What They're Saying About Davies' Op-Ed
by JoyBradford posted about Paul Davies' op-ed in the New York Times on the thread Science and Faith. Which quickly went downhill as our live-in critics decended like vultures to put a quick stop to any real discussion.
The SciBlog community wasn't hampered by such tactics, so came out hot and heavy in defense of their ideology against Davies' observations. Anti-theist PZ Myers insisted that Faith is not a prerequisite for science, but only managed to demonstrate laughable ignorance of the relevant science. My favorite excerpts…
When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a little bit different, I have to wonder"¦ how do they know? Just as there are many different combinations of amino acids that can make any particular enzyme, why can't there be many different combinations of physical laws that can yield life?
Note the "why can't there be" whine on PZ's part, a clear rejection of what physics has so far discovered about the laws that govern matter/energy in this universe. Surely he must have known that people with a passing familiarity with physics might read his blog and laugh at his tantrum…
…we should be wondering how we ended up in such a hostile dump of a universe, one that favors endless expanses of frigid nothingness with scattered hydrogen molecules over one that has trillions of square light years of temperate lakefront property with good fishing, soft breezes, and free wireless networking.
LOL! Do biologists ALL suffer from Peter Pan Syndrome, or just the self-deluded narcissists who believe they're on a mission against god(s)?
Mike Dunford of The Questionable Authority blog posted his take in Science, "Faith", and the New York Times. He makes a strange argument that asserts absolute knowledge of the future based on experience of the past, which doesn't hold water…
Of course, we do know that the sun will come up tomorrow. If we didn't, most of us wouldn't bother setting our alarm clocks. We also know (at least in the absence of certain pharmaceuticals) that we're not going to learn how to fly in the period between jumping off the cliff and hitting the ground. We know that if there is a full moon today, there won't be one next week. We know that it's not going to snow when it's 85 degrees out. We know that George W. Bush is not going to wake up tomorrow and bring all the troops home.
We just can't prove any of it.
The same thing can be claimed by every phony in the Psychic Friends Network! This isn't knowing, it's faith that things will be tomorrow as they were yesterday and today. Dunford does admit his assertion of knowledge is faith-based induction, then simply re-asserts that his faith is somehow more than faith.
So I checked physicist Chad Orzel's Uncertain Principles blog for his take, Turtles and Strings: Where Does Science Stop? Instead of taking issue with Davies' op-ed, he deconstructs Sean Carroll's argument against it over at Cosmic Variance. Carroll's argument is…
"That's just how things are."
Orzel notes with some irony that this is a special pleading for Carroll, since he's argued a very much opposing position in regard to string theory for years. The quest for "a complete understanding of the microscopic laws of physics." Orzel doesn't take a personal stand on the issue, but does betray some humor at Carroll's presumption to be the "final arbiter" of what science can and can't talk about…
If we're going to say that there are certain questions about which science can't say anything meaningful, and thus head off Paul Davies's arguments about emergent natural laws and consciousness, we need some more useful way to make a determination of what science can and can't talk about. I wish I had one to offer, but I'm not even willing to offer myself in Sean's place as the Ultimate Arbiter – I have a book to write.
Nice cop-out. Edge.org has collected responses to the op-ed over on its site. Jerry Coyne echoes Dunford's insistence that induction doesn't involve faith that things past will continue tomorrow. He says…
In contrast, the tenets of religion are truly based on faith, since there is no empirical data to support them.
Yet immediately preceding that statement he didn't mention "empirical data" to support induction, he cited experience. Obviously religious people have experience of the value of their beliefs, and this has been true for thousands of years. It doesn't change just because Coyne wants it to be different.
Nathan Myhrvold simply insists that faith in natural law is 'different' somehow from faith in God. He doesn't make a very good case despite lots of words strung together. Lawrence Krauss tries for the same point with fewer words, falls just as short. Scott Atran also wants the two "Faiths" to be entirely different, but can't establish that as anything but his own subjective (and self-serving) way of defining the word "faith" for his own convenience.
It is humorous to watch all the hemming and hawing, denial and name-calling, kicking and screaming. None of them can stop Davies from talking about these things in public, any more than anyone can stop PZ or Hitchens from spewing their special brand of non-scientific hate-speech in public.
They should start getting used to it, because I seriously doubt physicists are as easily cowed by self-important bio-blowhards as junior biologists tend to be. "Darwinian Orthodoxy" is only orthodox in the field of evolutionary biology. It doesn't rule physics and cannot circumscribe its areas of expertise.
Time to call the waaaambulance. The culture warriors have stubbed their toes.
November 27th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
Thanks for drawing attention to the discussions happening around the blogosphere. I've tried to gather some of the links on my blog, but gave up on trying to be comprehensive. http://exploringourmatrix.blog...
In a blog entry of mine a while back, I pondered whether bringing God into the discussion is different in biology and cosmology – I wonder what you'd make of the distinction I made there: http://exploringourmatrix.blog...
Comment by ReligionProf — November 27, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
ReligionProf wrote (at a linked site):
Congratulations on two points. First, for a response that allows for rational discussion. Second, the point about the natural limit that relates to cosmology. My own view is that there exists a broader limit applicable to all scientific disciplines namely, the ability to make accurate empirical predictions. When a related inability is present so is a very practical and discernable limit to the specific area of study.
We part company on your perception of biology as it relates to design. I'd respectfully advise you to reevaluate the utility of the term "God of the Gaps" if you intend to influence IDists who have some very scientific reasons for imputing design. The phrase plays well before a receptive anti-ID audience but is a show stopper when open exchanges of views are the objective.
Your view of the reasons why biology differs from cosmology is valid to a point but that point is the ability of biologists to make accurate predictions about a fundamental issue- the origin of life itself. This is not a matter of gaps. The entire field can be viewed as a cavernous chasm not filled by decades of research. Existing theories are embarrasingly inadaquate.
The main point where ID critics err is in believing that a theoretical supporting structure for ID must be built on "gaps." If you follow some of the more technical blog entries at TT you will perceive reasons why this is not so. You might want to get hold of The Design Matrix as it will present an alternative POV to what you are accustomed to seeing.
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
Hi Joy,
It is strange that the critics are so clueless. Do they really think those with an IQ above that of a glass of water will be taken in by these things ?
P.Z was as usual the funniest.
He fails utterly to understand the nature of the objection. Perhaps life can exist with a completely alien set of physics, that is an unknown quantity, but it still fails to address the objection (but hey, why would you expect a non-philosopher that was impressed with "The God Delusion" to understand the objection).
Life wouldn't exist in any form we recognize if the laws of physics anything like ours (with the relevant variables tweaked in different ways) were different. This is based simply on what we actually know and observe not faith based appeals to the unknown.
Funny how PZ likes to excoriate "faith" when it is about a deity but goes with the blindest of blind appeals to faith when it suits him. But hey, who expects him to be consistent, or even really especially rational ?
Comment by thesciphishow — November 27, 2007 @ 3:35 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
No feligious nut could be anymore faithful in his doctrine then the faith I have observed in scientists attempting to prove their own theories. I've gone w/o food and water, sleep, neglected all personal relationships, traveled from one end of the world to the other, and endured any and every hardship, because I had a totally stupid, irrational, and completely unjustifiable faith in my own theories.
I would have clothed myself in camel's hair, lived at the top of a hundred-tower, in the middle of the desert, to prove the most trivial point"”I faithfully believed in.
Only scientific hacks lack faith. And such are your critics!
I continue to have great faith in science and nothing has ever shaken it!
(I've even heard atheist scientists pray over their own experiments! LOL)
If you don't know faith you nothing about science.
Comment by Rock — November 27, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
PZ Meyers:
PZ has made an excellent metaphysical point. In principle there could be other forms of life consistent with a different set of physical laws. But does PZ realize that when he argues this he is making a case for something that is intrinsically unempirical?
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Rock:
Oh, golly! Rock-o-my-heart, you've done it again! That was beautiful. §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 27, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
thesciphishow:
They're simply desperate to demonstrate (somehow!) that their faith is not of a kind with lesser people's faith. Because if it were of a kind, they'd have to back off their pretense that theirs is not a religious 'culture war'. When it in fact of the matter… IS.
I agree that PZ's response is the silliest. Sometimes he'd be almost endearing as a plus-size child, but the hairiness just ruins it for me. I've wondered occasionally over the years since knowing him if he might be an Asperger's victim precisely because of his childish view of things…
Then I remember that I don't much like spoiled children, have little patience for hissy-fits. My son was King of hissy-fits. He'd hold his breath, throw himself melodramatically onto the ground, and kick and scream at the top of his (very irritatingly shrill) voice. It wasn't until he did this at home one evening in front of friends we were trying to entertain that he got cured. Our Navy buddy watched the display, loudly announced it was pitiful, and promptly threw himself on the floor kicking and screaming louder than our boy. We all immediately joined in, left junior sitting in the middle of a bunch of kicking, screaming adults wondering what in the world was going on with this silly display.
He never threw another fit as long as he lived, and he was only 18 months old at the time (my kids got to their "terrible twos" quite early). I don't think anybody ever called PZ on his fit-throwing. That's a shame, but also humorous for us all these years later.
Comment by Joy — November 27, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
It is less significant than he thinks. Bill Craig made and excellent point about what is wrong with this claim.
That life might exist with wildly different laws of physics than the ones we know, it does not change the fact that, given the laws of physics we have and everything we know about the laws of the universe, the life bearing universe we have is extraordinarily unlikely on the given laws of physics and the variables within it.
That doesn't change by appealing to unobserved and entirely fanciful lifeforms in entirely unobservable and entirely fanciful universes.
When it comes to faith I prefer to put mine in things that are more concrete. I guess PZ doesn't like the faith of "religious people" because it is insufficiently ethereal and ridiculous compared to the faith he exhibits.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 27, 2007 @ 6:36 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Well they are right in that regard. I've never met a Christian (even of the most fidiestic variety) that has the sort of faith in entirely fanciful notions that PZ has.
His faith is of an entirely different kind. Though if sheer desperation and ludicrousness of an appeal makes it a "better" faith, then I guess all us mundane Christians trusting in evidence and experience (regardless of how solid a person thinks it is, at least the claims are in principle testable and examinable) do have a "lesser" faith after all.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 27, 2007 @ 6:39 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 7:54 pm
Joy, this is the root of much of the philosophical twisting we've witnessed on other longer threads. In my 10+ years on various forums and in personal conversations, I've found this exact sentiment among the anti-theists almost without exception. They pride themselves on their sneering disdain for 'blind faith', and steadfastly refuse to see their own faith in the magic power of blind mutation and selection! Ah, sweet irony!
Comment by todd — November 27, 2007 @ 7:54 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 8:16 pm
What surprises me about all of this is that what Davies was saying seemed rather mundane and non-aggressive, and yet the response has been strangely frantic. An opinion by a physicist that science involves some faith warrants all this?
I think part of the reason may be that Davies gets viewed as a near-traitor, doing things like talking about the death of materialism, or worse, working with the Templeton foundation. If he were associated with a religion, it would probably be less trouble – he'd get written off as a religious partisan, and that's that. But a scientist with no formal faith saying what he does (even though he's certainly talked about his problems with western theism in the past) is probably particularly threatening to a worldview which demands science be a religion-killer.
Comment by nullasalus — November 27, 2007 @ 8:16 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
It really is isn't it. He doesn't say anything even mildly unreasonable. It is a simple fact of history that Newtons ideas were deeply dependent on Christian theology and that science demands a certain faith commitment.
I guess the problem is that he is pointing out the elephant in the room as you suggest, that science cannot even in principle function as the "religion killer" that a certain breed of ill-educated atheists require it to be.
I'm surprised an atheist like Theodore Dalrymple has not likewise gotten in trouble for noting the following http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/...
Comment by thesciphishow — November 27, 2007 @ 8:22 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 9:03 pm
Todd:
You nailed it Todd. The idea that the sword they've wielded against theists is the very one that could be used to neuter their core belief is the source of their rage. If the central tenet of atheism rests on faith in the unprovable rather than objective empirical data (as EAs would like to believe) then atheists are much like the rest of us after all. Gone are the intellectual pretensions.
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2007 @ 9:03 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
sciphi:
Oh, but you've missed the entirely sinister undercurrent. It's not that there's a "lesser faith." It's that by virtue of this judgment, that faith belongs to "lesser people."
This explains the "New Eugenics" and its connection with the "New Atheists."
Comment by Joy — November 27, 2007 @ 9:09 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Here is my bit:
http://thisquantumworld.com/wo...
Comment by Ulrich Mohrhoff — November 27, 2007 @ 9:17 pm
November 27th, 2007 at 9:19 pm
Very insightful Joy. After all one is entitled to a measure of arrogance when dealing with IDiots.
Comment by Bradford — November 27, 2007 @ 9:19 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 11:12 am
I think there is a fundamental difference between expecting a cup of coffee to cool and a Christian's faith in the resurrection.
Comment by The Pixie — November 28, 2007 @ 11:12 am
November 28th, 2007 at 11:30 am
The Pixie:
Noone would disagree but the belief that a lifeless planet produces a chemical process leading to a cell requires some faith on the part of the believer.
Comment by Bradford — November 28, 2007 @ 11:30 am
November 28th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
The Pixie:
You're trying to insert a scarecrow (straw man) you can later beat up. The actual issue of the op-ed is that science relies upon faith in "laws" that govern events so as to make them regular and predictable. Davies likens this to theists' faith that some sort of creator god established "laws" that govern events so as to make them regular and predictable.
Or, put another way, there is conceptual and philosophical equivalence between "Laws of Nature" and "Laws of God." The point of contention being simply a matter of attribution. Faith in the existence of governing "law" and predictable regularity is in operation from either avenue of approach.
The second law of thermodynamics is in no way equivalent to belief in a particular tenet of a particular sociopolitical institution known as the Christian religion. So your observation is a "duh" that does not relate to the subject.
Comment by Joy — November 28, 2007 @ 12:02 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 12:20 pm
If faith is the evidence of things hoped for and the substance of things not seen, such a belief requires a bit more than 'some' faith! For me, just how much faith is required was amply illustrated in Thaxton's The Mystery of Life's Origin, which critically holds various OOL scenarios against known laws of chemistry. Michael Behe mentions this in a 1999 review of Davies' book The Fifth Miracle.
Comment by todd — November 28, 2007 @ 12:20 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Joy
I do not think so. Here is Davis again: "You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot" Maybe I have this wrong, but it sure sounds to me like Davis is talking about faith in the laws being the same tomoorw as they are today; in this example faith that hot things will always cool down.
I think contra Davis – that is an entirely different faith to the Christian faith in the resuurection.
And my point is the scientist's faith in those laws is well founded in common experience, while religious faith is, if you like, blind.
Now you are talking about faith in the continuing existence of the laws of nature/God, and faith in a belief regarding whether they come from. We all have faith that the laws exist. We know it from experience, we can test, for example, that a cup of coffee will cool. That is quite different to a faith in God as the origin of those laws in the absense of any evidence. Or so it seems to me.
Absolutely. Exactly my point, Joy. So why did Davis use that as an example of a scientist's faith as though it was?
Comment by The Pixie — November 28, 2007 @ 12:33 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 1:18 pm
Pixie:
I agree. These two faiths are entirely different. That's the "duh." It's also NOT what Davies (notice the "e" after the "i") was talking about – these are NOT the faiths in question.
Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so? This faith has nothing to do with religion. It's just that religions generally attribute laws of nature to the god who created the universe and established those laws. This belief in no way changes the laws or their mechanisms of operation.
One need not be a scientist or an atheist to have faith that gravity will be in operation tomorrow just like it is today.
And this is your inserted straw man. There is no difference in kind for faith that day follows night. The difference is attribution (nature or God), and that is entirely immaterial to the existence of law or faith in the existence of law.
Both the scientist and the priest living in St. Louis have faith that St. Louis will experience daylight tomorrow. There is zero difference in their faith – both of them base their faith on experience of the regularity that day follows night.
Please tell us how – exactly – believing that God established this regularity makes faith that daylight will come "different" in the priest than in the scientist. Be specific.
Comment by Joy — November 28, 2007 @ 1:18 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Pixie,
Davies is talking about faith in first things, not ancillary things ( I think, along Godel's line). Belief in Christ's resurrection is based upon the testimony of others contained in the Gospels and Acts. What that resurrection means to us is where faith comes in – and where the parallel to 2nd Law of Therm. exists. Both are faith in the perpetuity of the concepts.
Comment by todd — November 28, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Pixie:
Scarecrow! Scarecrow! Pixie this is purely a diversion. Davies uses the faith of a scientist in the second law to highlight the FACT that this is exactly the same as the faith of a religious person in the second law. In both cases it's FAITH in the regularity. Both scientists and religious people (who have attended school) call it the second law of thermodynamics, too. They all call the law of gravity the law of gravity as well. Fancy that. The faith in the law is precisely the same either way, and it's based on experience of the regularity either way.
Comment by Joy — November 28, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Apologies to Paul Davies for spell his name wrong previously.
Joy
It sounds to me like he is talking about two things. Yes, he is talking about where the laws come from, but also he is talking (as I read it) about scientists having faith in the existence of those laws. For example:
Despite your shrieks of "Scarecrow! Scarecrow!" it would seem that Davies is actually equating the faith of a scientist with the existence of regularity and order. In this paragraph at least, he is not considering where that regularity and order might come from. Not convinced? Well, how about this quote, where again the faith of the scientist, according to Davies, is in the existence of the laws, not the law maker:
I am reading these again, Joy, and I still do not see any other way to interprete them.
Scarecrow! Scarecrow! The difference that I am talking about is between the priest who has faith the the laws come from God, and the scientist has has faith that the laws exist. Now, do you need me to be specific about how the two faiths are different? Or we could discuss the difference between the priest who has faith the the laws come from God, and the scientist who is open minded about where the laws come from.
Er, what? Where does Davies mention the faith of a religious person in the mundane or in the laws of nature? I have to say that to me it is pretty clear that Davies is talking about the religious faith of religious people. If he was talking about religious people, and discussing what they believe, you might have a point. But he does not. He is talking about the faith of a religion. For example, he says "Religion, by contrast, is based on faith.". And the faith of a religion, I would say, is about the existence and nature of God, the afterlife, etc. It is not (for the most part anyway) about the consistency of the laws of nature.
Priests, religious people, Christians, whatever have faith that hot coffee will cool. But that is not a religious faith. That is not what he is talking about.
When Davies says "Religion, by contrast, is based on faith." he is talking about a faith in God, not a faith in the second law of thermodynamics!
Comment by The Pixie — November 28, 2007 @ 4:52 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
todd
As I said to Joy, I think Davies is talking about two different faiths for the scientist. One is the faith that there are laws in nature, a faith based on a tonne of experience. The second is the faith in something that created the laws, which I would call speculation, since science has no position on that as yet.
If you believe in the resurrection and its implications based only on the contents of one book, then that is quite a different faith to believing hot coffee will cool, I think. That is not to say it is wrong, but it shows the difference between religion faith and common expectation (I really would not even call it faith).
Comment by The Pixie — November 28, 2007 @ 5:03 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Todd:
You're right Todd. Believing that a prebiotic series of random chemical reactions generates a cell requires more faith than a biblical miracle that brings a dead corpse back to life. In the latter case the cells are already there. In the former they must be generated from non-living chemicals.
Comment by Bradford — November 28, 2007 @ 5:53 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
Keep in mind that Davies goes from saying that, to "Until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." All this, along with talk about Newton, the theistic origin of the concept of natural laws, etc. Distinguishing between faith in God (in traditional view, a supreme rational agent who has certainly organized the laws of nature) and faith that supplies science (which assumes organized laws of nature, and sidesteps questions of the laws' origin) is difficult, especially when you're dealing with the sort of deity Davies is often accused of being sympathetic to.
You can argue the differences between faith in specific things. Say, faith in God and faith in MWI. Or even faith in MWI versus faith in many minds, or something else. But in the end, faith is faith, and Davies was correct to point out that science involves it, or even demands it. No one is saying that faith makes its object true, so what's the problem?
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2007 @ 6:48 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
"the life bearing universe we have is extraordinarily unlikely on the given laws of physics and the variables within it."
This is like saying that it's extraordinarily unlikely to pull an ace of spades out of a deck of cards on the first try before you have any idea what cards the deck contains. For all you know, it could be 100% composed of aces of spades.
Again, I covered this in my Davies article: it's only through either dishonestly switching between scientific and ontological senses of fine tuning that anyone can maintain this "improbable" surprise and say it implies anything. Ontologically, we do not have the slightest idea what to expect from "a universe" or what it's structure might be. Talking about the "way things are" being unlikely is nonsensical.
Scientifically, it might be extraordinarily unlikely for life to arise GIVEN the way the things are. That, at least, is decent criterion for "unlikely" because you'd have some clue what the probabilities are, instead of defining them purely by the limits of ones particular imagination (and merely imagining adjusting constants is a remarkably unimaginative limit).
Comment by Bad — November 28, 2007 @ 8:05 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
The idea that the deck may be stacked is pretty much what the example given by thesciphishow is meant to imply.
Considering that the fine-tuning issue is one that's often discussed and certainly has helped provoke thoughts of many-universes, eternal inflation, and other such explanations for why the balance it is what it is, it sounds like you're arguing that, collectively, professional scientists really have no real idea what their findings indicate philosophically or theologically. Since you can cite PZ Myers for evidence, that's actually quite an argument you'd have there.
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2007 @ 8:23 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 8:24 pm
nullasalus
But the position of science is that we do not know that theory of he laws of the universe. How can "Don't know" be a statement of faith?
I think there is a fundamental difference between faith in an unseen deity (though I do not know what sort of deity Davies acknowledges) for which we have only the scantiest of real evidence and faith in the existence of the laws of nature. Regarding the latter, Joy says "Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so? This faith has nothing to do with religion."
I think the problem comes down to different meanings of the word "faith". Faith can mean confidence or trust in a person or thing or it can mean belief that is not based on evidence (among other things). If we are using the first meaning – and we are all clear that we are using the first meaning – then there is no problem. Of course science requires that we have confidence in certain things.
The problems appear when someone then quietly slips to the other definition, and says, well if science requires faith, then perhaps it is a belief without evidence to support it.
Problems appear when people say that if both religion and science are based on faith then they cannot be distinguished philospohically, ignoring the rather important point that science is based on a faith that comes from evidence, in stark contrast to religion that is based on faith without evidence.
Do you really believe that the expectation that a hot cup of coffee will go cold is the same sort of "faith" as the expectation that God will save your soul?
Comment by The Pixie — November 28, 2007 @ 8:24 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
Depends on what you mean by "real evidence". I think there's a considerable amount of evidence (from natural science to philosophical arguments) that lends itself to the belief in some kind of intelligent, supreme power. Not to mention that whether the deity is 'unseen' ventures into a whole other problem on its own. I don't see you – I see acts and states of the world I can attribute to you. If I were in the same room as you, same deal, believe it or not. That's one nasty issue in philosophy (and really, neuroscience); how to properly draw the bounds of mind, self, identity, etc. I can say you're 'unseen' with one hell of a lot of backing, if I cared to.
Again, it's a common charge, but there's plenty of evidence that can be marshalled in favor of God. The evidence is not beyond dispute, but what is? Do you have beliefs? The Churchlands don't think so.
Sure, some claims-with-evidence are stronger than others. But at that point, a fight is on, and it's about interpreting evidence rather than denying evidence exists.
You may as well be asking me 'Do you really believe that the sun, the grand canyon, and Lou Dobbs are all made of the same thing (atoms/quanta)?' Well, yes. Are the specific examples therefore the same thing? Of course not.
Even then, I don't think 'coffee going cold' is the kind of science Davies was talking about. Go beyond Davies' examples and more situations pop up. Can science solve the hard problem of consciousness? Some people think yes, some people think no. There's faith at work in both replies, relying on track records of investigation, particular rationally understood aspects of the problem at hand, etc. The former is interesting, because they have a whole lot of faith in the ability for a human to reliably discern, measure, and make progress towards quite a difficult goal.
Anyway, I think this comes down to – what a surprise – politics. I said before, what Davies said sure sounded basic and benign, but it's ruffled a lot of feathers. The opposing response varies from 'let's define faith in a way that science doesn't have it and religion does' to 'okay, both have faith, but scientific faith is based on evidence and religious faith isn't' to even 'okay, both have faith based on evidence, but scientific evidence is one hell of a lot more abundant and reliable than religious evidence'. The binding theme is that's it's important to give "religion" as absolute little credit as possible. Because, damnit, science is supposed to be the utterly distinct intellectual enterprise in opposition to religion. It's not supposed to offer support or similarity to religious thought. If it does, what's the point of a scientific worldview anyway?
Comment by nullasalus — November 28, 2007 @ 9:05 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Alright, i'll bite. Can you please explain how they are fundamentally different.
There might be a difference in degree between the two, but i'm less convinced there is a difference in kind as you assert.
So if you would be so kind as to make that difference in kind clear please.
I'm hoping you wont just say, "Well it is obvious", because that they are different in degree and that they are "fundamentally different" is not the same thing.
On what basis do you infer the reliability of induction ? Which is the essence of your claim.
As Hume noted, your past experience of the reliability of induction is not valid as evidence for the reliability of induction into the future.
So how is it a "fundamentally different" kind of faith claim ?
Comment by thesciphishow — November 28, 2007 @ 9:50 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
For people who prize themselves on being "rational" and "brite" you'd think they would know better than to embark on such an obvious fools errand.
Of course, it does seem more an more apparent that those that make the most noise about being the most "rational" and "skeptical" turn out to be those that are most frequently very much irrational and credulous.
It must really stick in their craw that in England as "traditional religion" has waned, superstition has been on the rise, and that the two seem inexorably tied together in an inversely proportional manner.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 28, 2007 @ 9:53 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 10:23 pm
Actually the problem is not the different meaningings of the word faith rather the failure to distinquish faith from fideism. Faith without evidence is fideism. Unfortunately over the last 100 years or so the one9 fideism) has been equated with the other.
Actually the problem is people like you quitely slipping in the definition of fideism for the definition of faith.
Historically neither Judaism nor Christianity are based on "fideism" they are based on faith because of the evidence.
Vivid
Comment by Vividbleau — November 28, 2007 @ 10:23 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Pixie:
And? This is entirely uncontested, Pixie. Both scientists and everyone else who has considered the laws of the universe have faith in the existence of those laws. I linked to the collection of responses at edge.org, which contains 9 (last I checked). I also linked Orzel's response to a response, so that's 10 weighing in.
This thread is about the humorous (from our POV) reactions to Davies' op-ed from the community of science bloggers who are all bent out of shape that Davies would dare to make such an uncontrovertable observation in public.
Again, entirely uncontested by anyone here. However, your wording is a bit ambiguous. Scientists having faith in the existence of regularity and order has nothing to do with the existence of regularity and order. Those things existed on the universal scale long before life came along.
But you aren't talking about the subject of this thread, and you've misrepresented what Davies' op-ed was about. It doesn't matter one bit what anyone believes about the origin of the laws, as such beliefs in no way affect people's faith in the existence of the laws.
Davies wrote about scientists' faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws. Scientists share that faith with religious people. Most people who have looked into the matter have faith that the universe is governed by laws.
Though there are quite a few people who do NOT believe those laws are completely dependable, immutable, absolute, universal or mathematical, but at least they agree that the universe is regulated by regularities we can mostly depend upon. Even if they aren't "laws," but just "habit." But that's a different subject, even if some of those people are scientists.
That's a distraction you want to toss into the pot, Pixie. It is not the subject of Davies' op-ed and it's not the subject of this thread. The subject, FYI, is the existence of laws and the faith of both scientists and religious believers in the existence of laws. Other tenets and dogmas of science and religion are NOT relevant.
Faith is faith, so the subject of God is irrelevant unless we wish to talk about beliefs as to the origin of laws. That's not what this thread is about either. Please stop trying to distract the discussion with off-topic irrelevancies. Thanks.
Comment by Joy — November 28, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
November 28th, 2007 at 11:07 pm
Pixie
I can't speak for others but I agree that there is a difference between my faith in the Christian God and an atheists' faith in natural laws. My faith is based on historical evidence and personal experience and the atheist's faith is blind as far as I can tell.
I believe in natural laws because I believe in a law giver who revealed himself in Jesus. I can't for the life of me see any basis at all for your belief in them?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 28, 2007 @ 11:07 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 4:34 am
A scientist assumes that natural laws apply universally over both time and space. But the good scientist will eventually revise hsi or her opinion if observations prove otherwise. So far this assumption has proved pretty productive.
(There is the rather special problem of induction which I interpret as a problem over what we mean by evidence. )
Surely religious faith is more than a working assumption or an assessment of the most likely explanation of the evidence? As I understand it, religious faith is a committment.
Comment by Mark Frank — November 29, 2007 @ 4:34 am
November 29th, 2007 at 4:47 am
nullasalus
Religious faith involves believing (and believing so strongly that it changes your life) in a lot more than "some kind of intelligent, supreme power".
Okay, rather than "unseen" I should have said unsupported by evidence.
I think the evidence supporting the various claims of the Christuian faith (for example) is quite different in quality to the evidence supporting the various claims of science. Furthermore, Christians hold the tenets of their faith to be True, while scientists take science to be tentative.
I chose coffee cooling as this is an example Davies uses. But I will go with that question if you like. The tentative (though now well established) claim that all things are made of atoms is made on evidence collected over a century of science, and can be used to explain any number of phenomena.
To me the word "faith" implies confidence in something. Are there scientists who are confident that science can or cannot solve the hard problem of consciousness? If there are (and some probably do) then they have faith. But scientists are human. Individual scientist have faith in all sorts of things. Some even have religious faith! However, the faith of those individuals is not science, and is not requied to do science.
Of course it is. Religious folk do not like that science is held in high regard, especially as science and religion sometimes disagree on some basic points, so they will do all they can to devalue sciece.
Because science has a heck of a lot of evidence to back it up and religion does not. And people who work hard looking for the evidence get annoyed when others with a religious agenda try to devalue that work.
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 4:47 am
November 29th, 2007 at 5:59 am
thesciphishow
The simple answer is that everyone knows from their every day experience that hot things get cool. In contrast, no one has ever witnessed the resurrection.
To put this in a more scientific context, the claim that hot things cool is testable, has been tested numerous times, and always found to be true. The resurrection is not a testable claim, and has never been tested.
How about this difference: Scientific claims are tentative and there is a degree of confidence in them. Science has much less confidence in MWI than in the second law of thermodynamics. In science, there is always doubt. Compare to religion, where faith is supposed to be absolute. How confident is a Christian than God exists, that Jesus saves, etc? There is no doubt.
Personally, I am happy to make the assumption that the future will be as the past. And I bet you do too. And Hume as well. Every time you take a step, you assume that the ground will be solid beneath your foot. That assumption is based on induction. It would be impossible to live otherwise, and past experience has taught that it works well (and yes, I know the circularity in that). If you want to say science has "faith" in induction, then I will agree (and I have already said so in as many words). There are assumptions that underlie science, and that is one of them. All we can say is that so far, despite over a century of research, those assumptions have yet to fail.
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 5:59 am
November 29th, 2007 at 6:42 am
Vividbleau
You should complain to Dictionary.com:
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 6:42 am
November 29th, 2007 at 6:49 am
Scientific endeavour does not seek a conflict with religion. The problem arises when fundamentalists insist on the literal truth of some aspect of their faith, such as the age of the earth, which is capable of being measured.
Gould's NOMA solves the endless talking past each other, on such a simple issue.
Comment by Alan Fox — November 29, 2007 @ 6:49 am
November 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Pixie:
You can't justify induction which is in the end what we are talking about here using inductive reasoning. Please read Hume.
You must have faith (confidence) that present effects are the result of past causes before you even conduct your experiment. On what do you base that faith?
Christians base it on a orderly and logical God who is above the physical universe.
Faith in induction can not be tentative for the scientist it must be absolute. If induction does not hold science comes to a halt.
As a Christian I hold no faith as absolute when we are dealing with facts. My understanding of the facts can and do change as I get more information. On the other hand I do hold my confidence in Christ as absolute this is not faith in a fact but faith (trust) in a person. Do you see the difference?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 29, 2007 @ 8:21 am
November 29th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Joy
Sorry, I meant the former, the faith scientists have in the existence of the laws.
Then I am confused. Davies seems to spend quite a bit of his op-ed discussing precisely what people believe about the origin of the law. I agree with you that what people believe about the origin of the laws does not affect their faith in the existence of those laws. However, Davies ends:
I understand him to be saying that unless and until science can explain the origin of the laws from within the universe, then the origin of the laws must be external, and therefore the scientist's faith is comparable to religion. I.e., Davies is talking about how the origin of the laws affects the faith of the scientist.
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 8:33 am
November 29th, 2007 at 9:32 am
fifth monarchy man
An atheist's faith in the existence of natural laws is based on a life time of experience of the existence of those laws. As Joy says "Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so?"
I am happy to say this is merely an assumption that the laws will be the same tomorrow. from a pragmatic point-of-view, that is all we need. I am not claiming Absolute Truth or anything.
We all have the faith in the existence of laws. As Joy says "Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so?"
Sorry, you lost me. You can tentatively make an assumption that the laws of nature exist and will continue to exist. You can keep that assumption right up to the point where it is proved wrong. That is when science comes to a halt. So far that has not happened.
I think so, and as far as I can see, I agree. Your confidence or trust in Christ is absolute. On the other hand, sciemce is tentative. That was essentially my point.
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 9:32 am
November 29th, 2007 at 11:30 am
Pixie to nullasalus:
Actually, atomism was first theorized by Democritus, thus is older than Christianity. The idea that atoms aren't the smallest units of matter is just over a century old. But there is some dispute about whether those smaller units really qualify as matter, since nobody's ever seen any of them and the entire zoo could be nothing more than isolated interactive sub-forces transformed by the forces used to blast the atoms. You know, the whole "more energy you put in, the more beasties come out" thing.
??? If the laws scientists and religious people both have faith in turn out to originate inside the universe instead of outside of it, scientists will stop having faith in the laws? I don't get what you're saying.
Maybe it would help if you explained what "laws" are in the primary sense. Are they cause, or are they effect?
Comment by Joy — November 29, 2007 @ 11:30 am
November 29th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
You can be a Christian, a Buddhist, a Muslim, an atheist, a nihilist, or a robotic intelligence, and still work in science. Just apply the scientific method.
You don't have to believe coffee will cool. We can mechanically assign a level of statistical confidience based on past observations. We can compare this level of confidence to other observed phenomena. As sure as the Dawn. You can believe all you want that the universe will end tomorrow or that the world was created Last Thursday, but the statistical calculations are unaffected by that belief.
Comment by Zachriel — November 29, 2007 @ 1:53 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 2:53 pm
Pixie:
Well, there are purported witnesses to a risen Christ, which would count as proof of the resurrection by those who saw him executed. Indeed, this was the central message of the early church and a big difference between other religions with martyred leaders.
Comment by todd — November 29, 2007 @ 2:53 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
The Pixie,
You've thrown up some bizarre standards for 'religious faith' here. The fact is, it's all over the map – running from people who are extraordinarily animated by their faith, to people who are very reserved and passive but believe nonetheless. Casting religous people as 'only the ones who are extraordinarily animated by it' smacks of Hitchens' game where religion poisons everything, and if a religious person did something good, that was humanism at work, not religion.
And we're back to the counter-claim of "it's supported by the evidence, it's just not conclusive".
Okay, so you agree there's evidence – you question the quality. But without specifically debating the particular quality, it's worth noting that the 'various claims of science' vary in quality too, and some scientific claims are in competition with each other. And lastly, the distinction you give is incorrect. Scientists can be every bit as motivated by ideaological commitments in their field as anywhere else, and many Christians are willing to entertain the possibility that they are wrong on some, perhaps even all things.
You missed the point. I went with an atoms example because yes, despite how radically different all three things are, they're still composed of those and quanta. Faith in a cooling cup of coffee is not 1 to 1 similar with faith in immutable laws, which is not 1 to 1 similar with the faith of a religious person. But yes, it's all faith, and it's all basically the same thing.
When you're at the point of saying that sure, all scientists have faith, and even their views on scientific subjects involve faith, and that faith may even drive them to accept or reject certain things about science and what they'll pursue or consider possible, I'm afraid "that's that". You've conceded the presence of quite a lot of faith in science, with the caveat that the experiments themselves can be carried out by a robot. Could well be the case – but experiments aren't the sum of science. Interpreting the experiments, judging what's possible, what can be concluded, etc, is part of science – and certainly, by your own admission, involves faith. In fact, serious faith. Fundamental faith.
This is nonsense. You yourself just talked about how some scientists *are* religious, including some very religious and/or prominent ones both past and present. Science is tremendously popular in the US even with the presence of high religious fervor. "Science and religion" can't disagree on basic points any more than they can agree on basic points, because they're belief systems open to experience by humans. Many religious people may disagree with many scientists, but even among the most extreme of the former, the charge is that scientists are abusing science – not that actual science is bad.
"Religious folk" are not a bunch of bumpkins holding pitchforks, ready to stab the next person they see with a microscope.
The evidence for religion and the evidence for science is another argument, aside from mentioning that evidence for religious claims does exist. But your casting of scientists as in opposition to the religious is, uh. Well, unscientific, really.
Comment by nullasalus — November 29, 2007 @ 3:34 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
The cooling of hot coffee is a strongly supported scientific inference. Faith in Eternal Salvation is not.
Comment by Zachriel — November 29, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Joy
Sorry, I have no idea how that is relevant.
I think what Davies is saying is that either the lass of nature originate in the universe or outside it. If scientists can show that they originated inside the universe, all well and good. However, so far they have not. This leaves them in the position of the laws coming from outside the universe. And that, of course, is what religion says. Ergo, scientists have faith.
Well what I mean by the laws of nature is the way the universe runs. I guess you could say the laws cause things to happen, such as causing coffee to cool, but they also dictate how thy happen. What do you think they are?
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Difference in degree not a difference in kind. You said it was a difference in kind.
Two problems with this idea.
1. You've failed to deal with the problems associated with induction. The question was why you should expect it to do that tomorrow and how this is not a faith commitment.
2. The resurrection is an entirely testable historical claim and has been repeatedly examined and tested in its proper field. That you want to make a category error and claim it is "untestable" does not address my question.
No you are mistaken entirely there. Nice strawman argument though. Try again. Plenty of christians exhibit varying degrees of doubt at varying times. That is why they examine the evidence. Back to the drawing board. In fact I would wager that most christians examine the claims of their faith far more closely than you have ever examined the claims of the second law of thermodynamics to make sure they are reasonable.
This is however a faith commitment. What do you base that on ?
But i have good philosophical reasons for thinking the universe is orderly just as Newton did. What do you base that on ?
Of course they work, they are explicitly theistic assumptions about how the universe should work. Actually they are explicitly christian assumptions about how the world should work, so it shouldn't be a surprise they are reasonable.
But you've not actually made good on your claim. All you have shown is at best a difference in degree not a difference in kind.
So could you please show the difference in kind, or apologise and withdraw your erroneous claim.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 29, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
nullasalus
In contrast to you, who would like to downplay religious faith to "I think there's a considerable amount of evidence (from natural science to philosophical arguments) that lends itself to the belief in some kind of intelligent, supreme power." Let us focus on Christianity, as I guess we are both more familiar with that. Christianity makes the assertion that belief in Jesus will get you to heaven. Can you claim there is a considerable amount of evidence for that belief?
I said religious belief changes your life. Is that what you mean by "Casting religous people as …" Firstly, I did not say or mean to imply that religious belief changes you life is a bad way, only that it changes it. And that is based on what most Christians say (hmm, perhaps the noisy ones). Perhaps if there is anyone reading this who was once an atheist and is now a Christian, he or she could comment on whether the conversion changed his or her life or not.
I am getting lost here. My claim is that the evidence for religious faith, for example the belief that belief in Jesus will get you to heaven, is qualitatively different to the evidence that the universe runs on a system of natural laws. I think there is conclusive evidence that there are laws of nature. As Joy says "Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so? This faith has nothing to do with religion."
Ah, well this highlights another difference between science and religion. In science, claims are tentative, and yes, there are indeed degrees of confidence in those claims. Scientific "faith" can handle that, as well as competing tentative claims. Can religious faith do that?
I have tried to differentiate between scientists – who as you say (and I did too earlier) have their own ideaological commitments – and science (Davies talks about science rather than scientists).
All scientists have faith that everyone else on the roads when they drive to work will keep to the side of the road they should. All scientists have faith that the floor in the laboratory will continue to sustain their weight. What a lot of faith scientists have! I guess it is just the same as religion then…
Well, no. That faith is a faith borne of common experience. It is qualitatively different to a faith that trust in Christ will get you into heaven.
And sure, a scientist's beliefs will affect how he does his job. I dare say a lawyer's beliefs will affect how he does his job. But the scientific process will pretty much proceed the same, much as the law system will.
Lucky for the scientific process that there are scientists with a rich diversity of idealogies, so many avenues will be explored.
Perhaps you are not aware of it, but some people believe the universe is only 6000 years old. This is a religious belief that contradicts science. Bizarrely, a lot of people still reject modern evolutionary theory because it contradicts their religious beliefs. Of course, not all religious beliefs are contradicted by science, and there are plenty of Christians who find they can reconcile their religious beliefs with science.
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 5:05 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 5:16 pm
thesciphishow
I think heresay is different in kind to personal experience.
I expect it to do that tomorrow because it did today. As Joy says "Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so? This faith has nothing to do with religion." Take it up with Joy.
And I thought I said it was a a faith commitment.
That is quite a claim. How has it been tested? When you say "repeatedly examined" do you mean numerous people have gone over the same scriptural texts? That is different in kind, I would say, to scientists doing a range of diverse experiments to test relativity.
Yes, it is. I said that before. As Joy says "Faith that day follows night is well founded in common experience for everyone born with consciousness. Why pretend not so? This faith has nothing to do with religion." Take it up with Joy.
Comment by The Pixie — November 29, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
Zach:
It's not the cooling of the coffee that is the issue here it's your absolute blind faith in the validity of scientific inference. On what basis do you hold to such absolute faith? Remember you can't use inductive reasoning to justify induction. To do so is circular reasoning.
In order to do so you must have absolute confidence that you can assign a level of statistical confidence based on past observations. What do you base such absolute blind faith on? Remember you can't use inductive reasoning to justify faith in induction. Please read Hume if you don't understand.
Pixie:
Actually no. You have absolute blind faith in a tentative fact (the validity of scientific induction) based on nothing at as far as I can tell.
I on the other hand have absolute confidence in a person (not a fact) based on historic knowledge and personal experience.
We both have an absolute faith. Yours is just baseless as far as I can tell and mine is based on genuine evidence. Now do you understand?
.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 29, 2007 @ 6:02 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 6:13 pm
Hi, thesciphishow,
The two faiths (that hot coffee will cool, and that there was a resurrection) are not even comparable. The first is the faith that a future event will take place, the cooling of the coffee. The other is the faith that an event, the resurrection, took place in the past. The truth or falsity of the one can be resolved by tasting and touching the coffee as time elapses. The truth or falisity of the other has no testable means.
I think a better comparision would be to compare something taken as a fact, a fact which most of us are unable to verify for ourselves, and compare that to the resurrection. For example, faith that an electron has a mass of 9.1095 x 10 to the minus 31 kilograms. Most of us do not have the wherewithal to verify that for ourselves, and those who believe it do so because they have faith that the the physicists are not lying. In this case, both types of faith rely on the belief in secondhand sources. For most people, these two faiths would in fact be a difference in degree, and not in kind.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 29, 2007 @ 6:13 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
The Pixie,
Absolutely, in contrast to me. I'm not downplaying religious faith – I'm being, frankly, realistic. Or are you saying deism or deistic views don't count as a faith? Sure, let's focus on Christianity – but the first thing you have to do in that case is recognize how complicated even the internal discussion about God is. Do you realize that even prominent christian philosophers don't rally together to counter the atheists, but in fact have disagreements among themselves?
No, but I'd claim that you have your understanding out of whack. 'Christianity' does not make that assertion, some christians (and sure, probably a large share of them) do. Others believe in universal salvation (through Christ, of course). Still others believe in the concept of the invincibly ignorant, where people who have not or could not accept Christ are nevertheless saved by Christ. In the Catholic tradition, speculating who is and is not in heaven is frowned upon – even for, say, Judas.
And then we come to the question of heaven. What IS heaven? Again, the views are many, spanning from Emmanuel Swedenborg style mental existence to the (surprisingly, more ancient) belief in resurrection of the body and material life everlasting.
So my reply would be – your question isn't so simple. But for most religious people, I think the attitude tends to be: They have ideas of what constitutes heaven, or what God will do. But primarily, they trust in God and don't deal with the theological intricacies. Pretty reasonable for day to day people, considering even the boldest theologians wouldn't put forth that they've 'figured God out'.
Yes, that is what I meant. Again, this issue is more complicated – religious belief changes your life the way any major belief changes your life. I don't doubt that some people experience what they think is a miracle, or a drastic reawakening. But I do assert that that isn't the universal experience, by a longshot. For many, like myself, religion is an intellectual commitment. And the 'changes in life' are based not in blind faith, but in deliberate consideration, study, and reflection – along with evidence, believe it or not.
And I can fire back that there's vastly more evidence of the harm caused by the "seven deadly sins" than there is that, say, many-minds is the correct explanation for the measurement problem in quantum mechanics, or that bacterial life originally formed in comets. You're pitting a simplified, narrow caricature of a complicated subject against the broadest scientific claim possible and arguing there's a huge difference between the two beliefs.
Who said science is the same as religion? I said faith is important both in science and religion, and that faith certainly involves evidence. Hell, I just gave you a clear, prominent example of faith in philosophy of mind. You yourself said that, yes, there's faith in both views – both opposing views, mind you – and when I point out what that means, this is what you fall back on? Forgive me if I think your argument is, uh. Flawed.
Wonderful. But so what? I wasn't saying that faith breaks science – quite the opposite, really. I have great respect for the scientific process. Guess what? So does Davies, I'm willing to bet. I just recognize – hell, I think it's obvious – that faith plays a role, and that ideaology is an issue. You keep talking about qualitative differences between religious faith and scientific faith, without realizing the complexity of the questions religious faith deals with, what people have faith in, and the diversity of religious views (and the likewise diversity in evidence, argument, and otherwise.)
Faith is faith. Science has it. Religion has it. No, science and religion are not the same thing. No, this fact doesn't demean science. It's just owing up to reality, which (as some people love to point out) doesn't always fit the description we'd love for it to.
Oh, I'm aware. Lucky for the religious process that there are believers with a rich diversity of views, so many avenues will be explored.
Comment by nullasalus — November 29, 2007 @ 6:29 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Why it is your claim they are differnt in kind, not different merely indegree.
You said different in kind. That is what I want you to justify.
Not really.
No, I mean people have examined the relevant texts, done archeological work, etc. You have a funny idea of how history and related disciplines work.
Not really. In all cases you have people examining evidence and make predictions to see if the evidence matches the prediction.
That the methodology employed is different doesn't change the nature of the enterprises.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 29, 2007 @ 8:02 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Easy to assert, harder to justify.
Given the problem of induction, the first is a shakier claim. Unless you have good reason to think that induction will work in the future. But that is a philosophical and theological problem.
No it can't. That would only establish one particular instance, not validate the broad claim you make about all coffee over time.
Umm reality check. The discipline of history seeks to determine whether events in the past took place, and to what degree of accuracy we can be confident that it did occur. That is perfectly testable, more so really than your generalization about coffee cooling down. Which cannot be tested at all.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 29, 2007 @ 8:07 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 10:22 pm
Hey, y'all. Pixie's just trying to distract with irrelevancies. The FAITH Davies likens in his op-ed is in the existence of universal laws. Not faith in microscopes as opposed to faith in resurrections or heaven or any other of the dogmatic or thematic minutiae of science or religion.
It's really not hard, Pixie's just trying to make it hard.
Scientists have faith that universal laws exist.
Religious people have faith that universal laws exist.
Both science and religion share a faith that universal laws exist. Except for those scientists and religious/spiritual people who don't believe that universal laws exist. That's as simple as 2+2=5-1. Everything else is juvenile hissy-fit throwing, from PZ and edge.org to our lovely little Pixie.
Comment by Joy — November 29, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
Hi, thescriphishow,
For starters, if you think that arguments that are the same in kind do not have to share the same semantic form, then there is something the matter with one or more of your premises. Arguments that are the same in kind should share the same tense, and if one is testable, then so should the other. If you do not understand this, then you do not understand logic.
It is muddled thinking to believe that an expectation of a future event, which truth or falsity is testable, is the same in kind as the belief in a past event which truth or falsity is not testable. Regardless of the outcome of the test. I suggest you dust off your logic textbook, if you ever had one, or else pick one up and learn something about logical, reasoned thinking.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 29, 2007 @ 10:47 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Hey Joy
Far be it from me to correct some one as intelligent and capable as you but I believe it is incorrect to equate the Christian's and the Atheists' faith in the natural laws.
Imagine two folks who both claim faith that 4196 + 371= 4567
one believes it because he has done the arithmetic.
The other believes it because he has a hunch.
It would be unfair to equate the two folks faith would it not?
You said
The question for me is on what basis does the atheist have for such faith. It appears to be just blind leap in the dark faith to me.
In Christians the basis for this faith is a logical rational triune creator who stands above the created order. All faith is not created equal.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 29, 2007 @ 10:55 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
So far so good but what future event is tested for when we attempt to reconstruct how life came about on earth?
Comment by Bradford — November 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Hi, thescripshow,
And how exactly do you test that the resurrection took place, in a manner that does not rely on even more faith?
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 29, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
You do not test for that directly but what historians can do is test the credibility of historic sources by evaluating the truth of statements made by them in light of subsequent discoveries. For example, if an author claims that a Siloam Pool existed in Jerusalem and describes its details a subsequent archeological discovery of such, confirming the descriptive details, would lend some credibility to the author. A discovery contradicting the account would discredit the author. An accumulation of such events could enhance or discredit the source. Clearly the account of a credible source weighs in differently than an unknown or discredited source.
Comment by Bradford — November 29, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Hi, Bradford,
I'm not following you on this. My interest has always been oriented more toward the universe and how it came about. I believe that the universe was created. No idea how. Pure faith with no means of testing.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 29, 2007 @ 11:06 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
How do you know whether Caesar crossed the Rubicon?
How do you Know whether Socrates drank the hemlock?
You use the same methods to determine whether Jesus was resurrected
from the dead. It's called historical research and we do it all the time.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 29, 2007 @ 11:09 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:14 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
You can believe the universe was created but pure faith does not mean an absence of evidence and testing alone does not signify empirical results that support a hypothesis.
Comment by Bradford — November 29, 2007 @ 11:14 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
Hi, thescripshow,
Just for clarification here are some arguments that are the same in kind:
I have faith that hot coffee at room temperature will cool.
I have faith that ice at room temperature will melt.
I have faith that milk at room temperature will spoil.
I have faith that orange juice at room temperature will disappear.
All of these are the same in kind, regardless of truth or falsity.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 29, 2007 @ 11:16 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
AnaxagorasRules:
Assuming that the last one means dissapearance through eventual, complete evaporation, none of the above exemplifies faith. They are simply trivial inferences based on prior observations. As I pointed out in tonight's post a deliberate distortion of the meaning of the term was part of an effort to caricature Christianity. That one would object to having science being described in a way that is consistent with the erroneous meaning is hardly surprising. Hence the overreaction to Davies' op ed.
Comment by Bradford — November 29, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Hi, Bradford,
The last one was to show that arguments that are the same in kind don't all have to be true. The semantic form is what establishes sameness in kind. I actually wrote it to mean that the orange juice simply vanished. I won't argue with your assessment about them not exemplifying faith either. All of my comments have really been directed to thescripshow, and I was only being accomodating when referring to the coffee cooling expectation as being an instance of faith.
Comment by AnaxagorasRules — November 29, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:38 pm
Hi AnaxagorasRules. I've not read every comment but I've seen enough to know that critics play fast and loose with the term faith. That the word might be perceived by the "defenders of science" crowd, in its distorted meaning as part of a critique of science, is a supreme irony.
Comment by Bradford — November 29, 2007 @ 11:38 pm
November 29th, 2007 at 11:59 pm
fifthmm:
This is why we get so much whining from the critics, but it's not the issue. You want to appeal to origins just like they do. I think that's irrelevant to the point Davies was making.
Why someone has faith is NOT the same thing as having faith. It's a reason for having faith, but so is experience of past events and induction projected toward future events.
I didn't launch this thread as just another place to argue details of dogma or evangelize anyone's particular beliefs. It's for examination of the objections coming from the whiney bunch… of which Pixie's are of a kind.
Comment by Joy — November 29, 2007 @ 11:59 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 12:11 am
Bradford:
I'm afraid we're getting stuck in an apologetics rut, and that just doesn't address the issue. The critics defend their faith by re-defining the word to mean what they want it to mean. So do the religious apologists. Before you know it we're all the way to arguing about whether faith in the alpha constant is the same thing as faith that Mary was a virgin. Apples and oranges.
Davies made an entirely uncontroversial claim to equivalency of faith that launched this whole controversy. I think it's really silly.
Presumably Davies made that claim so that he could present his argument that unless the laws of nature can be attributed to nature (as opposed to something outside of nature), science hasn't any firm anti-faith ground to stand on. If nature doesn't cause laws of nature to exist, it might as well be God. "I don't know" doesn't negate the equivalency.
Thus allowing this descent into dueling "why" is a distraction. Davies never mention "why." That was not his point.
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2007 @ 12:11 am
November 30th, 2007 at 12:26 am
So. Now that we've argued both the equivalency of scientific and religious faith in laws, and argued several respective "whys" of having that faith, maybe I should mention that I don't have faith in universal laws. Thus I'm not emotionally invested in anybody's "why," and can see the equivalency Davies noted for what it is.
What I experience, and operate upon day to day FAPP, is regularity. But regularity is not law, since it could as easily be habit. Perhaps it's a side-effect of life in and out of physics, or maybe it's just that I've seen too many anomalies to have any real faith in "absolute" laws (one of Davies' qualifiers). Even if I do depend upon the belief (hope?) that what is real today will be real tomorrow. It might not be. Wouldn't surprise me much.
This is why I've inserted the exceptions as qualifiers to my statements about laws of nature and faith-in laws of nature. Some of us don't consider habitual practices of nature to rise to the level of law. If they did, Schrodinger's poor cat couldn't be in two states at once.
Though Schrodinger's cat did once tell me as he headed quickly out the door in disgust that next time we should practice on the dog instead. §;o)
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2007 @ 12:26 am
November 30th, 2007 at 12:33 am
Joy:
I agree that Davies' claim was uncontroversial. I've also looked at the blogosphere and observed that it is the word faith that flips out many anti-theists. Words have meanings. When they can be defined however one wishes rational discussion ceases to be possible. The noted historian Paul Johnson once observed that redefining terms to suit an ideology was a favorite pastime of the 20th centuries' greatest tyrants. If there is doubt as to the true meaning of a word its original intent should be sought. Or those in a discussion need to agree on a definition at the outset.
Comment by Bradford — November 30, 2007 @ 12:33 am
November 30th, 2007 at 1:21 am
Heya Joy,
Sorry if I've been helping derailing the thread from the point. I wanted to answer some of Pixie's claims, nothing more. Apologetics are fun, but not what I've been trying to engage in – just some (IMO) common sense.
I do see what you say, and what Davies says – and in the end, I suppose I agree. I think the question of religious people re: universal laws is tricky (Are 'miracles' incidents where those universal laws are violated? Or were they hidden aspects of laws we were/are unaware of?), but I do believe that faith is faith, and what Davies pointed out holds. Again, that Edge group of responses was amusing to me, mostly because they all disagreed, but none of them seemed to agree on why they should disagree.
Comment by nullasalus — November 30, 2007 @ 1:21 am
November 30th, 2007 at 2:44 am
nullasalus:
Oh, I know the temptation. Have fallen for it countless times! But there was a direction I'd hoped to go, about Davies' specific point, why the critics can't abide it, and about laws of nature themselves.
I've seen some miracles, and some just plain anomalies where the applicable "laws" simply didn't apply. This can happen – and quite often does – so obviously the laws are not what Davies described them to be…
Davies:
Habit provides plenty of direction to account for why the chair remains solid when you're sitting on it, as well as when you're not sitting on it. It's not your constant awareness of the chair [consciousness] that keeps the chair solid, it's the forces interacting in the chair that keep it solid. It is possible that the chair could disintegrate or burst into flames in between moments of time (measurement), but it's not likely. But the back door's open in case it does.
Science sometimes acknowledges the anomalous, but it's more prone to ignore. Exceptions to the rules – purposeful or accidental – mean the rules aren't really "immutable" or "absolute."
IOW, for Schroedinger's poor abused cat, Schroedinger looking into the box has nothing to do with the state of the cat. The cat has its state. Its state will continue to be what it is (more or less) until it's dead. The cat is conscious enough to override Erwin's uncertainty, so he doesn't have to be looking in order for reality to be real.
This is easy for me to see and acknowledge, because I don't share that faith. The world could be the same tomorrow, it might be different. I'm not betting the farm. For those scientists and religious people who have faith in the existence of "dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws," it's the same either way. When Davies said "of an unspecified origin" he excluded the debate the critics and theists have engaged.
I rather suspect Davies shares my disbelief in the immutable and absolute-ness of laws. He's one of the ones who has challenged alpha based on new evidence from space exploration. I could be wrong, of course.
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2007 @ 2:44 am
November 30th, 2007 at 6:24 am
You examine the evidence. It is pretty simple really. The resurrection is a historical claim about an event that occurred. This inevitably causes ripples in the history surrounding the events. You look at all the data points you have and make an inference to the best explanation. Simple really.
Why does examining evidence require faith exactly ?
It requires reasonableness and an ability to follow the evidence where it leads, but nothing more than that.
Comment by thesciphishow — November 30, 2007 @ 6:24 am
November 30th, 2007 at 7:17 am
Joy
Is that really all Davies is claiming? Well okay, I will believe you. My response, then, is a big: Well, duh.
I apologise to everyone, I had this mistaken idea that Davies had some kind of insight or at least a novel point of view. Apparently I was wrong.
Comment by The Pixie — November 30, 2007 @ 7:17 am
November 30th, 2007 at 8:34 am
I to am guilty of derailing this thread. Sorry.
It's just that in my religious tradition Faith is very important. In fact it"˜s what started the whole thing. Remember Luther and the whole faith alone deal. I have spent many hours exploring and defining faith especially saving faith.
It's important to me that we don't change the definition in order to show that faith in fairies and faith in Christ and faith in induction are all the same thing. I'm willing to concede the point of this thread as long as you note my objection when this subject come up again.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 30, 2007 @ 8:34 am
November 30th, 2007 at 9:33 am
"Absolute blind faith in the validity of scientific inference?" You know more about me than I do then.
Perhaps the world will end before the coffee cools. Or the universe might be recreated in every moment and the cooled cup of coffee might be a different cup of coffee. These statements may be true, but they are not scientific assertions.
"Absolute blind faith?" Again, you claim to read my mind.
You don't have to like cake, or believe that you can cook a cake. You might be a robot without any philosophical predilections whatsoever. Just follow the recipe. We call the concoction you pull from the oven a "cake".
Many do. Not all. Some think natural laws are mutable. Others believe in miracles. As long as they apply the scientific method, then they are doing science.
Many do. Not all. Some believe natural laws are subject to the whims of gods. Others think science can reveal God's Mysteries. But if they pray, then they are being religious.
Sure you can. For example, much of biology was a "jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed" until Linnaeus then Darwin. But people collected data and wrote papers anyway.
What century was that in?
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 9:33 am
November 30th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
Zach:
That was my point, which is why I included the qualifiers. I myself don't think natural laws are immutable or absolute. Nor do I think they're actually "laws" by the definition Davies provided. I think it's mostly habit.
Maybe Davies went to school in Australia. "Laws of Physics" were a rather large part of my training. Though even then I questioned how binding they really are – as law rather than mere habit. Seems to me the scientific discipline with the greatest amount of disdain for "law" are biologists. Laws are part of the philosophy of science, and I've never met a more disparaging group of people about the philosophy of science than biologists (primarily the NDS die-hards). I suspect it's because their tenets violate the philosophy of science in so many ways they HAVE to dismiss it in order to hold to their faith.
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Zach
It's possible that I might. Lets see
Suppose scientific inferences were invalid how would you know? How do you know that they are valid? Why do you trust them?
Remember you can't use inductive reasoning to justify induction. If you don't understand please read Hume.
http://www.princeton.edu/~gros...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 30, 2007 @ 5:27 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 7:50 pm
When their entailed predictions are substantially falsified.
I indicated that the truth may be that the universe is created anew in every moment.
If you think I have, then you haven't been following. I have provided a somewhat orthodox definition of scientific methodology and then discussed its implications. I haven't justified science.
I am quite aware of the problem of induction. I have merely pointed to a relative scale of confidence. As sure as the Dawn.
Comment by Zachriel — November 30, 2007 @ 7:50 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 10:42 pm
I said:
Scientists have faith that universal laws exist.
Zach responded:
I said:
Religious people have faith that universal laws exist.
Zach responded:
This shell game is incredibly tiresome, Zach. You keep changing the subject, and I'm not falling for your scam. I'm not interested in your distraction, I'm interested in the pertinent verb/noun combo: have faith. "Having faith" is relevant. "Doing science" and "being religious" are irrelevant.
To both of my statements' subject combo "have faith," you say "Many do. Not all."
Am I to suppose you mean that because not all scientists or religious people have faith in the existence of universal laws, it cannot be validly asserted that science and religion share such a faith? That would be an on-topic objection to Davies' op-ed assertions. Is that your argument?
If so, I acknowledge the non-absolute status of the assertion while pointing out that for those scientific disciplines and religious theologies that DO have faith in the existence of universal laws, the assertion of equivalence is indeed valid. You have not invalidated it by noting exceptions.
Comment by Joy — November 30, 2007 @ 10:42 pm
November 30th, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Zach:
From Wikipedia Quote:
Further, even the largest series of observations consistent with a universal generalization can be logically negated by just one observation in which it is false
End quote:
Since one observation is all that is necessary to Logically Negate universal generalizations a scale of confidence is impossible with out faith. The probability of the dawn is impossible to determine before the fact. It may be certain to happen or it may be certain not to happen you have no way of determining which with out using inductive reasoning like the sun came up yesterday therefore it is likely to come up tomorrow.
.
If I'm wrong please explain how certain the dawn is?
but remember you can't justify induction using inductive reasoning .
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — November 30, 2007 @ 11:27 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 12:22 am
Within the scientific paradigm, assertions are tentative and anomalies are common.
The notion that the world could conceivably end tomorrow doesn't change the calculated probability of rolling a natural seven.
More certain than a natural seven.
Comment by Zachriel — December 1, 2007 @ 12:22 am
December 1st, 2007 at 2:33 pm
I don't think you understand. It is impossible to determine the likelihood of rolling a natural seven with out faith or inductive reasoning exactly the same way it is impossible to determine the certainty of the dawn and Hume demonstrated that inductive reasoning is out of bounds when justifying induction that leaves faith
I can't discuss a problem with you if you don't even understand it. Oh well that's your hang up not mine.
I really busy right now so I guess your ignorance is safe unless someone else wants to beat their head aginst this wall
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 1, 2007 @ 2:33 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 3:01 pm
The probability of a natural seven is 1/6"”somewhat less likely than the Dawn.
Comment by Zachriel — December 1, 2007 @ 3:01 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 3:17 pm
For the last time how do you determine that with out using inductive reasoning or faith?
From wikipedia
quote:
Induction or inductive reasoning, sometimes called inductive logic, is the process of reasoning in which the premises of an argument are believed to support the conclusion but do not ensure it. It is used to ascribe properties or relations to types based on tokens (i.e., on one or a small number of observations or experiences); or to formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns. Induction is employed, for example, in using specific propositions such as:
This ice is cold.
A billiard ball moves when struck with a cue.
…to infer general propositions such as:
All ice is cold.
All billiard balls struck with a cue move
end quote:
I might add The precentage of all observed natural sevens is 1/6 or all die combinations are equally likely therefore the probability of a natural seven is 1/6
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 1, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
December 1st, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Probability Theory, a branch of mathematics.
I'm quite aware of the arguments.
As I said previously, I'm not justifying induction, merely pointing out how it works. That includes a specific methodology for comparing levels of confidence or risk. The Dawn is more certain than a Gambler's ardent late night entreaty for naturals.
Comment by Zachriel — December 1, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Zach:
When I asked how you determined a natural seven is less likely than the dawn with out using inductive reasoning or faith?
You said:
Why do you want to make this so hard?
I asked a simple question and you give me a term not an answer. let me help you
How does Probability theory determine the differences in probability of two possible events with out using inductive reasoning or faith?
let me give you some more help.
from the wikipedia article on Probability Theory
quote:
Initially the probability of an event to occur was defined as number of cases favorable for the event, over the number of total outcomes possible in an equiprobable sample space.
end quote:
For those non mathematicians among us equiprobaility is defined as a philosophical concept in probability theory that allows one to assign equal probabilities to outcomes that are judged to be equipossible or to be "equally likely" (in some sense).
IOW as I said before:
all die combinations are equally likely therefore the probability of a natural seven is 1/6
don't you see? Probability theory is based on inductive reasoning.
Give us a break and just answer the question.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 2, 2007 @ 9:14 pm
December 2nd, 2007 at 10:04 pm
I provided more than enough information for you to research the issue. I see you referenced Wikipedia, but apparently didn't read it very well.
Probability Theory is *not* based on empirical induction, but mathematical deduction. Like all deductions, the conclusions follow from well-defined axioms. Probability Theory has *application* to induction as I already pointed out.
Once again, I'm not justifying induction, merely pointing out how it works. That includes a specific methodology for comparing levels of confidence or risk.
Your argument that we can't calculate the difference in probability between a Royal Flush and a Straight isn't convincing. What you mean to say is that our experience of the past may not be an absolute gauge of the future. The world may end tomorrow and the Dawn may never come. Our inside Straight may never be filled, and our rolling dice may never stop. But until then, we can still calculate probabilities.
We assign a comparative metric. You just may not find as sure as the Dawn to be a sufficient modicum of confidence.
Comment by Zachriel — December 2, 2007 @ 10:04 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:24 am
Zach:
No what I mean to say is that it is impossible to calculate the probability of future events period with out using inductive reasoning or faith. Any future event may be absolutely certain or it may be physically impossible but you have no way determining which with out inductive reasoning or faith.
If I am absolutely certain to be dealt a royal flush on my next hand you can't say that I have a low probability of beating your strait. That's where the inductive reasoning comes in
I know you are not but you are using it constantly. I merely asked you on what basis you can do so. I have yet to receive an answer
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 3, 2007 @ 8:24 am
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:28 am
Zach:
How about you post the well defined axiom for determining equiprobable sample space.
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 3, 2007 @ 8:28 am
December 3rd, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Probability Axioms. We then *define* equiprobable accordingly.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2007 @ 12:08 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm
Zach:
From your link:
Informally, the sample space for a given set of events is the set of all possible values the events may assume.
Don't you get it. You must define what is possible by using inductive reasoning. Every deck of cards for example is different. I must ask myself questions like: Does my deck have all the cards? Is each card equally likely to be dealt in every deck? Is my queen of hearts slightly sticky etc etc.
In every specific case a royal flush is either certain or impossible before the hand is dealt. We must use induction from observed specifics or from abstract platonic playing cards to determine probability of dealing any hand. We can't begin to determine the odds with out using inductive reasoning in some way.
It is obvious that you either don't understand the issue or are purposely trying to muddy the waters. Either way you bad faith is noted. I give up
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 3, 2007 @ 5:57 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Yes, that is how we normally calculate the probability of various hands. We create a model (deduction). The fit to the data (induction) depends on the relevance of our assumptions.
You seem to be conflating axioms or working assumptions with faith.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2007 @ 7:24 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:08 pm
Zach:
This has been exactly my point from the beginning. Since Platonic playing cards don't exist in the real world Induction is necessary to say that the probability of a strait is higher than that of a royal flush in (the real world.) The same is true of every other generalization like:
Every point mass attracts every other point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points.
Or
E=MC squared
Or
Heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body.
Etc etc
If any conflating is going on it's on your part. Faith is an attitude you have toward axioms or working assumptions not the assumptions or axioms themselves.
In order to test generalizations you must have absolute faith in the axiom that inductive reasoning is valid.If inductive reasoning is not valid science comes to a full stop
Therefore science requires faith. Why was that so hard to admit?
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 3, 2007 @ 8:08 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 8:21 pm
That's a good way to put it. It is an attitude and signifies a belief in what is not completely proven. That is why it is inaccurate to state you have faith that the sun will rise in the east or that boiling water will cool at room temperature. Those are givens. Not examples of faith.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2007 @ 8:21 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Glad you agree. As you had incorrectly stated that "Probability theory is based on inductive reasoning," I wasn't sure. You also indicated that "it is impossible to calculate the probability of future events period without using inductive reasoning or faith," but most books on chance use only Probability Theory to predict what will happen at the gaming table.
You may have faith in the parallel postulate, but modern geometry has moved well beyond such naive views.
Again, that is incorrect for many reasons given"”starting with the word "absolute". Scientists can have any number of views on metaphysics, or no views.
Uh, because I don't agree with the statement.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2007 @ 9:43 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 10:29 pm
OTOH, you may have faith that life originated and evolved by means of a mindless process devoid of purpose without recognizing your view for what it truly is. Modern biology, unlike modern geometry, does not offer airtight proofs to back its widely held beliefs.
Comment by Bradford — December 3, 2007 @ 10:29 pm
December 3rd, 2007 at 11:22 pm
The scientific evidence is rather scant for the origin of life. Though there are indications of a spontaneous origin, there is no complete scientific theory of abiogenesis.
There is no proof of the parallel postulate. In geometry, it is considered an arbitrary axiom. On the other hand, all scientific claims are considered tentative.
Comment by Zachriel — December 3, 2007 @ 11:22 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 2:04 am
The problem with arguing about faith in sunrises is that it is a pretty trivial to verify the pattern and in turn argue the profitability of believing in these events if we are to find advantage in anticipating our future at all–regardless of POV.
But trying to define that case as definitive is another matter. I refer to Joy's point that religious and non-religious alike believe in "another sunrise". You can take all the sunrises there have ever been, and every instance a car's engine turned over, and stack them to the sky, and you do not get a "world". So in both cases you just get a "some are" relationship.
And they prove nothing more than there are easily testable, and commonly occurring (ETCO) things that scientists "believe". But, of religious mystics believe in ETCO as well.
To claim that for one it is more definitive of the other, needs to be justified. Not just by jumping to a more suspect claim on the other side. Because that is as well a "some are" relationship. There cannot be a contradiction until we exhibit a "none are" relationship.
But in the end it says more about the proponent who would attempt to prove the definitiveness of ETCO events to the scientific simply because the other side accepts a wider range, despite not being confronted with a daily and repeatable occurrence of Jesus not resurrecting himself.
I'm sure that daily you are not seeing Jesus resurrect himself, but to count that as a daily confirmation that Jesus does not resurrect himself is quite the misunderstanding of evidence. As this idea does not correspond to a daily occurrence of any kind, the reference to ETCO is spurious. You're not arguing what you think you're arguing.
What you end up displaying is that under the Scienti(st|f)ic viewpoint we believe in a closure, which again is not an ETCO and is not just closed around ETCO. It is in this context that PZ is entirely wet. He wants to argue openings where it would help him in maintaining a closure only to demonstrable phenomena.
Naturalism, itself, is a creed which uses the quite fuzzy idea of "natural" . Sure we have some definitions of "natural". But they could never apply to every event–even those not even guessable by us–as "natural". In some sense, it is a simple faith that following natural events we will never reach a place of ultimately being stymied. And in the phenomena of being stymied (even after many days) is only illusory this other pattern of triumphal Science must be asserted.
Comment by Axeman — December 4, 2007 @ 2:04 am
December 4th, 2007 at 2:37 am
Axeman,
Very nice post. Also, your link to your blog needs fixing. Accent on the needs, because it's a damn good read – you do a helluva job in your latest entry. You're the only other person I've yet to see notice that trick.
Comment by nullasalus — December 4, 2007 @ 2:37 am
December 4th, 2007 at 8:28 am
That's a distinct advantage of a methodological definition of science.
"Repent! The end is nigh."
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2007 @ 8:28 am
December 4th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Zach
I can't believe you are making this is so hard. You have shown enough stubbornness in the face of the evidence to make even the most hardnosed proponent of fideism proud. You must really hate the idea of faith. It seems like you have a strong incentive to do so. Is it because you want your materialist worldview to be somehow be seen as superior to others?
Faith doesn't have to be a derogatory term it just means trust or confidence. Faith by itself is not in conflict with reason. The object of faith might conflict with the facts but faith itself can't be in conflict with any fact because it itself is not a fact claim but mearly an inclination or attitude. In fact faith can not be in conflict with anything at all except unbelief.
My use of the word absolute was intentional so as to separate your total faith in the validity of induction from the lesser faith that we all have in other natural laws. Let me explain.
I have tentative faith that intelligence is required to produce CSI. This means I will willingly discard this faith if evidence is presented to me that unintelligent causes can produce this phenomenon.
In the same way you and I both have a tentative faith in common decent. This means we will willingly discard this faith if evidence is presented that common decent is impossible or a better explanation is given for the relevant data.
Some YECers on the other hand have absolute faith that the earth is young. There is no physical evidence that you can present to them that would convince them that the earth is in fact billions of years old. Trust me I've tried.
I believe you have absolute faith in the validity of induction in the same way. There is no physical evidence that would cause you to believe that induction in invalid.
If I'm incorrect please list some specific physical evidence that would cause you to discard your belief in the validity of induction. If you can't do so I will assume that you are being disingenuous and this entire conversation was just a bluff on your part.
Thanks in advance
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 4, 2007 @ 5:48 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 8:59 pm
I'm not a materialist.
Using the term "faith" in this context leads to needless confusion. Nearly everyone will read "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.
You've conflated two senses of the word "confidence". Confidence can be defined either as a subjective attitude or as a statistical measure. I explicitly introduced the term "confidence" as a statistical measure.
I have no idea why you keep misstating my views. I said several times I was not justifying induction. I have no more "total faith" in induction than I do in the parallel postulate.
Hopefully, the juxtaposition will help you see the problem with your statements. To avoid confusion, you should avoid the word "faith" in a scientific context and substitute the more precise term "confidence". I do understand you have been grappling with the issue of faith, but precision in word may help lead to precision in thought.
Common Descent is a well-established scientific theory. As with all scientific theories, Common Descent is held tentatively and is liable to be discarded in the light of new evidence. That is quite different than what most people would consider a faith belief.
I can't help but wonder why you would think that. How many times and in how many ways must I say the dawn may never come?
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2007 @ 8:59 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Zach
Actually it provides clarification rather than confusion because this is exactly what I mean when I say I have faith in Jesus for example.
I'm not sure where you're from but where I live no one would read faith as belief in something for which there is no evidence. That's where your confusion comes in faith is faith whether it's in Common decent or the resurrection.
In the real world a scale of confidence is impossible with out faith in induction. I thought we agreed to that already.
It is exactly your failure to use the term "faith" in scientific contexts that causes you to have an improper view of folks like me. If the attitude is the same the term describing it should be the same as well regardless of the context.
If the dawn does not come you would not be here to question the validity of induction. I do however take note of your complete failure to provide an example of real physical evidence that would would make you question induction.
Thanks for playing
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 4, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 11:24 pm
I'm from a place with a dictionary.
faith, firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
As you defined 'faith' to mean "trust or confidence", your statement is circular. Concerning the various definitions of 'confidence', if you mean the subjective sense, then people certainly can ascribe various levels of confidence. While statistical confidence can be defined rigorously.
In other words, even after it has been pointed out to you the possibility of confusion, you insist upon using a word in a non-standard fashion rather than just restating your proposition.
You are wed to the term. This seems to indicate that communication is not your goal, but ascribing desired properties by association.
Comment by Zachriel — December 4, 2007 @ 11:24 pm
December 4th, 2007 at 11:55 pm
fmm:
Zach:
Er… sorry, Zach. I have a dictionary too. "Evidence" and "Proof" are two different words with different definitions.
Maybe you should go ahead and quit with the semantic diversions? Just a suggestion.
Comment by Joy — December 4, 2007 @ 11:55 pm
December 5th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Joy:
Thank you Joy
Zach's side is famous for changing the definition of words in an Orwellian fashion. for example
Fundamentalist changes from someone who believes a certain set of doctrines to be fundamental to Christianity to ……..dangerous narrow minded bigot.
Science changes from the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. To………..The search for materialistic explanations for phenomena
I could go on an on but you get the point.
I for one refuse to play that game. Words have meanings.
faith…..complete confidence in a person or plan etc
or
Confidence in a person or thing
from
http://www.google.com/search?h...
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 5, 2007 @ 8:24 am
December 5th, 2007 at 8:38 am
proof, the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact.
faith, firm belief in something for which there is no [cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact].
Dictionaries don't always provide precise definitions of technical terminology; but this was the claim:
Hence the dictionary is an appropriate source. Fifth monarchy man is simply wrong that the word 'faith' doesn't have the stated meaning and connotation. Faith has been used in the theological sense and as a direct synonym for religion since the fourteenth century.
When someone insists that "Science requires faith" and refuses to restate the proposition in other terms, but repeatedly insists upon the specific term, it is revealing an ulterior motive. Otherwise, it would simply be restated as "A scientist requires a personal confidence in induction" or "The process of science requires a presupposition of induction". A false equivalence is being attempted between faith in God and tentative acceptance of scientific propositions.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2007 @ 8:38 am
December 5th, 2007 at 10:56 am
Zach:
ROTFLOL!!! Oh, you very nearly owed me a keyboard for this one, Zach. Coffee's everywhere!
Neither you nor fmm wants to concede any point, and both want the last word. But your last post asserting that "evidence" and "proof" are the same words with the same meanings did strike me funny. I mean, it's not like the two different words weren't right there in pixel-and-light for all to see.
Evidence covers a lot of ground, and includes direct personal experience (a.k.a. "empirical" evidence) and historical records of other people's experience. Proof requires a good deal more than mere consensus opinion about interpretations of evidence. Anyone who has direct empirical experience of a phenomenon and chooses to place credence on historical records of other humans' direct empirical experience of that phenomenon within a certain formalized explanatory framework – has faith in an explanatory framework about the phenomena based on evidence they've accepted.
That is true for religious belief systems as well as for scientific theories. Everyone's talking about evidence enough to convince them of the correctness of the explanatory paradigm they've invested their faith in. Including you.
Paul Davies hasn't backed off his use of the word "faith," has he? Why should anybody else? "Because I say so" just doesn't cut it, sorry.
Comment by Joy — December 5, 2007 @ 10:56 am
December 5th, 2007 at 11:10 am
How people might attempt to communicate while avoiding misunderstandings over semantics.
Comment by Zachriel — December 5, 2007 @ 11:10 am
December 23rd, 2007 at 3:08 pm
The New York Times has an update on the Davies article: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12...
some juicy quotes :
Dr. Davies asserted in the article that science, not unlike religion, rested on faith, not in God but in the idea of an orderly universe. Without that presumption a scientist could not function.
And:
Dr. Davies complains that the traditional view of transcendent laws is just 17th-century monotheism without God. "Then God got killed off and the laws just free-floated in a conceptual vacuum but retained their theological properties,"
and:
We don't know, and might never know, if science has overbid its hand. When in doubt, confronted with the complexities of the world, scientists have no choice but to play their cards as if they can win, as if the universe is indeed comprehensible.
end quotes:
I once again rest my case. Faith is faith whether it is in the laws of nature or their Author as incarnated in Jesus Christ.
Merry Christmas
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — December 23, 2007 @ 3:08 pm