Faith is necessary for Science to function

[cottage]

Properly speaking we don’t actually perceive things ‘with our senses’. We see, hear, smell, feel, and taste things with our brains, not with our eyes, ears, noses, nerve endings and mouths. Those body parts are merely the conduit by which the things sensed are conducted to the brain, where they are made intelligible and acted upon. So, sure, we can say everything is conceived, which makes the term ‘perception’ redundant, or we can say the brain perceives things, which is essentially the same. And science does of course rely on faith, a series of causes and effects that up till the last occurrence have always been proved true, which is not to say the future will be like the past.

But as this discussion is taking place in a religious forum it is difficult to avoid thinking the point of the OP was to argue that if everything we understand about the world comes down to faith then there is no substantive difference between having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and faith in a deity. There is, literally, a world of a difference. To employ the term ‘reality’ is to accept that there is such a state, for by questioning reality we are acknowledging it. But although we cannot without self-contradiction deny reality we accept that it is without certitude. Objects exist but they don’t have to exist. The sun exists and while it needn’t exist it has nevertheless risen every morning in the past, which give cause for us to believe it will continue thus in the future. So there is no contradiction in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow morning we but we descend into the realms of absurdity if we say there never was any such object. We believe the sun exists and that deciduous trees lose their leaves in winter because that is reality, while faith in deities has no direct correspondence with what is real but only with what is imagined. We may not understand the world but we’re all agreed that there is a world, whereas mystical beings are another matter entirely.

 

[Willamena]

Properly speaking we don’t actually perceive things ‘with our senses’. We see, hear, smell, feel, and taste things with our brains, not with our eyes, ears, noses, nerve endings and mouths. Those body parts are merely the conduit by which the things sensed are conducted to the brain, where they are made intelligible and acted upon. So, sure, we can say everything is conceived, which makes the term ‘perception’ redundant, or we can say the brain perceives things, which is essentially the same. And science does of course rely on faith, a series of causes and effects that up till the last occurrence have always been proved true, which is not to say the future will be like the past.

But as this discussion is taking place in a religious forum it is difficult to avoid thinking the point of the OP was to argue that if everything we understand about the world comes down to faith then there is no substantive difference between having faith that the sun will rise tomorrow morning and faith in a deity. There is, literally, a world of a difference. To employ the term ‘reality’ is to accept that there is such a state, for by questioning reality we are acknowledging it. But although we cannot without self-contradiction deny reality we accept that it is without certitude. Objects exist but they don’t have to exist. The sun exists and while it needn’t exist it has nevertheless risen every morning in the past, which give cause for us to believe it will continue thus in the future. So there is no contradiction in saying the sun will not rise tomorrow morning we but we descend into the realms of absurdity if we say there never was any such object. We believe the sun exists and that deciduous trees lose their leaves in winter because that is reality, while faith in deities has no direct correspondence with what is real but only with what is imagined. We may not understand the world but we’re all agreed that there is a world, whereas mystical beings are another matter entirely.

Yeah, still not seeing the difference in "faith" there. Deity, for those who see it, is a part of the picture as much as reality is. Good post otherwise.

 

[cottage]

Yeah, still not seeing the difference in "faith" there. Deity, for those who see it, is a part of the picture as much as reality is. Good post otherwise.

Thank you for that. I think what you’re saying here is that faith in a deity forms part of the believer’s world-view, and I can understand the human need for that, although I fail to see how experiencing the actual world allows an appeal to faith in other worlds that are not experienced! Our faith in experimental reasoning (science) and inductive reasoning (from past instances) demonstrates to a high degree of probability that all men must die, and yet some of the world’s largest faith systems (as well as many non-affiliated individual believers) hold to a doctrinal belief proposing that the dead will live again, which is surely faith devoid of reason! Every time we drop an object it falls to ground, exactly as expected. And we expect the object to fall not because of faith in science, which has loftily informed us of the effects of something called ‘gravity’, but because objects have likewise fallen in every past instance. We have absolute faith in the notion of cause and effect even though there is no necessary connection between our releasing the object and its fall to earth (nor even any necessarily existing objects). I must now allow David Hume to continue in his own words: ‘We are ignorant, it is true, of the manner in which bodies operate on each other. Their force or energy is entirely incomprehensible: But are we not equally ignorant of the manner or force by which a mind, even a Supreme mind, operates on itself or on body? Whence I beseech you, do we acquire any idea of it? We have no idea of the Supreme Being but what we learn from reflection on our own faculties. Were our ignorance, therefore, a good reason for rejecting any thing we should be led into that principle of denying all energy in the Supreme Being as much as in the grossest matter.’

We are forced into an anti-sceptical acceptance of the world, even though there need be no world; and if we’re ignorant of the operations of minds and bodies in the world how can we presume to explain them by an appeal to a further world or reality of which, by our own admission, we must also be ignorant?

 

[Willamena]

Thank you for that. I think what you’re saying here is that faith in a deity forms part of the believer’s world-view, and I can understand the human need for that, although I fail to see how experiencing the actual world allows an appeal to faith in other worlds that are not experienced! Our faith in experimental reasoning (science) and inductive reasoning (from past instances) demonstrates to a high degree of probability that all men must die, and yet some of the world’s largest faith systems (as well as many non-affiliated individual believers) hold to a doctrinal belief proposing that the dead will live again, which is surely faith devoid of reason! Every time we drop an object it falls to ground, exactly as expected. And we expect the object to fall not because of faith in science, which has loftily informed us of the effects of something called ‘gravity’, but because objects have likewise fallen in every past instance. We have absolute faith in the notion of cause and effect even though there is no necessary connection between our releasing the object and its fall to earth (nor even any necessarily existing objects). I must now allow David Hume to continue in his own words: ‘We are ignorant, it is true, of the manner in which bodies operate on each other. Their force or energy is entirely incomprehensible: But are we not equally ignorant of the manner or force by which a mind, even a Supreme mind, operates on itself or on body? Whence I beseech you, do we acquire any idea of it? We have no idea of the Supreme Being but what we learn from reflection on our own faculties. Were our ignorance, therefore, a good reason for rejecting any thing we should be led into that principle of denying all energy in the Supreme Being as much as in the grossest matter.’

We are forced into an anti-sceptical acceptance of the world, even though there need be no world; and if we’re ignorant of the operations of minds and bodies in the world how can we presume to explain them by an appeal to a further world or reality of which, by our own admission, we must also be ignorant?

Close: I would say that the worldview that includes deity, to contrast with reality, is responsible in many cases for there being faith in "god." The worldview is paramount. It may be derived simply by grasping that what we perceive (the "actual world") is but half the picture; or it may be a more profound understanding (for instance, of unity). But that's neither here nor there. Replace the experiment of dropping a ball and expecting it fall with the experiment of taking a step forward and expecting there to be solidity to the (reality of the) ground beneath your feet, and you approach the kind of profound faith that even science employs on a regular basis. This faith in understanding reality is entirely a priori, as much as the experience of reality is a posteriori. The faith that you call "in a further world" is simply the faith in this world that goes a step "further." When solidity is a thought, an expectation of experience; when our "power" to decide ourselves forward one step is the inexplicable thought; when "death" is but the thought that all this will end someday; when all we have is this world, and when, for sanity's sake, there must be a reason why all this is in place to begin with, then what are you left with?

 

[cottage]

Close: I would say that the worldview that includes deity, to contrast with reality, is responsible in many cases for there being faith in "god." The worldview is paramount. It may be derived simply by grasping that what we perceive (the "actual world") is but half the picture; or it may be a more profound understanding (for instance, of unity). But that's neither here nor there. Replace the experiment of dropping a ball and expecting it fall with the experiment of taking a step forward and expecting there to be solidity to the (reality of the) ground beneath your feet, and you approach the kind of profound faith that even science employs on a regular basis. This faith in understanding reality is entirely a priori, as much as the experience of reality is a posteriori. The faith that you call "in a further world" is simply the faith in this world that goes a step "further." When solidity is a thought, an expectation of experience; when our "power" to decide ourselves forward one step is the inexplicable thought; when "death" is but the thought that all this will end someday; when all we have is this world, and when, for sanity's sake, there must be a reason why all this is in place to begin with, then what are you left with?

The dropping of the ball example and the expectation of solidity and extension you speak of are the same species and an everyday worldly phenomenon, experience in other words. Both are an a posteriori belief, i.e. based on what has gone before, but without the condition that they must. Your argument ‘for sanity’s sake’ that ‘there must be a reason’ wants to make a leap of faith that is pure a priori. How is the utterly indispensable yet uncertain faith in this world, that an object released will fall and that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, to be used as a template for a further uncertain world? And if we’re to delve into the oblique vapours of metaphysics and expect a teleological explanation for everything there is, then the question is to be turned back those who do the asking. What is the reason ‘why all this exists in the first place? (It isn’t sufficient to pose an open-ended question, without having the answer, expecting ignorance to carry the argument in the advocate’s favour.)

 

[Willamena]

The dropping of the ball example and the expectation of solidity and extension you speak of are the same species and an everyday worldly phenomenon, experience in other words. Both are an a posteriori belief, i.e. based on what has gone before, but without the condition that they must. Your argument ‘for sanity’s sake’ that ‘there must be a reason’ wants to make a leap of faith that is pure a priori. How is the utterly indispensable yet uncertain faith in this world, that an object released will fall and that the sun will rise tomorrow morning, to be used as a template for a further uncertain world? And if we’re to delve into the oblique vapours of metaphysics and expect a teleological explanation for everything there is, then the question is to be turned back those who do the asking. What is the reason ‘why all this exists in the first place? (It isn’t sufficient to pose an open-ended question, without having the answer, expecting ignorance to carry the argument in the advocate’s favour.)

I suspect the problem is that reality is a participant in the picture I drew, where it is not in the picture you draw: rather, you draw a picture of reality. Deity, similiarly, can be a participant.

Edit: I have the same problem with I talk about truth: truth is an ever-present participant, but people would rather talk about truth.

 

[Orias]

You are not aware of reality, I hope you realize this. You are only conceiving it with your mind.

Just because you conceive does not make you aware.

Reality is subject to the senses and how we see things act. Reality is conceived of, but reality is whether or not you agree with it.

Hence the purpose for its label.

However when I describe my reality, it is full of thoughts moreso than acts and things an individual outside of me could never really understand.

Which is why you claim such subjectiveness behind reality, because you yourself subject the label to what you want it to mean.

Again, You don't perceive reality! You conceive it! No matter how objective we try to be in our observations and judgments we must remember we are still subjective-entities.

If we did not perceive then how could we possibly conceive?

Just like I said, just because you conceive does not make you aware.

In this terms, we are far from subjective entities because we all exist objectively.

Whether or not the terms and conditions are different to the individual.