Equating science with faith

I did read most of the posts on the thread, I thought maybe it would be nice to sort of get back to the initial topic. Since this is my first post here I will make this relatively brief.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well I wasnt here for the Universe Race thread, but I can say that this statement is adversarial to me. Here's why:
The idea that I might equate faith with science for the purpose of claiming equal validity, would not be accurate in my case. I can at some times during a discussion try to make such a correlation, but not for the purposes of trying to somehow infer validity of faith. In my opinion, such an inference would be absurd anyway, because comparing one belief system to another does not make either one more or less valid because the other exists.My belief in such an equation is rested on a few principles. Though I did however have a discussion with a friend of mine recently that opened my eyes to the validity of pragmatism in such a context. I'll start with my initial assumptions and then discuss from there to see if the discussion will render any useful insight to that discussion. Here are the principles.Aristotelian logic (as kurt lewin saw it) was based on the notion that whatsoever was observed to happen, more than it was observed not to happen, must be a more accurate observation for the given event. This is a scientific foundation, its something that really if it were deconstructed, could be considered as simple as a belief, but the difference is in the observable evidence for a given event. So saying that whatsoever is believed more often than it is not, is not a valid assumption in this context.Galilean logic dictated that aristotelian logic was flawed because it did not study exception, and in aristotelian logic one could easily make inferences between two differing events, and thus the conclusion would be in aristotles view, more true even though the observations themselves are from completely different events. So, in galilean logic it is important to know what is different, from a spectrum of events before making inferences about the truth of any given event.The issue I take with this is that neither principle is made any more or less valid by the other. The study of an event, to be pragmatically valid while under investigation the conclusions drawn from the event must in either case be something which more than one person will arrive at, in true pragmatism all people must be capable of reviewing and repeating the same conclusions, if they are capable of performing the same investigations.Aristotle and galileo were both capable of this, but for the purposes of this discussion I would have to conclude that galilean logic is more correct in my opinion because of the vast difference between spirituality and faith one cannot make inferences between the two.My conclusion, is of course that spirituality and science have a lot in common as disciplines, because they both require some system of logic or belief. Something I call belief systems. But in my view, no system can be made more or less valid by a contrasting system. For example if I apply aristotelian logic to beliefs, I would reach the conclusion that whatever belief system is believed more often than it is not must be more true. But this would be an absurd statement, because there is no standard of proof for religious beliefs among people and as such, people and thier beliefs would need to be considered vastly differing events.Still it fascinates me, that ideas in religious system of belief can also be in a way pragmatic, and that some conclusions in systems other than the later contemporary monotheist systems, can be drawn by using a system of belief based on science. But that is not to say, that faith and science can validate each other in any way.

quote:

---

You are correct in stating that both science and faith involve belief. The issue is that science trusts objective, repeatable evidence, and draws reasoned conclusions based on that evidence. Faith believes without objective evidence. The two are clearly different, and when representations of reality are concerned, objectivity is clearly superior to subjectivity. You can believe that the moon is made of cheese all you want - but it is demonstrably not so based on objective evidence. The belief that the moon is made of cheese is clearly not a representation of reality.

---

This argument of course bears considerable weight. I'm not going to disagree, however I would say for the purpose of discussion, one should consider the varying perspectives which are representations of reality. Without using too many big words, it would be easy to say at this point that whatsoever a person believes, from thier perspective is as important as what actually is. In terms of the standard of proof of science, or the trust (or respect) that is granted a point of view whether objective or subjective, this tends to muddy the water a bit.Sign and symbol has been an important facet of human psychology for some time, a sign is the object of analysis, or your objective evidence. A symbol, is a subjective representation in the mind of what actually is. It has been argued, that symbology, or the interpretation of sign, bears equal weight.So, how can it be said with any validity, that a subjective reasoning, when presented with verifiable and accurate data, would be inaccurate?The notion of pragmatism assumes that all people with sufficient tools to investigate a given observation or sign, will reach the same conclusion. I'm asking here, how can I go about explaining a rational conclusion between science and faith, or sign and symbol, that can also be considered valid pragmatically?In some of kurt lewins papers I mentioned before, he tries to infer that in some way there is a pragmatic conclusion between the two belief systems I was explaining before. The trouble is, that when drawing conclusions from both systems of belief, aristotelian and galilean, he was breaking the rules of pragmatism, because the belief systems from aristotelian to galilean changed over time. His reasoning that all people as individuals must be studied as exceptions was valid, but it can muddy the water a bit when trying to infer, that there was a verifiable statistic.The example I'm using has a lot to do with psychology so I might as well posit the argument that emil kraeplin's DSM attempted to rationalize a vastly diverse series of data, in this case individuals, and typify any statistic or diagnostic criteria that was consistent from individual to individual. Ok, so thats an example, now the question.How do beliefs come to be such that they are understood by a greater number of people given that, all of the people have the tools or introspection required, to make the same subjective conclusion in terms of symbology and does that in any way render a verifiable conclusion? Like the DSM does in psychology, beliefs in many ways can be viewed by cross section or by criteria or, creed. And it can be said that it matters, what subjective conclusions are reached by these individuals, because that is in this case the criteria we're trying to draw a conclusion from.With that said, although the respect granted to objective, empirical reality bears considerable weight, its the interpretation of empirical sense that is important, so it is difficult to say that it is simply a matter of objective versus subjective, when every individual that we're evaluating functions by transposing sign to symbol. It is a good argument, and I understand what you have said. However, lets evaluate how people reach the conclusions that they reach without stratifying the level of objectivity presented by thier evidence for a moment so as to perhaps discourse on the nature of thier reasoning.

quote:

---

So far you soud like a reasonable individual. In my OP I never proposed that faith was completely invalid, or that people are silly for relying on it. Faith relies on subjective experience instead of objective evidence. As you said, they are different systems, apples and oranges.

---

I did not mean to put any words in your mouth, I know that you are not saying with any amount of conviction that any such system is compeltely invalid. This I think is because, people including you or I, often rely on both the objective empirical data, and the interpretation of these senses. Actually when I said they were completely differing systems I was expecting an argument that would somehow allow me to make that statement. Though I dont believe in my opinions that faith can render science any more validity, or vice versa, I too believe that people have reasons for reaching such conclusions.

quote:

---

Works fine if you’re in an armchair, but strap some wings on that puppy and push it over a cliff and one might be of another mind.

---

Rationalism is by no means the thought of an armchair theologan. You yourself are claiming that empirical knowledge is subject to error. But there again, this isnt simple rationalism. Its idealism. which is what we're discussing if you dont mind me saying so.

quote:

---

That goes back to a stopped clock being right twice a day. No one says subjective reasoning can’t be right twice a day, but how does one tell when it’s right from when it’s wrong? They use an objective clock. So to what end does the pragmatist bother with the subjective clock?

---

A pragmatist would bother, because the idea behind pragmatism is as I had clearly stated: truth, is that opinion which is to be ultimatly agreed upon, by every individual capable of investigating the truth. If a pragmatist doesnt bother with understanding the subjective interpretation of opinion, there is no validity to the epistemological argument. However, pragmatism also requires that the data presented for the investigation is not subjective or 'mystical' in nature. There is a line to be drawn here, the difference between subjective or 'mystical' data, and objective or empirical data. As I think Rahvin was just about to say, if you dont mind my saying so.The empirical data obtained by attempting to fly an armchair may have at one time been useful as a study in aerospace engineering, but its no longer of any consequence. Such would be a good argument against pragmatism. Historically people have had ideas which were no closer to the truth than your armchair hypothesis. Because these ideas tend to change, but the truth does not, how would pragmatism be a valid means of finding truth?

This is a good thread, I still tend to think that the use of terms such as subjective and objective are one way of waffling, though.

quote:

---

That's just it - if there is verifiable and accurate data, the reasoning is no longer subjective. If I can show you reproducible, verifiable evidence, my conclusions are objective.

---

But not always, see thats what I'm saying within the confines of an epistemological argument. Conclusions about truths (such as the moon being made of cheese) which are in error, even though being provided all of the objective data available, using whatever system of logic available at the time falsifies the validity of the pragmitist argument at hand. So the trouble is, evaluating whether subjective data is more or less valid than objective data is irrelevent, when only the data which is available is presented. A perfectly rational and logical person could conclude that volcanic eruptions are the result of gaia's indigestion if that person did not have the tools to evaluate evidence or if there was a lack of evidence. Science seeks to create objectivity for this reason, and it seeks to provide the tools for such investigations. I wont be backed into the argument that was presented, suggesting that a conclusion based on a lack of evidence is in any way valid. But, I will say that until science has some kind of magical omniscient oracle device, there is not a way to make all conclusions perfectly objective and verifiable, as such this objectivity can still be in error, as much in error as the notion that 'goddidit' because theres no evidence that says otherwise.
I present then a paradigm, which was the fruit of a discussion that a friend and I had, and that is to say that speculation, is inversely proportional to the ability to aquire evidence. There will never be one without the other, but there is certainly some sense to the notion that less speculation equals an argument that is more valid. I say that one will never be without the other, because omniscience and cognizance in my view are mutually exclusive. Either polar extreme; one side of course you have omniscience with all answers perfectly explained and verifiable, which of course eliminates cognizance because if all things were known, speculation is nonexistant.

quote:

---

Symbols can mean different things across cultures or even individuals. They have no accurate connection with reality - they are wholly defined and modeled on the human imagination. So too with faith and other subjective subjects.

​

Signs, like science, are clear and objective. They remain the same, reproducible, demonstrable, and with a clear connection to reality. Science is objective.

---

As I had said, neither of these extremes would be true. It is a common mistake to elevate an argument to its extreme in order to make a claim. Symbol, exists in reality as a means to understand reality, that is its connection. Signs are never entirely clear or objective, but thats the reason for symbolic thinking and speculation. Its really a symbiosis.

quote:

---

When discussing models of reality, the scientific method is not only completely different from religion in that it is not based on faith, it is also infinitely superior becasue its accuracy can be tested.

---

I suppose I'll have to digress, because I'm far from a faith based thinker. but what I'm proposing here is actually testing the accuracy of the thing doing the testing. So to make that argument, one would need to test whether or not he or she were alive. The chalmers philosophical zombie is a good experiment in this area, supposing that there are people with no cognizance or will of thier own, a perfect zombie simply responding to the environment, would be empirically no different than the average person. there would be no objective data, no verifiable evidence that could show the zombie was a zombie, or that a person is a person. because consciousness is subjective, theres no way that I can prove that myself, or anyone else, has it. So by taking this argument to extremes you've only elucidated the necessity of subjectivity further.However let me say that I'm not defending the notion that truth can be found without evidence. In fact I was initially trying to say that there is some kind of interaction or idealism which takes place in any dialectical argument. Dialectics like science and faith. Or subjectivity and objectivity. I'm surprised no-one caught that.

quote:

---

Hard to tell where you're heading by associating pragmatism and truth with science. Science is usually described as empirical, not as pragmatic or seeking truth.
I have no objection to pragmatism, it certainly seems a most useful quality for successful scientific investigation, but it isn't a defining quality of science.

​

I have no objection to truth, either, unless by truth you mean the timeless truths of religion. But it might be more accurate to say that science is seeking what is true about the natural world.

​

In any case, I don't see how any of this is an argument for equating science with faith. Any endeavor whose foundation is the empirical gathering of real-world evidence would seem to be the polar opposite of the faith of religion.

---

Well, the cool thing is that this is where it gets interesting. The original assumption was of course that faith and science are different systems, but both for finding truth. The quibbling over the objective and subjective realms of evidence was not entirely relevent but I entertained the argument for the sake of discussion.However, I'm trying to recant my previous statement, that because faith and science are polar opposites in this discussion, that thier phenominology is any different. I would say this only because to me it is a matter not of whether science is empirical, which it is, or whether religion is not empirical. It is of more importance to me in this kind of qualitative analysis what people believe and why.So although faith is not really a matter of objective truth, people will believe there are truths in religion.I say that conflict is what occurs when two people or societies, both do not grant one another the respect of understanding thier point of view. Although it may seem in this discussion that it is less important the ideologies of faith and science, in both realms it is very important. Because whenever respect is not granted to an ideology conflict occurs such as the current conflicts in the world with contemporary monotheism. To me although this argument is a matter of reasoning, it is empirical in that the beliefs which people undertake are very real, because these beliefs dictate a person or societies actions and perception of truth.I still cannot elaborate on the reasoning for believing that science cannot render faith any more or less viable as a system for finding truth. However, I would say that both are systems for finding truth, although one may be more accurate than the other, one may be subjective and one may be objective. Thier consequences are entirely empirical. Such is the only thing that can be measured in this kind of situation because it is silly to think that anyone can know, what it is like to be anyone else. So behaviors can be typified and classified, but beliefs cannot really.I usually do not judge the way that any person finds truth, but I will judge the actions and the reasoning for a person's behaviors. So simply put, a valid means of identifying truth is important in a society where there are laws which require a social contract, because varying perceptions of truth cause conflict and, ultimately the breakdown of a society. Capitalism is a good example. In a society based on conflict between opposing perceptions of truth, conflict becomes the only true means for that society to function. In history, no such civilization with mass communication between the dialectics of science and faith, has survived.But perhaps stability was what religion was for, as it became implemented as a means of social control, for beings which innately seek truths.

quote:

---

I think you are missing the main point that many people are trying to make, that science does not care much for "truth" or that "truth" can actually be attained at all.

---

Actually thats interesting that you say so, it is an argument I would have taken. Except I would have questioned instead whether truth exists.In this discussion, it is important to say that empirical evidence does not always suggest or imply any conclusion. Faith does imply such a conclusion because it is a means for defining a societies interpretations of truth. Such is its function, it has always been that way. In the indus valley culture for example the rain god indra was used to help a society understand why the floods and famine in the geographical area kept killing members of thier society. Although it provided enough subjective truth for the society to endure, the belief that thier rain god somehow controlled the lives of others would not have been empirically valid or justified. Suggesting that science given the opportunity to explain the weather patterns does not attain something closer to the truth, or try to, is really kindof a silly assessment looking at things historically.

I think you are still under the assumption that I am defending faith as a viable means of finding truth. I wanted to write a reply because you took the time to respond to the thread, however I'm having a difficult time finding something that I'm disagreeing with. As I stated in a post that you had perhaps missed, science is not a perfect tool.

quote:

---

A broken clock does not qualify as "sufficient tools," and those who rely on them to tell the time cannot be considered "capable of investigating the truth." They will therefore only come to the same conclusion if they happen to make their conclusion on the exact minute of the day at which their clock stopped forty years ago. Therefore, their correctness is a matter of coincidence, not of the success of their investigation technique. The technique is completely flawed and unreliable.

---

A broken clock may be less accurate than a clock which works, but it takes quite a fantastic machine to tell the actual time of day. Whereas a good approximation could be made simply by observing the environment, its not as accurate as a cesium clock for measuring time. Its important to realize of course that the available tools for interpreting reality can change the perception of reality.
Such, that in my view the older sundial method for determining time which I'll equate to religion, may no longer be as accurate as an atomic clock, which I'll equate to science respectively. So, it is difficult to find an argument with your statement.

quote:

---

It could be I’m thinking too much like an engineer, but I’d still not be too quick to accept that a pragmatist would redefine truth so much as to devalue it. Useful would replace truth as the gold standard. But science is not mere engineering. Science seeks a much deeper "truth" than what is merely useful.

​

However, if I’m arguing with a philosopher's definitions I’m out of my league. I’d serve all concerned best if I sat out for a spell. I'll be listening.

---

It took me a moment to formulate an answer. I like how you put truth in quotes because it really is an arbitrary and linguistic term. However let me start off by saying that idealism, or better trancendentalist idealism, is this notion that knowledge is the result of interaction between dialectical systems, such as objective evidence and subjective reasoning. Kant was known for more than his deontological reasoning in this way.Redefining truth is against the rules of pragmatism, and thats the point really. Truth as we know it is something which can be confirmed by any epistemological system, but only so far as the system allows. Epistemology is the ideas which people have verified that people use for finding what they consider to be fact. Any one of these theories can be argued to be more or less valid than the other, but a historical analysis will usually show which of the systems was less subject to this notion of a truth which changes.Truth is an extreme ideal. It's like in statistics or in engineering where the 'its right unless its wrong' applies. If you were to engineer something based on a mathematical figure which was incorrect, the construct of this engineering would not function as it was intended. Epistemology is the same way. In order to find truth no matter how ambiguous a tool must be engineered to apply to the finding of this artifact.However in any system of belief there is the possability of error, which can usually only be detected given a span of time. The greater the span of time, the more likely it is that an error can be detected.If you appreciate engineering you will understand that sometimes things do not go as expected, like for example haliburton when building a nuclear facility had aquired a tank, a device which was faulty by means of faulty engineering. In epistemology the same kinds of problems can take place but they change the objectivity of truth instead of changing the decided function of a machine.Truth by its definition cannot be changed. Only the standard of proof for that which is considered to be true can. So when you say that useful would replace truth, not so much a reality however, the usefulness of a tool such as epistemology is still a valid concern.I apologize if you felt out of your league, that was the initial point of the statement when I said I would not use too many big words. If any of these systems is elusive to you, I would be glad to explain them.
-----
etymology of the word 'true'

quote:

---

--O.E. triewe (W.Saxon), treowe (Mercian) "faithful, trustworthy," from P.Gmc. *trewwjaz "having or characterized by good faith" (cf. O.Fris. triuwi, Du. getrouw, O.H.G. gatriuwu, Ger. treu, O.N. tryggr, Goth. triggws "faithful, trusty"), perhaps ultimately from PIE *dru- "tree," on the notion of "steadfast as an oak." Cf., from same root, Lith. drutas "firm," Welsh drud, O.Ir. dron "strong," Welsh derw "true," O.Ir. derb "sure." Sense of "consistent with fact" first recorded c.1205; that of "real, genuine, not counterfeit" is from 1398; that of "agreeing with a certain standard" (as true north) is from c.1550. Of artifacts, "accurately fitted or shaped" it is recorded from 1474; the verb in this sense is from 1841. Truism "self-evident truth" is from 1708, first attested in writings of Swift. True-love (adj.) is recorded from 1495; true-born first attested 1591. True-false as a type of test question is recorded from 1923. --

---

Etymonline - Online Etymology Dictionary

quote:

---

I'd reply that using the word "truth" is ambiguous. Measuring the expansion rate of the universe over time is a much different effort than deciding whether good triumphs over evil. One is a scientific problem, the other is not, or if you beg to differ, then I'll qualify it by saying it is not a problem of the hard sciences. Where faith has been brought to bear on scientific problems it has been woefully wrong, not less accurate. The modern example is creationist's insistence that the world is 6000 years old and modern geography is the result of a global flood. Revelation and contemplation in the absence of evidence have proven themselves the worst ways imaginable for deciphering reality.

---

When you say that one is a scientific problem and the other is not, in my opinion that would be correct. One question which remains is whether or not there are truths, or no, facts in metaphysical systems. So I would say that pretty much closes the discussion on whether or not science and faith are the same type of system, given that these systems are classifiable this way. Another question remains in my mind whether the tenets of science can be applied to faith, as you can see I have been doing in this discussion.The notion that the world is 6000 years old is based on the idea that all verifiable history pertaining to humans is 6000 years old. It is obviously not accurate, except in metaphor. Some civilizations had existed before this time, but we have not found the rosetta stones to examine whether or not they could be considered intelligent. Religion is funny that way, the use of metaphor to describe things such as to answer questions indirectly, like the question 'how long has consciousness existed?' where the word 'consciousness' is used to replace the word 'world'.Since we're talking about words, I'll admit that the use of the word truth in the place of the word fact, is arguably best avoided. However in language they are practically synonomous, though you'd be right that they are not used in this context very easily.As to whether or not facts exist in metaphysical systems, I think again its a question which epistemology can be used to examine. The reason is that there are standards of proof, though ordained by some annointed person somewhere, these standards exist in metaphysics. The same way that they exist in science, though science never implies a conclusion, and it never suggests an answer as fact until a conclusion is verified through peer review and eventually becomes law, or not. I would say that perhaps, there are many exceptions in this contrast which further stipulate that facts do not exist in faith based systems. At least, under critical review of the word fact.So with that, there are a few questions, but I would also say that perhaps there is not a lot we disagree on.

quote:

---

That's why I want to question your view that faith is a system for finding truth.

---

Have you ever, had a dream that told you something? A lucid dream, something that has nothing to do with the substantiation of fact but instead the subjective causality of your existance?Have you ever, had an experience that caused you to be aware of the subjective realities of those around you? Have you ever extrapolated a truth about yourself, without anyone to tell you or show you thier objective analysis?These questions are intended to elucidate my point, that although objective fact and subjective truth are completely different I feel that both realms seek truths. If you have never had such an experience that you are aware of, which told you something about who or what you are without conclusive and rational evidence, then I feel for you I really do.It has been stated that my use of the word truth in this context is ambiguous, and in the above paragraph it really is. But thats the point you see, I cant seem to find a word in the english language that combines the notion of fact and the notion of truth well enough to say that metaphysics is as much a system of belief as rational logic. Perhaps I can recant, and say that although science is a means of finding fact and metaphysics is really a way of finding more subjective truth, both systems are coherent.A valid argument with this standpoint would be to say that if both systems are coherent, than you as a human being could apply completely rational logic to obtain the same introspective conclusions that any kind of metaphysics could bring you. But somehow, I still dont think that these kinds of coherent systems can validate one another.I suppose my use of the word 'faith' is also somewhat misplaced, if you would like to take argument. I have studied many different systems of faith and belief, so the term 'faith' for me is a blanket term. I used 'metaphysics' in this post, but if we really must resort to semantics, why not that argument?

quote:

---

Does it matter?

---

Of course it does. Truth in many ways describes a belief and its coherence with fact. Trouble is, that facts are never interpreted to an absolute, making truth an extreme ideal. In order to know that facts are real, and not misinterpretations of reality, one would need to be omniscient. Such would have rendered your argument completely.

quote:

---

I didn't say that science doesn't bring us closer to truth. I said that science's purpose isn't to find out truths. Whether a scientific finding is closer to the truth or not is purely a side affect.

---

Then let me say that science brings us closer realistic facts than faith does. would you still take argument?

quote:

---

I do want to take argument. Faith is not "a system for finding truth". If Joe has faith in the Sun God, he has not found the truth of the Sun God. If you're implying that Joe would have discovered a "truth" in his own subjective "reality", then I think that your use of the words truth and reality are pointless. I don't see how faith can be a tool for finding truth, but it's certainly a very effective tool for obscuring truth, as we see here on EvC every day!

​

I think that you're maybe obscuring the fairly straightforward subject of the thread by using words in unusual ways. The question is, does science require faith in the same way that Joe's evidenceless belief in the Sun God does.

​

I say that the answer's a simple "no".

---

Sure true enough science does not require faith. I dont really want to argue semantics at all! In fact I was backed into the argument. Furthermore I dont really mind if the system of belief surrounding metaphysics and the system of belief surrounding science are any different either. The argument was intended to explore the question. When you become as cynical as I am, its really irrelevent. A belief system is a belief system. Whether people find it more important that thier beliefs require faith or not, I really dont mind. So my question is now, why do you bother discussing any plausible connection between systems of faith and systems of science if you already know the answers? I'm not even going to take up such a pointless and doomed argument for the sake of discussion! Why should I bother even examining whether or not a belief in a sun god is evedenceless? I started out, and if you'd read any of my posts, saying a few assumptions.1) Science and religion are both systems of belief.
2) Neither faith nor science can validate one another.
3) Science and religion are different classifiable systems of belief.I stated that its not important to me whether or not a belief is based in reality or not, but its important to me what people believe and why.
Now if you can tell me that joes faith in a sun god, somehow makes it untrue that he believes there is a sungod, then you may have an argument.
You said that my use of the words are pointless. Tell me how its pointless when what a person believes, is something that they will kill or die for? Or fight vehemently such as you have done because of your beliefs? Tell me how this is not reality, and how it is pointless.

quote:

---

The lottery and manufacturing gizmos are both ways of seeking wealth. The meaning of wealth, however, is ambiguous, allowing those who are of a mind to claim that the amusement born of anticipation one receives playing the Lotto or the pride one receives seeing all of those nice, shiny gizmos is a wealth worthy in its own right .

​

This is, of course, merely back end loading: The making of lemon aid when the intended wealth doesn’t materialize, easing the guilt of bad decisions: Rationalization.

​

I’m a bit hard put to understand why, since no one otherwise defined wealth then as cold hard cash when going into the fray, that it should be considered otherwise after the fact.

​

Material wealth and spiritual wealth show no cause to be discussed in the same breath as if they somehow had anything close to the same meaning. They should, indeed, be given different names. “Knowledge” and “belief” would do if they weren’t already taken.

---

Heh, I'm not going to disagree with that! I would say that the semantics of the words you suggested are muddying the water again, such as the word 'belief' which I do not equate with matters of spirit, I equate it with the matter of individual beliefs.If John believes he can pass his hand through a brick, his belief may be in error, if he had ever tried the resulting pain would probably cause john to discover a different belief. Then of course John could see a trained martial arts expert pass his hand through a brick, and discover that belief may have been in error. Belief to me has nothing to do with faith or whether something is rational, it just means that it's something a person thinks that a person knows.Semantics really drag me down most of the time, but some people tend to believe that it is a reason to argue, and thats fine because it allows me to examine thier subjective beliefs. I dont judge them, I actually tend to think that all beliefs are subjective, and finding a fact in belief systems involves quantifying how many occurrances of the belief there are. Its not really an appeal to authority, its just this idea that facts must be repeatable and verifiable, perhaps beliefs are the same way.Edited by OurCynic, : spelling, sometimes I catch those.

quote:

---

This thread is about whether science invokes faith in the same way as religion. I don't yet see how "truth," whatever it is, is relevant.

---

It's not, its an argument over semantics brought by another user. Whether science invokes faith? I really dont think it matters whether or not science invokes faith. My ideal argument would be to say no, science should not at least invoke faith. Sometimes I dont get to argue my ideal argument.If you look at the subtitle, You'll see what I'm trying to discuss in terms of beliefs. If faith and science are both systems which invoke beliefs, how do they differ? how are they the same? The entire argument was intended to compare and contrast them. Please refer to my previous message for my use of the word belief, I think I did explain at least the semantics of that much better there.

quote:

---

We appear to be talking at cross purposes. Here's a suggestion for you. If we have beliefs, like Joe's, based on faith rather than evidence, and those beliefs are often held so strongly that people will, as you say, kill or die for them, then isn't an enormous amount of conflict in humanity inevitable? Because the claimed "truths" are not based on evidence, then we inevitably have a lot of conflicting "truths".

---

Sorry I havnt replied in so long. Yes I suppose Ive been too busy philosophizing to know much. that's why I'm a cynic. Yes conflict is inevitable, without communication or understanding, which you equate to having evidence.
Anyway I'm not trying to argue that faith has anything to do with a belief thats based in reality. I dont know where you got that idea. I'm saying that the reality of it is that people have beliefs, whatever system of belief it is, is still a system of belief. I understands it ruffles some feathers in this community because that statement could be misconstrued and taken completely out of context, to attack science. Which would be absurd. As many times as I've been able to illuminate why that's absurd I dont think I'll try. I'm not interested in arguing the semantics of the statement.
It would however be narcissistic to say that I dont really care what people believe, if its not based in reality. As reality itself is still something that cannot be understood completely. If people were simple enough to understand, we'd be too simple to understand them. I suppose its a waste of time; really, trying to put any kind of conformist notion to what people believe, to try and establish any criteria for it, to try and apply some kind of utilitarian principle to beliefs. Its all really just dogma. Its what creates these incessant cults with thier creed, thier criteria for who I ought to be. So I say to heck with it, why is it even important to be interested in what people believe, or whether or not its based in this notion of reality.Edited by OurCynic, : spotted a typo.