-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Fact, Belief, and Faith
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Science is a methodology for finding justifications for certain beliefs or truth claims. Other methods exist, like legal and police investigations. Over time certain beliefs are buttressed with lots of pieces of independent evidence and becomes well justified in the Bayesian sense. Hence they are classified as facts.
I don't see what is unworkable here.
First, this a very awkward description of how science works. Science does not seek 'justification for certain beliefs nor truth claims.' Terrible description of how science works.
To add: There are no truth claims in science.
Your awkward use of belief, faith and truth claims. Nowhere in the assumptions of science are there any 'truth claims.' This invites the smearing of science with religious claims, which results with distorted claims of theists like @Lyndon and the misrepresentation and misuse of science
Last edited:
Facts are supported by objective evidence, there is no objective evidence for god, therefore not a fact. God is rooted in faith, if evidence of a god should be presented and verified as factual then faith in god would end.
You seem to have a distorted notion of scientific theory.
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.
Scientific theory - Wikipedia
whirlingmerc
Well-Known Member
saving faith is a leap toward the lightSeveral definitions I put together tonight while bored and watching Frasier. ... (Put in the Science Religion forum because facts are the operational basis of science whereas faith is the operational basis of religion.)
Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.
Belief: The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true.Fact is rooted in conviction that a thing is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance* The core of science and day-to-day living.
Faith: Trust in a belief.An occasional encouragement in our day-to-day musings. It serves as the basis of faith.
For some, the balm of everyday concerns. Most notably, the trust put in the supernatural and some religious writings. For others, it's simply the confidence that the other guy at the intersection isn't going to T-bone you as you proceed.
Okay, it's bedtime, any deletions, revisions,or
* With a nod to Stephen Jay Gould
.
both secular and religious views have faith assumptions
both rely and data
by the way not all science is operational science, some, like origin science is more like detective work
where the operational sciences like agriculture, medicine and technology have data in common with most religious views. Origin science has many hidden assumptions and those would be faith based but all science has assumptions taken axiomatically by faith
You're seriously conflating science with religious beliefs, and this does not reflect the reality of the very very distinct difference. First the applied sciences such as agriculture, engineering and medicine are not remotely related to religious views. The applied science apply basic scientific knowledge to the real physical world based on objective results, research and scientific experiments.
Origin science, abiogenesis, is based on the same methodological naturalism as all sciences. It relies on hypothesis of the various chemical pathways, environments and energy sources for abiogenesis to take place, It is a young science, and there is a great deal of questions yet unanswered, but arguing from ignorance is the classic fallacy of those that object to the science using based on a religious agenda as you are doing.
Well, about time epistemology entered the forums!Several definitions I put together tonight while bored and watching Frasier. ... (Put in the Science Religion forum because facts are the operational basis of science whereas faith is the operational basis of religion.)
Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case.
Belief: The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true.Fact is rooted in conviction that a thing is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold acceptance* The core of science and day-to-day living.
Faith: Trust in a belief.An occasional encouragement in our day-to-day musings. It serves as the basis of faith.
For some, the balm of everyday concerns. Most notably, the trust put in the supernatural and some religious writings. For others, it's simply the confidence that the other guy at the intersection isn't going to T-bone you as you proceed.
Okay, it's bedtime, any deletions, revisions,
* With a nod to Stephen Jay Gould
.
But let's look at your definitions a little more closely:
"Fact: A thing that is indisputably the case." So, if somebody, for whatever perverse reason, disputes it, does that render it no longer a fact? I would suggest the best place to begin there is evolution, which (while all of the mechanics and nuances are not, and may never be, completely understood) is as close to a "fact" undisputed by everyone with any real knowledge of most of the relevant scientific domains, is still hotly disputed by a whole lot of people who wouldn't know genes from jeans, but have the backing of a large majority of those with beliefs they can't even test.
"Belief: The acceptance that a non-factual thing exists or is true." Well, we all have those, as you point out. I believe my wife is faithful, or my son is straight, but there are quite a few men in the neighbourhood who could provide pretty solid evidence that your belief is without merit -- but since they're keeping their mouths shut, you have little reason to question your beliefs.
"Faith: Trust in a belief." I think that falls short. I would replace the word "trust" with "commitment," including the notion of "commitment to act as if..." Now we wind up in that place I feel is so dangerous, and especially when dealing with those who have that sort of "faith" in one of the more important monotheisms, political or economic or social theories. That's how we get to war, judicial murder and abandonment of even (supposedly) deeply held moral principles.
I am using standard philosophical terminology. The statement "Speed of light in vacuum is a universal constant" is a truth claim. A truth claim is defined as any statement that can have the property of being true or false. Then, science is a methodology of evaluating the evidential justification (or the lack thereof) of this truth claim. It can also formulate novel truth claims (Mass and Energy are interconvertible) and evaluate their justifications.
Skwim
Veteran Member
Anybody can sue anybody else for anything, but that doesn't mean they have a good case.
Yup.
As commitment has been defined, "The state or quality of being dedicated to a cause, activity, etc." I think the notion that one be dedicated misses the acceptance of truth that faith announces. I can be dedicated to a cause but still lack the conviction of its truth, a not so uncommon phenomenon in war. Trust takes belief to a higher level of conviction that I don't see commitment doing.
.
Disagree completely standard philosophical terminology is not necessarily descriptive of science, and I do not consider "Speed of light in a vacuum is a universal constant:" is not a truth claim as far as science is concerned. Scientific theories and hypothesis cannot be defined as true or false.
From: Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say
Speed of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicists Say
"The definition of the speed of light has some broader implications for fields such as cosmology and astronomy, which assume a stable velocity for light over time. For instance, the speed of light comes up when measuring the fine structure constant (alpha), which defines the strength of the electromagnetic force. And a varying light speed would change the strengths of molecular bonds and the density of nuclear matter itself.
A non-constant speed of light could mean that estimates of the size of the universe might be off. (Unfortunately, it won't necessarily mean we can travel faster than light, because the effects of physics theories such as relativity are a consequence of light's velocity). [10 Implications of Faster-Than-Light Travel]"
Use of philosophical terminology in science, concepts of faith and belief are misleading and inaccurate. It actually encourages bogus arguments like those used by @Lyndon, @whirlingmerc and @Revoltingest
This includes the ongoing problem of misusing words like 'fact,' 'chance' and 'randomness.'
A truth claim can be falsified. You understand this right? Science is in the business of creating, evaluating, refining and falsifying truth claims about the world. Reject it if you like, science, being an epistemological method, does this almost by definition.
I now of no research paper or scientific book that describes theories and hypothesis as truth claims. You correctly cited truth claims as to be determined as true or false. Science does not make such claims for theories and hypothesis.
This compounded by your misuse of 'faith' and 'belief' in terms of science.
This is very basic.
Sentences with propositional content (like " it's raining") are claims regarding truths about reality. Hence they are truth-claims. Not all sentences are such (eg. "Let us go to the movies" is a request and can't be said to be either true or false).
Science is in the business of gathering evidence for or against various truth claims about the world.
Disagree all you like, but science is a method of knowing (epistemology)precisely because it does this evaluation through the scientific method.
All propositional statements have truth value. See below
Truth Values (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
It's easy to criticize posters with with a broad brush which utterly lacks specifics.
Perhaps you could identify one of my arguments which is "bogus", & address it, eh?
The gauntlet is thrown down, bubala!
With you it is easy!
Bogus claims:
The claim the 'Intelligent Design' can be falsified by scientific methods.
Claim that 'chance' has any causative role in the natural course of cause and effect outcomes
Fool!
Dunderbreath!
Gerbil fondler!
Not only have I never claimed that, but I've often argued that
ID is unscientific precisely because it cannot be falsified.
I don't use the term "chance" when describing emergent properties of stochastic systems.
But there are random elements in probabilistic processes such as evolution.
Do you disagree?
I note that you found no posts of mine to quote. Empty claims I say!
I hereby brand you a ninny for obviously confusing me with someone else.
Advice:
If you're going to get all jiggy with someone, get your facts straight first.
Last edited:
To say that the claim may be wrong is not the same as saying that it isn't a truth claim. What is happening above is the counter-claim that the speed of light is not constant. Both are truth claims. And both have their truth *value* dependent on observation, like good science would dictate.