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, som