DescentBB

Bettina wrote:And I just hope in the year 2006 I don't hear the words "Faith" and "Science" in the same sentence.

Aiming to maximally annoy Bettina ( ), I thought I'd start a thread about science and faith.

What is the essence of science? And what's the essence of faith? And how do they relate to each other?

My own thoughts:

I've seen a lot of definitions for science, and I think actually the best is the one I got in 7th grade. Science is a method--observation, deduction, hypothesis, and experiment. Lather, rinse and repeat. It's a good basis for universal knowledge on topics where the underlying principle "what has always happened will continue to happen" is warranted.

Science is one of several valid tools for obtaining knowledge. I can think of a couple others: logic, intuition, and revelation. Some quick definitions: By logic, I mean valid deductions or strong inductions from other known facts. By intuition, I mean instinctive or subconscious thought processes which you can't examine because they aren't available to you; feelings. By revelation, I mean learning information from an authoritative source.

My approach to knowledge is a "toolkit" approach: use the right tool for the topic or problem. Different subjects yield to different tools for different reasons.

Science yields probabilistically reasonable knowledge and works best on unchanging systems of universal laws which can be approached bit-by-bit through decoupled experiments. Physics is ideal for science because the elements and fundamental equations are (by and large) simple and unchanging, and the exceptions can be found bit by bit. Sociology is less ideal because people are capricious, complex, and changeable--so your conclusions through scientific study come out shaky and uncertaion. Mathematics is bad to study through science because although its laws are unchanging, its nature is so complex and infinite you can't really learn anything interesting through experiment. An equation might very well work a thousand times and fail everywhere else--math is like that. Human relationships are categorically bad to study through science as they fail in every category: they are complex, unpredictable, changeable, and hard to experiment on.

Logic provides completely secure (or sometimes probabilistically secure) knowledge in systems with known or solid axioms. It helps a whole lot if the axioms are simple... It's ideal for studying math because they axioms are secure. It's also pretty good for studying computer software from source (for example, tracking down bugs) because your axioms are also pretty secure (by comparison, science is good for studying computer software by behavior). Logic is really bad--like, virtually worthless--for studying systems where your axioms are even the tiniest bit unsecure. Science approaches problems bit by bit, so even if you don't have the whole picture, you have some little pieces you can trust. Logic, on the other hand, is an all-or-nothing affair. An axiom caves, and the whole thing does; there's no "close". And unfortunately, most of the real world involves topics with insecure axioms.

Revelation is good for topics where you have a reliable, authoritative source. It's the best tool for studying human beings. If I want to know what my husband likes for dinner, intuition will probably fail me (he may have quirks that defy my hunches), logic is completely useless, and science will take a long time. But asking him works great! Revelation's also good for topics that take a long time to independantly verify: what's going on in New York (check the paper) or how chemistry works (do I really want to figure it out from first principles? Nah, I'll check the textbook). Your revelation is only as good as your authority (so it works best where you have an absolutely authoritative source, so for such questions as "what's your favorite color?"), and relies on accurate comprehension of what the authority says.

Intuition is best for topics with which you have a past familiarity or reason to believe you have a psychological compatibility with. Sometimes it's all you've got when you can't use the other tools, and it's a springboard for the others. It works well for shared human experience--deciding what sort of music will sound good to your audience, or judging what a particular sort of person will do. It works terribly for complicated or unfamiliar things, and has the major flaw that it's by no means secure knowledge and always a guess.

All methods of obtaining knowledge are secure under certain circumstances and insecure under others. I trust my scientifically derived laws of Descent physics; I don't trust what intuition would tell me. I trust my intuitive sense that if I fly around that corner I'll die; I can't access the problem through logic. I trust my logical deduction that if I'm holding three smart missiles, the other guy can't have any (unless they've duped); I don't have access to revelation. I trust the revelation that the other guy's joystick is messed up when he tells me; I can't scientifically study the problem because it's a distant one-time occurance.

So for me, science is a method, and one of several valid methods for discovering truth.

As a side comment, one of the things I've seen people put into a definition of science is one of subject matter. Some people say science is the study of the natural world. I disagree with this. I think science is a method that you could turn to any topic--with varying degrees of success. I'm definitely doing science when I study Descent or Nethack physics, and that isn't the natural world. And you can try on other topics: I once saw a study to determine if people in hospitals who were prayed for (without their knowledge) recovered better. That's attempting to study religion with science, and if you get something conclusive and repeatable... that works.

Switching gears, faith...

Faith has a couple of different definitions. Two interest me here: the everyday sense, and the Christian sense.

In the everyday sense, I would say faith is the opposite of skeptecism. It sometimes has the bad reputation of "believing something on no evidence." I'd say rather it's "deciding the evidence you have is sufficient." In this sense, faith and skeptecism are both intelliectual virtues and vices which need to be held in balance: the hard-core skeptic believes nothing, however obvious and well-justfied. The wide-eyed faithful believes anything, however dubious. There are some people who make an intellectual virtue out of skeptecism, but that really depends on your epistemological goals. If you want to absolutely minimize false belief, that works, but if you want some balance between false belief and true belief, you're going to have to have some balance of faith and skeptecism. I think the best habit is to have faith in what seems reasonably warranted for the purpose you want to use the knowledge for, but be willing to change your mind. You tell me in a friendly game that you're joystick's broken, I'll believe you--the evidence of the revelation is sufficient for the application. On the other hand, if for some reason I had a lot of money or maybe a descent carreer riding on your broken joystick, I'd weigh heavier on the skeptic end, and probably ask for pictures and secondary witnesses.

Closely related (so closely I'm not sure it isn't another side of the same thing) is the Christian sense of faith. I'd define this as "Continued belief in what you know to be true, despite emotional opposition or the passage of time." Faith in this sense is opposed by irrational doubt, ignoring things that are not "present" to you, or... you know, I'm not sure what the force is. Lothar calls it "forgetfulness". It's the same force that makes me stay up late even though I *know* I'll regret it the next day--ignoring things I know to be true which I don't want to be true or which I'm not experiencing right this minute. Faith in this sense is an out-and-out intellectual virtue, and the more of it you've got, the better.

I've also heard faith defined as "Acting on what you believe." This has elements of the two other definitions--it's deciding the evidence you have is sufficient not only to warrant belief but to warrant action. It's also continuing to believe in it despite possibly scary consequences. It's in this sense that my boss might say, "I have faith in you to represent us at this meeting"--the evidence he has of my talent and nature is sufficient to warrant that; it's something he's willing to believe even when he isn't present to see it.

Some biblical examples of faith -

People who came to Jesus to ask for healing and believed he could heal them were often praised for their faith. This combines the elements of action and justified belief in the face of risk.

The disciples--having just witnessed Jesus feeding thousands of people with bread from nothing--later bickered among themselves worrying they wouldn't get lunch, and were chided for their lack of faith. They would have been justified in the belief that Jesus could provide for them, but they did not continue the belief with the passage of time, or (erroneously) didn't think the evidence of having seen thousands of people fed by Jesus warranted the belief that he could provide for them.

Or a classic example... Peter both seeing Jesus walking on water and having been called by Jesus, and now walking on the water himself... looks at the waves and begins to sink. And is chided for his lack of faith. This is justified belief being overcome by emotion!

So, what do I think the relationship is between science and faith?

I would say science is one of several tools for generating evidence. Faith is an intellectual characteristic that governs how you use evidence. Therefore, I would say science and faith are both essential pieces of rational thought. Where it applies, science founds faith.

Also, since the question is easy to miscast as, "what is the relationship between science and religion?", I'll answer that one too. I'd say science is a tool that can be used to study religious questions. It's not the best tool because the spiritual is inaccessible and impossible to quantify, and God is a free and unpredictable agent. But you can use it to help with some questions, such as the nature of subjective religious experience, or the impact of prayer on the world.

Woot, I haven't written a long post like that in a while. I know half of you won't read it, but that's okay, I like to read what you have to say. Um... discuss.

Drakona wrote:...It's the same force that makes me stay up late even though I *know* I'll regret it the next day--ignoring things I know to be true which I don't want to be true or which I'm not experiencing right this minute. Faith in this sense is an out-and-out intellectual virtue, and the more of it you've got, the better.

ahhh.. applied truth. This is Wisdom.

Nice post Drakona. And yes, I read it all the way through.


Science or scientific method seeks evidence through observation to support a hypothosis.

Faith supports/believes/trusts in an idea or truth that is encountered through revelation.

These are rather broad definitions and can be applied to a number of variants.

Instead of making a looooong post, I will just say that all arguments between science and faith boil down to observable data and theories versus faith in things unobservable.

What bothers me about faith vs science is that science stays within its rules, like the big bang theory for example. Once you believe in that you will be hard pressed to believe the earth was created in seven days...or when pressed for answers from theists, they will make a statement that \"the bible isn't meant to be taken literally\". That last line being used a lot lately. How can you teach something that can't be taken literally.

Science can be viewed with actuality, but the bible cannot. You have to have personal faith in it otherwise, as to me, its just unprovable and untestable paper and ink.

Oh....and your not getting me annoyed... But then...I'm an agnostic. but then I don't lie.

Bettina

WOW!

MOST EXCELENT post Drakona. Very good, solid, incredibly well thought out, and thought provoking.
Thank you!

Bettina wrote:Instead of making a looooong post, I will just say that all arguments between science and faith boil down to observable data and theories versus faith in things unobservable.

There ARE people who define faith as believing in something without evidence. As Drakona pointed out, this is NOT what is meant by Christian Faith. You won't find the term "Blind Faith" anywhere in the Bible. You will, however, find a good text about people who act without knowledge. Proverbs 13:16, "Every prudent man acts out of knowledge, but a fool exposes his folly.

Scientist work on Faith all the time. If you are working with a radioactive substance, you have studied exactly how long you can be safely exposed, how thick the lead apron needs to be, how accurate your dosometer is etc. Knowing all that, RATIONALY, the scientist KNOWS what his level of risk is for walking over to that plutonium sample and moving it from one box to another. And the risk is probably smaller than getting into the car and driving to the lab that morning.

BUT, when it actually comes down to the point, when it's time to walk into the room and do the job, the scientist has to deal with Faith. His heart is pounding, his adrenaline is pumping, does he really BELIEVE what he knows to be true? Can he just walk up to that pile of glowing death and grab it with the tongs? He imagines he can feel the radiation sleeting through his body already, he starts thinking about having three headed children. Doesn't this lead apron feel a bit flimsy, did they contract those out to the lowest bidder?

THIS is the issue of Faith. Can you act on what you know to be rationally true, even when your emotions are driving you against it. If Faith was about believing in things without any evidence, it would hardly be a virtue.

Now one important point here is that, as Drakona's excellent post points out, Faith CAN mean believing in things on authority. My cousin is a pilot, whereas I don't know the first thing about planes. If he took me flying some time, and then suddenly told me, "Put on your parachute and JUMP!" No notice, in this hypothetical situation, to MY eyes, everything on the plane looks fine. The engines seem to be running, I don't see any smoke pouring out of unusual places, there are no flashing red lights on the dashboard. So, based on the evidence of my eyes, I should ignore him. But that would hardly be a rational decision, it would be a very foolish one. I KNOW my cousin, and I know that he knows a lot more about planes than I do. The RATIONAL decision is to have FAITH in my cousin's knowledge and jump.

When a Christian speaks about acting in Faith, this is what they usually mean. They know God on a personal level, they trust Him to have their best interest at heart, and they are going to act on that, RATIONALY.

Now I am not going to deny that there are some Christians who use "Faith" in the silly sense, to mean they believe just because they believe. But you can no more blame the rational Christians for that then I should blame you Atheists and Agnostics for the horrors of the Soviet Regime. For ANY belief system or point of view, you will run into people who follow it irrationally.

Kilarin

Faith runs on (rational) belief. (ok, well... usually)

Science runs on rational assent (i.e. acceptance)

Bet51987 wrote:What bothers me about faith vs science is that science stays within its rules, like the big bang theory for example. Once you believe in that you will be hard pressed to believe the earth was created in seven days...or when pressed for answers from theists, they will make a statement that "the bible isn't meant to be taken literally". That last line being used a lot lately. How can you teach something that can't be taken literally.

I think Drak's point is that faith and science are different things. Right there you are expressing a faith in the big bang theory. What you don't like is what some people's (creationists) faith is is based on. You base you faith primairly on certain scientific evidence. Others base their faith primarily on a religious book. (the Bible)

The other issue that you touch on is the issue of interpretation. Interpretation is an issue that affects all topics. You complain about people writing off the seven days thing in Genesis by saying that "the Bible isn't meant to be taken (read: interpreted) literally." Well, that's not a good treatment of the issue of Biblical interpretation. First of all, many Christians these days want to conveniently pick and choose the pieces of the Bible that they want to follow- and that's hypocracy. Secondly, I'll illustrate the difficulties related with Biblical interpretation. Genesis 1 and 2 the Bible tells how the earth was created in seven days. The difficulty is this: The word used for "day" in Hebrew has a wider symantic range than specifically a 24 hour period. It can means anything from a 24 hours period, to to be hot (as in the heat of day), to a period of time of unspecified length. So, how do you translate that? The translation could just as well carry "age" instead of "day." The translators chose "day" because sabbath is based on creation, and that is known to be based on a period of literally 7 days. The length of the "days" in creation is a debated issue... the Bible doesn't explicitely spell it out. The same interpretation issues run throughout the Bible, as they do in absolutely everything. Why? because language isn't perfect, thus there is always some room for interpretation. Science has the exact same interpretation issues. When you perform an experiment, you have to interpret the results. What if you data is way outside of where you expected it to be? Do you throw it out, assuming that the experiment was faulty or contaminated? Do you revise you hypothesis to accomidate the descrepancy? If you revise the hypothesis, it usually isn't clear how exactly to do so. How much deviation is acceptable? Your sensing equipment has to be properly calibrated and zeroed, and it always has a limited precision and accuracy. There are a huge number of questions that come into play when interpreting experiment data. When you really get into scientific experimentation, it really can't be seen with complete actuality, either. The engineering classes I disliked the most where the ones involving experimentation... because test data NEVER followed the mathematical models all that well. There are just too many variables (and thus mistakes) involved for things to perfectly match the mathematical models, even if they are perfectly valid.

Spiritual beliefs are almost always held to through intuition, while scientific things should be held to through science. The one isn't necessarily inferior to the other, it's just different. Drak talked about application of each "tool." That's the thing. Intuition doesn't work too well when it comes to science, but neither does scientific methodology work well when applied to spiritual beliefs. Drak's point: use the right tool for the right job. (Note, the Bible's statements about creation don't fall in the area of spiritual beliefs- they would be revelation from a source. I classify spiritual beliefs as what people think about God, Christ, etc... not what people think about the historical content found in the Bible.)

One final thought: in the discussion of creation vs. evolution you pit science against revelation, (both subject to flaws) not logic against intuition as many would lead you to believe.

snoopy wrote:First of all, many Christians these days want to conveniently pick and choose the pieces of the Bible that they want to follow- and that's hypocracy.

However, it is not hypocritical to recognize that the Bible was not written to be a science book, or even a history book. Some portions were meant to be taken literally, others are not.

For example, lets take the book of Job. It's a book I love very much, and a book that I believe is based upon a historical event. However, it's not rational to believe that everyone involved spoke in poetry. Obviously the conversation has been re-written artistically. I don't see that as a problem.

snoopy wrote:The word used for "day" in Hebrew has a wider symantic range than specifically a 24 hour period. It can means anything from a 24 hours period, to to be hot (as in the heat of day), to a period of time of unspecified length.

However, the phrase "evening and morning" is never used to mean anything other than a literal 24 hour day. I don't think the "day=age" argument will fly here. So lets go back to the poetry issue. Have you noticed that the creation story in Gen 1 is written as a Hebrew poem? In Hebrew poetry, there is no rhyme of sound, but a rhyme of ideas. It's called Parallelism. There are several different forms, Synonymous, Synthetic, Antithetic, etc. The one we are most interested in for looking at Genesis would be Synonymous: You say something once, then repeat it in a slightly different way, For example: Ps 19:1
The heavens are telling the glory of God;
and the firmament proclaims his handiwork.

now, Note the structure of the creation week:

Day 1: Light
....................................................Day 4: Sun, Moon, Stars
Day 2: Air and Water
....................................................Day 5: Fish and Birds
Day 3: Dry Land, and Plants
....................................................Day 6: Land Animals, And Man
Day 7: Rest

Day 1 through 3 parallel day 4 through 6. It's POETRY. The fact that it's poetry does NOT mean it's not true, but it DOES mean that interpreting it poetically is not out of line or hypocritical. The point is, God created everything. The exact details of HOW are probably well beyond OUR comprehension, let alone that of people living well over 3000 years ago.

Kilarin

Kilarin, it's also Spiritual imagery. Prophecy if you will.

Duper wrote:it's also Spiritual imagery. Prophecy if you will.

Yes, clearly, no disagreement there.

Kilarin

Duper wrote:Kilarin, it's also Spiritual imagery. Prophecy if you will.

And it is also imagery from a unique perspective.

First, many Bible readers fail to recognize an important distinction between Genesis 1:1 and the following verses beginning with 1:2.

Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Please note that there is no time period associated with this verse - it just says "In the beginning," which simply implies that the "physical objects" in our universe were created first, without stating how old they are.

Geneis 1:2 through 1:31 does not describe the creation of the universe. These verses describe the preparing of the earth for physical creatures, and then the creation of those living creatures. This is evident from verse 2, which says the earth was "formless and waste, and darkness was covering the surface of the deep (the sea)." When the creative days begin, the earth is already existing, it just needs to be prepared for habitation. (The time period, as mentioned by Snoopy, is probably NOT a literal 6 days.)

This "creation," or pereparing of the earth, is done from the perspective of someone viewing the events from the surface of the earth, not from some vantage point in space. (The idea of looking at the earth from space is not a typical ancient idea.) This is evident by verse 3, which states;

"And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there came to be light."

Notice that the "heavens" were already created, as mentioned in verse 1, which would mean the sun and stars are already producing light in space, but there was darkness covering the surface of the earth (verse 2). God removed the darkness covering the earth by making it possible for light to reach the earth's surface. This is also tied in with the "division" between the light and darkness mentioned in verse 4 - the first 24hr "day" produced by the rotation of the earth, 12 hrs of light and 12hrs of darkness, now that light could reach earth's surface.

The remaining verses continue to explain what God did during this "creative" period, as veiwed by someone on earth.

Bet51987 wrote:Instead of making a looooong post, I will just say that all arguments between science and faith boil down to observable data and theories versus faith in things unobservable.

Okay, so here are a couple of questions for you, to probe this a little bit.

Several years ago, I read a newspaper article talking about a study that had been done on hospital patients. In the study, they observed the progress of hospital patients who were being prayed for (though the patients didn't know it) and those who weren't. The newspaper article said that those who were being prayed for had a higher rate of recovery. Now, I didn't get to examine the study (it was just a sensationalist newspaper article, after all), so I can't tell you if it was actually good or not, so that's where the real story stops. But suppose--hypothetically speaking--I got a hold of the study, and they had done everything scientifically correctly--randomly assigned patients to two groups, accounted for who was "already" being prayed for, taken a large enough sample size, and so forth. And suppose based on that I decided that someone was listening to prayers and healing patients.

Would that be science? Or would it be faith?


And here's a question. Have you ever looked at cosmological fine-tuning arguments? I can't follow all of what they say (having forgotten most of my freshman-level exposure to physics and astronomy), but evidently there are a lot of physical constants that have to be just right in order for galaxies, stars, and ultimately life to be possible. I gather that it's such a problem that some people propose that our universe isn't the only one, but one of a billion kazillion universes all of which are barren. Ours just happens to have the right physical constants to support life. Now, those parallel universes are completely unobservable to us and inaccessible, and the only reason to believe in them is to avoid making a strong inference that our universe is designed to support life.

So... provocative question: Is believing in the existence of parallel universes science? Or is it faith?

Shoku wrote:Geneis 1:2 through 1:31 does not describe the creation of the universe.

Absolutely, and even most young earth creationist acknowledge this. It's why I find it amusing when anti-science religious people start going on about how evil the idea of the big bang is. Folks, come on, science finally said, "We have looked at the evidence and determined that there was nothing, and then suddenly everything sprang into existance" Well, DUH! There is certainly no conflict between the Big Bang and Gen 1:1. Quite the opposite.

And just to clarify, I don't think its hypocritical to think that Gen 1:2 through 1:31 may not be entirely literal, but I also don't think it's hypocritical to believe that it IS literal. Just because the passage is Poetry does not REQUIRE that it not be interpreted literally.

Drakona wrote:Have you ever looked at cosmological fine-tuning arguments?

I'm not a big fan of the fine-tuning arguments for two reasons:
1: the multiple universes argument, while I find it extremely ugly, is not obviously impossible
2: we have enough trouble understanding the implications of quantum mechanics in our own universe. I find it a bit of a stretch to say that if we changed some numbers we really understand what would and would not be possible in the resulting universe.

Which, of course, wasn't your point, I'm just spouting off. I am in complete agreement with you on the point that the multi-verse idea requires a lot of faith. At some point they may come up with some experimental evidence for it, but until then, its a big leap, and an UGLY one.

And speaking of this very idea, both sides of the ID-Naturalism debate might find this link interesting:

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1647_1.asp

---
If our universe was purposefully created — perhaps by a deity or an advanced civilization in another universe — could the Creator have left a calling card?
...
"Our work does not support the Intelligent Design movement in any way whatsoever, but asks, and attempts to answer, the entirely scientific question of what the medium and message might be IF there was actually a message," write the authors.

---

ID isn't science, no way, can't be, unless WE do it. Then it's ok. <sigh> It's sad that we can't get either side to dump the stupid politics and examine the science.

Kilarin

What Kilarin, Duper, and Shoku post precisely illustrates my point... Biblical interpretation is a huge and difficult task.

Kilarin, my point in mentioning that about hypocracy is to say that many christians these days are lazy about Biblical interpretation. They don't seek to interpret the Bible most nearly to how they can tell it was intended to be interpreted, instead they choose to interpret the Bible in a manner that would be most convinient and comfortable for them.

Drakona wrote:

Bet51987 wrote:Instead of making a looooong post, I will just say that all arguments between science and faith boil down to observable data and theories versus faith in things unobservable.

Okay, so here are a couple of questions for you, to probe this a little bit.

Several years ago, I read a newspaper article talking about a study that had been done on hospital patients. In the study, they observed the progress of hospital patients who were being prayed for (though the patients didn't know it) and those who weren't. The newspaper article said that those who were being prayed for had a higher rate of recovery. Now, I didn't get to examine the study (it was just a sensationalist newspaper article, after all), so I can't tell you if it was actually good or not, so that's where the real story stops. But suppose--hypothetically speaking--I got a hold of the study, and they had done everything scientifically correctly--randomly assigned patients to two groups, accounted for who was "already" being prayed for, taken a large enough sample size, and so forth. And suppose based on that I decided that someone was listening to prayers and healing patients.

Would that be science? Or would it be faith?

I know your trying to trick me but...

To answer your hypothetical question, praying is not science because it is based on the supernatural. The simple act of someone praying and curing people would be more in the realm of magic or physic healing... So, I would say it must be faith to those who believe in faith. However, if it was tested and proven to be repeatable then I would take a harder look...but it still would not be science.

Drakona wrote: And here's a question. Have you ever looked at cosmological fine-tuning arguments? I can't follow all of what they say (having forgotten most of my freshman-level exposure to physics and astronomy), but evidently there are a lot of physical constants that have to be just right in order for galaxies, stars, and ultimately life to be possible. I gather that it's such a problem that some people propose that our universe isn't the only one, but one of a billion kazillion universes all of which are barren. Ours just happens to have the right physical constants to support life. Now, those parallel universes are completely unobservable to us and inaccessible, and the only reason to believe in them is to avoid making a strong inference that our universe is designed to support life.

So... provocative question: Is believing in the existence of parallel universes science? Or is it faith?

Yes, the physical universe had to be just right for the energy/matter conversion to produce our galaxies, stars, etc....but life is just "our kind" of life. We could have been other than carbon based if the universe was different. We are here, only because the throw of the dice was in our favor. I could supply you with lots of links if you want them. As far as the Multiverse, no respectable scientist said they are all barren. How could they know that....or even know that they exist.

So, the belief in other universes, strings or branes, is neither faith nor science.(at least to me) There are many definitions for science, so it is hard to know which one to discuss.

Bettina

Drakona wrote:So... provocative question: Is believing in the existence of parallel universes science? Or is it faith?

If you believe it, it's faith. If you accept it as true, based on some (good) evidence, then it is science. If you're not sure and just poking around, it's speculation.

Ah, Girl Scout Thin Mint cookies.
Another reason why I really love this country.

dissent wrote: Ah, Girl Scout Thin Mint cookies.
Another reason why I really love this country.

ROFLMAO... dude..

Bet51987 wrote: Yes, the physical universe had to be just right for the energy/matter conversion to produce our galaxies, stars, etc....but life is just "our kind" of life. We could have been other than carbon based if the universe was different. We are here, only because the throw of the dice was in our favor. I could supply you with lots of links if you want them. As far as the Multiverse, no respectable scientist said they are all barren. How could they know that....or even know that they exist.

So, the belief in other universes, strings or branes, is neither faith nor science.(at least to me) There are many definitions for science, so it is hard to know which one to discuss.

Bettina

Forgive the quote cut, it's not very clean; just wanted it for referance.

Drak has a good point tho. o_0 There is not substanciatable (?) evidence to support the idea of life elsewhere in the universe. It's all hypothosis supported by mathmatical equations and super-rational (that in itself requires a leap of faith to actualy swallow) statistics.
So in as much that there is not such real evidence that it does exist, would require faith to believe it as true. *shrug* Most scientists NEED faith to pursue searching for evidence to validate or expunge a hypothosis. Faith is truely as the Bible states. "Hope in the evidence of things unseen." Reguardless of what that evidence is, valid or no.

snoopy wrote:my point in mentioning that about hypocracy is to say that many christians these days are lazy about Biblical interpretation. They don't seek to interpret the Bible most nearly to how they can tell it was intended to be interpreted, instead they choose to interpret the Bible in a manner that would be most convinient and comfortable for them.

Very good point, and sadly, very true.

Now, on the "Prayer Experiment":

I want to start off with the fact that I found the entire "prayer experiment" an absolute HORROR from the first moment I heard about it several years ago. From a CHRISTIAN perspective, that is. The setup was simply impossible to approve of. The people doing the praying didn't KNOW the people they were praying for, they were simply given a list of first names and very basic conditions. The "intercessory prayer" group spent time praying for "John with Cancer", "Mary with heart disease", etc. And God supposedly healed these individuals while ignoring the others. I wonder if anyone checked to see if ALL people across the nation who were named John and had Cancer had a sudden improvement in their health? And, of course, none of the people actually saying the "intercessory prayers" was ever supposed to add "Oh, and help those people in the control group too Lord". And ESPECIALLY they couldn't say "Please help ALL the sick people everywhere", that would have REALLY skewed the results. From a Christian ethics point of view, this experiment is like the nazi doctors cutting up jews for science.

WHICH, is completely beside the point and has nothing to do with this topic, I'm just spouting off again, and, I guess, making certain I don't get saddled with anyone accusing me of SUPPORTING this gross and sacrilegious experiment.

So yes, from a Christian point of view, I have SERIOUS problems with the whole thing, BUT, from a scientific or medical point of view there was nothing wrong with the basic idea. I understand that there were actually some serious flaws in the way the test was executed, but that is unrelated to the question at hand.

Which brings us to:

Bet51987 wrote:However, if it was tested and proven to be repeatable then I would take a harder look...but it still would not be science.

Bet51987 wrote:There are many definitions for science, so it is hard to know which one to discuss.

Science is defined by the scientific method. (As Drakona pointed out above) If you can test something, it's science.

ANYTHING that is ameniable to the scientific method can be tested scientifically. Despite the modern emphasis on methodological naturalism, science is a METHOD, not a subject matter. If this weren't true, we would have to throw out all of James Randi's very fine contributions to Science. The Amazing Randi goes about proving that paranormals are fakes. But his tests are ONLY valid if we deny methodological naturalism, because the very thing he is claiming to do is test the supernatural scientifically. And he does it quite well. If the Dalai Lama claims he can levitate, well darn tootin, that can be tested, get some gear out there let him PROVE his supernatural gift under controled circumstances. If Robert Tilton claims he can heal people with a touch and a prayer (and a sufficent donation), well, thats pretty easy to test, lets see how he does.

Science is a METHOD, not a subject matter. It can be applied to anything that is testable. IF a repeatable experiment proved prayer to be effective at healing (I don't believe it has, but IF), it would have been proven so by using the scientific method. It would BE science.

Kilarin

Bet51987 wrote:There are many definitions for science, so it is hard to know which one to discuss. :)

Maybe you could start with the definition Drakona gave in her first post. Or, you could give your own.

Kilarin wrote:I want to start off with the fact that I found the entire "prayer experiment" an absolute HORROR ...

Ah, you'd heard of it too. That doesn't surprise me. I didn't get a chance to look at it beyond the original article, but I suspected that it must have been bad. Had it been at all reasonable, I would have expected to hear about it once every 6 months from the pulpit Still, it makes a good hypothetical.

A similar hypothetical can be asked about one guy who tried to measure the weight of the human soul. He weighed various hospital patients right as they died, looking for weight loss. If I recall correctly, his methodology was exceedingly bad, but hypothetically speaking, had it been good... would that count as science?

----

And here's a question I've always wanted to ask people who consider science a topic, not a method (and looking over this thread, I think, Bettina, you might be the only one, though more are probably lurking--I think I've had this conversation with Tricord before):

If, as a matter of first principles, you don't accept evidence that isn't scientific, and if, as a matter of definition, you say any study of the supernatural isn't scientific, aren't you really saying that a priori no evidence for the supernatural could exist which you would accept?

It seems to me like a trilemma. Either you have to say

(1) Rational thought admits evidence other than the purely scientific.

or

(2) Science can study the supernatural.

or

(3) The prophet Elijah could call down holy fire right in front of me, and I still wouldn't be convinced there was anything supernatural involved.

From my post at the beginning of this thread, you can tell I accept both (1) and (2)--I think science can study the supernatural (though not with great success), and I think there's more to rational thought than science. But for those of you that reject both (1) and (2), do you accept (3)? Or... is it a more complex issue than that? Or... or what?

Drakona wrote:

Kilarin wrote:I want to start off with the fact that I found the entire "prayer experiment" an absolute HORROR ...

Ah, you'd heard of it too. That doesn't surprise me. I didn't get a chance to look at it beyond the original article, but I suspected that it must have been bad. Had it been at all reasonable, I would have expected to hear about it once every 6 months from the pulpit Still, it makes a good hypothetical.

A similar hypothetical can be asked about one guy who tried to measure the weight of the human soul. He weighed various hospital patients right as they died, looking for weight loss. If I recall correctly, his methodology was exceedingly bad, but hypothetically speaking, had it been good... would that count as science?

----

And here's a question I've always wanted to ask people who consider science a topic, not a method (and looking over this thread, I think, Bettina, you might be the only one, though more are probably lurking--I think I've had this conversation with Tricord before):

If, as a matter of first principles, you don't accept evidence that isn't scientific, and if, as a matter of definition, you say any study of the supernatural isn't scientific, aren't you really saying that a priori no evidence for the supernatural could exist which you would accept?

It seems to me like a trilemma. Either you have to say

(1) Rational thought admits evidence other than the purely scientific.

or

(2) Science can study the supernatural.

or

(3) The prophet Elijah could call down holy fire right in front of me, and I still wouldn't be convinced there was anything supernatural involved.

From my post at the beginning of this thread, you can tell I accept both (1) and (2)--I think science can study the supernatural (though not with great success), and I think there's more to rational thought than science. But for those of you that reject both (1) and (2), do you accept (3)? Or... is it a more complex issue than that? Or... or what?

I want to say firstly that I'm not educated enough to go up against a college level graduate (I'm guessing you are), so I may not be able to answer your quesions the way you think it should be answered. I would like to see other agnostics pov.

To answer your last paragraph I will say in all honesty, that I can't accept 1) because of the way its written. If you changed it to "Science uses rational thought as one of its processes in an attempt to arrive at a scientific conclusion", then I would. I can't accept 2) whatsoever, because of its spiritual nature...which is not a natural phenomenon and cannot ever be proven. Now...3). I would have to say that if I personally witnessed Elijah doing the act you described directly in front of me, then I would be very convinced...and very frightened.

Then, before he could strike me down, I would go up and slap him across his face as hard as I could then tell him to take that message from me to his boss for the many reasons I've given in the past. To me...my own pov....there is no "faith" in science. Its just speculation which may or may not lead to evidence. When I say to someone I have faith in you it just means that I believe in you thats it...which is why I have no faith in god (I know we were not discussing this).

Science is cold...it looks for evidence. Faith is warm...it looks for hope. The two are very different and the people who are trying to marry faith and science together, are doing a disservice to both.

I have a feeling this didn't answer your questions, but I feel better now.

Bettina

Bet51987 wrote:I want to say firstly that I'm not educated enough to go up against a college level graduate

Don't sell yourself short. You are quite capable of expressing your own opinions.

And as for "going up against", I don't think it's a contest or a competition. It's a discussion. Everyone expresses their opinions, points out facts they are aware of, and asks questions. In the end, hopefully we ALL learn something, and part friends.

Kilarin

Bet51987 wrote:Then, before he could strike me down, I would go up and slap him across his face as hard as I could then tell him to take that message from me to his boss for the many reasons I've given in the past.

I assume you mean the over 200 prophets of Baal that he killed? ...by himself? .. yea.. you would do that. sure. Bet, you've only shown that you are being willfully rebellious and spiteful; something nearly as bad as you acuse the God you say you don't believe in, of doing. o_0 ...huh???

I'm not saying you're going to "burn". Ultimately, that's your choice, and that is what this is all about when you get to the dredges. What we CHOOSE to believe. Right, wrong or indifferent. It's this choice for which we are responcible. You make a deliberate, willful choice to ignore the evidence that would be layed at your feet. Consider you choices well before you make them. That's something my grandpa taught me as he beat my butt red for hitting my brother.

Duper wrote:I assume you mean the over 200 prophets of Baal that he killed?

Actually, if I haven't misunderstood, Bettina's angry with God for very personal reasons. And I imagine they are very GOOD reasons. This world is a crummy place.

In my opinion, taking that anger to God is the best thing to do with it. At least, that was what God told Job when Job yelled and screamed about the injustice of it all and the seeming distance of God. It won't always help, but at least you are facing in the right direction.

Kilarin

Kilarin wrote:In my opinion, taking that anger to God is the best thing to do with it.
Kilarin

Only if there was a god...and I already told you what I thought of Job.

And Duper....what evidence at my feet? And how can I be rebellious and spiteful to an invisible person.
If the god of the bible is true, then I see a much different god than you do.

One more thing, I'm very quiet in real life. You would never believe it.

Bettina

Bettina,

what always amazes me is that people are mad at God because they are doing bad, but they never really asked God to help them and accepted his conditions for Him doing so.

In other words: The state of the world is mankind's responsibility, not Gods. And most people don't listen to God, and/or don't follow what they hear/understand.

And that is what [edit] Duper [/edit] is calling \"rebellion\", I suppose.

So, instead of pointing fingers at God and yelling at him \"It's all your fault!\" it might be a better idea to ask him what you can do to improve your life, and the life of others. I can definitely tell you one thing: God is the ultimate comforter, and hope. But you can only meet him at His conditions.

I know these few words may sound like harsh theory, but they are not.

Diedel wrote:And that is what Kilarin is calling "rebellion", I suppose.

Duper, not me! Too many names going by, I know.

Bettina wrote:Only if there was a god...and I already told you what I thought of Job.

Heh, yep. I wasn't trying to drag you into that again, I was just trying to explain to my fellow Christians that it didn't have anything to do with the specifics of the Elijah story. You have been hurt, and you are mad, and that from OUR perspective, as believers, you aiming that spite at God is a point of hope. Please don't be offended by that, we can't HELP but look at it from our own perspective.

I have a good friend who is VERY conservative about religion. Makes me look like a pagan. She became convinced that because I play Fantasy Role Playing Games I was endangering my soul. She came over to my house, in tears, to give me a Bible study on the topic. I answered her questions with rational arguments and Bible texts. Topic went away for a while, but it came up again, discussion was repeated, and the topic went away for a few more years before it came up AGAIN. Now, quite frankly, it's annoying. I've answered her questions with Bible texts, I've discussed the issue rationally with her, but she isn't convinced. And she's my friend, and she's afraid I'm doing something dangerous.

So, despite the fact that it annoys the heck outta me, I try VERY hard to understand that, with her belief system, if she DIDN'T worry about this, it would mean she didn't give a care about me. It's a compliment, not an insult.

I'm CERTAIN we are annoying you as well, and I apologize for that. And believe me, I AM trying very hard not to preach. I KNOW what it feels like to be on the receiving end. But please understand that when we DO, it's only because we actually care.

Kilarin

Bet51987 wrote: And Duper....what evidence at my feet? And how can I be rebellious and spiteful to an invisible person.

I was speaking metiphorically of the Elisha calling down fire.


Just because you believe there is no god, although you contradict yourself in you statements which I'm not going to elaborate on, doesn't mean you're right. (and yes, I know you can turn that around and point it at me, I don't care at that moment.) According to God's law and Spirit, you are infact being rebellious. (you should know this if by nothing else than academically) Most folks are at point or another. Some stay that way, sadly.

And Diedel.

Well said man. That was perfect. and yea.. Kilian's right.

Bettina,

the biblical definition of rebellion in the way Duper means it is \"denying the existance of God, or refusing to love him and live according to his standards and inspiration\".

Just to let you in on some \"christianese\".

Two things:

1) This is about the best thread I have ever seen on this board.

2) I agree with Drakona's definitions in her first post. Not that I am trying to ride her coat tails, but I don't think I could have articulated it any better than she did.

Diedel

Its \"his standards and inspiration\" that made me reject him entirely. He produced his standard of \"Free will\" while already knowing it would rape and murder little girls didn't cut it for me.

And his inspiration as \"the father who loves us\" makes me throw up.

I know you won't take offense. This is not aimed at you....just \"him\", if it exists.

Your friend
Bettina

Bettina,

there is no freedom without the possibility to abuse it. God isn't responsible for people abusing it.

From time to time, I am reading about little children being abused by their own parents, being beaten to death. Some parents here have let their little girl slowly starve to death over years. I have a sweet little son myself, whom I love very much. I would give my life for him without a thought (big words, huh? YES, I WOULD!) Reading such things drive tears in my eyes, and I have yelled at God \"HOW THE F* COULD YOU LET THIS HAPPEN WITH YOUR F*N DESIGN OF THIS WORLD WHERE YOU ALREADY KNEW WHERE THIS ALL WOULD BE HEADING!\"

God has given responsibility for these children to their parents though, and if they chose to have children, they will.

There's two sides to this however: The parents will be held responsible one day (that doesn't help the child though, huh?), and God will comfort the child and wipe away all tears from its face. You may not, and most non christians do not, believe in visions, but God has shown me such children in his arms and presence once, and though it was still painful for me, I could see there was more for them than just neglection, abuse and pain.

Bottom line: There is no other way for freedom, and you should be glad that a) you exist and b) that freedom of choice exists for you. Or would you prefer being a remote controlled ragdoll?

Next point. Abuse of human freedom isn't where it all ends. God's intention was that ppl would turn to him, trust him, and listen to what he says, because he never says something dumb or proposes something that wouldn't work. Actually, God is offering us partnership, but this again requires freedom of choice, or you'd simply be a (remote controlled) slave.

Btw, you say there is so much hatred and slaughter in the bible. Please ask yourself what you would like to see happen to child abusers and rapists? Punishment, don't you? Now ask yourself where this desire for a righteous world comes from. Yeah, God too desires righteousness in this world, and crime will draw punishment after it, sooner or later. So please don't complain about God judging criminals while hating them yourself (telling me you don't hate them wouldn't be very credible, given your above remark).

God is not only a \"father\", he is a good father. You just haven't really tried him yet. Accusing him w/o allowing him to touch your heart and show you his sight of matters will not bring you further a single inch though.

Examine your own heart, Bettina, and be honest to yourself.

Diedel wrote:Bettina,

there is no freedom without the possibility to abuse it. God isn't responsible for people abusing it.

From time to time, I am reading about little children being abused by their own parents, being beaten to death. Some parents here have let their little girl slowly starve to death over years. I have a sweet little son myself, whom I love very much. I would give my life for him without a thought (big words, huh? YES, I WOULD!) Reading such things drive tears in my eyes, and I have yelled at God "HOW THE F* COULD YOU LET THIS HAPPEN WITH YOUR F*N DESIGN OF THIS WORLD WHERE YOU ALREADY KNEW WHERE THIS ALL WOULD BE HEADING!"

God has given responsibility for these children to their parents though, and if they chose to have children, they will.

There's two sides to this however: The parents will be held responsible one day (that doesn't help the child though, huh?), and God will comfort the child and wipe away all tears from its face. You may not, and most non christians do not, believe in visions, but God has shown me such children in his arms and presence once, and though it was still painful for me, I could see there was more for them than just neglection, abuse and pain.

Bottom line: There is no other way for freedom, and you should be glad that a) you exist and b) that freedom of choice exists for you. Or would you prefer being a remote controlled ragdoll?

Next point. Abuse of human freedom isn't where it all ends. God's intention was that ppl would turn to him, trust him, and listen to what he says, because he never says something dumb or proposes something that wouldn't work. Actually, God is offering us partnership, but this again requires freedom of choice, or you'd simply be a (remote controlled) slave.

Btw, you say there is so much hatred and slaughter in the bible. Please ask yourself what you would like to see happen to child abusers and rapists? Punishment, don't you? Now ask yourself where this desire for a righteous world comes from. Yeah, God too desires righteousness in this world, and crime will draw punishment after it, sooner or later. So please don't complain about God judging criminals while hating them yourself (telling me you don't hate them wouldn't be very credible, given your above remark).

God is not only a "father", he is a good father. You just haven't really tried him yet. Accusing him w/o allowing him to touch your heart and show you his sight of matters will not bring you further a single inch though.

Examine your own heart, Bettina, and be honest to yourself.

Your right about hatred. I hate child molesters and would throw the switch myself if given the chance. And, your remark "HOW THE F* COULD YOU LET THIS HAPPEN WITH YOUR F*N DESIGN OF THIS WORLD WHERE YOU ALREADY KNEW WHERE THIS ALL WOULD BE HEADING!" is pretty much why I reject him entirely. He is a false god. I could go on, but I've already gone thru this.

Thanks for trying anyway...

Bettina

I just read Drakk's first post and feel like writing a quick response..

I really enjoyed the insightful description of your ways to obtain knowledge, science being one of them. I say \"your\" because, I think you will agree, it is merely one way to put science in a larger context. But it is perfectly viable for what you had in mind, and it made for an excellent read. However, science is a much more powerful tool than the others you mention -- logic, intuition and revelation.

Revelation can be seen as the record or the transmission of the result of any of the other three methods to gain knowledge. While it probably is the most easy way to gain useful knowledge, I discard it as uninteresting.

Intuition is something inherently human -- it is personal and subjective, and as such it is worthless by itself. You always need contextual information to interprete an intuition -- be it your own or someone else's. You may even need to call again upon your intuition to interprete another intuition you had -- or someone else's. Intuition is a feeling, it is something you have no objective motivation for. You can't help yourself having an intuition either. Intuition is always a shot in the dark. You have no idea of the outcome till you actually verify it externally. Intuition is a feeling that works on the sole assumption that it is more often correct than false.

Logic on the other hand, is the method that discovers new knowledge by infering it from axioms. Unlike you, I consider it to be a part of science. There is however a small flaw in your view of logic: logic isn't as universal as you think because it doesn't work without determinism; you need determinism as a prerequisite before logic can yield any useful result as a method to gain knowledge. If determinism doesn't hold, no set of sound axioms will yield trustworthy knowledge using logic. In everyday life, we can assume determinism to hold -- but not everywhere we seek to gain knowledge.

I consider logic to be part of science because it describes a procedure set within a limited but well-defined field of application, which produces repeatable and verifyable results. This constitutes a \"model\" which, if we assume it is sound bearing its field of application, can produce new knowledge that has a guaranteed value of truth.

Incidentally, that is my definition of science.

Tricord wrote:I consider [logic] to be a part of science....

logic isn't as universal as you think because it doesn't work without determinism

I think your requirement of determinism comes from the fact that you've restricted logic to being a part of science.

So, in what scientific way did you determine logic is a part of science? Or, in what logical way did you determine that logic doesn't work without determinism?

As you can tell, I don't agree. Logic is a different method of gaining information, and while it's sometimes useful in conjunction with science, it need not be restricted to that. It also doesn't require determinism -- as long as you have axioms, regardless of whether or not "determinism" is one of them, you can do logic. ("Some things happen in a non-deterministic way" is a completely valid axiom!) That logic may not give you results that are useful, but since when is logic restricted to useful results?

Lothar wrote:

Tricord wrote:I consider [logic] to be a part of science....

logic isn't as universal as you think because it doesn't work without determinism

I think your requirement of determinism comes from the fact that you've restricted logic to being a part of science.

So, in what scientific way did you determine logic is a part of science? Or, in what logical way did you determine that logic doesn't work without determinism?

As you can tell, I don't agree. Logic is a different method of gaining information, and while it's sometimes useful in conjunction with science, it need not be restricted to that. It also doesn't require determinism -- as long as you have axioms, regardless of whether or not "determinism" is one of them, you can do logic. ("Some things happen in a non-deterministic way" is a completely valid axiom!) That logic may not give you results that are useful, but since when is logic restricted to useful results?

Drakona and I are talking about gaining knowledge. I think it was understood that that meant useful results. What you do is tear open the field of application in which logic has to be confined in order to yield useful information. When used inside that field of application it really is part of science. Outside of it, it is indeed no longer science -- but not useful either. I see no conflict in our points of view.

Fair enough.

Though I still don't see the requirement of determinism. Isn't \"some things happen truly randomly\" a valid logical axiom?

Having just joined the boards a few days ago, I must say that they're quite a bit more interesting than I would have supposed... and surprisingly civil! Anyway, here's briefly some of what I believe.

I believe that a realistically-grounded system of morals must ultimately be based on divinity. I think most people would agree that murder is wrong. But on what basis? If people don't have souls, how is killing a person different than killing an animal? Or a plant, for that matter.

Some people believe one action is wrong, others disagree. If you know anything about Einstein, you may know that one of the things he said is that there is no preferred reference frame. If two people are travelling in opposite directions, each may suppose that only the other is moving, and there is no way to determine who is right. It's the same way morally... if there is no externally defined reference, there can be no way of saying any one moral system is \"better\" than another, and no action, such as murder, can be deemed actually \"wrong.\"

God provides sort of a moral compass. If there were no North Pole, compasses would all point randomly. However, since there is a North Pole, we can say which direction is actually North.

Paul wrote:I believe that a realistically-grounded system of morals must ultimately be based on divinity. I think most people would agree that murder is wrong. But on what basis? If people don't have souls, how is killing a person different than killing an animal? Or a plant, for that matter.

Sentience, consciousness, or another synonym for that same concept? Souls might actually be used to justify murder, since, in fact, if a person is really just his soul, you're not really killing him at all. (We use them to comfort ourselves about death all the time.)

People often justify medicinal testing on animals and such by the fact that they are not self-aware of whatever they are experiencing. In other words, if an animal is "feeling" pain, it isn't actually aware that it is feeling pain, so it is different than a human in that regard. (Whether or not this is actually true or of which animals is another question, but it is the general consensus.) It would be as though you had programmed a computer program to yelp in pain every time you closed it. (Still, most people draw a line somewhere, and have some definition of animal cruelty.)

Humans, on the other hand, are aware of pain, suffering, etc., so it seems as all the more heinous of a crime to cause misery to them.

I don't know if I like where this is going in general though anyways. If you're suggesting that we ought to believe in a higher power so that we can have a basis for morality, this argument just seems like an appeal to consequences. That is, suppose that there was conflicting evidence concerning whether or not a meteor was hurtling toward earth. It wouldn't be right to conclude that a meteor isn't heading toward earth because then all of humanity would be wiped out. I know that all you've said is that objective morality must be based on a higher power, but it sounds like its awfully close to saying that we ought to believe in God because then we would have an objective basis for morality. This last sort of statement I don't believe would be correct to argue.