Equating science with faith

Hi Bluegenes!About the Davies quote, he's not only speaking of a different kind of faith than the religious faith ICANT is preoccupied with, he's also not quite right. We don't accept an orderly universe on faith but on evidence, because we have huge, enormous amounts of empirical evidence that the universe is an orderly place with respect to consistently following the physical laws of nature. What we have faith in is that the universe will continue to be orderly in the future. It would indeed be a very weird universe where each morning we woke wondering which direction objects would be falling today.--Percy

I'm quite sure no one will touch any of your cosmological inquiries with a ten foot pole, not after you blew out a whole thread with them. Your mind block on this issue *is* very puzzling, though.You've posted a number of informed and insightful messages recently, and then in stark contrast there's this cosmological issue. The next time it comes up in proper context you might acknowledging to yourself that so many people throwing up their hands at you means there *is* something wrong with your thinking and try to find the flaw. If you're correct then it eventually will out, but asking the same dumb question over and over and over and over again and again and again and again in nearly complete disregard to the provided answers is pretty much guaranteed to get you nowhere. Not just on this topic but on any topic. If you enumerate the ways in which questions can be constructively approached, the way you're approaching this one is definitely not anywhere on the list.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Good morning tesla: You are right , tesla. Cogito ergo sum, all else is tentative. Few here would not except that as the lone tenet of existence. However, if we stop there, how useful is that? It is possible that all else is delusion. But as far as anyone has been able to determine, which itself could be a delusion, is that every delusion folks seem to be having seems to be very consistent in the things we call empirical. If one were to set up a procession in the dark to walk across a living room they will all report a coffee table in the shin. To deny the coffee table as a fiction of perception because it is a possibility is something that one would have to take on faith. To accept that the coffee table is real is pragmatic.To accept, for any reason, the perceived coffee table , and all the other miscellaneous perceived bits of our perception of the universe, as real seems to saves us no end of perceived grief, and seems to bring lots of perceived joy in the ways we seem to be able to manipulate our perceived stuff. One of the only greater perceived joys would be the ability to not use the words “perceived” and “ seems” quite so much.That could be done if we and all our peers had gone down to the railroad bridge with an ill gotten case of Old Milwaukee back in nineteen and seventy seven and fought it out then, but we didn’t. So if you let me know where you live I can score the Old Milwaukee if you can score a railroad bride.

---

Kindly******Fractally impudent

Rob or ICANT? I agree, except that I wouldn't say that he's not quite right, but that he's entirely wrong. We don't have to have faith that the universe is ultimately ordered in order to do science. You can do what my cave man did without having any preconceptions about whether or not the universe is ultimately ordered.I think that Davies has got it exactly the wrong way round. We do science because of things we don't know, not because of things we have faith in.Honestly, I don't know if the universe is ultimately ordered, but it wouldn't stop me from doing science.Science can and has been done with views of the universe that we now know to be misconceptions. It was done in the context of a geocentric universe, and worked up to a point, then in a steady state universe, and so on.We don't even have to have an opinion on what the universe really is in order to do science. At a basic level, it's a common sense thing which appears to be natural to us.I could mention that 100 million non-monotheistic Japanese have no trouble doing more modern science than 1.5 billion monotheistic Muslims. Do we? We go on the working assumption that the laws will be the same tomorrow as today, but that's built from experience. Do we need to involve faith?We only need faith, IMO, if we use that word for the basic assumption of science, which is the same as the basic assumption of existence. We have to trust our observations, and assume that there's a reality of some sort, ultimately orderly or not.It's also odd to equate Gods with order, to my mind. In every theistic tradition that I can think of, they seem to do things at whim. Why should an omnipotent God be orderly, from our perspective? He can change the apparent laws of the universe whenever he wants to.Davies is misusing the phrase "monotheistic tradition". In tradition, Gods do random magic and miracles. They're messy, not orderly. He may want to be referring to a Deity who just lays laws down, then lets things roll, but how traditional is that?Think of my comment about the Japanese and the Muslim world, and then think of the greatest God in the Gaps phrase cop out explanation of them all: "It's God's/Allah's will". Don't you think that science sometimes seems to thrive in spit of monotheism, and certainly not because of it?Do you really think that EvC would exist if the "monotheistic tradition" underpinned, or inspired science?

prag·ma·tism
Pronunciation: \'prag-m?-?ti-z?m\
Function: noun
Date: circa 1864
1 : a practical approach to problems and affairs
2 : an American movement in philosophy founded by C. S. Peirce and William James and marked by the doctrines that the meaning of conceptions is to be sought in their practical bearings, that the function of thought is to guide action, and that truth is preeminently to be tested by the practical consequences of belief
” prag·ma·tist \-m?-tist\ adjective or noun
” prag·ma·tis·tic \?prag-m?-'tis-tik\ adjective Potato. Patata.CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Faithsorry to the rest of you. 30 minutes til i can post again I'm going for coffee, anyone else want some? I'll e-mail you a cup *stretch* oh wait..we can't do that yet.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Davies. Yep, though I wasn't expressing it quite that strongly. I've got to agree with you. While we don't know that tomorrow the laws of the universe will remain unchanged, we have lots of evidence supporting that they will be. After all, yesterday we didn't know the laws would be the same today, but they were. And the day before that we didn't know that the laws would be the same the next day, but they were. And for all the millions of days before that the same was true. Reams of empirical evidence says that the laws of the universe do not change over time. Yeah, I agree with this, too. In the end there's really no faith at all involved, in fact, it's the wrong word. The faith being talked about is really only a very trivial assumption that the evidence of the past that has always been a guide to the future will continue to serve as a reliable guide.I like Davies and his talks and his books, but he often waxes too mystical. But hey, he has a Templeton prize and we don't! I wonder how the guys from the Templeton Foundation felt, having given Davies their 1995 prize, after hearing him speak at the Beyond Belief 2006 conference.--Percy

The posting restriction was put in place not so that you could pop back every 30 minutes to contribute another poorly thought out post, but so that you could spend the 30 minutes constructing a post of quality that contributes constructively and helps move the discussion forward.Posting a message that is predominately cut-n-paste doesn't achieve this goal, plus it is against the Forum Guidelines. If you don't want your posting constraint boosted to 60 minutes I suggest you spend your time more constructively. The constraint can be set to a maximum of 65535 minutes, which is one and a half months.Please, no replies to this message.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Well done The post was not meant for you, who understands that there are definite's in "reality".There are those who do not believe that. and i wonder how they could not...But to answer your questions:Faith is action based on belief. so you act by what you know, But as you understand faith in your idea, that acting on what is perceived reality as opposed to what is definite reality, and that science is a definite reality based on empirical data. But the data empirical as you perceive it to be, is still a calculation based on the potential truth and not a definite assumption, as are unmistakable data such as red is red.To understand my point on how science takes its empirical data by faith, read this post for definitions and an example of the faith of science in their data:http://EvC Forum: Equating science with faith -->EvC Forum: Equating science with faithto percy:You do not like what i say, and so you control the debate. A lot of the debate defense I've seen against what i say is: Your stupid.But if i was the stupid one, you would find a better defense.The cut and paste of the threads is a common place event in debates. You have exercise your power to control my ability to do that while letting those you like do it excessively. Your biased. But that does not take away from the truths i offer to the debate. YOU take away my ability to debate thinking that i need time to think, when its obvious from your "wookie defense : ie "your stupid, thats why i cant offer you real data to defend against your argument") That YOU should be the one taking time to think.Go ahead, exercise your power against me on this site, does it make you feel good? because in the end, the truth will be the truth. And i will not answer for you, but YOU will answer for yourself. Because the evidence has been before you, and you reject even the potential because you want to feel comfortable. But the truth IS. And i have YOU to thank for my understanding the truth of it. So i bear no ill to you for your obvious hatred of what i have said.If you do not understand what i have said , it does not mean i cannot relay well, because i have relayed the truth in many different ways that are easy to understand, by all observable empirical data. If you cannot understand it, you should double check YOUR ability to understand.Gods will be done, So be it.-Tim Brown.

---

keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is
~parmenides

Hi Tesla,Add to your problems the inability to follow instructions. When I say no replies I mean it. See you in a week.The bottom line is that if you do not conform to the Forum Guidelines as enforced by the moderators then you'll be subject to any of a variety of enforcement options. Maybe this board isn't for you. There are plenty of other boards out there.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

As cut-n-pasted by tesla:

quote:

---

...for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life.

---

It is pragmatic of me to accept such a statement because it is impossible for me to check all these things for myself ” though this particular one I have. I do not, however, accept authority on faith; otherwise, I’d not require competence or veracity.These authorities have proven themselves by putting all their cards on the table up front in peer review journals. They say, “This is what we observed; this is what we thought; this is how we checked; this is what we found.” Then the peers say, “Your investigations look solid enough here, but this bit’s thin.” And the authorities respond by reinforcing the thin bit with the necessary patch.What they do not do is pettifog the English language, attempt to trap the peers into some lame-o syllogism, or save some juicy bit of evidence for later. Science is not a con game going to the best player.The OP was Equating Science with Faith. If that is in any way the point you are trying to answer you’re not going to get it done by insisting that what you mean by “Faith” is anything at all like what I mean by “Tentatively accept as the best possible answer given the available evidence.”You need to work on showing me that the conclusions we separately reach are similarly reliably valid regardless of whatever terminology we use. Are the ways you and I approach the evidence equivalent?I firmly believe, and this I do take on faith, that if some day we contact creatures from a distant world we will find that their science has independently evolved to be nearly identical to ours, but their religions will show no convergence whatsoever.My mother is a Catholic (who cries prays for me every day). She takes the word “faith” to be very meaningful to her religious experience. So too would I, I think, if I were a person of faith. Therefore, to listen to you cheapen the word to have a pawn in a losers game is baffling to me. I like being baffled: so keep it up.

---

Kindly******Scared of the dark

Not really, and not in any of my dictionary's definitions. Yours would be a better definition for an act of faith.A concept is not an action. "Believing" and "knowing" aren't the same things. You need to express that more clearly. If you want to be a philosopher, you have to be very precise with language. When your meaning isn't very clear, it's difficult for others to discuss your points. You link to a post into which you've pasted some faith based superstitious waffle about about Divine authority being infallible. I'm not superstitious, and it doesn't make any point to me. It's your point that requires faith.Don't confuse the idea of you or I deciding to take something like the distance of the sun from the earth on trust as being the same as science taking it on trust. Scientists didn't sit back and trust the original measurement made by Captain Cook's team in the late eighteenth century. They've made the measurement time and time again since, and in different ways, before they regard it as a fact. Good science is, in a way, built on distrust.Science's view of that distance is based on repeated and repeatable observations and calculations. There is no faith involved unless, as I've said in posts above, we use the word faith in a meaningless way, to describe the assumption of science that there is some kind of observable reality. This isn't really faith, because it's the same as the assumption that you're making when you treat what's in front of you right now as a computer screen, not a dog.That doesn't come from faith, but from reacting to our environment in the way you've been doing since you were a baby. Methodological naturalism is just a common sense approach to understanding your environment, and if you check it out, you use it all the time, and your ancestors were using it long before the term was coined, and long before the English language existed.It's even arguable that other animals use it in a very basic way. Scientific method is a tool that works, which is why your computer works, and to do science requires no faith.Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

Every post by ICANT, tesla, and Rob in this thread has done nothing more than prove my point: there are some members who want desperately to equate science with faith. They are incapable of comprehending a person or any aspect of life not based on faith, because faith is such a huge component of their lives. It's a case of massive projection.It's perfectly understandable that a person would want their beiefs to be just as valid as those of anyone else. Their right to have those beliefs is of course equal - anyone can believe whatever they want. But all beliefs are not equal. Those based on objective evidence are inherently superior. Beliefs based on evidence can be used to make inferences and predictions about reality that have some sort of testable accuracy. Beliefs based on faith include not only religious beliefs, but also beliefs in imaginary friends, fairies, and invisible pink dragons.Those who posses religious faith hate being told that their beliefs are on par with someone who believes there is a monster under their bed. That's certainly understandable...but the basis of the belief is faith for both - they are beliefs without evidence, or even in spite of contradictory evidence.And despite what ICANT, tesla, and Rob would very much like us all to believe, science is not based on faith, at all. It is based entirely on objective evidence and the logical, testable conclusions that can be drawn from that evidence. Creationists like to say "evolution is based on faith, too," or "you have faith in the Big Bang, and I have faith in the Bible." But the facts are against them - science is not based on faith.That's why science has brought us the computers we're all staring at right now, medicine, airplanes, cars, etc. Faith has brought us the belief that gravity is caused by angels holding us to the ground, or that the motion of planets is caused by angels pushing them, or that the volcano will erupt if we don't give it a sacrifice.The difference should be obvious.

You do not understand faith.Faith requires an object. In your case the object of your faith is the presuppositions, interpretations and conclusions of evolutionary science.But we know evolution is not science but a religion. Your god is the ideas of Atheist "scientists" like Charles Darwin. You worship and bow down to these ideas. You have faith that they are correct as noted above. If any one does not bow down and recognize your faith you and a gang of other howlers will slander them.Jonathan Wells has two Ph.D.s; one in microbiology and one in Theology. He is famous for saying that he forsook evolution because he did not have the faith to believe in it anymore.There is no evidence in existence in support of evolution. The emperor is naked. It is evident that your faith, unlike educated persons like Jonathan Wells, is very strong. That is why your faith is blind faith. Genuine faith is based on evidence, like the observation of design which implies Designer, and not unintelligent process, the same of which only exists in your imagination, hence blind faith.Ray

Hi Rahvin, I would like to read the literature that you got this drivel from.And by the way you have more faith in your science than I do in my God. Your science does require faith and you are too blind to see it. I have been asking for that evidence for a year and have been given "ZERO" I have been given many assertions but assertions are not evidence. They are only someone's opinion.You want to convince me or anybody else produce the evidence that proves you do not take Origins on Faith. It is all based on FAITH as per your definition of faith. Message 7"2. belief that is not based on proof:"God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Drivel? This is just well known stuff from religious history. I hadn't heard of the gravity one before, but I've certainly heard the one about planets moving around the sun guided in their paths by the soft breeze from the wings of angels, and I can't believe you haven't heard about primitive peoples offering sacrifices to things like volcanoes and other gods. Even the Bible is full of stories that include sacrifices to God. It's like we never know which ICANT is going to show up. Sometimes discussion with you is possible, other times you just close your eyes, put your hands over your ears and repeat, "Nope, nope, nope, nope." Here's hoping the other ICANT reappears soon.--Percy