quote:The essential difference is that the scientific method requires replicable evidence.
Actually those who created the scientific method require replicable evidence, but is there evidence that the scientific method does yield true knowledge about the natural world?
Years ago using the scientific method, scientists come up with a fact about the natural world.
Years later using the scientific method, scientists show that that fact was wrong and give us a new fact.
Does the scientific method really give us true knowledge of the natural world or just confirm or prove false the questions that we pose?
From a peon standpoint, without proof, we trust that the scientists are asking the right questions with our well being in mind. Is it reasonable to continue to trust a group that has provided knowledge that helps to destroy our environment and our health? Do we continue to trust because we feel the pros outweigh the cons, although we have no proof that the pros do outweigh the cons; or do we trust because we have become conditioned to trust what scientists proclaim, just as those raised in a religous setting have been conditioned to trust what religion proclaims?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:Science assumes that there is true knowledge of the natural world to be had. It then seeks to ask the right questions to understand, explain, model, predict and to some extent control that natural world.
People assume that there is true knowledge of the natural world to be had. People seek to understand, explain, etc.
So is there evidence that the scientific method that people use does yield true knowledge about the natural world?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:The scientific method gives us increasingly accurate knowledge of the natural world: can you really doubt that discovering that the earth revolves around the sun rather than vice versa is not true knowledge? Or learning that ripping out a captive's heart will not improve the weather?
Agreed, but the method is only as good as the observation. If the observation is flawed or limited, then the answer will be flawed or limited.
So scientists still have faith in the system even though it allows for wrong answers. Of course they don't usually know the answer is wrong until later like the stomach ulcers.
Understanding that the earth revolved around the sun depended on what was being observed. Different cultures observed the world differently.
Now reason tells us that our observations can be flawed and experiments are limited by our observations, desire, and capabilities; but we still have faith in the system.
quote:I don't think we have become "conditioned" to accept what scientists proclaim: I don't think scientists proclaim. At least in the industrialized world, our educational systems offer us the knowledge required to establish lower or higher degrees of confidence in scientific data.
The average person is far removed from the original scientific data. The average person has to deal with the decisions made by others based on that data. (Medical, food supply, etc.) As you've shown, while the surgery saved your father's life and was the right course of action based on the data at the time; the data at the time wasn't correct.
Although the spiral bacteria, Helicobacter pylori, that is considered the cause of the ulcers was probably discovered in 1875, but capabilities limited observation.
In 1875, German scientists found spiral bacteria in the lining of the human stomach; the bacteria could not be grown in culture and the results were eventually forgotten.
I'm not saying that data achieved by using the scientific method is always right or always wrong. What I'm saying is that we have faith in the system even though we know it can allow wrong data to prevail.
IMO, the average person has become conditioned to accept that scientists find the right answers. That's why people get distressed when scientists in the media contradict each other. (The same way people get distressed when preachers contradict each other.) The average person usually doesn't have the means to determine who is right.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
By that definition, is belief in the scientific methods ability to elucidate the truth considered a form of faith? If not, why?
If it is, is it a more "reasonable" faith. Can faith be categorized in degrees of reasonableness? For instance, is a faith in Santa Clause less reasonable than a belief in a creator? Is a faith that our perceptions give us a more or less accurate picture of the world a more reasonable type of faith than a belief in a creator?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:Faith, in particular, explicitly rejects systematic, independent review and correction.
No, faith per the definition does not. Since there are people of faith who are scientists, that isn't a completely true statement. Specific beliefs systems may, but faith in general doesn't.
quote:I'd say that we have confidence that scientific methodology is the approach most likely to yield useful approximations.
That's faith.
quote:And I don't see how one could consider the current outlook on science in the U.S. and conclude that the average person has unquestioning "faith" in science; indeed, there seems to be a greal deal of skepticism.
I didn't say unquestioning and neither did the OP. The medical realm is starting to lose its shine, but I think money and politics have caused most of that problem.
quote:The essence of faith, in contrast, is static, unchanged from the tribal time of animal sacrifice and public stonings.
No it isn't. A belief system may be and someone who has faith in that belief system maybe, but the essence of faith isn't. Even the meaning of the word has changed from ancient times. Faith-Belief
The theological usage has only been around since the 1300's. So how can the essence of "faith" be static, unchanged etc., when the meaning we are using in this discussion supposedly wasn't how the word was used in those times?
quote:A hometown fan may have faith that their team (which is 0 and 30 again this year) will win their final game; the rational observer who notes that their opponent is 30 and 0 will reach the contrary conclusion, and it is absurd to call both perspectives "faith."
The one fan had faith in his team, the other one didn't use the scientific method so I don't see your point. He made an observation, but didn't run any experiments for others to replicate.
quote:I'd also suggest that this is not an unreasonable position: the track record of the scientific method justifies a greater confidence in its results than the results of religious dogma, folklore, or other mystification.
Agreed, I'm not saying it is unreasonable. Faith doesn't have to be unreasonable.
quote:The average person is capable of reasonable conclusions about scientific hypotheses: when need awakens the will, reason rises to the challenge. Most people are persuaded by a powerful track record to rely on a general scientific consensus, an outlook that is neither conditioned nor faithful but rather experienced and confident.
It is still faith. People can find a powerful track record in religion also. Obviously not for understanding the natural world, but for spiritual needs. My observations concerning the average person are obviously different.
Sure we're conditioned to trust science. When the need awakens what do they look at? Scientific data. We've grown up with it. Why do you think the media touts scientific studies to promote something. We have faith in science.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:What definition of faith allows for independent review and correction? When does faith consider any verifiable/falsifiable evidence? We have been speaking of scientific methodology and religious faith:
No the OP, as I understand it, is talking about faith in something.
OP writes:
"It is true that I may have faith in the Bible (God, church, etc.), but everyone has to have faith in something. For instance, you have faith in the scientific method (or empiricism, tentative knowledge, etc.).
In Message 9 RAZD gave a nice list of the definitions of the word faith with the comment that the thread is discussing #2.
Not #4, #5, or #6.
Again I'm not saying it is all or nothing. Many people have faith in the scientific method because of evidence, others have faith in science because it is what they are used to. Most people don't even know what the scientific method entails. I didn't until I heard it on this site and looked it up.
The same with religion. Some people have faith in a religion due to evidence based on personal results, others have been raised in the religion and have faith because it is what they are used to.
People can also have faith in certain aspects of their religion and not have faith in other aspects, the same with science.
quote:My depiction of faith as static and unchanged focuses on the contrast between science and religious faith: no matter how many theologians you get to dance on their pens, faith denies the primacy of evidence and reason. In that regard, faith has remained unchanged since the first hapless victim was sacrificed to a god.
I understand that which is why I said: No it isn't. A belief system may be and someone who has faith in that belief system maybe, but the essence of faith isn't. Even the meaning of the word has changed from ancient times.
The theological usage has only been around since the 1300's. So how can the essence of "faith" be static, unchanged etc., when the meaning we are using in this discussion supposedly wasn't how the word was used in those times?
So that you understand I am not and neither is the OP.
quote:No, the former wasn't doing formal science, but he was using evidence and reason, not faith, to make a more accurate prediction of the likely outcome.
Actually the fan wasn't exercising faith as in definition #2 which is what the OP is dealing with, but with definition #3. So neither one really falls into this discussion. People have always used observation, evidence, and reason before the current scientific method evolved. You said in Message 5:
The essential difference is that the scientific method requires replicable evidence.
quote:What was the process of this conditioning? Since reinforcement is the essence of conditioning, tell me what rewards conditioned people to trust science? What punishments prevented their questioning of it? My reply, again (and again and again, as many times as you equivocate faith without evidence and confidence with evidence), is that we have been rewarded with the successes of science, with the material gains in quality of life, and those who reject the towering achievement of human intellect are punished with the consequences of their choice. Nothing more is necessary.
You pretty much answered your own question. Again you have an all or nothing tone which is not what I'm saying. BTW, you don't have to have evidence to have confidence in something either.
Quality of life has gained in some areas, but lost in other areas. Technology has brought its own problems to our quality of life.
Those on the fringe who question mainstream science in whatever area aren't always greeted with open arms.
You also said in Message 5 that: Also, science requires the perpetually open mind, the willingness to examine and accept valid falsifying evidence.
After their Kitty Hawk success, The Wrights flew their machine in open fields next to a busy rail line in Dayton Ohio for almost an entire year. American authorities refused to come to the demos, and Scientific American Magazine published stories about "The Lying Brothers." Even the local Dayton newspapers never sent a reporter (but they did complain about all the letters they were receiving from local "crazies" who reported the many flights.) Finally the Wrights packed up and moved to Europe, where they caused an overnight sensation and sold aircraft contracts to France, Germany, Britain, etc.
Warren and his team at Princeton tracked down a Magnetic Resonance anomaly and found a new facet to MRI theory: spin interactions between distant molecules, including deterministic Chaos effects. Colleagues knew he was wrong, and warned him that his crazy results were endangering his career. Princeton held a "roast", a mean-spirited bogus presentation mocking his work. Warren then began encountering funding cancellations. After approx. seven years, the tide of ridicule turned and Warren was vindicated. His discoveries are even leading to new MRI techniques. See: SCIENCE NEWS, Jan 20 2001, V159 N3, "spin Control" (cover story)
The scientific world is not always as open minded as some would believe.
Sometimes the consequences (depending on what you are rejecting) are being separated from the community or losing jobs. Survival is a very strong motivator.
quote:Faith is not rational. You can repeat your equivocation of faith and confidence all you like, but it will not change the fact that they differ. My grandson had faith that Santa would bring him a Blue Mater truck; I had confidence that I could get one somewhere in time for the holiday. Those are neither equivalent states of mind nor equally efficacious ways of garnering accurate info about the world.
Interesting. You strengthened your grandson's belief in Santa unless, or course, you let him know the toy was from you. If the Mater truck was presented as a gift from Santa, then that confirms his belief. He will replicate asking Santa for a gift each year and if he receives that gift from "Santa" then it confirms his faith. He doesn't know he is working with false information. Once he learns that Santa is not the one bringing the gift his focus of faith will change. So his faith really is based on evidence. He just doesn't know that adults control what he observes.
The word faith as per the OP has nothing to do with acquiring information concerning the natural world neither does the word confidence. They are different ways of saying trust. Again, not talking about religion.
If you can't separate a Faith as in religion from having faith in something, then our discussion probably won't progress.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
For some reason on this board when people say the word faith, they automatically jump to the definition that denotes a belief in God or the doctrines of a religion, a faith.
The definition you provided is not that definition. The definition you provided was belief not based on proof. Example: to accept a statement on faith. This definition is not indicative of a belief in a God or religion. We can accept what we read in the Bible on faith, we can accept scientific statements on faith, etc. This odd definition may have developed out of slang usage of the word faith (trust, confidence) by clergy when they asked people to trust doctrines that were not logical or clearly backed up by Scripture. They asked them to trust with no proof. Simply put, faith is trust.
Now the way the word faith was used in the counter argument and your question also doesn't fall under your definition. Your usage falls under the first definition in Message 9. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
By that definition, is belief in the scientific methods ability to elucidate the truth considered a form of faith? If not, why?
So by your original usage in the sentence, faith (confident belief...) in the scientific method is not a form of faith (belief in God or the doctrines of a religion).
I think we do have different levels of trust, and we definitely have several meanings for the word faith today so we need to be aware of how we are using the word.
According to the etymology of the words faith and belief, the uses of the words with respect to religion have changed places over time.
Belief used to mean "trust in God," while faith meant "loyalty to a person based on promise or duty" (a sense preserved in keep one's faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of L. fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to "mental acceptance of something as true," from the religious use in the sense of "things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine" (c.1225).
Today we have several meanings for the word faith as shown in Message 9.
So really the problem with the counter argument you provided is that it isn't addressing the real criticism.
"It is true that I may have faith in the Bible (God, church, etc.), but everyone has to have faith in something. For instance, you have faith in the scientific method (or empiricism, tentative knowledge, etc.). So pointing out that I have faith is not a criticism, since you are guilty of the same crime"
Unfortunately I don't know how the original argument is worded, but my guess is that the criticism is aimed at what the person has faith in. If not, it should be.
People don't always need concrete proof to trust, but then people also have different ideas of what they will accept as proof.
Some have faith in the scientific method and won't accept anything else depending on the situation, others will rely on feelings or experiences for verification, again depending on the situation. Sometimes people put their trust in the individual giving them the information as opposed to looking for evidence to trust.
Right now the only thing that makes something a faith is belief in God or the doctrines of a religion.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:That is the question we're trying to elucidate. Is there an equivocation of terms in the counterargument? You are asserting that there is without argument.
Yes, IMO the way the sentence is worded it isn't really saying anything of consequence, but manages to avoid the issue.
quote:The question is, when going deep enough into our logic and reasoning is there a point where we have to accept something on faith, as defined by my definition?
I don't think so. I think we always have something to base our trust on, whether knowledge, experience, feelings, etc.
quote:Another is do we have faith an absolute truth about the world.
I'm not sure what you are saying in this sentence.
quote:Saying that we are just "confident" about these seems unjustifiable until I see why you are confident about them.
Unfortuantely that's all that the word faith really means.
quote:One thing that might come up is that a religious person's faith might be "without regard to reason," but also "in spite of counterevidence." This type of argument may work against most or all of their claims, but when they necessarily define their faith so it cannot be attacked by counterevidence, is that faith still less reasonable than our faith in logic (supposing, of course, that you accept that logic might be considered a form of faith).
I would not consider logic to be a form of faith (religion). I don't think faith (trust) in a religion is truly without reason. When our reasons are internally motivated whether concerning a religion or anything else we choose to do in life, we don't always have the best defense when confronted with opposition. Religion is very personal and people don't like their personal choices attacked.
quote:To reiterate, is there a point where us secularists have to accept something purely on faith?
As I said in the other post, I think the concept of believing without regard to reason or proof was a concept born out of clergy trying to get people to trust doctrines that weren't logical or clearly backed up by scripture. They asked them to trust with no proof. They made it something it wasn't. IMO, even the Biblical use of the word faith (trust) did not require trust without reason.
We may have to accept that we don't know everything, but no one can make us trust in something.
There are probably instances in everyone's life where they trusted in something or someone without regard to reason concerning that thing or person, but the reason was based on someone they trusted. Our children trust in Santa Clause because parents teach them to. Since most children trust their parents, they trust what their parents tell them.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
Some of the problem is the way you are using the words. Faith and reason have various meanings depending on how you use them.
The definition of faith you want to use is "belief without regard to reason". RAZD's definition of what you are tyring to say is better since it gets rid of the use of the word reason. (Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.) This definition is also better since it better represents the origin of this usage.
The definition of reason you want to use is "deductive, inductive, or the empirical", which really isn't a definition of reason, but are forms of reasoning. Reason: power or faculty to think logically, draw conclusions, or make inferences.
Logic is essentially sound thinking.
So when we look back to theology when this meaning of faith (belief without proof) took hold, people were asked to believe what they were told by the clergy on faith. They were told this because they were being asked to believe something that couldn't be substantiated in the Bible or otherwise. So they were either being asked to trust based on God's authority or the clergy's authority.
IMO, this bottoming out you are concerned about has nothing to do with the definition of faith (belief without proof) you are presenting or trust in general. The usage was created to stop people from questioning the clergy. They didn't want to try and justify their statements.
To me it is more like advertising. Using an authority figure, superstar, name, etc. to promote a product. They want people to trust the person or name and not to really look closely at the product.
Can you give a more specific example of the secular dilemma you envision?
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
quote:But do we accept things on faith. For example, do we accept logic based on faith?
Yes, there are times in life that we accept things on faith (belief without logical or material evidence), but it isn't necessarily blind faith (trust) as you seem to be implying.
If we accept a statement on faith (belief w/o evidence), we are trusting the statement because of the authority or confidence in who presented the statement. Our children trust us daily without evidence.
So in your statement that religious people accept dogma based on faith (religion or trust) should read that they accept dogma on faith (belief w/o evidence). (Yes it matters how you use the word.)
Do we accept logic on faith (belief w/o evidence)? Depends on whether you are talking about the science of correct reasoning or just sound thinking. What are we supposedly accepting?
Sound thinking or correct reasoning are part of being human, there isn't anything to accept. We do judge whether we think someone else is thinking correctly and that is usually based on some sort of evidence whether physical or emotional.
Now do we accept the science of correct reasoning on faith? Again it would depend on what you feel we are supposedly accepting.
Who has the authority to say what is logical and what isn't?
I know I seem picky about how words are used, but many misunderstandings occur when words are used haphazardly and people have different ideas of what is being said. Because of the various meanings behind the words you are using, you need to be specific and not assume everyone is on the same page.
"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz
™ Version 4.2
