Thursday, 10 April 2014

Faith the Facts

A Religious Apologist is on a mission to prove that science and atheism rely on faith. This is a common apologist strategy and I've never really understood the point of it. If I was a religious apologist I'd argue that Religion is more powerful than science because it relies on faith and science doesn't! Anyway…

#
Post
Commentary

Faith": definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 26 Apr 2012 at 11:59PM

1
"confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability."

"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." 


Of course, the definition also contains the following: 

"belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims."

"a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith."

..as well as this somewhat overlapping definition from the point of view of all who posit here:

"belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty."

For all who read this board, please note how the above two definitions of "faith"--totally within the context of everyone's perspective--have been ignored. Those who invest their all in "science" as a reasonable explanation of the basis of all of reality are no less invested in the 'faith' process than those of a religious perspective--who, by the way, continually point out matters of reality beyond the scientific purview. 
Definition number 2 is especially relevant in the context of religion. If someone believes that a hypothesis must be true then they are obviously using faith. And they run a significant risk of being proved wrong.  
2
Allow me to present a link which discusses such--with a bias towards an opposite perspective of mine, but which ultimately reaches an honest conclusion: 
Note the phrase “honest conclusion” – in other words a conclusion the Apologist agrees with. Here is a piece that reaches the opposite conclusion, so no doubt this is “dishonest”!  http://edge.org/discourse/science_faith.html

Re: “Faith”: definitions


Posted by JimC  on 27 Apr 2012 at 7:08AM

3
You've proved my point. You've failed to notice is that the definition of "faith" includes no mention of science. And there's a reason for that.

The definition you've selected illustrates the dangers of faith without proof... "He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact"

This is an example of someone having faith with no evidence. That's not the scientific method. To complete the process, the hypothesis must be tested. 

The scientific method was invented to remove the dangerous reliance on faith.    Faith can mean a belief with no evidence. That's the basis of religion, not science. 

Faith can also mean a confidence in a tried and tested process. You have faith that Amazon will deliver your book, because they've been doing it for many years with a 99.9% success rate. 

The scientific method was created to remove a potentially dangerous reliance on faith in science. 

Let me expand on how science works with the example of multiple universes. This concept actually came from religion originally - the idea of different realms of existence. But with no evidence one needs faith to believe in those ideas so it is not science. Then in the 1950s, it became apparent that Einstein's field equations could only be solved if the number of universes was greater than one. That's a clue that multiple universes might be the only way to explain our universe. But it's still not a scientific theory because it can't be tested. 

Then quantum physics identified potential models for 6 different types of multiverse models. But again it's just a hypothesis. There seems to be no way to test this, so it's still down to faith and guesswork. It's unfalsifiable. Very recently, two experiments were designed which can detect at least two of the proposed models of the multiverse. Now the theory is falsifiable. It can be tested, and the multiverse becomes a scientific theory.


Re: “Faith”: definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:50AM

4
Quite the opposite. Science is a closed system that can ultimately only concern itself with the study of processes. Some with faith in science come to the conclusion that all of reality springs from mindless mechanistic processes because that's all science can deal with. Faith responds to the fact that intelligence also exists in the universe, believes that there is greater resonance behind such elsewhere in the universe, and worships the God that manifests Himself to us as a result of such.
Why has “intelligence” been thrown into the conversation?  It seems the Apologist is unaware of the explanations of intelligence that neuroscience is providing.  
5
Some invested in science create theories regarding ultimate reality far beyond he purview of what the scientific method can demonstrate--or will ever be able to demonstrate with its limited tools of demonstration and verification. Mistaking "science" for "ultimate reality" is one of the biggest errors of modern humankind and many scientists have reached the same conclusion, as there are far more believers among scientists today than there were a century ago.
Hmmm.  This seems to demonstrate a total lack of understanding of what a theory is.   And who said science was ultimate reality? Why the quote marks? Who is being quoted? This looks like a fallacious straw man argument.  And where is the evidence to support the assertion about more believers among scientists today than 100 years ago? 
6
You would still have to demonstrate the viability of such a test [for a multiverse] to draw such sweeping conclusions. Even if so, one is still left to explain both ultimate cause and the existence of intelligence within the totality of reality.
Ultimate Cause?  Existence of intelligence? What?

Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:03PM

7
Science explains how the universe works. No one is mistaking science for "ultimate reality". That statement doesn't even make sense. 

As for the multiverse, there is no sweeping conclusion here. A theory allows a prediction to be made. The prediction can be tested. This validates the theory. This is the case with the multiverse theories. The scientific method removes the need for faith. Scientists who depend on faith (which is of course only human) often end up begin embarrassed. Even Einstein. 

You seem to believe that science is somehow a threat to religion. They are two completely different things. And I don't understand your objection to the existence of multiple universes. Such a discovery could be used to demonstrate the existence of other "realms" which is what religions have been teaching for thousands of years.


Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 29 Apr 2012 at 1:14AM

8
Again I refer to some who posted on this board in the past who claimed to be atheist and did have faith that science would eventually provide the ultimate answers to a universe without a god or gods that they were looking for. I have no argument with science--it's a brilliant tool--but I do feel the need to point out its limits in describing all of reality, or even its capacity to do so. Now, again, about that United Atheist League banner that asserts that "Reality is awesome!" Well, it certainly is, but apparently there are those who see such a perspective as being validated somehow by "science." That is the issue I continue to address.
What other people may or may not have said is irrelevant.  If someone said they were certain that science would provide “ultimate answers” then debate with them, not me!   A banner that says “reality is awesome” is irrelevant. This is just a series of straw man arguments which the Apologist has chosen to refute.  
9
I suppose I have yet to see the test that supposedly validated the multiverse theory and any critiques of the methodology of such. Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, remember?  
Who said there was a test that validated the multiverse theory?  
10
Science has left so many people dazzled--and rightly so--through its spectacular advancements in understanding of a multitude of processes!! My only issue is with those who fail to see the limits of the tool of science, and use prestige their academic credentials to posit a religious perspective as if science can provide the answer to such.
Have we defined the limits of science?  
11
My reference to the multiverse theory was entirely within the context of demonstrating that when it comes to cosmology as a study, so much rests on theory and assumptions rather than proven (or provable) "facts." Yet another example of science (or scientists) possibly getting beyond themselves in their claims and assertions. Again, I am merely trying to present science within the natural constraints of its purview.
Again – an apparent lack of any understanding of what a theory is. Or what a fact is.  And a bunch of generic statements about science with no examples. 

Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:47AM

12
I still don't understand your obsession with the multiverse concept. It's not a new idea. Religions have been assuming it for thousands of years. Are you saying our universe is the only realm of existence?


Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:49AM

13
I'm not invested in the existence or not of the multiverse--that was just an example. You seem not to be paying attention to my core points so I will repeat them:
An example of what?
14
My reference to the multiverse theory was entirely within the context of demonstrating that when it comes to cosmology as a study, so much rests on theory and assumptions rather than proven (or provable) "facts." Yet another example of science (or scientists) possibly getting beyond themselves in their claims and assertions. Again, I am merely trying to present science within the natural constraints of its purview.
Again – total confusion about what a fact is,  what a theory is.   
15
Again I refer to some who posted on this board in the past who claimed to be atheist and did have faith that science would eventually provide the ultimate answers to a universe without a god or gods that they were looking for. I have no argument with science--it's a brilliant tool--but I do feel the need to point out its limits in describing all of reality, or even its capacity to do so. Now, again, about that United Atheist League banner that asserts that "Reality is awesome!" Well, it certainly is, but apparently there are those who see such a perspective as being validated somehow by "science." That is the issue I continue to address.
Who cares what someone else said? Or what the club banner is? How is this even an argument?




Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 30 Apr 2012 at 6:55AM

16
It's not just cosmology - all of science provides theories. You seem confused about the difference between theory and fact.

A theory is the best explanation of facts. 

Fact: The sun travels across the sky

Theory: The sun is Apollo's chariot as he rides it across the sky

Better theory: The earth is spinning so the sun appears to move across the sky.


Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 1 May 2012 at 12:47AM

17
I'm not the least bit confused--but apparently you are. You previously posited that science is completely based on "fact", thus eliminating the need for "faith." Now you are agreeing with my point all along that science relies on "theory" as well. Theories are unproven--hence subscription to their validity relies on "faith." 
Yet another straw man – I did not say any of these things. And again no understanding of what a theory is.  Or what proof is.

Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 1 May 2012 at 7:28AM

18
You'd save a lot of time if you actually quoted what I say instead of inventing it! 

This is what I've said about science: It creates theories to explain facts. It's not based on faith. It's based on evidence. I said the scientific method eliminates the need for faith by requiring observation, testable results and prediction. 
A theory is the best explanation of the facts. A theory can always be improved or proved wrong. I've given you an example including Newton's theory and how it was superseded by Einstein. I explained that a fact is an observation beyond dispute, such as the sun moving across the sky. 

There is no such thing as absolute "truth" or absolute "proof" except in mathematics and logic (and even that is debatable). There are also different definitions of the concept of proof. In every day life we tend to define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion based on evidence. That's what happens in science, that's what happens in a court of law. 

10,000 years ago, rainbows were a fact. They still are. In stone age times, the best theory was that rainbows were a sign from the gods. In the 17th century the best theory was that rainbows are an optical illusion created by total internal refraction in raindrops. That is currently the best theory.

Does that help?


Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 2 May 2012 at 2:42AM

19
Yes science does theories to explain facts --thanks for acknowledging such, finally.
Success! The Apologist accepts what a theory is.  (I suspect this success will be short lived however)
20
Faith is also based on evidence--were it not for evidence, there would be no basis for faith. That said, there is a distinction between that which is proven or unproven. Evidence is not the same as proof. When one accepts evidence minus proof, one is acting in faith--whether in science or religion.
Eh? Which definition of faith is that? Who said evidence was proof? More straw men...
21
You say the scientific method eliminates the need for faith by requiring observation, testable results and prediction. You also said "This is what I've said about science: It creates theories to explain facts."
Er... yes.
22
Regardless of evidence or lack thereof, when applying a theory--which by definition is unproven--you are employing such theories based on faith in the evidence presented.
Faith in the evidence? Why does evidence need faith? 
23
You also said that "A theory is the best explanation of the facts. A theory can always be improved or proved wrong. I've given you an example including Newton's theory and how it was superseded by Einstein. I explained that a fact is an observation beyond dispute, such as the sun moving across the sky. There is no such thing as absolute "truth" or absolute "proof" except in mathematics and logic (and even that is debatable). There are also different definitions of the concept of proof. In every day life we tend to define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion based on evidence. That's what happens in science, that's what happens in a court of law."
Yes I said that.
24
You are further making the case for how faith is employed in all manner of situations--thanks!
Er... you’re welcome!
25
You said that "10,000 years ago, rainbows were a fact. They still are. In stone age times, the best theory was that rainbows were a sign from the gods. In the 17th century the best theory was that rainbows are an optical illusion created by total internal refraction in raindrops. That is currently the best theory." Yes it is--but not really relevant to the previously presented points.
Well yes it is relevant because it explains how theories are superseded.

Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 2 May 2012 at 8:46AM

26
Evidence is obviously not the same as proof - did someone say it was?! There's also a subtle difference between evidence and fact. And evidence means different things to different people. 

Evidence used in science has to be empirical and verifiable, and based in fact, and not on faith. The scientific method ensures that a theory is based on such evidence, and furthermore can make predictions which will be supported by evidence.

 Religious faith is based on subjective information that cannot be verified. As it says in the bible, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen.
Religion then goes one step further and creates theories that cannot be disproven - they are unfalsifiable - and therefore cannot be correlated with the evidence. If you think about the kind of evidence religions are based on, you will see what I mean. (A good new topic perhaps?)
Here's an example of a religious theory: "Some hospital patients experience visions of the afterlife when they come close to death, but then recover. Therefore the afterlife is real". 

 And that's where the theory ends. The scientific method says the theory has to make predictions which can be tested and it also has to include relevant evidence that has been ignored. In this case there is overwhelming evidence that our minds create experiences. Examples include amputees who can feel pain in their non-existent limbs after amputation, or dreams that wake us up feeling convinced something just happened, which did not. 

 That's why the word "faith" has different meanings. Religion requires belief which is not based on evidence - aka faith. 
If that's not enough, consider the contradictory theories in the Abrahamic religions which are all based on the "evidence" of the resurrection. The world's biggest mainstream religions cannot agree on this fundamental point. What does that tell us about evidence and faith in the context of religion?


Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 3 May 2012 at 4:13AM

27
Accepting  evidence in anything unproven is a matter of faith--that's the issue that you are ignoring.
That doesn’t make sense. Evidence is one thing, “unproven” is something else.  
28
You're ignoring the fact that until evidence leads to proof that acceptance of evidence is a matter of faith. You're also ignoring the many unfalsifiable theories of cosmology and other scientific theories. Even aspects of mathematics are unfalsifiable. Here's an interesting summation:
Is this a deliberate misunderstanding of the word “proof”? And unfalsifiable theory isn’t a theory. 
29
There is nothing in this article about falsifiability. And it specifically makes the point that we use mathematics to describe aspects of reality and also things that have no analogue in physical reality. Things beyond the human purview.
30
JimC says: "Religious faith is based on subjective information that cannot be verified. As it says in the bible, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen."

There is basis for such--you simply don't like the source, that being--in the case of Christianity--New Testament accounts. Gospel accounts present instances of Jesus bending over backwards to fulfill all sorts of obscure prophesies, demonstrate miracles, etc. 

 Your quote "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things unseen" is from the book of Hebrews addressed to those who were not necessarily eyewitnesses to Jesus and His miracles, as well as all of us since who would fall into that category.
It doesn’t matter whether I like the Gospels. Liking the Gospels doesn’t make them true; assuming they are true because they are likeable is obviously an act of faith.  
31
JimC says: "Religion then goes one step further and creates theories that cannot be disproven - they are unfalsifiable - and therefore cannot be correlated with the evidence. If you think about the kind of evidence religions are based on , you will see what I mean."

As previously pointed out there are matters of science, mathematics, and all other human tools of understanding that employ unfalsifiable reasoning as well. There remains other evidence for God's existence--the existence of access to intelligence itself in what others would posit as a mindless mechanistic universe ought to be one place to start. 
There are no examples of “unfalsifiable reasoning”. The Apologist specialises in assertions that are never supported by example. No examples of evidence for God, and what on earth is “access to intelligence?” 
32
JimC says: "Here's an example of a religious theory: "Some hospital patients experience visions of the afterlife when they come close to death, but then recover. Therefore the afterlife is real". 

Here's an example of a justification for atheism: Yuri Gargarin--the Soviet cosmonaut--went up in a spaceship and said he looked around and didn't see God, therefore God didn't exist.
Completely ignores the example and gives a ridiculous example of something that never happened which has never been a theory, ever. 
33
In both instances: so what?
In the first instance – the hospital patients experience can be explained by science. In the second instance, Yuri Gargarin [sic] made himself look very silly if that’s what he said.  And in fact he didn’t say it.  (And he was a Christian). It’s common for Religious apologists to use fictitious quotes to support their arguments. 
34
JimC says: "That's why the word "faith" has different meanings. Religion requires belief which is not based on evidence - aka faith."

A completely false allegation. Religion depends of evidence as well as faith, as does science.
If religion depended on evidence then surely we could discuss an example. But... nothing
35
I could also point out that there may be several contradicting theories regarding the same phenomenon in science as well. The existence of conflicting theories has nothing to do with which one might be real. 
Once again, no idea what a theory is. I wonder where the Apologist gets his ideas about science from?

Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 3 May 2012 at 7:07AM

36
OK… the terminology is being confused again - not deliberately I'm sure!

Let's go back to first principles…

In everyday language, the word "theory" is sometimes used to mean a guess or a notion. But in science, the word has a very specific meaning. To a scientist, a theory is the ultimate objective, the best explanation. Here's a dictionary definition…

A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Science uses the scientific method to ensure theories are not accepted until they have been tested and used to make predictions. It has to tie together all the relevant facts, providing an explanation that fits observations. Until that happens, it's just an idea or a hypothesis. 

So… hypothesis - often confused with theory. but it is different. A hypothesis is an explanation, but it is based on conjecture. It may be a completely wild notion, or it may instinctively seem like a great explanation to many people.

 But until it passes the criteria laid down by the scientific method, it remains a hypothesis. Many theories begin life as hypotheses, but they are different things. If you have a hypothesis and you believe it must be true, you are using faith instead of the scientific method. You might be wrong, you might be right. But in the absence of the scientific method your faith is making you sure. The scientific method rules out faith.

It is also believed by some people that when a theory is proven it becomes law. This is another misunderstanding. Science collects observed facts. it uses laws to describe them. it uses theories to explain them.

A theory never becomes law. A theory is in some ways more important than a law. For example, let's take the law of gravity which can describe the time needed for a falling apple to hit the ground. The theory of gravity explains why the apple falls the way it does. Isaac Newton developed a theory of gravity which was excellent, but Einstein developed a better theory because it explained certain observations that Newton's theory could not. And one day Einstein's theory will be further refined by another scientist. Or maybe not!

So Newton and Einstein provided theories, but these can't be changed into laws. They are theories - they provide explanations. 

Did that help?

37


38
Re: "Faith": definitions

39
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 4 May 2012 at 1:17AM

40
Not quite as cut and dry and certain as that--here's a slightly more in depth definition and discussion of "scientific theory":

41
Hooray! Good explanation. 
42
And also not according to Hawking: "Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it." (from above link) You never rule out the need for faith in applying any theory.
Hooray! Another good explanation. But who said anything about faith? A theory is applied on the basis of doubt – it’s presented as the best explanation – not certainty and not proof. That’s not faith. 
43
In all instances--whether theories are sought to be proven or disproven--an element of faith always enters into the picture.
No it isn’t. It’s presented in the context of doubt – the opposite of faith. 
44
I believe that you are locked into the narrow specifics of science and the scientific process and its testing methods to the extent that you feel that scientists never act on assumptions--and that's just not true. Theories are formed on the basis of other theories, which rest on other theories, and so on. We have also barely discussed the matter of axioms which are accepted a priori in mathematics and sciences:
Oh dear. Still doesn’t know what a theory is.  Or an axiom. 
45
Every argument begins with an axiom - including religious arguments. How is this relevant?
46
..and I notice also that you never responded to this link regarding math and uncertainty:
The link gives a very good explanation of how mathematics reveals aspects of reality beyond the human purview. 
47

48
But let's cut to the chase and consider the whole matter of faith in science:

49
Oh dear. That again.  Go back to line 2.
50
Did that help?
Nope!
51


52
Re: "Faith": definitions

53
Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2012 at 6:41AM

54
Yes I realise you can find people who share your opinion but I'm afraid that's not a very scientific approach 

 Maybe it's a coincidence (but it's definitely ironic) that the NY Times article is written by someone with strong religious convictions and who has put his faith in Intelligent Design. He (Paul Davies) also seems unaware of string theory (or ignores it) which explains much of what he says cannot be explained. 

 And I agree with Hawking - as I said earlier one can never absolutely prove anything! A theory is the best explanation - it is not a proof (nothing is). And as I said earlier, there is an argument that even mathematics cannot provide absolute proof. 

 The scientific method eliminates faith. If you read the full Hawking quote, he explains how the scientific method isn't just about validating a theory, it is also there to demonstrate that a theory is not valid, which is often more useful. 

 That’s how the scientific method eliminates faith.

55
Re: "Faith": definitions

56
Posted by JimC  on 2 May 2012 at 8:15AM

57
The scientific method (and the presentation of evidence in a court of law) removes the need for faith. 

There's a rivalry in science between theoretical physicists and experimental physicists. A theoretical physicist will show you his mathematical results and claim that this proves a theory. The mathematics can be checked by the peer group and be found to be flawless. If there was faith in science, this would be the end of the story. But it's not. The theory has to make predictions and be tested. And that's where the experimental scientists come in. 

Einstein's theories of relativity were brilliant, at once explaining the nature of gravity and many other fundamental features of our universe. But believing he theories as shown on paper would require faith. Without the work of Arthur Eddington, and others, who devised experiments to test the theory and collect evidence, we would not be able to accept what Einstein proposed.
Science creates theories to explain facts. The scientific method ensures those theories are not accepted on the basis of faith. 

 The scientific method removes reliance on faith, which can be dangerous and misleading.

58
Re: “Faith”: definitions

59
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:52AM

60
The very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, while physicists think of their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships.
Gibberish. 
61
Re: “Faith”: definitions

62
Posted by JimC  on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:12PM

63
So you dismiss science and mathematics because they are "human tools" but at the same time you promote theology and philosophy which are also "human tools". 

 And you assert science can't explain the "transcendent realm of reality" whilst at the same time you assert that the laws of physics are "inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm"

 Cognitive dissonance?

64
Re: "Faith": definitions

65
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 29 Apr 2012 at 1:29AM

66
Rather, I am seeking a better balance as to the real insights to be gained by both. We are in an age where science reigns supreme and as such there are too many who appeal to "science" or rely on their scientific credentials to dismiss theological and philosophical insights. In order to make the correction, I am pointing out some limits of the former and strengths of the latter.
Actually we have yet to see any limits pointed out. They must exist – but not because someone says they do. 
67
I have merely pointed out the limits of cosmology as a tool because of the limits of applying scientific methodology to such. Did you have another point?
Haven’t actually seen any limits pointed out yet. But I live in hope!
68
Re: "Faith": definitions

69
Posted by JimC  on 29 Apr 2012 at 8:54AM

70
You say science can't explain the "transcendent realm of reality" but the next minute you assert that the laws of physics are "inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm". 
I'm curious... What is the difference between theology and science in your opinion?

71
Re: "Faith": definitions

72
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 30 Apr 2012 at 1:14AM

73
If you are referring to a post that has scrolled off the board, please quote the entire reference that I was referring to if you wish me to explain such--thanks!
What? How can the Apologist not remember what he said a few hours ago?
74
Theology and science have distinct purviews. Science is the study of processes and interactions based on observed evidence. Theology is the study of transcendent reality, its manifestations, and its evidence. There is a faith component in both beyond a certain point.
Transcendent Reality? That sounds like a circular argument – the so-called “transcendent reality” is being considered “real” in advance of any argument that it exists.  
75
Scientists  get notoriety by making unfalsifiable claims with a scientific veneer as well. They can neither be proven nor disproven--hence they rest on "faith."
Er... how is that scientific?
76
Re: "Faith": definitions

77
Posted by JimC  on 28 Apr 2012 at 1:13PM

78
When a scientist makes an unfalsifiable claim (which would have to be based on faith by definition) then that is not a scientific claim. 

Faith is a human attribute which the scientific method eliminates.

79
80


81
Re: "Faith": definitions

82
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 29 Apr 2012 at 1:38AM

83
Very true--my point about many "scientific" claims beyond the scientific purview!
Hang on... I just said – such a claim is not a scientific claim. Pay attention!
84
Consider an unproven or yet-to-be-proven scientific theory. Acceptance of any unproven or yet-to-be-proven scientific theory is a matter of faith by those who subscribe to such. For those scientific theories which it may never be possible to prove or disprove, "faith" will always be a factor.
Oh dear. Am I going to have to explain the terminology again?  A “yet to be proven” theory is a hypothesis. And why does the Apologist keep going on about proof when there’s no such thing as proof? Am I being trolled?!
85
Re: "Faith": definitions

86
Posted by JimC  on 29 Apr 2012 at 9:02AM

87
Theories that can never be proven require faith and are the remit of religion. Not science. Scientific theories which are not possible to prove or disprove are not scientific theories. 
Wolfgang Pauli was one of the giants of quantum physics and a Nobel prize winner. He made this famous quote regarding unfalsifiable theories…

"Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!" 
(Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong!)

88
89


90


91


92


93
Re: "Faith": definitions

94
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 30 Apr 2012 at 12:36AM

95
So you are claiming that science and scientists never rely on theories nor makes further claims on the basis of such?
“Rely”?  Not really. That implies full trust and confidence. A theory is the best current explanation. How can the word “theory” be so difficult to understand?    Here we go again...
96
Re: "Faith": definitions

97
Posted by JimC  on 30 Apr 2012 at 7:01AM

98
A theory that is unfalsifiable cannot be relied upon. 
Many scientists who have relied on such theories have usually ended up embarrassed.

99
Re: "Faith": definitions

100
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 1 May 2012 at 12:56AM

101
On what basis might you assume that any theory is or isn't unfalsifiable? You have finally agreed that science and the scientific process does deal in the theoretical as well as with "facts." All theories remain unproven, hence they are matters of faith.
So now I have to explain what unfalsifiable means?  And again the point about theories is missed. Because a theory is accepted as unproven, no faith is required. If a theory and especially a hypothesis) was regarded as proof, that would require faith. For example the God hypothesis. 
102
Re: "Faith": definitions

103
Posted by JimC  on 1 May 2012 at 7:40AM

104
I'm not sure why we keep returning to this - you can google this information quite easily, or find it in a dictionary. But let's try again…

A theory is unfalsifiable if it makes no predictions or cannot be tested. It is a measure of a theory's "testability". A scientific theory has to be "disprovable". If there is no way to disprove a theory, it is unfalsifiable. If you have a theory which can be tested and make predictions, it is falsifiable. 
The theory that "God Exists" is not a scientific theory because there is no way to disprove it. It is unfalsifiable.
The theory that "An invisible dragon lives in my garage" is not a scientific theory because there is no way to disprove it. It is unfalsifiable.

The theory that the Higgs Boson exists within a certain energy range during particle collisions, can be tested. It is falsifiable. 

The scientific process obviously "deals in the theoretical" because it provides theories. A scientific theory is not a matter of faith. Science relies on doubt. All over the word there are millions of scientists attempting to demonstrate that existing theories are wrong or incomplete or require improvement. There can be no stronger example of a lack of faith than the scientific method.  

 Does that help?

105
Re: "Faith": definitions

106
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 2 May 2012 at 3:47AM

107
Under an on line dictionary definition of faith, definition #2, I quote:

"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact."
Yeah – that guy was human. He had faith and a hypothesis would be substantiated.  And the way to eliminate his faith is the scientific method. 
108
How would one know if a theory is falsifiable or not as long as it remains a "theory" and not a "fact?" Who is to say that any theory can or cannot be proven or disproven? As long as any given theory remains a theory and not a proven fact, acceptance of a theory rests on faith. Again, you fail to see the gap between "evidence" and "fact", and the role that faith plays in bridging that gap. 
I just explained – can it be tested? A theory is never a proven fact and that definition removes the need for faith. If someone thinks a theory is a proven fact then they are using faith. And they are not being scientific. 
109
You would need to present evidence for the existence of your invisible dragon in order for it to be credible. There is evidence in support of scientific theories, and there is evidence that supports the existence of God. Faith is the bridge in both cases. I have concluded that the evidence of the existence of god is stronger than that which would indicate otherwise.
Even with evidence – it is unfalsifiable. It can’t be tested. The evidence for God is in the same class as the evidence for my invisible dragon. Neither can be tested. They are unfalsifiable.
110
Once the Higgs Boson is proven it will no longer be a theory--but apparently there are many who have faith that it will be proven. Perhaps their faith is valid--perhaps not. 
OK... I see now that this is all about equivocation of the different meanings of faith. There are many who anticipate it will be proven. Some are more confident than others.  That’s definition number 1 -  "confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability."  But that’s very different to the definition the Apologist uses...
"belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact." 
111
It is quite admirable that theories are thus rigorously tested, but even negative faith is faith. To invest time, energy and money in either proving or disproving a theory represents faith that such efforts will provide meaningful data one way or another--without faith in such testing, different lines of inquiry would be employed. One cannot escape the role of faith in anything that is not proven or disproven.
Negative faith? What the heck is that?!  Now we have a very weird definition of faith which is that putting effort into testing something requires faith that it’s worth testing. So the very thing that eliminates faith requires faith. HA!  
112
Re: "Faith": definitions

113
Posted by JimC  on 2 May 2012 at 8:54AM

114
Again, you've confused the definitions of "faith" so that now you are discussing its meaning in the sense of "confidence". 
The "faith" in your car is not the same as your faith in God. You don't take your car for granted. You have insurance, you have it regularly maintained, you allow extra time on important journeys in case it breaks down, you carry a spare tyre, etc. You instinctively know the probability of your car going wrong and you take actions to mitigate that risk. We all do. Anyone who relies on faith to get them from A to B is likely to be late!

The scientific method eliminates faith by insisting that a theory is based on observations and has to make predictions which can be tested.

115
Re: "Faith": definitions

116
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 3 May 2012 at 4:41AM

117
You're making a false distinction--note definition #1:
The distinction is real – otherwise why would there be two distinct definitions?
118
When I get in my car I pretty much take it for granted that it will perform as expected. Of course it isn't the same as faith in God, or faith in a scientific theory, or anything else that we place our faith in, but essentially the process is the same and can be defined within the parameters of the meaning of the word we call "faith."
It’s not the same, but it’s the same?
119
You ignore the fact that any theory--scientific or otherwise--evidence in its favor or not--rests on faith until or unless it can be proven. Scientific methodology is irrelevant to this fact.
Wow. Still the meaning of the words Faith and Theory are confused. 
120
Re: "Faith": definitions

121
Posted by JimC  on 3 May 2012 at 7:17AM

122
This is one of those circular arguments that will never end!
  
You say that until an idea is validated it requires faith (true) but you refer to this idea as a theory (false), then you ignore the fact that the scientific method insists on validation before an idea can be accepted as theory. Thereby eliminating the faith in the original idea. I think if you try and understand the terminology it will help you. Let's try again…

A theory is not a theory if it has not been validated (or invalidated). At best it is a hypothesis. If someone has a hypothesis and believes it to be true with no evidence, they are demonstrating faith. That's human nature. But in the scientific world that can lead to embarrassment (or even more serious consequences as discussed previously, the deaths of children).

The scientific method does not allow faith. It insists that any hypothesis must be validated according to a set of rules which ensure, among other things, that it can make predictions and be tested.

123
Re: "Faith": definitions

124
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 3 May 2012 at 5:34AM

125
Substitute "faith" for "confidence" and you'll see where faith fits into the equation--especially on the part of those who invested all of those billions out of faith that particle accelerators can be employed to yield valuable and meaningful results.
Well ...  if you use one word to represent a different word when the words have different meanings then you’ve created a fallacious argument (equivocation).   
126
You say “No one can devise any experiment to prove that God does not exist." --why would you imply that Hawking could do so?
Eh? When did I do that? 
127
The line of inquiry to pursue regarding your invisible dragon would be to question whether any corroborating accounts validating his existence exist. Gospel accounts in Scripture are from those who witnessed such. Further miracles were performed in Jesus's name. Healings through prayer to that same God occur today. Believers overall have a longer life expectancy because prayer works. These are a few differences just off the top of my head--given more time I'm sure I'll think of more.
You could pursue that line if you wanted to ignore everything I’ve said about the evidence. It’s a very unscientific approach to rely on people’s opinions.  Gospel accounts of miracles are at best hearsay, and more than likely pure fiction. The life expectancy of believers can be explained even if God does not exist.   Here the apologist confuses correlation and causation. 
128
Re: "Faith": definitions

129
Posted by JimC  on 3 May 2012 at 7:29AM

130
If you substitute "faith" for "confidence" then you are using the "confidence" definition of the word faith. Faith has different meanings.

The result of an experiment is validation, or not. One of those outcomes is guaranteed. Faith not required!
Hawking did not say that God has been disproven. He said our universe did not require a god to create it. 

As for my dragon, I have signed statements from 4 people who all confirm the evidence that I have presented and have witnessed such. I can scan these and email them to you if you like. I also have more evidence that I haven't shared yet, such as…

- I could not get my lawnmower started last weekend. So I went to the garage and said out loud "Jeffrey - please help me". Ten minutes later my lawnmower started successfully.

- My immediate neighbours have suffered ill health for several years. A large family three houses away have been beset by tragedy for the last two years. My neighbour across the street has been burgled twice. Yet my family and I remain in good health, safe and happy. it's no coincidence that my house is the only one in the street with an invisible dragon.

Tomorrow we can discuss his transcendent qualities if you like.

Overwhelming evidence. And again, you have to admit, my dragon can not be disproved.

131
Re: "Faith": definitions

132
Posted by A Religious Apologist  on 4 May 2012 at 1:42AM

133
Faith and confidence are synonymous for purposes of investing in that which is unproven.
They are synonymous according to one definition of the word faith – but not another. The word “faith” has different meanings. 
134
Again, your focus is too narrow. What if I asked you if you had faith in the results of a particular experiment?
I would say I had a certain level of confidence depending on how many times the experiment had been repeated. I wouldn’t say I had faith.
135
Hawking’s  statement is a classic example of "faith" because he cannot prove that the universe did not require a god to create it.
Nothing can be proven.  He’s saying there’s a theory for the creation of the universe which doesn’t require God. 
136
Keep going with your invisible dragon evidence-you have a long way to go to catch up with the real testimony on behalf of Jesus!  A bit of wisdom from the Acts of the Apostles:
I’m not trying to catch up with Jesus! 
137
"A Pharisee in the council named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, respected by all the people, stood up and ordered the men (Peter and the Apostles) to be put outside for a short time. Then he said to them, ‘Fellow-Israelites, consider carefully what you propose to do to these men. For some time ago Theudas rose up, claiming to be somebody, and a number of men, about four hundred, joined him; but he was killed, and all who followed him were dispersed and disappeared. After him Judas the Galilean rose up at the time of the census and got people to follow him; he also perished, and all who followed him were scattered. So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them—in that case you may even be found fighting against God!’
Er... how is this relevant? Sounds like a death threat! 

Re: "Faith": definitions


Posted by JimC  on 4 May 2012 at 6:53AM


Confidence is only one definition of the word "faith". By interchanging the definitions your argument is circular and goes on forever.  

If you asked me if I had faith in the results of an experiment, I would not be able to say yes or no because faith is not appropriate. I would only be able to express a level of confidence. Let me give you an example...

 Imagine an experiment in the Large Hadron Collider where we are using collisions to detect a certain particle. Let's call it the J particle. When a collision takes place, various particles result, and theory predicts that 1% of these collisions will yield the J particle. The detector is obviously not 100% perfect. We know that when a J particle is detected, the detection is only 99.9% certain, but 0.1% of the collisions that do not create a J particle will also register on the detector. This means we will get false positive and false negatives and each of these has a probability of 0.1% 

 Now suppose that I run the experiment and I get a positive result. Should I believe it? 

I will give you the scientific answer after you've given me your faith based answer.
Again, you're using the word "proof". Hawking has demonstrated that the universe does not need a god to create it. But God can still exist. You can even argue that God did create the universe. The theory simply explains that you don't need God to create the universe. People can create snowflakes. But you don't need people to create snowflakes. They occur naturally as well as artificially.

 I'm very confused about your bible extract. How does that disprove my dragon?

Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)