Theology and Falsifiability

variant said:

I read how you justified your position and called you on it.

There is no need to speak about how "reasonable" you are if your standards for truth are based upon an appeal to authority.

Click to expand...

Lots of things are based on appeal to authority. Most of your scientific knowledge is probably second-hand, faith-based, authority-driven. An appeal to authority is not an intrinsic fallacy, as some falsely believe. And when your authority is Truth itself, you're in good hands. Indeed it would be madly irrational to disbelieve something thought to be revealed by God.

So do you think Russell's teapot example is even possible? I don't.

variant said:

Authority are authority because they can demonstrate the basis for that authority.

Click to expand...

God can demonstrate his authority. He commonly does so with miracles, teachings, prophecies, conscience, personal appeals, etc.

Name calling doesn't make a very persuasive argument.

Click to expand...

Name-calling? Where? Have you been drinking? You're sensitive as a kitten.

variant said:

And yet all these different religions, all calming authority.

Click to expand...

Maybe the Buddhists are calming, but I'm not so sure about the Abrahamic branches.

variant said:

The Abrahamic branches differ on some things too.

Authoritatively.

Click to expand...

O Rly?

Archaeopteryx said:

Sadly, the Philosophy forum is permanently closed. I'm hesitant to reply because (1) I feel that these issues have already been touched on from various angles in a multitude of other threads, and (2) many have already essentially said what I'm about to say.

Click to expand...

Welcome back.

First, I agree with @Loudmouth: you are conflating multiple senses of the word 'faith' — an equivocation fallacy. When we talk about 'faith' in the religious sense, we are not talking about mere confidence. We are talking about believing irrespective of how well grounded the belief is, and maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to it. This is why religious faith inexorably tends toward dogma. This exercise of 'faith' is different from the 'faith' you have in a scientific article, which is based on the authors' and reviewers' demonstrable expertise in the field of study, as well as the scientific process itself, which is designed to detect and remedy errors at every stage. (Hopefully it goes without saying that this doesn't guarantee that journal articles are totally error-free or that the scientific merit of them is uniformly excellent across journals).

Click to expand...

Religious faith exists absent proof, and can stand against opposing evidence, but that does not mean that the definition of faith is such. The definition I gave--belief on the word of an authority--applies equally well to religious and secular faith, and is much less biased than Loudmouth's non-dictionary definition. It is also what you will find if you look to encyclopedias or historical sources, not to mention etymological studies.

Faith is, as Variant noted, something like an appeal to authority. It's not clear why unbelievers have such a hard time admitting this fact. Apparently they can't see past the fact that it is not directly independently verifiable. But believe it or not, believers know what faith is more than unbelievers do. And the reason we believe religious dogmas is simple: because God revealed them. Call it whatever you want. Traditionally it has been called "faith," but it doesn't matter what we call it--it is an argument from authority. At best Loudmouth's response is a mere semantic quibble, one which belies his inability to honestly ask himself why believers believe what they do. His answer vacillates between a non-method that is blind and arbitrary, and bad reasons (without being willing or able to describe those "bad" reasons). This is common fare from unbelievers on sites like CF.

Basing your argument on a definition of faith is like saying, "No, I don't believe you when you tell me you believe revealed principles on God's authority. The real reason you believe is because you have no evidence, or because you're naive, or because you're credulous." In truth, no explicit alternative to belief on the basis of authority is given, but the denigrating insinuations I listed are inevitably on display. If I don't believe religious dogmas because (I believe) God revealed them, then why do I believe them? My definition of faith actually provides an answer to that; yours just sidesteps the issue.

As far as I can tell, there is no parallel to this in theology (I alluded to this point earlier here, in relation to 'legitimate expertise' and how it is attained and recognised). Although considered dogma by the adherents of one religion, the "revealed premises" of theology differ greatly between religions. This would not be so problematic were it not for the fact that there is little agreement on the methods and results needed to resolve this and thereby move towards a consensus on the fundamental questions theology purports to address, such as how one establishes which of these so-called "revealed premises" are genuinely divine in origin. In short, I think the elephant is still in the room.

Click to expand...

Your argument has always relied on vagueness. The Catholic Church has existed for 2000 years and has regulated theological theses all throughout them. There are official teachers (bishops and the Pope) who use specific criteria (scripture and the theological tradition of the Church), engage in forums for the resolution of questions (Councils or Synods), and produce documents detailing their findings (Conciliar documents, Papal Bulls, Encyclicals, and Post Synodal Apostolic Exhortations). There are tomes listing the definitive teachings and dogmas (Denzinger's Sources of Catholic Dogma, Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, etc.).

Don't be vague. Pick an issue that has historically plagued the Church and I will show you how adjudication is accomplished. You point to different denominations? There are inter-denominational dialogues set up to better understand opposing positions and resolve conflicts. Beyond that, there are probably as many theological academic journals as there are scientific academic journals. Theology, with all of the machinery above mere academic journals, is arguably more rigorous than science in resolving disputes, not less.

More troubling, IMO, is the indifference that some show toward this issue, which should give all religionists pause. If "revealed premises" and accompanying supernatural claims can only ultimately be defended by faith (in the religious sense), then the enterprise seems unproductive as a way of improving our understanding of the world.

Click to expand...

That's just your atheist bias speaking. If your atheism is right, it doesn't help us understand the world. If my theism is right, then it provides us with access to truths that we are wholly incapable of rising to on our own. It provides us with unique insight into the mysterious depths of the world. Apologetics and Fundamental Theology are the theological disciplines which exist in order to bridge the gap between believers and unbelievers.

I won't say anymore on this because, as noted above, this topic is most appropriate for a philosophy forum, which is sadly lacking here. Also, IMO, CF has generally become less welcoming of these sorts of conversations.

Click to expand...

I think we should petition to re-open the philosophy forum.

KCfromNC said:

I'm really not sure how this addresses my example. We've traded "imagination" for "intuitive" "imagination", which to me is just dancing around the same problem - as a species we're pretty good at making up nonsense. Just look at daytime TV.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you should reread my post. I gave a two-fold answer:

1. Implied in the original definition of Fcf is the idea that the current state of affairs provides some reason to believe the proposition, and that the imaginative change would be a change precisely to the state of affairs responsible for current belief.
2. What is imagined must be (proximately) possible. That is to say, it must be something that could reasonably be expected to happen in our current world.

My point about intuition was merely that points 1 & 2 would be easily granted by someone willing to offer the benefit of the doubt.

Michael said:

It's probably because most atheists react negatively (emotionally) to the term 'faith'.

Click to expand...

I think that is a big part of it.

If you look at the "assumption" that "space expansion" is even a "possible" cause of photon redshift, that "possibility" is ultimately nothing more than an appeal to authority fallacy run amuck. Nobody on Earth can demonstrate such a cause/effect relationship. Atheists tend to "hold faith" in "science" as their surrogate source of "truthiness". They'll "put faith" in the 'space expansion" claim, not because it can be empirically demonstrated in a lab, or empirically falsified in a lab in controlled experimentation. They simply "take it on faith" because some so called 'astronomers' told them it could happen (but only mathematically).

It's still will forever remain an "act of faith" on the part of the believer that "space expansion" is a possible cause of photon redshift. The only way to "justify" the claim for most atheist is to simply appeal to authority figures for the legitimacy of the claim. They could never hope to actually replicate the process in the lab. The best they could do is repeat the mathematical dogma that results in "space expansion", and "hold faith" that it remains a "physical possibility" despite never being able to demonstrate such a claim in controlled experimentation.

Click to expand...

That's a helpful example to remind atheists that there is faith in science.

Faith is actually an *integral* part of "science". It can be misplaced in science too, just like it can be misplaced in the realm of religion.

Click to expand...

Indeed.

I'm very much enjoying the philosophical implications as it relates to hypothetical physics myself.

Click to expand...

I can see that.

"The Definition of Faith"

Archaeopteryx said:

First, I agree with @Loudmouth: you are conflating multiple senses of the word 'faith' — an equivocation fallacy.

Click to expand...

Let me reiterate that Loudmouth's focus on the definition of faith is a red herring. Christians believe based on divine authority, and that act of belief has traditionally been called faith, but we can call it whatever we want--it doesn't affect my argument.

That said, what if we entertain the red herring? Indeed I pointed to scientific faith and claimed that it is similar to religious faith in my OP. Was I wrong? Are religious and scientific faith completely equivocal, with no common ground?

When we talk about 'faith' in the religious sense, we are not talking about mere confidence.

Click to expand...

The primary sense is confidence or trust in God, with the natural corollary of confidence and trust in what God has revealed.

We are talking about believing irrespective of how well grounded the belief is, and maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to it.

Click to expand...

Suppose we take Loudmouth's four sources for definitions of faith. I would argue that each definition of each source bears on religious faith. But none of the 14 definitions include your claim of "maintaining belief even if the preponderance of evidence stands opposed to it." The closest we would find is "belief in the absence of proof," which, I might add, is equally true of scientific faith.

This is why religious faith inexorably tends toward dogma.

Click to expand...

The reason religious faith tends towards dogma is because the reasons for belief point toward infallibility. If God has revealed something, then it must be true.

This exercise of 'faith' is different from the 'faith' you have in a scientific article, which is based on the authors' and reviewers' demonstrable expertise in the field of study,

Click to expand...

This is the same as religious faith. God is the ultimate expert. Faith is based on the expertise of the author. That is true for both religious and scientific faith.

as well as the scientific process itself, which is designed to detect and remedy errors at every stage.

Click to expand...

The process which the scientific author is thought to have abided by approaches infallibility and the eradication of error, thus the belief is thought to be reliable. Similarly, the process by which God arrives at his conclusions is infallible, thus the belief is reliable. This is true for both religious and scientific faith.

So 1) religious faith is not defined as something contrary to evidence, 2) both scientific and religious faith are based on expertise of author, and 3) both scientific and religious faith are based on accuracy of author's method. Thus none of the reasons you give to separate scientific and religious faith hold water.

Let's look at the dictionary definitions. There are three general definitions of faith:

1. Confidence or trust in a person
2. A firm belief in something without proof
3. A strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

Now 1 & 2 hold equally of scientific and religious faith. The only difference comes in 3. Note first that when 2/3 of the definitions apply equally to religious and scientific faith, the charge of equivocation is clearly false. But what about the third definition? What it is describing is an act on the part of God to aid the believer in the leap of faith. It is, in a certain way, the extra credentials of the Author. But this does not contradict scientific faith, which is also concerned with credentials, albeit by way of natural means. It constitutes something extra religious faith has that scientific faith does not have, but this does not radically alter the definitions. Religious faith is natural faith + divine assistance to believe. The general definition of natural faith applies equally well to religious faith, but there is an added element.

And to be clear, the second definition is true of science. If proof of the proposition were at hand, the act of faith would not be necessary. Faith is belief absent proof in religion and in science. There is a difference insofar as it is in principle possible to verify scientific testimony taken on faith, but this is too remote to bear on the definition itself (as the dictionary entries show).

To reiterate, faith is essentially the same in religion and in science. It is trust or confidence in an authority, and in the claims that the authority presents. It is a belief that is not based on proof, but rather in the expertise, method, and general authority of the person making the claims. In religion God is able to give a spiritual assurance to the believer to aid his assent, but this does not change anything previously said. Faith is still trust in an authority and the claims he is making. It is patently false to claim that religious and scientific faith are equivocal.

Archaeopteryx said:

First, I agree with @Loudmouth: you are conflating multiple senses of the word 'faith' — an equivocation fallacy.

Click to expand...

Finally, I will dispel the charge which both you and Loudmouth make, that I have committed a fallacy of equivocation. This fallacy is committed when one uses the same term in two different ways in their argument. You claim that I have done so with faith.

But this is most obviously false. I define faith itself in my post: "Faith is belief in some proposition because an authority has testified to it." I then proceed to use the word faith to describe both believers and scientists. Scientists and believers both believe certain propositions because authorities have testified to them. My usage in both instances is precisely the same, and is precisely what I defined faith to be.

What lies behind these blatantly false charges of a fallacy of equivocation? Either 1) a dislike of applying the word "faith" to science, or 2) a belief that my definition of faith was erroneous. The first possibility is just silliness, and the second has nothing to do with a fallacy of equivocation. The fact that you don't like my definition doesn't mean I have equivocated.