Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
119 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Phat (3 members, 116 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,087 Year: 6,199/6,534 Month: 392/650 Week: 162/278 Day: 2/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Science
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8579
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 16 of 186 (781880)
04-08-2016 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


Phat writes:

What constitutes valid evidence?

Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim.

If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has not replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 17 of 186 (781885)
04-08-2016 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by ringo
04-08-2016 11:43 AM


I'm Quite Impressed
Phat writes:

Faith is often personal.

Ringo writes:

And science is not. It's collective.

Nailed the whole difference in 6 words. Succinct, effective, and flat out beautiful.

{ABE - I would nominate you for POTM, but unfortunately that avenue appears closed for the moment.}

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 04-08-2016 11:43 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 8:20 PM anglagard has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 18 of 186 (781886)
04-08-2016 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by anglagard
04-08-2016 7:49 PM


Re: I'm Quite Impressed
Phat's playing with the format but in the meantime, try 2016 Best Posts Of The Month.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by anglagard, posted 04-08-2016 7:49 PM anglagard has not replied

  
Dogmafood
Member
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(2)
Message 19 of 186 (781888)
04-08-2016 8:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


What constitutes valid evidence?

Here is some valid evidence.

Brought to you by folks using the same methods that tell us that the world is 4.5 billion yrs old and that we are related to the apes.

You can know that your sums are correct when they lead you to this. (and by the way, how fucking cool is that?)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(3)
Message 20 of 186 (781889)
04-09-2016 12:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


I am not happy with your topic title: "Faith vs Science". Why would you think it is necessary for faith and science to be at odds with each other? They are two different realms of human thought, despite a small number of possible areas of minor overlap.

Science works best when dealing with the physical universe, with the natural. That is where you are able to observe, hypothesize, and test, the essential scientific activities.

Faith works best where you're dealing with things outside the physical universe, with the supernatural. It is impossible to observe the supernatural or to test it. Sure, you could form hypotheses about the supernatural, but based on what? And how could you ever possibly test any of it?

And yet the most interesting questions for humanity lie outside the purview of of science, are too complex and nebulous for science. Faith is not as constrained as science, but what does it have to offer? The most interesting questions for humanity are outside the ability for science to address and outside the ability for faith to properly handle.

So, when you're just running of faith, what suffices? I keep remembering a line in a George C. Scott movie where he was a Calvinist trying to find his daughter lost in the Orange County sex trade (at least she was recruited at Knott's Berry Farm, though that's close to the LA border). When he described his religious beliefs to a sex-trade comrade, she described a questionable sex act some guy once wanted her to perform and commented somebody could get you to believe just about anything. Please do not refer Faith to this movie because she will absolutely hate it. It was even too sketchy for a non-Calvinist.

So, what evidence would faith require? None, actually. Whatever unsupported nonsense would suffice just so long as it seemed to agree with the believer's beliefs or else used the sources the believer trusts and with an interpretation that's not too different from what the believer cleaves to. Not really of much use if you are seeking the truth and not mere agreement with preconceived notions.

What would science require? Actual evidence, as we both know full well.

What about claims that those of faith make about the real world? Well, there's this philosopher of science, Larry Lauden, who criticized Judge Overton's ruling in the famous 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law in McLean v. Arkansas for making faulty definitions of what is scientific which will come back to haunt us. I learned of it from a radio show in which the ICR's Dr. Duane Gish used it to support creationism. He even sent me a xerox copy of that article when I wrote to him about it. Which is amazing to me because that article actually hammers several nails in "creation science's" coffin:

quote:
At various key points in the Opinion, Creationism is charged with being untestable, dogmatic (and thus non-tentative), and unfalsifiable. All three charges are of dubious merit. For instance, to make the interlinked claims that Creationism is neither falsifiable nor testable is to assert that Creationism makes no empirical assertions whatever. This is surely false. Creationists make a wide range of testable assertions about empirical matters
of fact.

Thus, as Judge Overton himself grants (apparently without seeing its implications), the creationists say that the earth is of very recent origin (say 6,000 to 20,000 years old); they argue that most of the geological features of the earth's surface are diluvial in character (i.e., products of the postulated worldwide Noachian deluge); they are committed to a large number of factual historical claims with which the Old Testament is replete; they assert the limited variability of species. They are committed to the view that, since animals and man were created at the same time, the human fossil record must be paleontologically co-extensive with the record of lower animals. It is fair to say that no one has shown how to reconcile such claims with the available evidence -- evidence which speaks persuasively to a long earth history, among other things.

In brief, these claims are testable, they have been tested, and they have failed those tests.
(Science at the Bar -- Causes for Concern by Larry Laudan, Science, Technology and Human Values 7, no. 41 (1982):16-19)


So then, faith has to operate by a double standard, albeit a fair one. Where faith makes an assertion on matters of faith, which are inherently untestable, then faith gets a free pass. But when faith makes an assertion or claim that deals with the real world, then that real-world assertion/claim must be tested against real-world evidence.

Similarly, Faith (the EvC member) can make whatever b*t-s**t c***y claim or assertion that she wants to make about matters of faith, but the moment she makes any kind of real-world prediction of real-world events, then she must provide actual real-world scientific evidence of it.

So basically this is what it boils down to. If you are making assertions that can only be supported by faith, then whatever b*t-s**t c***y "evidence" you want to offer must suffice. But if you are talking about real-world predictions that can indeed be observed and tested, then you absolutely need to provide some actual evidence. B*t-s**t c***y ramblings simply will not suffice.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 1:34 AM dwise1 has replied
 Message 34 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-09-2016 1:10 PM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 21 of 186 (781890)
04-09-2016 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


Network glitch resulted in a duplicate posting. Sorry.

Edited by dwise1, : duplicate posting


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 1421 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 22 of 186 (781892)
04-09-2016 12:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
04-08-2016 9:00 AM


Two definitions...
Two definitions from a long list I put together quite some years back:

Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study.

Faith: the belief in something for which there is no material evidence or empirical proof; acceptance of ideals, beliefs, etc., which are not necessarily demonstrable through experimentation or observation. A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 04-08-2016 9:00 AM Phat has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 1:08 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 23 of 186 (781893)
04-09-2016 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by Coyote
04-09-2016 12:24 AM


Re: Two definitions...
Here's an account that I save several years back. It's ostensibly from an essay by Carl Sagan, but I have not read the origina ("Candle in the Dark"?):
quote:

The Physicist and the Metaphysicist

In the 1920s, there was a dinner at which the physicist Robert W. Wood was asked to respond to a toast. This was a time when people stood up, made a toast, and then selected someone to respond. Nobody knew what toast they'd be asked to reply to, so it was a challenge for the quick-witted. In this case the toast was: "To physics and metaphysics." Now by metaphysics was meant something like philosophy -- truths that you could get to just by thinking about them. Wood took a second, glanced about him, and answered along these lines: The physicist has an idea, he said. The more he thinks it through, the more sense it makes to him. He goes to the scientific literature, and the more he reads, the more promising the idea seems. Thus prepared, he devises an experiment to test the idea. The experiment is painstaking. Many possibilities are eliminated or taken into account; the accuracy of the measurement is refined. At the end of all this work, the experiment is completed and ... the idea is shown to be worthless. The physicist then discards the idea, frees his mind (as I was saying a moment ago) from the clutter of error, and moves on to something else.

The difference between physics and metaphysics, Wood concluded, is that the metaphysicist has no laboratory.


Edited by dwise1, : added possible source for the quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Coyote, posted 04-09-2016 12:24 AM Coyote has seen this message but not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 24 of 186 (781894)
04-09-2016 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by dwise1
04-09-2016 12:03 AM


I don't think that Phat is saying that faith has to contradict science, instead addressing the cases where it does.

To the rest, I would offer one point of disagreement. Even faith should be constrained by logic. The "free pass" doesn't get past absolute impossibilities.

Also, the "free pass" does not extend beyond personal belief. It should be obvious that arguments based on faith can only convince those who share that faith. Beyond that, there are those who claim that faith is based in evidence. Those people are simply throwing their free pass away.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 12:03 AM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 25 of 186 (781898)
04-09-2016 2:56 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
04-09-2016 1:34 AM


Sorry, Paul.

Many years ago on a Yahoo forum far, far away, a creationist presented the totally bogus "oceans' sea salt" claim. I pointed out his glaring errors and he retreated from that claim immediately. I asked him why the only creationist claims he could present were ones that were so unconvincing. He replied that the only reason I found his arguments so unconvincing was because I was not convinced to begin with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 1:34 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 3:05 AM dwise1 has not replied
 Message 27 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 3:08 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 26 of 186 (781899)
04-09-2016 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by dwise1
04-09-2016 2:56 AM


In other words creationists are *expected* to believe lies.

Creationists are really bad about seeing the tmolications of their excuses.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 2:56 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 5182
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 27 of 186 (781900)
04-09-2016 3:08 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by dwise1
04-09-2016 2:56 AM


Paul, I just threw the rest of my Trader Joe's Chicken Fried Rice into the microwave.

So just what is the rest supposed to be?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 2:56 AM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 3:15 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17179
Joined: 01-10-2003


Message 28 of 186 (781901)
04-09-2016 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by dwise1
04-09-2016 3:08 AM


I really don't see what you are trying to say.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by dwise1, posted 04-09-2016 3:08 AM dwise1 has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 16079
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 29 of 186 (781907)
04-09-2016 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by jar
04-08-2016 12:02 PM


Re: Collective versus Selective
jar writes:

They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded.

It seems that the default human nature is to disagree rather than to agree. If we all agreed, there would be no EvC Forum.

I am reminded of a quote from a book I once read, Thinking As A Science.

If a man were to know everything he could not think. Nothing would ever puzzle him, his purposes would never be thwarted, he would never experience perplexity or doubt, he would have no problems.
If we are to conceive of God as an All-Knower, we cannot conceive of Him as a Thinking Being. Thinking is reserved for beings of finite intelligence. Were we to study the origin and evolution of thinking, we would doubtless find that thinking arose in just this way—from thwarted purposes.
Science and Faith share several things. Both arise from doubt. Both arise because certain things--situations in life if you will--puzzle us.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by jar, posted 04-08-2016 12:02 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 16079
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 30 of 186 (781908)
04-09-2016 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by PaulK
04-08-2016 12:17 PM


Re: Context
ringo writes:

If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support.

Like I said.... we rarely agree.

PaulK writes:

In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules.
Among those who believe in Biblical inerrancy a reference to the Bible may be all the evidence required - but even then quote mining or misrepresentation should not be tolerated, let alone appeals to a scripture that she thinks exists somewhere in the book.

And what justifies Faiths anger ? It's far from always disagreement with the Bible. Very often it is disagreement with her opinions or defeating her arguments. Do you think that those are matters of deep religious significance to her ? Is her pride in herself her religion ? Is that what you mean by challenges to her faith ?

What do you think Phat ?

I would agree that for many of us, our pride in ourselves...in our supposed wisdom, in our cherished identity can and do cause us to get angry.As for quote mining and misrepresentation, I can only say that I go into a mine to find valuable nuggets. In the process I am forced to sift through a lot of rock. The same holds true in any book. In order to support my argument, I look for the best words, phrases, passages or statements that accomplish this.

Thankfully, there are others who disagree with me.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by PaulK, posted 04-08-2016 12:17 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by PaulK, posted 04-09-2016 10:32 AM Phat has replied
 Message 33 by jar, posted 04-09-2016 12:48 PM Phat has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022