Theology and Falsifiability

[Archaeopteryx]

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.

Regrettably, I don't have the time to address everything, but I think this is perhaps the most important part of what you've written because it at least somewhat touches on the issue I described earlier. This "added element" you are talking about is presumably divine or supernatural authority — the divine being the very thing whose existence is in question, with divine authority therefore being something that all religions invoke for justification, but with no religion able to show that it possesses any such authority. (That's just another way of framing the issue I described in my first post. The Church, like every other religion, appeals to an authority that it cannot show it genuinely possesses.)

 

[zippy2006]

I'm not quite back. I occasionally post news or comments that I think would be well-received here.

A slow return then.

Loudmouth's definition is consistent with dictionary usage, which reflects the common use of the word.

I'm afraid your faith in Loudmouth is ill-placed. He provided 14 web definitions of faith, and then gave his own version, "In the context of religion, faith is a belief held in the absence of evidence. In the context of science, there is evidence." Unfortunately nowhere in those 14 definitions is the word "evidence" written at all. Neither is there a distinction made between science and religion. Perhaps Loudmouth simply doesn't understand the difference between evidence and proof, or perhaps he didn't even bother to read the 14 definitions.

So no, his definition is not consistent with dictionary usage. It demonstrably isn't.

As I see it, the issue I described in my earlier post is the central issue. I don't think adding 'authority' into the discussion fundamentally changes anything but the words used to describe that issue. All religious sects claim divine authority as the basis for their theologies. Collectively, however, they have failed to establish that any one of them possesses such authority, which is why 'faith' in the religious sense is defined the way it is.

Fine, we can avoid the word "authority" if you like. Faith is believing something because someone you trust has testified to it. In the religious sense, that person is God. Faith is believing something because God has testified to it.

Now there is a slight variance in different Christian denominations as to what has been definitively revealed. I'm guessing this constitutes much less than 5% of the total beliefs of Christians. You blow it out of proportion. That said, scientists aren't all in agreement either. The fact that not everyone agrees 100% does not say much at all, in my opinion. And what does this have to do with the definition of faith?

Adding the word "authority" to it does nothing to change the nature of the issue I described earlier. The Church ostensibly draws its authority from the divine — same as every other religion. (This is why I again alluded to our prior discussion on 'legitimate expertise' — or 'legitimate authority' if you prefer — and how it is attained and recognised.)

Legitimate authority? God -> Jesus -> Apostles -> Bishops, and in a special way the bishops of the See of Rome, following St. Peter. That is how authority works in Catholicism.

It would be more appropriate to say that the Catholic Church has existed for only 2000 years, with an emphasis on the 'only'. It represents a fraction of the religious belief systems that have existed throughout human history. I don't see why we should privilege Catholicism here.

It represents a very large fraction, and it is my own creed, which is why I reference it. Atheism represents an astronomically smaller fraction of beliefs that have existed throughout human history, but I'm not faulting you for arguing from your own shoes.

Other religions also have "official teachers" who use specific criteria (their own scriptures and traditions), engage in forums for the resolution of questions, and produce documents detailing their findings. Like the Pope and bishops, they too claim a divine mandate.

So if you want to know how issues are resolved in a different religion, you can ask them. You asked me and I told you.

I disagree. It seems clear that, within theology, there is little agreement on even the basic questions,

Provide evidence. Such as?

not to mention the methods and results that would actually resolve this.

Provide evidence.

To reiterate: the word we use for "faith" does not affect my argument whatsoever, Christians believe dogmas because they believe God has revealed them, a difference of opinion in science or religion does not undermine the two disciplines, there are rigorous methods for resolving disputes in Catholicism (contrary to your claim), and there is no a priori reason to believe that religion does not give us greater insight into the world.

 

[zippy2006]

To be honest, your post doesn't make much sense to me. Let's see...

Regrettably, I don't have the time to address everything, but I think this is perhaps the most important part of what you've written because it at least somewhat touches on the issue I described earlier. This "added element" you are talking about is presumably divine or supernatural authority...

No, the added element is "an act on the part of God to aid the believer in the leap of faith."

— the divine being the very thing whose existence is in question,

No, God's existence is not in question. That is not at all what I meant.

with divine authority therefore being something that all religions invoke for justification, but with no religion able to show that it possesses any such authority.

Well, says you. I'll use U.S. statistics to make it simpler. Atheists (3.1% of the population) believe that no religion is able to show that it possesses any such authority. Catholics (22% of the population) believe that Catholicism is able to show that it possesses such authority.

(That's just another way of framing the issue I described in my first post. The Church, like every other religion, appeals to an authority that it cannot show it genuinely possesses.)

Believe it or not, I'd say that the majority of those who honestly approach the question of religion from an objective angle will enter the Catholic Church (or perhaps one of its Orthodox cousins). ...at the very least, Christianity, and as I already noted, your highlighting of the differences between Christians is much exaggerated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, the added element is "an act on the part of God to aid the believer in the leap of faith."

Exactly. The added element is something supernatural; something whose very existence is in question, yet the basis for the appeal to authority.

No, God's existence is not in question. That is not at all what I meant.

In appealing to authority it helps to first establish that the source of authority (1) actually exists and (2) genuinely possesses authority.

Well, says you. I'll use U.S. statistics to make it simpler. Atheists (3.1% of the population) believe that no religion is able to show that it possesses any such authority. Catholics (22% of the population) believe that Catholicism is able to show that it possesses such authority.

I'm not sure what the statistics are supposed to show, other than that a sizeable fraction of the population shares your theological commitments. Whether those commitments are justified however...

Believe it or not, I'd say that the majority of those who honestly approach the question of religion from an objective angle will enter the Catholic Church (or perhaps one of its Orthodox cousins). ...at the very least, Christianity, and as I already noted, your highlighting of the differences between Christians is much exaggerated.

Perhaps, or perhaps they'd abandon religion altogether, just as I did.

Fine, we can avoid the word "authority" if you like. Faith is believing something because someone you trust has testified to it. In the religious sense, that person is God. Faith is believing something because God has testified to it.

This doesn't directly address the issue I raised, though it certainly touches on it. There are many claims about what God has allegedly testified to and what he wills.

Now there is a slight variance in different Christian denominations as to what has been definitively revealed. I'm guessing this constitutes much less than 5% of the total beliefs of Christians. You blow it out of proportion.

I don't think I'm blowing it out of proportion given that, historically, wars have been fought over these "slight variances," and those accused of blasphemy or heresy were violently silenced. In many places, they still are.

Legitimate authority? God -> Jesus -> Apostles -> Bishops, and in a special way the bishops of the See of Rome, following St. Peter. That is how authority works in Catholicism.

And? What significance does this have outside Catholicism? Hopefully you see why I raised the issue I did, and why I said that it should give all religionists pause.

It represents a very large fraction, and it is my own creed, which is why I reference it. Atheism represents an astronomically smaller fraction of beliefs that have existed throughout human history, but I'm not faulting you for arguing from your own shoes.

I'm not sure what relevance the size of the fraction has. The issue I'm talking about affects all religious belief systems.

 

[Michael]

Regrettably, I don't have the time to address everything, but I think this is perhaps the most important part of what you've written because it at least somewhat touches on the issue I described earlier. This "added element" you are talking about is presumably divine or supernatural authority — the divine being the very thing whose existence is in question, with divine authority therefore being something that all religions invoke for justification, but with no religion able to show that it possesses any such authority. (That's just another way of framing the issue I described in my first post. The Church, like every other religion, appeals to an authority that it cannot show it genuinely possesses.)

Science sometimes does exactly the same thing, and scientists sometimes have exactly the same problem demonstrating that they genuinely posses any actual "expertise".

SUSY theorists claimed to be "experts" on that particular theory, but alas every "prediction" they made with that theory blew up in their fact at LHC and not single "sparticle" was observed.

The entirely *basis* of the "dark matter" claim has since been shown to be flawed, and every "lab test" has been a complete disaster. How do they then demonstrate any "expertise" in these hypothetical constructs?

The claim "space expansion causes photon redshift" begins and ends as an "act of faith" in a process that *never* occurs in nature on Earth. There's no way to verify or falsify that claim in controlled experimentation, so it must forever remain an "act of faith" on the part of the believer. How can I be sure they are actually "authorities" on a hypothetical construct, particularly after their dismal laboratory track record over the past decade?

 

[Michael]

Exactly. The added element is something supernatural; something whose very existence is in question, yet the basis for the appeal to authority.

The same criticism applies to "space expansion" claims, and exotic matter claims. The added elements are "supernatural" in that they *never* show up in the lab, and the existence itself is "questionable" since the cause/effect claims defy empirical verification and they lack a falsification mechanism.

I'm not sure I follow. Atheists aren't the ones appealing to the divine as an authority. I'm not sure what the statistics is supposed to show.

They typically do appeal to "scientists" as an "authority" on hypothetical entities however. Same difference, particularly as it relates to *hypothetical* entities, and especially ones that defy empirical laboratory falsification.

 

[zippy2006]

Exactly. The added element is something supernatural; something whose very existence is in question, yet the basis for the appeal to authority.

Why do you think its very existence (or possibility) is in question? In fact you might just want to explain the entirety of your main sentence here.

I'm not sure I follow. Atheists aren't the ones appealing to the divine as an authority. I'm not sure what the statistics is supposed to show.

When you say, "no religion is able to show that it possesses any such authority," you are making an assertion absent argument. At best this is a personal conclusion you have reached. I am illustrating the insignificance of such assertion. 19% more of the population has come to a different conclusion. Why should we privilege your assertion or conclusion over theirs?

 

[Michael]

No faith in science — Slate

Well, that article missed a few points, and it utterly ignored the difference between *hypothetical* entities, and empirical physics. For instance:

What about the public and other scientists’ respect for authority? Isn’t that a kind of faith? Not really. When Richard Dawkins talks or writes about evolution, or Lisa Randall about physics, scientists in other fields—and the public—have confidence that they’re right. But that, too, is based on the doubt and criticism inherent in science (but not religion): the understanding that their expertise has been continuously vetted by other biologists or physicists. In contrast, a priest’s claims about God are no more demonstrable than anyone else’s. We know no more now about the divine than we did 1,000 years ago.

Priest's are typically "vetted" in the sense that they are expected to agree with the majority opinions of other priests, not unlike astronomers 'vet' claims like space expansion or exotic matter. The fact they all "agree" doesn't make up for their lack of empirical laboratory justification as to the actual "cause/effect" mechanism being proposed.

Nobody can demonstrate the claim: "Space expansion causes photon redshift". That claim cannot be falsified or verified by any known empirical lab test, or any conceivable future laboratory test. It's a pure act of faith in the unseen, in the lab.

Likewise, despite all the 'vetting' done about "dark matter", nothing was found at LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc which would even *hint* at exotic forms of matter, let alone ones that would "fit the bill" for "dark matter" (longevity/invisibility/ect).

 

[variant]

I disagree. It seems clear that, within theology, there is little agreement on even the basic questions, not to mention the methods and results that would actually resolve this. Perhaps the difficulty ultimately lies in the dubious ontological status of the supernatural constructs on which theology fundamentally depends.

The inability to resolve theological questions permeates society, and arises from the inability to tell what it looks like when an answer to a theological question is incorrect.

An appeal to an authority that can't be demonstrated to those who disagree with you only convinces those already convinced and/or the gullible.

Authority is established the same way as anything else, via demonstration. When God is in evidence, theology will be reasonable.

Without such demonstration, arguments in theology are a shooting match decided by blanks.

 

[Michael]

The inability to resolve theological questions permeates society, and arises from the inability to tell what it looks like when an answer to a theological question is incorrect.

I'd say the same criticism applies to all hypothetical elements of science. A lack of a clear falsification method is always problematic. It hasn't stopped "science" from presenting or exploring such ideas.

An appeal to an authority that can't be demonstrated to those who disagree with you only convinces those already convinced and or the gullible.

Agreed.

Authority established the same way as anything else, via demonstration.

Not in the realm of theoretical physics however. In that case there's no empirical evidence that *anyone* has any real "authority" as it relates to *hypothetical* entities. That's why such beliefs are an "act of faith", and appeals to authority are pointless.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Why do you think its very existence (or possibility) is in question? In fact you might just want to explain the entirety of your main sentence here.

When you say, "no religion is able to show that it possesses any such authority," you are making an assertion absent argument. At best this is a personal conclusion you have reached. I am illustrating the insignificance of such assertion. 19% more of the population has come to a different conclusion. Why should we privilege your assertion or conclusion over theirs?

The question seems to be why I'm not convinced that a god exists. I'm not convinced because, in my assessment, the case in favour of theism is not strong enough to justify its acceptance.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is worthy of belief because it is revealed by God, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

Why believe that it was revealed by God?

 

[Loudmouth]

Lots of things are based on appeal to authority. Most of your scientific knowledge is probably second-hand, faith-based, authority-driven.

Data derived from experiments is not faith based. All you have is the continued use of a false equivalency.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

That's flat out false. With science you do have evidence.

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.

The ones claiming that God has revealed something are fallible.

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.

The authors are humans, not gods.

Similarly, the process by which God arrives at his conclusions is infallible, thus the belief is reliable.

This is a claim made by a fallible human. Therefore, it is fallible.

2) both scientific and religious faith are based on expertise of author,

Science is based on empirical observations. Your claims are false.

3) both scientific and religious faith are based on accuracy of author's method.

The religious method appears to be, "God told me, so that settles it".

How does this guarantee accuracy? There are many people claiming that other gods talked to them, and I doubt you will accept their words as accurate.

If you can't even see the obvious fact that science is based on empirical evidence, then nothing you say is trustworthy.

 

[zippy2006]

The question seems to be why I'm not convinced that a god exists. I'm not convinced because, in my assessment, the case in favour of theism is not strong enough to justify its acceptance.

No, the question is why its existence would be in question for a believer. When we talk about whether theology is a rational discipline, we are talking about things from the perspective of (believing) theologians, not atheists. The fact that you don't believe in God doesn't entail that theology is irrational. Like I already said, if we were concerned only with individual opinions, your vote would lose.

Furthermore, how do your claims about "legitimate expertise" impact the OP? Does it have anything to do with Fcf? And if not, what separate conclusion, apart from the OP, are you attempting to argue for?

This brings me to an interesting question: do you hold that there is any standard of rationality with which to measure theology, that is not simply "Convince Archaeopteryx that Christianity is true"? What I did in the OP is establish a standard of rationality and then argue that theology fulfills it. What you characteristically did is argue that since Christianity has not convinced you, or has not convinced all people of the world, it is somehow illegitimate. Again, I don't know what your argument has to do with the OP, but do you accept any standard of rationality with which we can measure theology that is not simply "Convincing Arch," or "Convincing the entire world"? Surely something could fall short of these things and still be rational?

 

[Michael]

That's flat out false. With science you do have evidence.

No you don't always have empirical cause/effect evidence. In science you often have "uncontrolled observation" and *faith* in some subjective "interpretation" and even the concept of "evidence" ends up being a "statement of faith".

Your "faith" in 'space expansion" for instance cannot be demonstrated empirically nor falsified empirically in a lab in a controlled experiment. Many *natural* explanations for photon redshift have been documented in the lab.

You therefore don't have any real "evidence" to support your faith in "space expansion", just evidence of photon redshift over distance.

Your "faith" in space expansion is ultimately an appeal to authority fallacy. Someone "told" you that space expansion is a possible "cause" of photon redshift. They didn't *demonstrate* it empirically for you however. You can't replicate it in a lab. You can't falsify that belief in a lab either!

The ones claiming that God has revealed something are fallible.

Ya, but I can't falsify your "space expansion did it" claim because *many* potential other plausible options exist to explain photon redshift.

This is a claim made by a fallible human. Therefore, it is fallible.

Including your astronomy authority figures when they blew smoke at you about "space expansion" having some effect on a photon.

Science is based on empirical observations. Your claims are false.

Observations are always open to subjective *interpretation* however, just like your 'space expansion' genie.

The religious method appears to be, "God told me, so that settles it".

The scientific method in astronomy seems to be "We told you so, that settles it". No falsification mechanism could *ever* falsify that monstrosity.

If you can't even see the obvious fact that science is based on empirical evidence, then nothing you say is trustworthy.

Likewise if you can't see the obvious fact that science requires *subjective interpretation* of observation, then nothing you say is trustworthy either.

 

[Michael]

Data derived from experiments is not faith based.

Often times however the *interpretation* of that data is based on faith, just like you have "Faith" that space expansion is somehow related to some distant observation.

All you have is the continued use of a false equivalency.

You mean like you use "Doppler Shift" (moving objects) to try to justify your faith in "space expansion"?

 

[Michael]

The question seems to be why I'm not convinced that a god exists. I'm not convinced because, in my assessment, the case in favour of theism is not strong enough to justify its acceptance.

As long as you recognize that is a subjective choice on your part, it sounds like a defensible position to me.

 

[Michael]

Exactly. The added element is something supernatural; something whose very existence is in question, yet the basis for the appeal to authority.

That's also true of space expansion, inflation, dark energy and dark matter. They all end up being appeals to authority.

In appealing to authority it helps to first establish that the source of authority (1) actually exists and (2) genuinely possesses authority.

That's pretty tough to do in astronomy too, particularly after all the negative results from LHC, LUX, PandaX, etc, not to mention all the failed observational "tests" of dark matter over the past decade.

They seem to only be "experts" at inventing new supernatural agents, and quite lacking in any ability to make a useful "prediction" using such agents.

 

[Loudmouth]

Like I already said, if we were concerned only with individual opinions, your vote would lose.

Personal opinion is all there is when it comes to religious faith. You are of the opinion that theologians are right in the absence of any evidence to support it. You are of the opinion that God inspired the Bible, without any evidence to support it.

Furthermore, how do your claims about "legitimate expertise" impact the OP? Does it have anything to do with Fcf? And if not, what separate conclusion, apart from the OP, are you attempting to argue for?

It would seem that someone can become an expert theologian by simply asserting that a deity talked to them with a voice that only exists in their head.