concepts, so does scientific knowledge. You could say that people like Newton, Darwin, and Stephen Hawkin are the prophets of the scientific world.

Let me start by saying this is simpler to say than illustrate emperically, as science rarely has developed in a vacuum post ancient times:

Science always develops the same.
Any science, given time to develop, will discover atoms and sub-atomic particles. They will discover relativity, and quantum, and gravity. They will create algebra and calc and geometry. The symbols my be different, the ways of writing it down; but it will be identical and understandable (once the symbology is understood) from one spot to another. The reason is because all of these things are real, and science is just the discovery of reality. Reality is no different in Europe than Asia, and no different on Earth than on Mars.

None of this is true for religion. Amongst humans, there will be some commonalities because of the commonaility of the human condition; but while the questions are sometimes the same, the answers are generally and often radically, different.

The reason for this is because religion is *not* based in reality. It is a creative act, like any fiction; and while literary or religious themes and patterns emerge, they are never and will never be consistant in the way a science will always be.

This is the basis of my support that religious beliefs are arbitrary while sceintific ones are not; the ability to independantly reproduce scientific conclusions and the similar inability of doing the same with religious conclusions.