Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

[SelfSim]

Cosmological expansion is currently the accepted best fit explanation for the redshift observed over vast scale (astronomical) distances.

[Staff edit].

 

[SelfSim]

[Staff edit].

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

Scientific objective testing however, leaves little room for beliefs, opinions and plea bargaining. In fact, it is specifically designed to detect, highlight, and neutralise such notions.

 

[NullHypothesis]

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.

I think you are conflating two different reasons. Scientists (good ones at least) do not sweep mistakes under the rug. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to continually refine human knowledge. If a scientist fails at something then it's an opportunity to learn something.

However in regards to religion, their information is not refined, only their interpretation of already established informtaion is altered. As society and science progresses, religion becomes less and less relevant socially and educationally. People used to point to the bible for their permission to own slaves. Now that that's no longer acceptable socially people try to spin exodus 21 in a way that isn't so, well.... immoral. As science progresses we find out more information about the universe and how it works, so the account of creation is no longer veiwed as a fact of the universe.

Do you see how science is constantly learning and growing while religion just recycles the same information with different inflections?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But this post is based on having faith in science. So i will address that too. Faith is, by definition, believing something without evidence. Science does not operate on faith. If you put forth a hypothesis or proposition and give your reason for your findings as just faith, you will be justifiably laughed at. There is nothing at all in science that advocates or relies on faith.

 

[jayem]

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

True at the quantum level. Though the behavior of a particle can be generally predicted confidently because most all but one of the probabilities are very low. But more to the point, in the deterministic view, when the conditions acting on the particle are exactly the same, the probabilities of its behavior are exactly the same.

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?

In the natural world matter has certain properties. Which we can observe and elucidate. The behavior of nature has regularity and--as stated above--even at a sub-atomic level can be predicted with generally high accuracy. But how can we ever know anything about entities or forces which are claimed to exist outside the realm of matter/energy and the fundamental laws of nature? Under supernaturalism, anything can happen. The laws of nature can be suspended at any time, in any manner. There is no predictability or regularity. This means that it is impossible to learn or understand the exact mechanisms by which supernatural forces operate.

 

[Michael]

[Staff edit].

Scientific objective testing however, leaves little room for beliefs, opinions and plea bargaining. In fact, it is specifically designed to detect, highlight, and neutralise such notions.

Except your dark matter tests have all been duds, yet you still have faith in exotic matter, in spite of the fact that the standard particle physics model has passed every conceivable test at LHC. You still apparently hold faith in the concept in spite of all those failed tests.

 

[Michael]

I think you are conflating two different reasons. Scientists (good ones at least) do not sweep mistakes under the rug. The entire purpose of the scientific method is to continually refine human knowledge. If a scientist fails at something then it's an opportunity to learn something.

Thunderbolts Forum • View topic - Lambda-CDM - EU/PC Theory - Confirmation Bias

We learned that their baryonic mass estimates have been littered with major flaws, and dark matter theories have failed every test to date in the lab. It seems like all that information has been swept under the rug and the DM claims continue. We actually found more mass in the form of hot plasma and gas in two halos around our own galaxy than all the stars combined.

However in regards to religion, their information is not refined, only their interpretation of already established informtaion is altered.

Dark matter claims have been established but never change in spite of all the failed tests and in spite of all the revelations of stellar miscounts and galaxy mass underestimation problems. What's it going to take to falsify that claim?

As society and science progresses, religion becomes less and less relevant socially and educationally.

Dark energy and dark matter claims have no useful purpose outside of saving one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from instant destruction.

People used to point to the bible for their permission to own slaves. Now that that's no longer acceptable socially people try to spin exodus 21 in a way that isn't so, well.... immoral.

People used to try to use science to claim the Earth was the center of the universe and to justify the belief that there was some difference between "races" too. Science has been used to create weapons of mass destruction. Some misinformation has changed eventually of course, but science has its share of immoral activity too.

As science progresses we find out more information about the universe and how it works, so the account of creation is no longer veiwed as a fact of the universe.

But 95 percent of the LCDM model is nothing more than placeholder terms for human ignorance, and it still a "creation mythology" that is now based on *four* supernatural constructs rather than one. Hardly much of an improvement if you ask me.

Do you see how science is constantly learning and growing while religion just recycles the same information with different inflections?

Not really. IMO BB theory has gotten worse not better in terms of its reliance on placeholder terms for ignorance and little seems to change as a result of failed tests.

But this post is based on having faith in science. So i will address that too. Faith is, by definition, believing something without evidence. Science does not operate on faith. If you put forth a hypothesis or proposition and give your reason for your findings as just faith, you will be justifiably laughed at. There is nothing at all in science that advocates or relies on faith.

Except you cannot demonstrate that space expansion has any empirical effect on photons in the lab so we have to take that claim on faith. Ditto for exotic matter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

True at the quantum level. Though the behavior of a particle can be generally predicted confidently because most all but one of the probabilities are very low. But more to the point, in the deterministic view, when the conditions acting on the particle are exactly the same, the probabilities of its behavior are exactly the same.

Yes, but naturalism doesn't imply determinism, so I was asking you could justify saying "A corollary of naturalism is that the exact same circumstances will always produce exactly the same results".

In the natural world matter has certain properties. Which we can observe and elucidate. The behavior of nature has regularity and--as stated above--even at a sub-atomic level can be predicted with generally high accuracy. But how can we ever know anything about entities or forces which are claimed to exist outside the realm of matter/energy and the fundamental laws of nature? Under supernaturalism, anything can happen. The laws of nature can be suspended at any time, in any manner. There is no predictability or regularity. This means that it is impossible to learn or understand the exact mechanisms by which supernatural forces operate.

Yes, supernaturalism is intrinsically incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean naturalism is necessarily comprehensible - for example, we have a mathematical model for how quantum mechanics behaves, but we don't yet comprehend its workings.

So what makes you think that, "Naturalism implies that ... there is nothing that we are incapable of comprehending ..." when we don't comprehend the behaviour of the most basic features of the natural world?

 

[jayem]

Yes, supernaturalism is intrinsically incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean naturalism is necessarily comprehensible - for example, we have a mathematical model for how quantum mechanics behaves, but we don't yet comprehend its workings.

You've stated my point. Yes, there are things we don't yet understand. But if we work at it long enough, and we're clever, (and lucky,) it's possible that we might one day understand them. A universe that is a purely natural entity isn't inherently impossible to comprehend. But the supernatural is impossible to comprehend. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[Silmarien]

In the natural world matter has certain properties. Which we can observe and elucidate. The behavior of nature has regularity and--as stated above--even at a sub-atomic level can be predicted with generally high accuracy. But how can we ever know anything about entities or forces which are claimed to exist outside the realm of matter/energy and the fundamental laws of nature? Under supernaturalism, anything can happen. The laws of nature can be suspended at any time, in any manner. There is no predictability or regularity. This means that it is impossible to learn or understand the exact mechanisms by which supernatural forces operate.

Depends on what form of supernaturalism. Classical Christian metaphysics most certainly view the laws of nature as predictable and understandable--this is why modern science developed in Europe and not in a culture where people did not believe in logic.

You seem to be conflating naturalism with mechanism and determinism, which is not necessarily true, and supernaturalism with anti-realism, which is also not necessarily true.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You've stated my point. Yes, there are things we don't yet understand. But if we work at it long enough, and we're clever, (and lucky,) it's possible that we might one day understand them. A universe that is a purely natural entity isn't inherently impossible to comprehend. But the supernatural is impossible to comprehend. Do you see what I'm saying?

Yes, I'd agree with that.

 

[Michael]

Yes, but naturalism doesn't imply determinism, so I was asking you could justify saying "A corollary of naturalism is that the exact same circumstances will always produce exactly the same results".

FYI, I agree with that point.

Yes, supernaturalism is intrinsically incomprehensible, but that doesn't mean naturalism is necessarily comprehensible - for example, we have a mathematical model for how quantum mechanics behaves, but we don't yet comprehend its workings.

That's also a valid point, but our lack of understanding is typically replaced with empirical physics. There are *many* empirical physical explanations for photon redshift, whereas *space expansion* and "magic expansion" and "unicorn expansion" are all purely hypothetical non empirical explanations for very common photon redshift.

Ditto with "mass". We have plenty of explanations for "missing mass', mostly due to the fact that we just found more mass in gas and high temperature plasma halos than all the mass in side all the stars of our own galaxy. How would we possibly claim to "know" exactly how much mass is present from estimations of light from distant galaxies that are million and billions of light years from our own galaxy?

This only demonstrates that "faith' in hypothetical processes and entities are accepted by scientist, not just theists and the topic of God.

So what makes you think that, "Naturalism implies that ... there is nothing that we are incapable of comprehending ..." when we don't comprehend the behaviour of the most basic features of the natural world?

I've come to believe that the reason that we don't understand the natural world very well is because we resist the application of empirical physics to the rest of the 'unknown' universe.

As a proponent of EU/PC theory, I can see a path to explaining the physical processes of the whole universe. By 'putting faith' in one possible field in nature, we might even come to a purely empirical understanding of the physical processes that describe "God".

Compared to LCMD theory, our so called 'understanding' of the universe isn't even "understanding" for 95 percent of the universe, it's placeholder terms for human ignorance. The other 5 percent of LCDM theory is mostly pseudoscience according to the author of MHD theory. There's simply no path to empirical 'understanding" down that dark supernatural path.

 

[jayem]

Depends on what form of supernaturalism. Classical Christian metaphysics most certainly view the laws of nature as predictable and understandable--this is why modern science developed in Europe and not in a culture where people did not believe in logic.

Actually, science began with the ancient Greeks, way before Christianity. They developed the basic principles of logic. 600 years BC, Thales was already teaching that the world operated by natural processes, and not under the influence of gods. I think it was Eratosthenes who recognized that the Earth was spherical and calculated the circumference within about 10% of the exact measurement. Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Aristotle all did work in natural science. Unfortunately, much of that was ignored or lost when Christianity became dominant. And it took until the Renaissance, 1500 years later, later when science was again appreciated. And even then, we know the established church opposed, and tried to suppress, scientific findings that conflicted with their religious doctrines, i.e., Galileo.

You seem to be conflating naturalism with mechanism and determinism, which is not necessarily true, and supernaturalism with anti-realism, which is also not necessarily true.

Determinism is an assumption. But it's logical one, if one accepts that the universe is purely a function of matter and energy. It's apparent from observation, and experimentally, that natural phenomena are predictable and regular. Like that heat always flows from a region of greater to lesser intensity. Or that magnets always have 2 poles--one that attracts and one that repels the poles of other magnets. Or that there are physical constants, like the force of the earths' gravitational field, or the mass of a proton at rest. So just by simple inductive logic, it's reasonable to conclude that matter always behaves the same way under the same conditions.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually, science began with the ancient Greeks, way before Christianity. They developed the basic principles of logic. 600 years BC, Thales was already teaching that the world operated by natural processes, and not under the influence of gods. I think it was Eratosthenes who recognized that the Earth was spherical and calculated the circumference within about 10% of the exact measurement. Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Aristotle all did work in natural science. Unfortunately, much of that was ignored or lost when Christianity became dominant. And it took until the Renaissance, 1500 years later, later when science was again appreciated. And even then, we know the established church opposed, and tried to suppress, scientific findings that conflicted with their religious doctrines, i.e., Galileo.

Not forgetting the considerable pre-Renaissance scientific and mathematical advances of the ancient Asia (China, 'Golden Age' Islam, etc).

Determinism is an assumption. But it's logical one, if one accepts that the universe is purely a function of matter and energy. It's apparent from observation, and experimentally, that natural phenomena are predictable and regular. Like that heat always flows from a region of greater to lesser intensity. Or that magnets always have 2 poles--one that attracts and one that repels the poles of other magnets. Or that there are physical constants, like the force of the earths' gravitational field, or the mass of a proton at rest. So just by simple inductive logic, it's reasonable to conclude that matter always behaves the same way under the same conditions.

Quite - if the macro-scale world wasn't for-all-intents-and-purposes deterministic, it's hard to see how the world we see could exist...

The sub-atomic scale seems to be rather different (although that may be an artefact of our perspective).

 

[Michael]

Not forgetting the considerable pre-Renaissance scientific and mathematical advances of the ancient Asia (China, 'Golden Age' Islam, etc).

Quite - if the macro-scale world wasn't for-all-intents-and-purposes deterministic, it's hard to see how the world we see could exist...

The sub-atomic scale seems to be rather different (although that may be an artefact of our perspective).

I tend to agree with everything you said, and I support your artifact of our perspective interpretation. We're learning new things about QM all the time.

Scientists just discovered how to track the secret movement of elusive unobserved quantum particles

 

[Silmarien]

Actually, science began with the ancient Greeks, way before Christianity. They developed the basic principles of logic. 600 years BC, Thales was already teaching that the world operated by natural processes, and not under the influence of gods. I think it was Eratosthenes who recognized that the Earth was spherical and calculated the circumference within about 10% of the exact measurement. Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Aristotle all did work in natural science.

Precisely so. I said "classical Christian metaphysics," by which I meant the Aristotelianism of Thomas Aquinas. I would not divorce Christianity from its Greek intellectual roots, especially when discussing its relationship with the sciences. I'm a Neoplatonist myself. (At least on Mondays.)

I specify Christian as opposed to Islamic metaphysics because Christian theology tends to stress the rationality of God, whereas Ash'ari, the dominant medieval Islamic theology, rejects causation entirely. It has been argued that this theological approach was what eventually caused the decline of science in the Islamic world, and it certainly makes sense. I cannot imagine widespread faith in cause and effect surviving the rise of a theology that denied it. It is an interesting question why modern science developed in the West instead of in cultures that had been more scientifically advanced a couple centuries earlier, like China and the Islamic world, and theological considerations are possible factors.

Regardless, my general point was that non-naturalism does not mean the rejection of natural laws. Aristotle certainly developed his own theology, and this did not stop him from being one of the most important figures in the history of science. Some approaches to theology, such as Aristotelianism and Thomism, foster faith in the natural order of things, leading to the possibility of empirical science. They do not imply that "anything could happen" any more than naturalism does.

Unfortunately, much of that was ignored or lost when Christianity became dominant. And it took until the Renaissance, 1500 years later, later when science was again appreciated. And even then, we know the established church opposed, and tried to suppress, scientific findings that conflicted with their religious doctrines, i.e., Galileo.

Yes, this is the Conflict Thesis, which was popularized in the 19th century but has been rejected by modern historians of science.

Greek philosophy was not ignored or lost when Christianity became dominant (though the collapse of the Roman Empire was certainly a factor). There was initial conflict, but it was the stance of Clement of Alexandria that finally won out--Greek philosophy was a preparation for the "true philosophy" of Christianity, and therefore rightly belonged to Christianity. You see a great deal of Neoplatonic thought get reformulated by early Christians, and Aristotle was finally reintroduced in the 12th century. This knowledge was not suppressed--it was worked into Christian theology, particularly by Thomas Aquinas, leading to medieval Scholasticism. Another major figure was Roger Bacon, who emphasized using empiricism to study the natural world.

Medieval Scholasticism and its university system was extremely important to the development of modern science, and it started centuries before the Renaissance. The relationship between Christianity and science was generally speaking somewhere between neutral and positive--yes, there are isolated incidents like the Galileo Affair, but even that was significantly more complicated than it appeared. Rather than the science itself, it was usurping the Church's authority and campaigning loudly for specific biblical interpretations that got him into trouble. Which is still not great, but we do have 500 years of anti-Catholicism to sort through when talking about this stuff.

A great site for clearing up all of these 19th century myths is Tim O'Neill's: History for Atheists

Determinism is an assumption. But it's logical one, if one accepts that the universe is purely a function of matter and energy.

Sure, but then we're dealing with obsolete 19th century forms of materialism. I'm a critic of naturalism, but I don't think it's guilty of quite this level of dogmatism. I'm sure there are deterministic theories of gene mutation out there, for example, but they're certainly not a more logical approach in a post-quantum world, and I think most naturalists are comfortable with that.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually, science began with the ancient Greeks, way before Christianity. They developed the basic principles of logic. 600 years BC, Thales was already teaching that the world operated by natural processes, and not under the influence of gods. I think it was Eratosthenes who recognized that the Earth was spherical and calculated the circumference within about 10% of the exact measurement. Archimedes, Pythagoras, and Aristotle all did work in natural science. Unfortunately, much of that was ignored or lost when Christianity became dominant. And it took until the Renaissance, 1500 years later, later when science was again appreciated. And even then, we know the established church opposed, and tried to suppress, scientific findings that conflicted with their religious doctrines, i.e., Galileo.



Determinism is an assumption. But it's logical one, if one accepts that the universe is purely a function of matter and energy. It's apparent from observation, and experimentally, that natural phenomena are predictable and regular. Like that heat always flows from a region of greater to lesser intensity. Or that magnets always have 2 poles--one that attracts and one that repels the poles of other magnets. Or that there are physical constants, like the force of the earths' gravitational field, or the mass of a proton at rest. So just by simple inductive logic, it's reasonable to conclude that matter always behaves the same way under the same conditions.

To add to what @Silmarien has already said, you make quite a few errors.

Scientific Method was invented in the 12th century by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste. Science is thus a mediaeval European invention. There were certainly Empiric atrempts at reality testing in the ancient world, but Pythagoras was no scientist - in fact, reincarnation was central to his worldview. Similarly Thales, Anaximander and the early Ionic philosophers had no interest in examining the world, but developed theories purely by inductive means. They cannot be thought "scientific" by any means, for neither did they base their beliefs on collected evidence or experiment, nor did they seek to test them in reality as such.

The grandfather of Science was Aristotle, who first set out trying to systematically investigate the world and determine the nature thereof by this means. He cut open animals, tested folk beliefs, etc. Aristotle and Theophrastus and onward developed it, but the Lyceum always played second fiddle to the Academy and the Stoa Poikiles. This took centuries of development via radical pyrrhonian scepticism and all kinds of weird byways, to reach the mediaeval Natural Philosophy that evolved into Science as we know it. Something cannot be said to be scientific until a body of knowledge accrued by Empiric means and tested for validity is created - this occurred much later than most would believe. One could argue Aristotle invented Science, but that would be a very broad definition thereof, that would allow things like Chiropractery and Homeopathy to be labelled thus as well, so most certainly do not ascribe to such. Archimedes for instance was a great mathematician and using methods such as determining density of floating objects, not actually from displacement of water contra the oft-repeated myth, he did marvels. He is a foremost ancient Greek Scientist, but he is not really a scientist as such. If we use such a vague way of characterising Science, then Imhotep that built such great Egyptian structures or the creators of Stonehenge were 'scientists' - it robs the word of meaning. The underlying system that we think of as Scientific methodology today; Scientific method, peer review, hypothesis and falsification, etc.; developed from the Greeks, but is as mediaeval as Liberty being said to derive from the Magna Charta, not Greek democracy.

Nor did the heights of Hellenistic investigation of the natural world fall to Christianity. Hellenistic 'Science' declined under the Pagans. For instance, large scale dissection ended in the 2nd century BC during conflict between the Logikoi and Empirikoi, who both practiced Empiricist Medicine (the former dissected, the latter tried to determine from living creatures alone). This solidified into a 1000 years of just trusting Galen on most counts, as being one of the last great physicians to employ both methods. Another example is the decline of further astronomic investigations after the Ptolemaic epicycles were largely established.
Late Roman period texts like Martianus Cappella continued in use into the middle ages, with those measurements of the circumference of the earth, the earth being a sphere, etc. intact. It is just that further such research fell by the wayside from about the 2nd century AD onward, when philosophy moved in different directions and energies were more expended on the crises within the Empire and such. Such studies were declining and solidifying knowledge into epitomes thereof, way before Christianisation of the Roman Empire.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

We cannot do all scientific experiments ourselves. We are simply unable from time constraits, cost, ability, chronicity, etc.
We thus take most of it on authority. We trust that people reviewed their findings, that others tried to replicate them, that their method was sound, etc. On most things we simply don't understand what is being said at all, as we tend to be taught only our limited fields and cannot grasp all the intracacies of other ones. We trust the expertise of those active within them.

So a lot of science has to be taken on faith. Faith in the structures that make up the scientific community. Trust in the authority, the journals, and so forth. We can test some of it, but of necessity most of Science has to be taken on collective authority - for I will never do tests on uranium or see a transit of Venus, so have to trust those that do. If my experience fits the collective body, then the veridicality of the entirety seems supported thereby - hence the claim that we could 'test for ourselves' Science, but we really can't, and must work from a framework of others' discoveries. Stand on the shoulders of giants, as it were.

Religion is similar. We weren't present at Calvary or Sinai. We take these things on authority. We take theological truths in like manner. If we have a spiritual experience, we 'test' this body of knowledge against it. If it conforms to it, it supports the whole; if not, then people may begin looking elsewhere for spiritual truth. It can be 'falsified' somewhat, therefore. Religion is a structure built on the authority of the Spiritual experience of aeons of humans though; as Science is built on the authority of centuries of physical experience of humans, via experiment and observation.

Both require some basic axioms. We need to affirm the underlying metaphysics of a religion, to take it on authority. For Science, we need to hold that repeatability of phenomena would be the same if all other factors were similar; that sense-data is trustworthy, etc. Empiricism doesn't come naturally, as can be seen with any child (the Princess Anne experiments are interesting in this regard or how people determine whether they believe findings or not). We teach children to be empirical in school, as it has become an underlying structure of western thought.

Here lies the difference. Both require faith in the authority and structure thereof - Science however can be utilised without belief in the innate veracity of everything that it says. Science cannot be proven, but can be utilised regardless, and the inherent doubt possible in any of its findings is immaterial to a certain extent. We don't need to believe its axioms, as merely be willing to employ them. Religion requires us to believe, to have Faith as a theological virtue, in what by nature cannot be proven either.
They are different animals in entirety though, and to juxtapose them probably does violence to the implied meaning of both. They are very much not comparable, fundamentally working from a metaphysical framework vs. methodological naturalism respectively.

So Religion requires Faith, trust in a divinity as an entity, with acceptance of the rest on authority if it conforms or at least doesn't contradict, your own experience. It thus needs faith in its coherence and Faith in its God.
Science requires faith in authority of its structure, with acceptance thereof if it doesn't contradict your own experience. It doesn't need Faith as wilfull virtue to accept it, which religion requires. Christianity asks us to abandon ourselves, to give yourself in entirety to God, which would be impossible and unreasonable on the ambivalent terms of scientific reality testing. So Faith as in maintaining belief in spite of changing moods, is a requirement of Religion above and beyond, but both religion and the sciences requires some faith.

 

[Dirk1540]

I'm a Neoplatonist myself. (At least on Mondays.)

HAHA

 

[Michael]

Science requires faith in authority of its structure, with acceptance thereof if it doesn't contradict your own experience. It doesn't need Faith as wilfull virtue to accept it, which religion requires.

That gets really rather messy when science deviates from empirically demonstrated physics and delves into the realm of the hypothetical. In that specific case 'faith" must take on the role of virtue. Holding belief in the validity of the hypothetical entity over time usually requires a certain amount faith in either the validity of the idea itself or the institution that promotes it, particularly when the tests aren't actually supportive of the hypothetical entitity (dark matter).

Christianity asks us to abandon ourselves, to give yourself in entirety to God, which would be impossible and unreasonable on the ambivalent terms of scientific reality testing.

Functionally however 'doubt' and skepticism also probably play a role in all religions as well, certainly doubt and skepticism applied to various *specific elements* inside of the religious institution.

Doubt and skepticism may also play a role in science today, but holding belief in the underlying premise, like belief/faith in a "big bang" may directly affect one's ability to find gainful employment in the scientific industry.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Scientific objective testing however, leaves little room for beliefs, opinions and plea bargaining. In fact, it is specifically designed to detect, highlight, and neutralise such notions.

Agreed.

Further, I would add that words like belief and especially faith have zero or less value in proper scientific discussions. (There is a notion in philosophy that a fact is an objectively true opinion, or some such thing, but I have little use for philosophy.)

On the science discussion boards of a place like CF where "faith" and "belief" have very specific and heartfelt meanings to so many posters and lurkers alike, it doesn't seem a good policy to use those words outside of the religious or divine contexts.