Since I couldn't reply to it in the summations at the end of the Universe Race thread, and since it seems to be an interesting topic all its own, let's talk about how many of the faithful attempt to equate science with faith in order to claim equal validity.
From Rob in the other thread:
quote:
Rahvin:
Science takes exactly one thing on faith: that what we observe is actually what is happening. We take on faith that, when we look at the moon at night, we're actually looking at the moon and not trapped inside of the Matrix.
I think you need to be more specific. Since mathematics is the tool used for understanding this stuff, can we not agree that science is faith in logic, and that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way?
While I would agree that all scientific models depend on the consistency of the Universe to remain accurate, I will also disagree that science takes this on faith. We are constantly looking for examples where our models
stop working. We
trust that gravity, for example, will work tomorrow the same as it has for the past few billion years becasue it has done so
for the past few billion years. This is not the same as faith, which requires no such example from experience.
We can also
test for changes in the underlying constants of the Universe. The speed of light, for instance, could not have been drastically different in the past, becasue the Unvierse as we see it today would not have formed. That constant affects far too many processes, and we would be able to detect the results of a Universe that previously had a different valuse for
c.
No faith is involved. Once again, you're trying to equate belief in the accuracy of scientific models with blind religious faith so that you can say "you do it too, so my view is just as valid." Unfortunately, you're
wrong - science is
not based on faith even remotely the same way as your religion is.
The entire
point of the scientific method is to produce
objective, accurate, reproducible results so that
any theory can be shown to be accurate at any time, and
nothing need be taken on faith.
quote:
Rahvin:
Where we run into problems here is in the explanations to laypeople, particularly laypeople with no physics training whatsoever, and most especially with laypeople who have no physics education and have a predetermined cosmological view based on their religion.
Furthermore, what is your theistic position? I ask, because the model you refer to, is based upon a philosophy of materialism, that has certain theistic implications and not others.
The Big Bang model is not
based on any such thing. Science is based on those processes which are observable and testable. As a scientific model, the Big Bang Theory is based upon observable and testable phenomenon in the Unvierse. We do not presuppose that nothing esle could exist - far from it, we are constantly searching for that which has not yet been identified. Instead, we simply model that which we
do see evidence for. Once again we are led to Occam's Razor - extraneous entities are irrelevant to the matter at hand. This doesn't mean they can't possibly exist, it simply means that they are not relevant to the model.
Allow me to explain:
quote:
Scientific Reasoning vs. Religious Reasoning?
The conflict between science and religion is not over the existence of God because the terms God and reality are synonymous. God / 1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality God Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
Reality is absolute, ultimate, and sovereign. The question is really one of God’s (or reality's) characteristics or nature.
Is reality a living being, or merely an impersonal material force?
Whatever or whoever reality is; reality is God by definition. It is what it is or I am who I am.
The only difference between the philosophies of naturalism and monotheism is the nature of God. All reasoning is philosophical. Whether we use inductive or deductive reasoning (and we rely almost exclusively on deduction) contradiction and coherence are what we seek in order to verify or refute premises and conclusions.
It matters not whether our philosophy is monotheistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, etc. The deist philosophizes that Theo (God) has left the building. All philosophy is theistic. Even the agnostic is in the same boat, since his philosophy purposely excludes deciding the question of Theo. To put it plainly, without theism, there is no such thing as an agnostic. The absolute character of reality (irrespective of its/his other qualities) does not give us the option of excluding ourselves from philosophizing about Theo.
You certainly do love to cut/paste other peoples words, dont you.
But you sound like a more intelligable version of tesla. If you want to define your god as "reality," you are free to do so. However, there are those of us who disagree, and your entire cut-n-paste consists of nothign more than defining "god" as "reality" and then concluding that all contemplation of reality then must be contemplation of god. This would be true if your original definition of "god = reality" were not a compelte non sequitur.
So Rahvin, my point is not to challenge the logic of your view. It is logical. My point (and the point of many others) is that all of us smuggle in a theological view that is not directly observable by way of empirical observation.
And thus you prove my point - you theists constantly try to associate scientific beliefs with beliefs based on faith. As I have said, this is
not in any way the case.
A scientific model, like the Big Bang model, doesn't speak about "god" not because it is based on "materialism" or the premise that a deity cannot exist. The Big bang model does not mention "god" because it sees
no observable, objective evidence to suggest one. Parsimony dictates that the model should then consider "god" irrelevant.
You're trying to say that, because your religious fantasies are not included in science, science must have presupposed that your beliefs are impossible fantasies. This is false. Science will include
anything no matter how fantastical into its models in persuit of greater accuracy. All that's needed is for the additional entity to be
required by objective evidence.
You don't have the authority to exalt a 'materialistic worldview' of reality as objective and unbiased.
When a person states that a scientific model depends on a materialistic worldview, my first reaction is "this person doesn't know what he's talking about." You haven't changed that impression. Science
only accepts that which is objective and unbiased! That's the
entire point of the scientific method! If the models of science resemble a "materialistic worldview" to you, that's only becasue the objective, unbiased evidence we can observe in the Unvierse doesn't include your religious
faith.
Stop trying to equate science with faith. They aren't the same.
™ Version 4.2