Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

[Michael]

A couple of recent posts by Kylie got me wondering about the actual empirical difference between "faith" in science as it is often practiced by atheists and faith in religion as practiced by theists.

My favorite argument for the existence of God

As opposed to all the mistakes made by religious folk, who have since fixed it by aligning with the scientific explanations...

In this post Kylie was responding to a post from AV who was pointing out all the scientific mistakes of the past. She was noting that religious belief can change over time, but that seems like a very logical process and a logical response all things considered.

As I pointed out in that thread, the reverse can also be true too. Scientists attempt to sweep their mistakes under the rug and engage in denial as well as any theist over religious ideas. The dark matter hypothesis is one such example.

The other interesting comment she made was this response from a different thread:

EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.

Nope, you're promoting theology in four metaphysical/supernatural constructs which enjoy *zero* empirical laboratory evidence. Why do you reject the concept of God yet you embrace four different supernatural constructs? That's not even a rational choice from my perspective. I could see why you might toss out *all* metaphysical concepts, but you seem to pick and choose between them in a purely ad hoc manner.

No idea.

However, I don't understand why you seem to think that if your ideas are wrong that I should be able to prove it. I don't understand it, I haven't studied it, and I don't plan on studying it.

All I know is that the people who actually study this stuff disagree with you, and I'm fairly convinced that they are far better qualified to understand this stuff than you are! Unless you can convince me otherwise (such as by publishing peer reviewed papers and convincing the astrophysical community), I will continue to consider your position incorrect.

FYI, I didn't suggest that she was obligated to "prove me wrong" per se, I was simply noting that her 'faith' in metaphysics, and hypothetical constructs was no empirically different from 'faith' in a supernatural definition of God.

The interesting observation from my perspective is that her 'faith' in the scientific establishment seems to be virtually identical to a theists faith in one's pastor, or faith in the clergy of a religion, and the corresponding beliefs that they espouse.

Kylie is assuming that their position is correct and that I'm somehow obligated to "prove them wrong" to their (and her) satisfaction, otherwise she simply intends to "hold faith" in their metaphysical claims, irrespective of the fact that none of their hypothetical constructs can be demonstrated in a lab in controlled experiments.

From the perspective of empirical lab tested physics, what's the physical empirical difference between faith in a scientifically popular theory like the LCDM model and faith in God or faith in the expertise of a religious clergy?

 

[Heissonear]

A couple of recent posts by Kylie got me wondering about the actual empirical difference between "faith" in science as it is often practiced by atheists and faith in religion as practiced by theists.

My favorite argument for the existence of God



In this post Kylie was responding to a post from AV who was pointing out all the scientific mistakes of the past. She was noting that religious belief can change over time, but that seems like a very logical process and a logical response all things considered.

As I pointed out in that thread, the reverse can also be true too. Scientists attempt to sweep their mistakes under the rug and engage in denial as well as any theist over religious ideas. The dark matter hypothesis is one such example.

The other interesting comment she made was this response from a different thread:

EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.



FYI, I didn't suggest that she was obligated to "prove me wrong" per se, I was simply noting that her 'faith' in metaphysics, and hypothetical constructs was no empirically different from 'faith' in a supernatural definition of God.

The interesting observation from my perspective is that her 'faith' in the scientific establishment seems to be virtually identical to a theists faith in one's pastor, or faith in the clergy of a religion, and the corresponding beliefs that they espouse.

Kylie is assuming that their position is correct and that I'm somehow obligated to "prove them wrong" to their (and her) satisfaction, otherwise she simply intends to "hold faith" in their metaphysical claims, irrespective of the fact that none of their hypothetical constructs can be demonstrated in a lab in controlled experiments.

From the perspective of empirical lab tested physics, what's the physical empirical difference between faith in a scientifically popular theory like the LCDM model and faith in God or faith in the expertise of a religious clergy?

I fully concur. And arrived at such while still a godless naturalists in geology classes. It was eye opening.

 

[Michael]

I fully concur. And arrived at such while still a godless naturalists in geology classes. It was eye opening.

Atheists tend to act like "faith" is a bad thing, but as Kylie demonstrates, she too engages in a faith based belief system. She freely acknowledges that she doesn't understand the arguments very well, but she has faith in the legitimacy of their claims none the less. Faith is not a dirty word and all humans tend to engage in faith in one form or another.

 

[Strathos]

AFAIK dark matter has not been disproven.

 

[Michael]

AFAIK dark matter has not been disproven.

AFAIK, God hasn't been 'disproven' either. Without empirical evidence, it's still a form of faith to believe it exists at all.

 

[jayem]

A couple of recent posts by Kylie got me wondering about the actual empirical difference between "faith" in science as it is often practiced by atheists and faith in religion as practiced by theists.

My favorite argument for the existence of God



In this post Kylie was responding to a post from AV who was pointing out all the scientific mistakes of the past. She was noting that religious belief can change over time, but that seems like a very logical process and a logical response all things considered.

As I pointed out in that thread, the reverse can also be true too. Scientists attempt to sweep their mistakes under the rug and engage in denial as well as any theist over religious ideas. The dark matter hypothesis is one such example.

The other interesting comment she made was this response from a different thread:

EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.



FYI, I didn't suggest that she was obligated to "prove me wrong" per se, I was simply noting that her 'faith' in metaphysics, and hypothetical constructs was no empirically different from 'faith' in a supernatural definition of God.

The interesting observation from my perspective is that her 'faith' in the scientific establishment seems to be virtually identical to a theists faith in one's pastor, or faith in the clergy of a religion, and the corresponding beliefs that they espouse.

Kylie is assuming that their position is correct and that I'm somehow obligated to "prove them wrong" to their (and her) satisfaction, otherwise she simply intends to "hold faith" in their metaphysical claims, irrespective of the fact that none of their hypothetical constructs can be demonstrated in a lab in controlled experiments.

From the perspective of empirical lab tested physics, what's the physical empirical difference between faith in a scientifically popular theory like the LCDM model and faith in God or faith in the expertise of a religious clergy?

I don't see it as science vs. religion. The more fundamental question is whether one is exclusively naturalistic, or accepts supernatural explanations. A key difference is determinism. A corollary of naturalism is that the exact same circumstances will always produce exactly the same results. The corollary of supernaturalism is that anything is possible. There are forces or entities that can act in any way under any circumstance. Which means that we can never really make confident predictions. (In a way that goes beyond quantum uncertainty.) Supernaturalism implies that there are elements in the universe that can never be known, or understood. Naturalism implies that, even though human knowledge will always be incomplete, there is nothing that we are incapable of comprehending in the absolute sense. I realize that this sounds hubristic. But that's how I see it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...A corollary of naturalism is that the exact same circumstances will always produce exactly the same results.

Really? how so? As I understand it, naturalism today implies probabilistic outcomes.

Naturalism implies that, even though human knowledge will always be incomplete, there is nothing that we are incapable of comprehending in the absolute sense.

I don't see how naturalism implies that - but I'm not sure what you mean by 'comprehension in the absolute sense'. Perhaps you could explain?

 

[SelfSim]

... From the perspective of empirical lab tested physics, what's the physical empirical difference between faith in a scientifically popular theory like the LCDM model and faith in God or faith in the expertise of a religious clergy?

Faith is faith, no matter where it arises.

Faith is based on belief.

A belief is something held as being true for any reason.

The scientific process, (which led to the LCDM model), can be followed by anyone, completely independently of any beliefs (or faith) held by that person. Beliefs in some truth, are not part of the scientific process, which is what distinguishes that process from a religion.

 

[Michael]

Faith is faith, no matter where it arises.

I agree. Faith then is *not* a strictly religious practice. It's an integral part of science as well.

Faith is based on belief.

Two agreements in a row. Is that a record for us?

A belief is something held as being true for any reason.

Three in a row.

The scientific process, (which led to the LCDM model), can be followed by anyone, completely independently of any beliefs (or faith) held by that person.

Ah, I knew it couldn't last. If I personally "lack belief" in space expansion or lack belief that that the mainstream can correctly estimate the amount of ordinary matter in galaxies, I can't get there "independently of any beliefs".

Beliefs in some truth, are not part of the scientific process,

Hmmm. That doesn't explain then why astronomers are constantly claiming to "know" (truth) that dark matter exists, or that the big bang happened (truth of space expansion). In actual practice it seems to be six of one, a half dozen of the other.

which is what distinguishes that process from a religion.

I might agree had I not heard so many astronomers claim to *know* (truth statement) that a big bang took place, or claim to 'know' (truth statement) that dark matter exists. They seem to believe that space expansion is "truth", not just a hypothesis, and they seem to believe it is "truth" that some form of exotic matter must exist. They even claim to know when the universe came to exist within a few hundred million years and know the percentages of dark energy/dark matter to within a few percentage point. There really isn't much difference in practice, even if there is a conceptual distinction. It should be noted that religious beliefs also change over time, so the functional difference between science and religion minuscule at best.

 

[Kylie]

The difference is this.

Science can be tested. Religion can not.

If you can propose a way to test religion, I will be happy to do so, and if it passes that test, then I will become a member of said religion.

 

[joshua 1 9]

the actual empirical difference between "faith" in science as it is often practiced by atheists and faith in religion as practiced by theists.

Faith is a gift and a fruit of the Holy Spirit. Human faith is different then God's divine faith. Although human faith and positive thinking and the power of confession and the power of suggestion are very powerful. At the Tower of Babel we are told that: "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them." Genesis 11:6

 

[SelfSim]

I agree. Faith then is *not* a strictly religious practice. It's an integral part of science as well.

No .. faith is to be found nowhere in the well-documented scientific process.

Faith/belief is what humans hold as being true for any reason.

Ah, I knew it couldn't last. If I personally "lack belief" in space expansion or lack belief that that the mainstream can correctly estimate the amount of ordinary matter in galaxies, I can't get there "independently of any beliefs".

Space expansion is an explanation for what science observes. Galaxy mass estimates are derived from observations. Neither call for belief. Belief in them is optional.

Hmmm. That doesn't explain then why astronomers are constantly claiming to "know" (truth) that dark matter exists, or that the big bang happened (truth of space expansion). In actual practice it seems to be six of one, a half dozen of the other.
...
I might agree had I not heard so many astronomers claim to *know* (truth statement) that a big bang took place, or claim to 'know' (truth statement) that dark matter exists. They seem to believe that space expansion is "truth", not just a hypothesis, and they seem to believe it is "truth" that some form of exotic matter must exist. They even claim to know when the universe came to exist within a few hundred million years and know the percentages of dark energy/dark matter to within a few percentage point. There really isn't much difference in practice, even if there is a conceptual distinction. It should be noted that religious beliefs also change over time, so the functional difference between science and religion minuscule at best.

Simple .. interpret what they are saying as a belief. As I said .. beliefs are optional.
You seem to be attempting to 'nail' them with your own belief .. ie: that scientists are unable to distinguish beliefs from what the scientific process produces.

The reality produced by science defines existence on the basis of indepedently verifiable, objective test results. An absence of a positive result is not necessarily evidence of non-existence, although in some testing instances, it may be (eg: absence of abundant solar gamma radiation ).

 

[SelfSim]

.. Science can be tested.

I would argue that science is defined by its process. This well-documented process distinguishes scientific thinking from logic based thinking, the latter of which posits the existence of some truth, whereas science wants to put all posits 'to the test'.

If you can propose a way to test religion, I will be happy to do so, and if it passes that test, then I will become a member of said religion.

.. (and so-called 'thought experiments' (or logical tests which invariably commence with stated or unstated posited truths), do not qualify as scientific tests, either).

 

[NullHypothesis]

Is this thread open to anyone?

 

[Strathos]

AFAIK, God hasn't been 'disproven' either. Without empirical evidence, it's still a form of faith to believe it exists at all.

But you were talking like it was some kind of discredited theory like luminiferous aether.

 

[Michael]

No .. faith is to be found nowhere in the well-documented scientific process.

Maybe not in the method itself but the moment you choose to hold belief in a hypothetical process or cause, it applies.

Faith/belief is what humans hold as being true for any reason.

That's one possible definition but not the only definition.

Space expansion is an explanation for what science observes.

It is one potential *hypothetical* cause of photon redshift, but several known and empirically demonstrated causes already exist. You apparently have faith that space expansion is a cause of redshift but you cannot demonstrated it in a lab experiment with real control mechanisms. Faith is therefore required to hold belief in that claim as to cause.

Galaxy mass estimates are derived from observations.

But observation does not demonstrate the existence of exotic forms of matter.

Neither call for belief. Belief in them is optional.

The claim as to cause requires faith.

Simple .. interpret what they are saying as a belief. As I said .. beliefs are optional.

Accept they claim to "know" things (big bang) that aren't knowledge, just belief.

You seem to be attempting to 'nail' them with your own belief .. ie: that scientists are unable to distinguish beliefs from what the scientific process produces.

They cannot, as you just clearly demonstrated. The process produces only evidence of redshift, and you have "faith" that the cause is space expansion. You didn't even acknowledge the difference!

The reality produced by science defines existence on the basis of indepedently verifiable, objective test results.

Yet you have no objective test to show that redshift is caused by space expansion.

An absence of a positive result is not necessarily evidence of non-existence, although in some testing instances, it may be (eg: absence of abundant solar gamma radiation ).

Even that requires "faith" that your understanding of a model is correct, and it's not .

 

[Michael]

Is this thread open to anyone?

Of course.

 

[Michael]

But you were talking like it was some kind of discredited theory like luminiferous aether.

Nobody has spent billions testing aether theories, and "space" isn't physically defined, so expansion of space sure sounds like an expanding aether claim. How would one even fully falsify exotic matter claims when there are an infinite number of possible hypothetical models?

 

[Michael]

I would argue that science is defined by its process. This well-documented process distinguishes scientific thinking from logic based thinking, the latter of which posits the existence of some truth, whereas science wants to put all posits 'to the test'.

Except we cannot put your space expansion claim as to the cause of redshift to any empirical test. It is an act of pure faith.

.. (and so-called 'thought experiments' (or logical tests which invariably commence with stated or unstated posited truths), do not qualify as scientific tests, either).

Your whole space expansion claim as to the cause of redshift is a posited "truth". It can't be falsified or verified in controlled experimentation.

 

[Michael]

The difference is this.

Science can be tested. Religion can not.

Not true since space expansion as a cause of redshift cannot be tested, it has to be "assumed" on faith.

If you can propose a way to test religion, I will be happy to do so, and if it passes that test, then I will become a member of said religion.

That would depend on what type of "test" you would accept, and which religious concept you're talking about.