Faith

[Peppermental]

We've all heard the angry high school atheist declaring faith as foolish and talking of science with reverence. Or maybe we all haven't. but I'm sure some of us have.

My question is this, does science depend on faith?


I would say yes. but i want to see some insanely long epic debate. So go!

[Shaun]

No, it doesn't. Science is based on verifiable evidence. No scientist clings to a theory or idea if he or she cannot prove its value as a principle of science. If all evidence runs to the contrary, that scientist either lets it go, or get shunned from the scientific community, since science is not really the place for crackpots who can't handle being wrong.

So, no. As much as it may seem to be so, the reality is that scientists sit on top of mountains of evidence that most of us either wouldn't understand or aren't willing to take the time to read about. But I suppose I'll have more to say when someone counters, because I don't know where this is going.

[Peppermental]

Since no one else is responding I'll assume the opposite position for the sake of argument. But don't scientists have to have faith that the rules that apply to the past will apply to the future? As well as faith that our perception is even correct?

[Shaun]

No, because scientists are constantly testing and attempting to disprove their own theories and ideas. And I mean constantly. If nobody is trying to find holes in your ideas, then something is seriously wrong. That's how science works. We may prove a concept to be true, but we are always trying to tighten it, make it stronger and better and increase our understanding of it. This is true of evolution. We know that animals evolve. That much is proven. What we are still trying to comprehend are all the minute details of how and why. There are still scientists studying gravity, the sun, even human beings. Science is constantly growing and changing because it has to. We can't ever be sure that 50 years down the line some new bit of evidence or a new technology will provide new evidence that adjusts how we view an issue. True scientists never assume that what we know now will be the same 20 years in the future. All we know is that the basic ideas are secure. We evolve. Light goes really fast. The sun burns all sorts of gases. We have genetic links to apes, etc.

So, no, science is not based on faith. No legitimate scientist ever assumes that the present is absolute, that we know everything right now and that what we understand now will be 100% the same in the future. Heck, we don't even think about gravity the same anymore.

[listophergreene]

Hebrews 11:1 “Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.” NIV.

If scientists relied on faith then science wouldn't be science anymore. You can't disprove a theory, even if it is wrong, if you already have complete faith in it. In this way faith is a detriment to science, so science cannot depend on faith.

I think faith is a very good thing in the right places, but science isn't one of those places, and scientists have to be objective in order to make progress, rather than relying on 'faith'.

The second part of that biblical definition "...and certain of what we do not see." can be applied to tested theories such as gravity, which we cannot see because we can only see the effects of them. However, this does not come from having faith in an invisible and theoretical force, but from continually testing the effects of that force to more completely understand it.

[Bowie20049]

You actually can disprove a theory. Theories aren't final, they're just supported by evidence.

(If I'm wrong, I will stab my head.)

[listophergreene]

You actually can disprove a theory. Theories aren't final, they're just supported by evidence.

(If I'm wrong, I will stab my head.)

I was just stating that if a scientist already has blind faith in what he thinks is the truth, he cannot disprove his own theories for himself, because he will always see his presuppositions as being correct. In this way faith gets in the way of science. Theories are meant to be altered or abolished to remove any fallacies found in them, I was just saying that blind faith keeps that from happening, therefore stalling the progress of science.

[Crocolyle]

You actually can disprove a theory. Theories aren't final, they're just supported by evidence.

(If I'm wrong, I will stab my head.)

Technically you are right, but in the sense that scientific ideas are constantly changing and being tweaked in response to new evidence. A theory is a detailed, verified, tested scientific explanation of certain phenomena. At no point do theories get upgraded to laws; laws are something completely different.

A theory is scientific fact, not speculation. So technically, theories are final.

Part of this misunderstanding is from how we use the word theory in day to day life. Like, "I have a theory for why our baseball team always loses when we play on Saturday." That's more along the lines of a hypotheses.

Theories--such as the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution (which is the basis for genetics)--are tested scientific fact, and therefore need no faith.

[Bowie20049]

Technically you are right, but in the sense that scientific ideas are constantly changing and being tweaked in response to new evidence. A theory is a detailed, verified, tested scientific explanation of certain phenomena. At no point do theories get upgraded to laws; laws are something completely different.

A theory is scientific fact, not speculation. So technically, theories are final.

Part of this misunderstanding is from how we use the word theory in day to day life. Like, "I have a theory for why our baseball team always loses when we play on Saturday." That's more along the lines of a hypotheses.

Theories--such as the theory of gravity and the theory of evolution (which is the basis for genetics)--are tested scientific fact, and therefore need no faith.

I know that, but then, what is the difference between theory and law when they're both proven? :confused:

[Crocolyle]

A theory is a set of widely accepted explanations of observations and phenomena, well tested and consistent with all available evidence.

A law is a rule or principle describing a physical relationship that always works in the same way under the same conditions.

Basically think of a theory as an explanation and a law as a description.

[Bowie20049]

Oh OK. I always thought they were stages like an observation becomes hypothesis becomes theory becomes law. Thanks for clearing that up

[Shaun]

Theories are not technically disproven, as Croc has highlighted, but altered. Evolution today, for example, is not at all like what Darwin proposed, primarily because Darwin was working with limited knowledge, whereas today we are dealing with excessive amounts of knowledge.

The difference between laws and theories are actually not that different. Theories are essentially no different than laws, except that theories are adjusted to accommodate new evidence, while laws generally are more secure (though not always; and laws are not generally broad, overarching concepts like evolution, but more "simplistic" ones...think the Newton's laws of motion...relatively "simple," and straightforward, and basically irrefutable). Theories do not become theories just because we say they are. They go through an intense process of peer review and testing before they get to be theories. Theories are difficult to actually disprove, because by the time they become theories, they are already well established as factual. As I said before, we know that evolution is true, but what we don't know are all the intricate details. Hence while evolution is constantly changing, but at the same time remains constant. The same principle (all life evolves and changes w/ time) stays the same, but the minute, intricate details change and become more complicated as knowledge is gathered.

It is not often than actual scientific theories are disproven. I can't really think of an instance where that happened, to be honest. I can think of plenty of instances where a theory was adjusted when new facts came in that changed how things worked, but the basic principles always remained true.

I just want to be very clear here as to what a theory actually is. It is not "just a theory." Theories in science are complicated, well-established ideas with mountains of hard evidence and support. It takes years for a hypothesis to become a theory, sometimes decades. Nothing becomes a theory easily, and some ideas get blasted out of existence because they are not supported by evidence.

[Peppermental]

Sorry I wasn't here, real life stuff. I'm not saying that scientists employ faith in order to justify their theories, but they do place faith in the thought that the their perception is correct. Literally everything besides basic ideas such as "I think, therefore something exists" (I hate I think therefor I am) are completely based on your perception. Like in The Allegory of the Cave, all you "Know" is your perception of events. What makes your reality anymore "real" than that of a serial killer? General consensus? How do we know we're even perceiving that correctly? We have faith that we can accurately perceive anything, but for all we know this could be nothing. Its basic Solipsism, not saying its my personal favorite, but for the sake of argument I'll assume the position.

[Shaun]

Sorry I wasn't here, real life stuff. I'm not saying that scientists employ faith in order to justify their theories, but they do place faith in the thought that the their perception is correct. Literally everything besides basic ideas such as "I think, therefore something exists" (I hate I think therefor I am) are completely based on your perception. Like in The Allegory of the Cave, all you "Know" is your perception of events. What makes your reality anymore "real" than that of a serial killer? General consensus? How do we know we're even perceiving that correctly? We have faith that we can accurately perceive anything, but for all we know this could be nothing. Its basic Solipsism, not saying its my personal favorite, but for the sake of argument I'll assume the position.

Because science is based on facts. Hard, incontrovertible facts. It is not based on perception. If you say "the sky is green," but really the sky is blue, no matter how much you want to believe the sky is green, it will always be blue. Period. The facts do not change and perception does not fit into it. The only thing that changes is what we know. We used to know that the sky was blue, and that was that, and then we learned why the sky was blue, and that was that. We'll probably learn more as we go along, but they will always be based on what is true, rather than on what is perceived to be true.

[Crocolyle]

Sorry I wasn't here, real life stuff. I'm not saying that scientists employ faith in order to justify their theories, but they do place faith in the thought that the their perception is correct. Literally everything besides basic ideas such as "I think, therefore something exists" (I hate I think therefor I am) are completely based on your perception. Like in The Allegory of the Cave, all you "Know" is your perception of events. What makes your reality anymore "real" than that of a serial killer? General consensus? How do we know we're even perceiving that correctly? We have faith that we can accurately perceive anything, but for all we know this could be nothing. Its basic Solipsism, not saying its my personal favorite, but for the sake of argument I'll assume the position.


Several Points:

A) The reason Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" ("Cognito ergo sum") and not "I think, therefore something exists" is because the fact that you are thinking only proves that you exist--not anything else. What if you're demented, under the influence of hallucinogens, schizophrenic, or otherwise perceiving what actually doesn't exist? Descartes was saying with his quote that he only knows that he exists, because he only knows his thoughts. You may not like the syntax, but your alteration of his quote makes little sense, particularly when juxtaposed with the rest of your argument.

B) Secondly, your entire argument is based on speculation and a high school philosophy text book, rather than facts and designed to trick someone into saying "Scientists have faith" at whatever cost, to give you an "Aha! Scientists are no more knowledgeable than theologians!" moment.

I'll bite.

Sure, scientific arguments rely entirely on the scientists' perception of nature, so therefore scientists must have faith that they are not trapped in the Matrix or some Platonic allegory. So scientists have faith; however, the kind of faith they have is different from true faith, the faith of those who practice an actual religion. That kind of faith is, is faith that something intangible, unknowable, and imperceptible exists, while this "scientific faith" is that what they see with their own eyes exists. Those are two completely different things, even if you try to get all "philosophical".

C) This is more turning into an argument about whether anything actually exists. In order to properly argue this, you need more than just "WHAT IF!?!?!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111oneoneone1111eleven!?" Make some points, not just a random quotes pulled out of a philosophy text book.

D)(see Shaun's rather rationalistic argument)

[Peppermental]

???? High school philosophy book? I wasn't aware high schools offered philosophy books, I actually read philosophers quite frequently. and no, not just a few essays from Nietzsche, I mean Sartre, Kierkegaard, essays from Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Camus, Locke, Hume, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, etc.

And I never claimed science relied on faith in the same way that Christianity did, I simply said it relied on faith. a basic faith in that your perception is correct. Hard facts? Everything you know comes from what you perceive! The science journals you read, the textbooks you've studied, your knowledge of them still comes purely from your cognitive abilities.

Your psychoanalysis is pathetic. I raised this question just to see peoples positions. I've never read a philosophy textbook, I have spent large amounts of time reading actual philosophy. Your assumptions are completely off base, as I have general indifference towards theologians, and I have great respect for scientists. I'm willing to make a leap of faith to believe my perception in regards to science, I'm just willing to admit that its just my perception, no matter how much I believe its reality.

[Crocolyle]

???? High school philosophy book? I wasn't aware high schools offered philosophy books, I actually read philosophers quite frequently. and no, not just a few essays from Nietzsche, I mean Sartre, Kierkegaard, essays from Spinoza, Schopenhauer, Camus, Locke, Hume, Descartes, Aristotle, Plato, Kant, etc.

Yes, some high schools have philosophy classes. And wow, aren't you ever so qualified?

And I never claimed science relied on faith in the same way that Christianity did, I simply said it relied on faith. a basic faith in that your perception is correct. Hard facts? Everything you know comes from what you perceive! The science journals you read, the textbooks you've studied, your knowledge of them still comes purely from your cognitive abilities.

I never said that you claimed science relied on faith in the same way that Christianity did--I never used the word Christianity--but you did say this:

We've all heard the angry high school atheist declaring faith as foolish and talking of science with reverence.

In this quote you are comparing science to religion and making the claim that it is ironic that atheists think faith in religion is silly, when they have faith in science. So I'm afraid you do say that those who believe in science have an almost religious faith in it.

The "Hard Facts" aspect of this argument... Though you've apparently directed this to me, it has more to do with Shaun's argument than mine (though I did cite Shaun). Though I did say:

Sure, scientific arguments rely entirely on the scientists' perception of nature, so therefore scientists must have faith that they are not trapped in the Matrix or some Platonic allegory. So scientists have faith...

Which if you had read closely, agrees with you in some respects. In no way did I deny any of that.

Finally, I am not a scientist. I do not read scientific journals or take many science classes. Nothing in my argument really even should give you that impression. You're just having a fit because I said that it looks like you read a high school philosophy textbook (something I actually have done).

Your psychoanalysis is pathetic.

I never gauged your sanity. But I'm beginning to. My psychoanalysis as of right now is incomplete, but you are rapidly supplying me with data.

I raised this question just to see peoples positions

You say you raised this question to create and perpetuate a long debate. You also said that you want to take the opposing side and play devil's advocate, so yeah you do want to argue. I don't see why you're suddenly backtracking.

I've never read a philosophy textbook, I have spent large amounts of time reading actual philosophy.

Maybe if you had, you wouldn't have misunderstood what Descartes was saying.

Your assumptions are completely off base, as I have general indifference towards theologians, and I have great respect for scientists. I'm willing to make a leap of faith to believe my perception in regards to science, I'm just willing to admit that its just my perception, no matter how much I believe its reality.

I think your first post in this thread confirms my assumptions, except my jokes involving a philosophy textbook. Take a chill pill. And maybe, your argument wouldn't be so easy to counter if you supplied facts and examples and less "WHAT ABOUT PERCEPTION!?" I'm sorry for my attacks, but your argument as devil's advocate is so shallow, I have little else to go on.

[miss_smiley]

Um...why are we arguing instead of debating?
Personally, I believe that faith has its figurative fingers in all things, in its own little intricate ways. I just think some people misunderstand exactly what role it has in playing out our decisions.
Be warned (and yes, I'm about to completely debunk everything I'm going to say in my argument, by taking out my credibility) - I don't study philosophy, and while I do study a lot of science, most of it is for personal interest, and of a fairly basic level (think the end of first year university-level science, and you're pretty much bang-on). I just study people. So, basically, I'm an ignoramus and a people-watcher.
So I'll take the psychology stance. xP

I agree with listo, in that certainty, or faith in what we think is correct, has really got no place in science - theories are there to be challenged. We form hypotheses to disprove them and should we even dare to cushion the blow to our hypothesis, then that's not science - that's just cushioned ignorance and being childish. So, if that's what we're really arguing about, then, I'm with (and it kills me inside to say this) Shaun.
But, I do think that our religion, particularly Christianity, having the majority of the world as followers, statistically, has a huge effect on what we question and how we go about questioning it, so therefore, that would have an effect on the enquiring mind of the scientist - although in this age and stage, it's slowly dying away, as a consequence of a culture where anything goes.
Remember, no one can be unbiased. We're human and we rely upon our upbringing, our surroundings and the mixture of quirks and perks that is our personality and mind-set to make decisions - decisions that include any work we do, including the field of science.

And I kind of think that this debate has a few too many viewpoints to take in order for it to be really worth chasing down.
But I joined in. Because I can. xP

[Shaun]

Croc gets brownie points from me. I'll just reiterate all he said and not waste time :P.

[Peppermental]

after reading my initial question, I'm going to contradict myself because of its wording. Science as an idea doesn't rely on faith; analysis relies on faith, albeit different from the faith of a theologian. So scientists need faith in their perception, while science itself does not.


But can we find common ground an agree that there is some type of faith involved in being a scientist? Not the same faith as a theologian, but still a form of faith nonetheless?

[Crocolyle]

after reading my initial question, I'm going to contradict myself because of its wording. Science as an idea doesn't rely on faith; analysis relies on faith, albeit different from the faith of a theologian. So scientists need faith in their perception, while science itself does not.


But can we find common ground an agree that there is some type of faith involved in being a scientist? Not the same faith as a theologian, but still a form of faith nonetheless?

Yeah I said that, though I'd call it more "belief in one's perception" rather than faith, since faith is a misleading term. Faith implies without evidence.

[Shaun]

Nope, because all the definitions of the word "faith" that I have read (4 of them) either refer directly to a theological version of faith (such as belief in the supernatural) or faith in one's abilities or a person, which are all things that are not assured by cognitive rationalism.

Science = reason, facts, reality. Faith = belief.

[Crocolyle]

Nope, because all the definitions of the word "faith" that I have read (4 of them) either refer directly to a theological version of faith (such as belief in the supernatural) or faith in one's abilities or a person, which are all things that are not assured by cognitive rationalism.

Science = reason, facts, reality. Faith = belief.

So you have faith that we're not in the Matrix?

Just kidding. But seriously.

I think rather than faith, she mean's more "Scientists believe that their senses aren't lying to them." But most people believe that (that's the problem with people who hallucinate, by the way), so it's not really exclusive to scientists or atheists. I mean, I'm sure the Pope, despite being a devout Christian, believes he's sitting in a chair when he is sitting in a chair.

[Shaun]

If I'm in the Matrix, then the rules that I have observed, the scientific facts, etc. are all true within that universe. But that's not really what scientists sit around trying to do. The whole "we might be in a bubble jar, rather than on a real Earth" argument doesn't really work, especially considering most people don't go through existing pondering whether we're in the Matrix. Life just exists, and the rationale is one of two things: we just exist or God did it. I prefer the "we just exist" argument. Maybe we'll understand why we exist later, but I don't question that I exist. It doesn't matter if I don't really exist. There is no evidence to suggest that the way things are isn't really the way things are.

[Peppermental]

oh no, I'm a guy!

Croc kinda nailed my argument down. Its sort of like the allegory of the cave; you can't experience reality with absolutely certainty that there is no distortion, because you only experience through your senses.

[Shaun]

Yes, well, if Plato were so applicable to the world of today, in all instances, I suspect more people would be referencing his work. While a certainly interesting fellow, with lots of good observations, some still useful, despite being flawed, he does not always apply. The thing is, a lot of the great thinkers are taught, but rarely taken as anything except historical entities. Nobody listens to Freud either, but if you go into literature, you'll be psychoanalyzing just about everything...

[Peppermental]

Oh I despise the bulk of Plato's work, I was saying the argument is similar. I believe that what science has uncovered is true, but I also acknowledge that there is a chance that I am completely wrong in my belief. I put faith, or I put trust, in the idea that my perceptions are correct. But there is the possibility that they are not.

[Crocolyle]

Sorry Pepper, I guess people's genders based on avatars.

I actually am a big fan of Plato's allegory. Surprisingly, Shaun, it's extremely well-known. The Matrix and a ton of fiction has been influenced by Plato's Allegory of the Cave. In fact, I'm revising a novella (I think the genre is slipstream) that I just finished that references the allegory. One of the titles I'm considering is "The Cave of Chains," a reference to the allegory (My other working titles include "The Space Operetta of Howard Humphries," "Trapped on Planet X," "The Caves Beneath Planet X," and "Chrysalis." Mainly what I'm doing is working on building up some of the secondary characters and adding a little more internal conflict in the main character. If you feel like looking it over and have enough time to, Shaun, let me know. ;-))

Here's a video explanation of the allegory: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQfRdl3GTw4

But yeah, it's a fun to speculate, though the "Matrix" interpretation isn't really practical. Very little of metaphysics is. But who knows? Maybe this is all fantasy...

I am reminded of Bohemian Rhapsody.

[Shaun]

Pepper: You can't put faith in something if you believe there is still doubt. That's like going "I believe in God, but only if he exists." Faith is unconditional. Science is not. If something doesn't add up in science, no matter how much you believe something is true, it won't be true. I go back to the blue sky argument: it's blue no matter what you say (and if you actually see something else, then something is wrong with you, which introduces other factors).

Croc: Plato's work is known among more academic circles, but if you were to pull a Leno and waltz around America or anywhere seeing if people knew what the allegory was, guaranteed that most people wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. Most people can't even remember their high school educations (which is where I read Plato).

[Peppermental]

wait wait wait. The sky is blue no matter what? There is no chance that you just perceive everything wrong? No matter how small that chance maybe, there is still the possibility that you have imagined everything. Sure, its a trivial point, but its true. Its the foundation for some schools of philosophy. You can be sure of almost nothing, because almost everything is perception! is the argument kinda immature? Sure. but you only "know" what your senses tell you. They could be completely wrong without you knowing.

And we can't base how applicable something is based on the general populations knowledge. Hell, John Locke's philosophy certainly played a role in the foundation of the American government, but if you asked the majority of Americans about the Treatises of Government they'd probably just give you a blank stare.

[Shaun]

wait wait wait. The sky is blue no matter what? There is no chance that you just perceive everything wrong? No matter how small that chance maybe, there is still the possibility that you have imagined everything. Sure, its a trivial point, but its true. Its the foundation for some schools of philosophy. You can be sure of almost nothing, because almost everything is perception! is the argument kinda immature? Sure. but you only "know" what your senses tell you. They could be completely wrong without you knowing.

And we can't base how applicable something is based on the general populations knowledge. Hell, John Locke's philosophy certainly played a role in the foundation of the American government, but if you asked the majority of Americans about the Treatises of Government they'd probably just give you a blank stare.

There's also the chance that little aliens live inside your butt and send messages back to their homeworld about what it's like. There comes a point when absurd arguments about absurdly improbably chance are quite literally a waste of time. This is one of them. If we want to follow this logic, then nothing matters in the world at all, because for all you know it could not be true. Maybe I don't exist, or you don't, but you think I do, or I think you do, or whatever. Or maybe the Earth is really a piece of bubblegum on the bottom of a desk, and we don't know it. Or elephants are really our overlords and they swim in the heavens above and we can't see them. Or maybe the Earth really is nothing more than a lava pit, but we see something different. That would render life pointless, because life itself might mean nothing at all. Everything you do, say, feel, see would be suspect.

I prefer to live in a world where I don't have to question things that, in the long run, matter not at all. It does not matter if the world doesn't exist, or if the sky really is purple. All of us see blue, therefore it is blue. Absurdities of chance are a waste of time, a waste of good brain power, because ultimately they are nothing more than arguments based on nothing, as hollow and meaningless as what they attempt to do to the world we live in.

[Peppermental]

...Because life has an inherent purpose? I never claimed the argument to be useful, in fact I called it trivial. But logically it does still have merit, regardless of its application to the real world.

As a side note, many thinkers believe life has no inherent purpose, and not because of anything we've so far mentioned.

[Shaun]

I don't see something that has no inherent logic built into it as something that should be logically treated with anything but avoidance. They may be interesting philosophical arguments, but they are irrelevant and pointless, so why we need to bring them up on a discussion about whether scientists operate on faith is beyond me. If you wanted to play devil's advocate, you could have come up with something better :P, but as it is, there really isn't much to be said. If we follow your argument, however trivial, then we really have nothing to argue about at all, because everything becomes suspect and our lives subsequently become operated by faith in nonsense.

I prefer sticking with what can be logically deduced to be true.

[Crocolyle]

The problem with arguing young adults arguing metaphysics is that it stalls, where one says "It is this way" and the other says "But it can be this way," which is countered by "But it's this way." You guys both need to do better.

Shaun. The sky was gray yesterday and at sunset it was yellow. Prove to me that the sky is in fact blue. If you say, "My eyes tell me the sky is blue." While valid, it it's not necessarily true. Your senses can deceive you. I mean, if I carve a bar of soap into the shape of a candle and put in a wick, it may smell like a candle, look like a candle, feel like a candle, and possibly even taste like a candle, but that does not make it a candle. It's a bar of soap with a wick.

Furthermore, let's assume I developed a mental illness and made friends with this guy named Robert. I can touch Robert. I hear Robert. I see Robert. I smell Robert. Unfortunately, Robert is a hallucination. I mean, if your senses are always accurate, then Robert, despite being a hallucination, actually exists, if only in your head. Couldn't all this be a hallucination? Couldn't we all be mentally ill? There is such a thing as a group hallucination.

I'm not a philosopher, so please excuse the weaknesses of my argument. Someone much more articulate, much more knowledgeable, and much more skilled in debate will have to provide a better one.

[Shaun]

The problem with arguing young adults arguing metaphysics is that it stalls, where one says "It is this way" and the other says "But it can be this way," which is countered by "But it's this way." You guys both need to do better.

Shaun. The sky was gray yesterday and at sunset it was yellow. Prove to me that the sky is in fact blue. If you say, "My eyes tell me the sky is blue." While valid, it it's not necessarily true. Your senses can deceive you. I mean, if I carve a bar of soap into the shape of a candle and put in a wick, it may smell like a candle, look like a candle, feel like a candle, and possibly even taste like a candle, but that does not make it a candle. It's a bar of soap with a wick.

Furthermore, let's assume I developed a mental illness and made friends with this guy named Robert. I can touch Robert. I hear Robert. I see Robert. I smell Robert. Unfortunately, Robert is a hallucination. I mean, if your senses are always accurate, then Robert, despite being a hallucination, actually exists, if only in your head. Couldn't all this be a hallucination? Couldn't we all be mentally ill? There is such a thing as a group hallucination.

I'm not a philosopher, so please excuse the weaknesses of my argument. Someone much more articulate, much more knowledgeable, and much more skilled in debate will have to provide a better one.

You're talking logical, identifiable exceptions to the rule. The sky is not always blue, but as a rule, when it is clear, it is blue, unless something else effects it. If you see neon yellow, then something is wrong with your eyes, and as such is an exceptional factor. If you hear a guy named Robert and think he exists, but he does not, it may be you are mentally ill, which is observable and, hopefully, treatable. Perception only applies if the mind is sound, but if there's something wrong with you, perception is suspect.

And yes, of course we could all be ill. But we could all be talking gerbils who think we are human. We're talking illogical arguments here, because if we're going to talk about improbable possibilities, then anything goes and any discussion we have is essentially meaningless. We could all be hallucinating, but we could all also be dead, or actually not alive, or living inside a bubble, or there could be a giant god with an elephant head who is invisible and governs the way the world works. We could be made of peanut butter, or asparagus. I know that sounds ridiculous, but that's the road we're heading down. We're getting into absurd philosophical arguments about things that most people don't question because there is no reason to. Why does it matter if we actually live in the Matrix? If what we observe is constant and doesn't change, then that's the way it is. It's irrelevant if we actually don't exist here, unless that information becomes known and we try to escape. But, we're talking about ifs that have no basis in fact. They're nothing more than talking points as a way to combat a sound argument, because it would be impossible to refute the "science isn't faith" argument with anything but absurdities of philosophy.

I get the argument, I just don't see it as relevant. If it were relevant, then really, what are we bothering arguing for? Nobody can ever be correct, no matter how factually stimulated, if everything is suspect. We would quite literally have no purpose in being in this thread talking about anything of this, because, in the end, none of it would matter. If I lost the argument, or you did, or Pepper did, it would be meaningless and have no bearing on anything whatsoever, because you can brush it away as "oh, well your perception just might possibly could be skewed because you might live in the Matrix."

[Crocolyle]

I get the argument, I just don't see it as relevant. If it were relevant, then really, what are we bothering arguing for?

I agree with you wholeheartedly on this point (no joke) that this discussion, like 99% of the debates we--or anyone else--has matters. No one's opinions will change, and if they had, why would that even matter? Really no argument matters. No argument between young writers matters.

Nobody can ever be correct, no matter how factually stimulated, if everything is suspect. We would quite literally have no purpose in being in this thread talking about anything of this, because, in the end, none of it would matter. If I lost the argument, or you did, or Pepper did, it would be meaningless and have no bearing on anything whatsoever, because you can brush it away as "oh, well your perception just might possibly could be skewed because you might live in the Matrix."

Exactly.

You actually summed up my belief system quite nicely.

[Shaun]

Then explain to me what is the point of existence if anything we say, do, experience, etc. is suspect. There isn't any, because anything you say gives meaning to existence is suspect, so really, while the argument might be interesting on a philosophical level (like the "does a tree make a noise if nobody is there" thing), but for logical, reasonable arguments, it's relatively pointless.

We went into this trying to determine if faith played a role in science and now we're at this stage we're arguing a pointless position. Let's get back to the science bit.

[Crocolyle]

Then explain to me what is the point of existence if anything we say, do, experience, etc. is suspect. There isn't any, because anything you say gives meaning to existence is suspect, so really, while the argument might be interesting on a philosophical level (like the "does a tree make a noise if nobody is there" thing), but for logical, reasonable arguments, it's relatively pointless.

Yeah. In no way way have I disagreed with this and I have said something like this in different words.

We went into this trying to determine if faith played a role in science and now we're at this stage we're arguing a pointless position. Let's get back to the science bit.

As a participant in this debate, it seems like you and I almost instantly disproved that, so Pepper changed his arguments to a metaphysical one, to which I said:

Sure, scientific arguments rely entirely on the scientists' perception of nature, so therefore scientists must have faith that they are not trapped in the Matrix or some Platonic allegory. So scientists have faith; however, the kind of faith they have is different from true faith, the faith of those who practice an actual religion. That kind of faith is, is faith that something intangible, unknowable, and imperceptible exists, while this "scientific faith" is that what they see with their own eyes exists.

Later I revised this stance, and I said by faith, Pepper actually means "belief that one's senses are accurate."

After which, Pepper's argument fell apart, and he had to revisit it once more. Somehow metaphysics became the focus. And Pepper was like anything's possible. I took the "Silly, but fun to speculate" stance. You took the "Silly and idiotic" stance. You two argued for a while with occasional interjections from me. Your augments bothered me because both of you stopped citing examples or actually making points. I summed it up as:

The problem with arguing young adults arguing metaphysics is that it stalls, where one says "It is this way" and the other says "But it can be this way," which is countered by "But it's this way." You guys both need to do better.

So I made a rather sketchy argument, which you said is irrelevant, a point I had made in Post #28, maybe a little bit before. Then I agreed with you, but furthered the stance and said that there isn't really much of a point to anything. You disagreed with my nihilism and tried to prove me wrong by regurgitating my own views, which I agree with... and then I pointed that out, and wrote a history of the argument.

[Shaun]

And now we're back to ground zero, wondering what the point is if we're agreeing or agreeing that our disagreements are agreeable, etc. This is why I'm a lit major... :P

[Crocolyle]

And now we're back to ground zero, wondering what the point is if we're agreeing or agreeing that our disagreements are agreeable, etc. This is why I'm a lit major... :P

Most lit majors I know became a lit major to help them lie. At least, that's why I became a lit major.

[Shaun]

Yeah, as a grad student, lying becomes less applicable. You can't get away with it anymore.

[Crocolyle]

So I hear...

[Gryk]

okay...i'm a newbie here so here's my arguument on the debate


What is faith?

Faith is a belief on something...it is something that lets the person grapple on an idea for a long time and when trouble comes, the person goes back to this certain idea and refreshes himself to start again...

So does science have faith? Yes, for take example the Darwin or Galileo, when Darwin takes his idea of evolution into the world, he was mocked particularly from members of the church who stands against the rule of evolution. However, Darwin was able to stick into his idea. He goes back and ponder over and over again if his idea is what it is...he asks himself if there are any flawas or any things that he was misled to believe.

If scienbce has no faith, particularly teha rgument of today when the popular society depicts science as anti-faith, then surely such idea like evolution cannot be conveyed or exist. Darwin would simply put it in the bin if he did not have faith on his idea.

Yet, interestingly, in the contemporary society, the idea iof faith is religion only lets the audience or society thinks that science ahs no faith especcially with science depicting all those explanations and atheist scientist saying that tehre is no such faith in science and it only belongs in religion.

No matter if you believe in taht argument is not the important thing. What is important is that faith in scientific ideas are often overlook in today's society primaly becasue it misled people to believe that having faith is merely believing in God. One may arguie that it is the case but it is important to recall important scientific personalities such as Darwin, Galileo or Mendel have faith in their ideas and consequently, their ideas soon reached the wider society.

So yes, faith does not exist in religion alone but in science as well.

[listophergreene]

okay...i'm a newbie here so here's my arguument on the debate


What is faith?

Faith is a belief on something...it is something that lets the person grapple on an idea for a long time and when trouble comes, the person goes back to this certain idea and refreshes himself to start again...

So does science have faith? Yes, for take example the Darwin or Galileo, when Darwin takes his idea of evolution into the world, he was mocked particularly from members of the church who stands against the rule of evolution. However, Darwin was able to stick into his idea. He goes back and ponder over and over again if his idea is what it is...he asks himself if there are any flawas or any things that he was misled to believe.

If scienbce has no faith, particularly teha rgument of today when the popular society depicts science as anti-faith, then surely such idea like evolution cannot be conveyed or exist. Darwin would simply put it in the bin if he did not have faith on his idea.

Yet, interestingly, in the contemporary society, the idea iof faith is religion only lets the audience or society thinks that science ahs no faith especcially with science depicting all those explanations and atheist scientist saying that tehre is no such faith in science and it only belongs in religion.

No matter if you believe in taht argument is not the important thing. What is important is that faith in scientific ideas are often overlook in today's society primaly becasue it misled people to believe that having faith is merely believing in God. One may arguie that it is the case but it is important to recall important scientific personalities such as Darwin, Galileo or Mendel have faith in their ideas and consequently, their ideas soon reached the wider society.

So yes, faith does not exist in religion alone but in science as well.

Faith is belief in something that cannot be directly proven... the scientists you mention did not have 'faith' per se, just perseverance in discovering the truth. Since science is the realm of the physical and requires solid knowledge and support, faith has no part in it. If you need faith to believe something from science, it shouldn't be there in the first place.

[Andy]

Faith is belief in something that cannot be directly proven... the scientists you mention did not have 'faith' per se, just perseverance in discovering the truth. Since science is the realm of the physical and requires solid knowledge and support, faith has no part in it. If you need faith to believe something from science, it shouldn't be there in the first place.
I think faith is more along the lines of "belief that is not based on proof." How many times in movies have characters felt hopeless, only to be told to "have faith." They weren't being told to believe in the metaphysical. Rather, they were being told to believe they could achieve something, despite not being able to prove that they could.

You don't need faith to believe something from science, but until a hypothesis is proven correct and does become fact, you could say that the scientist(s) had some degree of faith in their hypothesis.

[listophergreene]

I think faith is more along the lines of "belief that is not based on proof." How many times in movies have characters felt hopeless, only to be told to "have faith." They weren't being told to believe in the metaphysical. Rather, they were being told to believe they could achieve something, despite not being able to prove that they could.

You don't need faith to believe something from science, but until a hypothesis is proven correct and does become fact, you could say that the scientist(s) had some degree of faith in their hypothesis.

I'll agree with that.

[Shaun]

I think faith is more along the lines of "belief that is not based on proof." How many times in movies have characters felt hopeless, only to be told to "have faith." They weren't being told to believe in the metaphysical. Rather, they were being told to believe they could achieve something, despite not being able to prove that they could.

You don't need faith to believe something from science, but until a hypothesis is proven correct and does become fact, you could say that the scientist(s) had some degree of faith in their hypothesis.

This is, of course, under the assumption that we all understand that a hypothesis is not a theory, and that theories are, scientifically speaking, relatively secure and proven entities. Hypotheses are nothing more than ideas of what might be; theories are what happens when those ideas are proven right and supported by evidence. Laws are an entirely different beast.

[Andy]

This is, of course, under the assumption that we all understand that a hypothesis is not a theory, and that theories are, scientifically speaking, relatively secure and proven entities. Hypotheses are nothing more than ideas of what might be; theories are what happens when those ideas are proven right and supported by evidence. Laws are an entirely different beast.
This is, of course, under the assumption that we all understand that a "beast" in the sense that you're using it is not an actual creature, and that beasts are, metaphorically speaking, entities unlike the one being discussed prior to using the word, more akin to a "category."

Had to do it. :D

[Shaun]

Yes, but the metaphorical nature of my post was self-evident, particularly considering the implications of referring to an inanimate object as a beast.

[listophergreene]

Alright, so there's no debate energy... so we need some controversy... I'm really good at this...

Let's say faith is necessary for anything we cannot observe. Let's say that includes evolution. Do people need just as much faith to believe evolution as they do to believe in the supernatural?

[Shaun]

Fault in logic: evolution has been observed. Science wins.

[listophergreene]

Fault in logic: evolution has been observed. Science wins.

Just so I can be assured... would you mind pointing me to some resources on such an observation? I mean, it's not like we can see any organisms change to an entirely different specie within the short amount of time we've been looking for such phenomena, right? So only bacteria and other unicellular organisms with three hour lifespans would be able to do anything significant.

And not be self-promoting, but I did jot down an essay that explained how much coincidence must go into each mutation, along with the practical impossibility of evolution ever creating new species.

So, unless we have significant documentation, I would have trouble believing that evolution really is responsible for much of anything these days. To think such a thing would require monumental faith, in my opinion.

[Andy]

Alright, so there's no debate energy... so we need some controversy... I'm really good at this...

Let's say faith is necessary for anything we cannot observe. Let's say that includes evolution. Do people need just as much faith to believe evolution as they do to believe in the supernatural?
Perhaps not as much, but some. In fact, a lot of science requires faith. Most of what we know about the world, we only know because we believe the conclusions and data collected by others - we have faith in their conclusions. The existence of black holes, for example.

Now, if we were to discuss the origins of the universe, and maybe the origins of living matter, I'd say that takes a great deal more faith - no matter what you believe about them.

[listophergreene]

Perhaps not as much, but some, since nobody has ever witnessed a species evolving onto another species. In fact, a lot of science requires faith. Most of what we know about the world, we only know because we believe the conclusions and data collected by others - we have faith in their conclusions. The existence of black holes, for example.

Now, if we were to discuss the origins of the universe, and maybe the origins of living matter, I'd say that takes a great deal more faith - no matter what you believe about them.

You state it so well.

[Shaun]

Perhaps not as much, but some. In fact, a lot of science requires faith. Most of what we know about the world, we only know because we believe the conclusions and data collected by others - we have faith in their conclusions. The existence of black holes, for example.

Now, if we were to discuss the origins of the universe, and maybe the origins of living matter, I'd say that takes a great deal more faith - no matter what you believe about them.

Black holes have been proven to exist too, by the way, thanks to all the clever work done by physicists and the like in the last ten years.

[Shaun]

Just so I can be assured... would you mind pointing me to some resources on such an observation? I mean, it's not like we can see any organisms change to an entirely different specie within the short amount of time we've been looking for such phenomena, right? So only bacteria and other unicellular organisms with three hour lifespans would be able to do anything significant.

And not be self-promoting, but I did jot down an essay that explained how much coincidence must go into each mutation, along with the practical impossibility of evolution ever creating new species.

Actually, we see organisms change all the time. The flu, the cold virus, and various other viruses are constantly evolving. Swine flu, bird flu, etc. All of those are the results of evolution. Likewise, the vast majority of medical research, using bacteria, mammals, or whatever, involves evolutionary changes in genetics in order to produce results. A lot of faulty assumptions here based on the fact that clearly you don't know anything about evolution, listopher. You keep reading only "anti evolution" stuff, which, I'm sorry to have to say this bluntly, is 99% a load of bullshit. It's propaganda more often than not. Bacteria and unicellular organisms are prime examples of why evolution is true. Just because they are not human beings does not mean that their change as shown in a lab should be taken lightly. They are made of the same stuff as the rest of us, just a little less of it.

Evolution isn't just about the change of species into new species (though that has been observed too, particularly in reptiles in endangered areas), but a grand process of change and adaptation. It's long and can be observed occurring all around us precisely because we can see those changes (more easily in "lesser" species than others, but so be it).

Just because humans have yet to become super humans or whatever, doesn't mean that we don't evolve. Recent, observable advances in our genetics include sickle cell anemia, a first-stage attempt for the human body to combat malaria (there are three versions of sickle cell: the carrier, the infected, and the resistant (to malaria)).

Instead of reading all this anti-evolution stuff, about why evolution is wrong, why don't you fill your head with all the information about how evolution works. You don't have to believe it, but have the decency to think outside of the fundamentalist box and actually try to understand what all those scientists who say evolution is real are talking about. All the stuff I've mentioned here could have been found by Googling. 30 seconds of Google searches and you would have had a mountain of info in your hands.

So, unless we have significant documentation, I would have trouble believing that evolution really is responsible for much of anything these days. To think such a thing would require monumental faith, in my opinion.

No, you have trouble believing it because you hold very biased, very fundamentalist views on the natural order of the world, based exclusively on what others have told you to believe and what you have allowed to self-replicate in your brain by your unwillingness to educate yourself on the subject at hand.

So, consider this the last time I will talk to you about evolution. You are missing even the most basic of knowledge that would make you at all a competent individual on this subject. I am trying not to sound offensive here, but failing miserably, but until you've at least taken the time to read something about evolution, learned even the most basics of its history and its mechanics, you can't possibly sit here and say "this is not the way it works." That's the kind of lame-duck excuse expected of people who don't want real answers, but want to simply say "God did it" so as to save themselves the "hardship" of having to do any real work.

[Andy]

Black holes have been proven to exist too, by the way, thanks to all the clever work done by physicists and the like in the last ten years.
Yep. :)

But whether or not they exist isn't the issue. Regardless, faith is needed to believe the physicists' conclusions, since you yourself have not experienced a black hole firsthand. :D

[Shaun]

That's not really faith. Faith is believing something without evidence. I can see the evidence of black holes.

[Andy]

You state it so well.
Thank you. :link:

[Andy]

That's not really faith. Faith is believing something without evidence. I can see the evidence of black holes.
All you've done is take a step away from directly experiencing a black hole, but faith is still needed.

You have faith that the experiments were performed well, and that the resulting data and evidence are accurate. Do you know for certain that they were? Heck no. You weren't there. So it's faith.

Since your belief in black holes requires faith in the evidence pointing to them, that belief is dependent on faith.

[Shaun]

All you've done is take a step away from directly experiencing a black hole, but faith is still needed.

You have faith that the experiments were performed well, and that the resulting data and evidence are accurate. Do you know for certain that they were? Heck no. You weren't there. So it's faith.

Since your belief in black holes requires faith in the evidence pointing to them, that belief is dependent on faith.

Trust, yes, not faith. You're trying really hard to make a connection between faith, which is primarily a religious object, and what makes up a body of science, which is not faith at all.

It's a circular argument that gets us nowhere whatsoever, and it's been discussed before in another thread :P. Science is not faith-based. Science is fact based. I don't have faith that something one scientist says is accurate, because I know that his facts have been checked by others, and then doublechecked by still others, scrutinized and bashed up, etc.

Yes, you could say that that all relies on faith, but then we're just stuck in an endless cycle where everything suddenly loses all value. Some things are firmer than faith, supported by incontrovertible facts.

[Andy]

Trust, yes, not faith. You're trying really hard to make a connection between faith, which is primarily a religious object, and what makes up a body of science, which is not faith at all.

It's a circular argument that gets us nowhere whatsoever, and it's been discussed before in another thread :P. Science is not faith-based. Science is fact based. I don't have faith that something one scientist says is accurate, because I know that his facts have been checked by others, and then doublechecked by still others, scrutinized and bashed up, etc.

Yes, you could say that that all relies on faith, but then we're just stuck in an endless cycle where everything suddenly loses all value. Some things are firmer than faith, supported by incontrovertible facts.
Then what is your definition of faith?

[Andy]

You're trying really hard to make a connection between faith, which is primarily a religious object, and what makes up a body of science, which is not faith at all.
Perhaps to you it is primarily a religious word, maybe because you typically use it in a religious context, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Let's check our good friend the dictionary and explore the full meaning of the word. :angel:

Faith
- noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

Oh, no! :O It seems "faith" isn't merely a synonym for "theistic belief" and can refer to things other than religion. :rolleyes: Notice too that all the definitions which refer to religion are already covered by its other definitions. AND that it can mean "trust," also - since we trust the conclusions of scientists, we have faith in them.

But then, this all makes sense. If faith is belief that is not based on proof, then any beliefs that you yourself have not proven must be faith. This could include religious beliefs, the claims of others, etc.

[Shaun]

The usage of the word changes with the non-theistic definitions. It's important to pay attention to that.

[Andy]

The usage of the word changes with the non-theistic definitions. It's important to pay attention to that.
But the theistic definitions are already included in the non-theistic ones, so they just specify some of "faith"'s more common usage.

And if we were debating faith solely in the theistic sense, then we wouldn't have brought up non-theistic instances of its use.

[Shaun]

The problem is that the non-theistic stances are far overshadowed by the no-facts theistic ones, and that better definitions of the process of trust in scientific facts needs to be fashioned to accommodate the shift in religious fervor.

We have that problem even here, because what has been said to be "faith in science" is equating science with theistic faith, not with faith as an issue of trust (well, not said here, but certainly uttered in another thread). I'm trying to get us to think outside of that box, because it is disingenuous to say "science and religion both rely on faith" precisely because the kind of faith they employ (one a matter of trust in individuals who contain facts, and the other a matter of belief in something that has no facts to support it) are drastically different.

Hence why I say "trust in science" rather than "faith in science." The usage is different.

[Ninjatrone]

I believe that religion was created as a means of keeping everyone in line before an appropriate system of law was in place. The whole thing seems like a scare tactic to me. Also, why is God allowed to be the one who decides what we should and shouldn't do? Because he is God? That doesn't seem entirely fair, considering that we were put in our place as 'mortals' unwillingly.
I do believe in God however. I just don't completely agree with everything he says.

[Soleil]

Faith and Science are completely different things. Science is mostly about How? Whereas faith is mostly about Why?

And to answer your question, I'd have to say that no, science does not depend on faith. Science is all about evidence, what they actually know as a result of reliable evidence. They don't go and believe in some dude up in the sky because there is no evidence.

I agree with the scientists.