Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism

I have no issue with those who choose to have faith per se. My arguments are with those who assert that their faith based beliefs are evidenced or as valid as scientific conclusions in some way. You continue to be bamboozled by your own terminology. You seem to think that if you define faith as belief based on no evidence and science as evidenced based investigation that the latter can say nothing about the former as if this logically follows from the definitions alone. It doesn’t. And it turns out that science has a great deal to say about both faith based conclusions and the nature of faith itself. You have yet to cite a matter of faith that science must stay silent upon. We can show through science that a frog god is very unlikely to be the cause of rain. We can fill that gap in human knowledge. Whether those confronted with the facts choose to relinquish their faith based beliefs in the face of evidence is, as you say, up to them.But if, as is so often the case, those who take the faith based option insist that their belief is evidenced or that the evidence based conclusion is no more or less valid than their own — I will argue with them. My panties are wad free I am glad to say. But as above — I have no issue with those who choose to have faith per se. My arguments are with those who assert that their faith based beliefs are evidenced or as valid as scientific conclusions in some way. How do we decide what is harmful? Is teaching creationism in schools harmful? Guilty as charged. I have lots of them. That is the idea. Aside from my own entertainment that is.

And yet you cannot name one of these "matters of faith" on which science is silent.

Not at all. Science would say that they are almost certainly wrong in their conclusions and that the faith based foundation of their beliefs is demonstrably unreliable.Are you familiar with the topics discussed here at EvC at all..........

If your sole and single point is to say that science cannot disprove the existence of gods then why don’t you just say that and be done? There is plenty of scientific evidence on which to conclude that belief based on no evidence will be pointlessly unreliable and almost certainly wrong. There is a great deal of scientific evidence upon which to conclude that gods are human inventions.Do you dispute this? And yet when asked specifically what "matters of faith" it is that science must be silent upon you suddenly forget the statement you made above and start demanding outright falsification. Can you scientifically disprove the existence of a big blonde ethereal viking called Thor who causes thunder by bashing his godly hammer around? Has the notion that Thor causes lightening and thunder been refuted to all practical intents and purposes?Why do you think disproving things has any bearing on what science can or cannot commnent upon?

1) You have now changed your argument from "matters of faith" which can be literally anything regardless of falsifiability to "something as unfalsifiable as god" which is slightly different.You have, as expected, jumped onto the unfalsifiability wagon.2) We don't need to falsify things to come to mutually exclusive conclusions. Do I need to prove that pissing angels are not the cause of raindrops in order to conclude that all raindrops come from clouds? Do I need to falsify the existence of gods to conclude that all gods are human inventions?Can you falsify omphalism? How old is the Earth?

I am not "pissed off".I am just dismayed by the inadequacy of your ever changing arguments.So is it now "matters of faith" or is it "something as unfalsifiable as god" on which you are asserting that science must stay silent?Or are you conflating the two on the erroneous assumption that all "matters of faith" pertain to unfalsifiable things?Whichever of the above I will be delighted to explain to you why you are wrong. (**Straggler pops a pacifier into 1.61803's open mouth**)

I wondered when we would get to Gould and his "Non Overlapping Magisteria".Science cannot yield values but nor are values unique to faith or religion. So if you want to say "science is silent upon moral values" you might have a point. But that is not the same as "science is silent on matters of faith" at all. Unless you think all moral values are derived from faith rather than reason?Even having said that science can certainly tell us what our natural proclivites are and how difficult or easy it is likely to be to implement certain moral values. It just cannot tell us what these moral values should be. A good idea. Because thus far they have been very confused indeed.