Why the divide between Science and Religion...

[crystalonyx]

From the dictionary:


Proof:

1.evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2.anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3.the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4.the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

I think we may be expecting more from the term "proof" than the definition implies, many things can be proven, to the satisfaction of all observers. Some things can't, and those are the things which generally belong in the "faith" category.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

That's not the case with the research I've been doing for the past several months. I don't take it on faith that matter exists or the universe is understandable, nor do I need to in order to do experiments in the lab. It's as Fluffy said, assumptions are used in an "If X then...." kind of way (e.g. "If the universe is understandable, then....")

Wonderful description of faith at work.

I think you're stretching the definition of the word "faith". However you choose to define your terms, there is a distinction between a scientist making tentative assumptions and, say, a prophet roaming the desert expecting to be fed by mana from heaven. You can call both of these actions "faith" if you like, but there are nevertheless important differences between them. Twisting words beyond all recognition does not make those differences go away. :help:

 

[Willamena]

I think we may be expecting more from the term "proof" than the definition implies, many things can be proven, to the satisfaction of all observers. Some things can't, and those are the things which generally belong in the "faith" category.

It's not that they cannot be proven that makes them faith worthy, or that they have no value of "satisfaction," but that they need not be proven to be believed, and certainly not to "all observers."

From the dictionary:

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

etc.

It would seem to me that someting worthy of trust, belief, and that has value is something that is "satisfactory" to one observer, the one that counts.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not that they cannot be proven that makes them faith worthy, or that they have no value or "satisfaction," but that they need not be proven to be believed, and certainly not to "all observers."

From the dictionary:

Faith:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.

etc.

It would seem to me that someting worthy of trust, belief, and that has value is something that is "satisfactory" to an observer.

I have been trying to argue the case of the broader definition of faith for a while now with a few people. One can have faith in anything, including science, a spouse, religion and many other things. Just because you have a lot of evidence to support something, doesn't mean it doesn't take a little faith, too. It's just a matter of varying degrees of faith. (to be sure, I'm piggy-backing on what you said)

 

[Sunstone]

I think you're stretching the definition of the word "faith". However you choose to define your terms, there is a distinction between a scientist making tentative assumptions and, say, a prophet roaming the desert expecting to be fed by mana from heaven. You can call both of these actions "faith" if you like, but there are nevertheless important differences between them. Twisting words beyond all recognition does not make those differences go away. :help:

Well said! Frubals!

 

[Magic Man]

I think you're stretching the definition of the word "faith". However you choose to define your terms, there is a distinction between a scientist making tentative assumptions and, say, a prophet roaming the desert expecting to be fed by mana from heaven. You can call both of these actions "faith" if you like, but there are nevertheless important differences between them. Twisting words beyond all recognition does not make those differences go away. :help:

There is a distinction, but it's also important to know the similarity between the two, as well as the difference.

 

[Willamena]

I have been trying to argue the case of the broader definition of faith for a while now with a few people. One can have faith in anything, including science, a spouse, religion and many other things. Just because you have a lot of evidence to support something, doesn't mean it doesn't take a little faith, too. It's just a matter of varying degrees of faith. (to be sure, I'm piggy-backing on what you said)

It's the same faith. Exactly the same.

 

[Magic Man]

It's the same faith. Exactly the same.

Now if only we could show that to some others.

 

[Escéptico]

I think you're stretching the definition of the word "faith". However you choose to define your terms, there is a distinction between a scientist making tentative assumptions and, say, a prophet roaming the desert expecting to be fed by mana from heaven. You can call both of these actions "faith" if you like, but there are nevertheless important differences between them. Twisting words beyond all recognition does not make those differences go away. :help:

:bow:

Some of our amateur philosophers here have decided to redefine various terms in an inexplicable attempt to flatten the empirical landscape, as it were.

Take note, now 'faith' refers to affirming anything not 100% deductively proven. Evidently the nature of inductive evidential inquiry as a cumulative process that incrementally increases confidence in a proposition wasn't black-and-white enough. So now we use the term 'faith' whether we mean a claim supported by lots of evidence from various lines of inquiry, or whether we mean a belief based on emotion.

And in addition, 'evidence' now refers to any rationale whatsoever that is offered to support a claim, even if it's pretend. I had a soft spot, I'll admit, for the old concept of evidence being something objectively verifiable. But the new thinking is that anything is evidence to someone.

 

[Magic Man]

So now we use the term 'faith' whether we mean a claim supported by lots of evidence from various lines of inquiry, or whether we mean a belief based on emotion.

You finally got it! It took long enough. I'm glad you can finally see it the right way.

And in addition, 'evidence' now refers to any rationale whatsoever that is offered to support a claim, even if it's pretend. I had a soft spot, I'll admit, for the old concept of evidence being something objectively verifiable. But the new thinking is that anything is evidence to someone.

What exactly is objectively verifiable? Doesn't that just mean that you take other people's, as well as your own, data collected by sometimes faulty senses and put it together and assume that it must be true, because you and a few other people said so?

 

[crystalonyx]

What exactly is objectively verifiable? Doesn't that just mean that you take other people's, as well as your own, data collected by sometimes faulty senses and put it together and assume that it must be true, because you and a few other people said so?

It's not usually, a "few other people", it's the collective body of experts in the field, such as climatologists for global warming, paleontologists for "most dinosaurs were warm-blooded", etc.

 

[Magic Man]

It's not usually, a "few other people", it's the collective body of experts in the field, such as climatologists for global warming, paleontologists for "most dinosaurs were warm-blooded", etc.

Regardless of how many people it is, why is their sensory data any more useful than my own? Isn't it all based on our senses, which are known to be faulty in the first place?

 

[Escéptico]

Regardless of how many people it is, why is their sensory data any more useful than my own? Isn't it all based on our senses, which are known to be faulty in the first place?

Is there any facet of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry that you can't oversimplify, caricature, and reduce to absurdity?

Maybe the Matt's-eye view is the only one that seems relevant to you. However, you're ignoring the vast network of interrelated inquiry that has brought us to whatever understanding we can claim to have of our universe. I don't concentrate on what data gets processed by Matt's sensory apparatus. I acknowledge the real work - the theorizing, testing, refining process - that actual people have done throughout history and are continuing to do.

 

[Magic Man]

Is there any facet of the long legacy of empirical evidential inquiry that you can't oversimplify, caricature, and reduce to absurdity?

Maybe the Matt's-eye view is the only one that seems relevant to you. However, you're ignoring the vast network of interrelated inquiry that has brought us to whatever understanding we can claim to have of our universe. I don't concentrate on what data gets processed by Matt's sensory apparatus. I acknowledge the real work - the theorizing, testing, refining process - that actual people have done throughout history and are continuing to do.

So, you disagree with the idea that anything we have ever known is based on the data processed by our sometimes faulty senses?

 

[Escéptico]

So, you disagree with the idea that anything we have ever known is based on the data processed by our sometimes faulty senses?

:banghead3:

Matt, we get it.

You're into solipsism.

We get it.

Really.

Now move on.

 

[Magic Man]

:banghead3:

Matt, we get it.

You're into solipsism.

We get it.

Really.

Now move on.

Can you prove it's wrong?

 

[Escéptico]

Can you prove it's wrong?

Matt, you're the one who has this strange fetish with nothing ever being "proven". No one else has a problem with saying that science never "proves" its propositions. I've said many times that inductive inquiry isn't about "proving" things.

Empirical evidential inquiry is supposed to take all the incomplete, flawed, prejudiced observations and come up with a statistically viable model of a phenomenon. The more people who are involved with the researching, testing, and refining process in history, now, and in the future, the less any individual set of cognitive biases will affect the reliability of the outcome.

This is an ongoing process, Matt, and it's never done with asking questions. Nothing is ever "proven."

 

[Magic Man]

Matt, you're the one who has this strange fetish with nothing ever being "proven". No one else has a problem with saying that science never "proves" its propositions. I've said many times that inductive inquiry isn't about "proving" things.

Empirical evidential inquiry is supposed to take all the incomplete, flawed, prejudiced observations and come up with a statistically viable model of a phenomenon. The more people who are involved with the researching, testing, and refining process in history, now, and in the future, the less any individual set of cognitive biases will affect the reliability of the outcome.

This is an ongoing process, Matt, and it's never done with asking questions. Nothing is ever "proven."

There, now, was that so hard? As long as you understand that, we can move on.

And why do you keep using my name? Is it meant to be condescending? that's the only reason I can come up with. Feel free to keep using, as long as you realize that it doesn't affect me, and doesn't change the effectiveness, or ineffectiveness, of your arguments.

 

[Escéptico]

It's not usually, a "few other people", it's the collective body of experts in the field, such as climatologists for global warming, paleontologists for "most dinosaurs were warm-blooded", etc.

You're right. The consensus is created through the effort of thousands of researchers, interpreted and assessed by experts versed in each discipline's unique procedures. The layman has no way of verifying these observations for himself, so the competition among researchers and theorists filters out questionable or tainted work.

 

[Willamena]

And in addition, 'evidence' now refers to any rationale whatsoever that is offered to support a claim, even if it's pretend.

What is "pretend rationale"? (for 2,000 points)