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

Z: Common descent is a proven scientific fact.

J: The word 'proof' has more than one meaning and might imply deductive certainty.

Z: You're right. Let me rephrase that as Common descent is strongly supported by the evidence.

J: Well, to stretch the point, 'evidence' could mean a personal revelation.

Z: Okay. Common descent is strongly supported by the scientific evidence, and entails specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.

J: For the vast majority of taxa.

Z: Yes, that's right. There are some notable exceptions, such as endogenous retroviruses"”an exception which proves provides empirical support for the rule tentative and carefully delimited scientific assertion.

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.

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.

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:

fifth monarchy man: 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… Zach's side is famous for changing the definition of words in an Orwellian fashion.

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.

Evidence" and "Proof" are two different words with different definitions.

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

…no one would read faith as belief in something for which there is no evidence.

Zach:

I'm from a place with a dictionary. // faith, firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

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.

fifth monarchy man: 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.

I'm from a place with a dictionary.

faith, firm belief in something for which there is no proof.

fifth monarchy man: In the real world a scale of confidence is impossible with out faith in induction.

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.

fifth monarchy man: If the attitude is the same the term describing it should be the same as well regardless of the context.

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.

Using the term "faith" in this context leads to needless confusion.

Actually it provides clarification rather than confusion because this is exactly what I mean when I say I have faith in Jesus for example.

Nearly everyone will read "faith" as a firm belief in something for which there is no evidence.

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.

I explicitly introduced the term "confidence" as a statistical measure.

In the real world a scale of confidence is impossible with out faith in induction. I thought we agreed to that already.

To avoid confusion, you should avoid the word "faith" in a scientific context and substitute the more precise term "confidence".

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.

How many times and in how many ways must I say the dawn may never come?

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

fifth monarchy man: Is it because you want your materialist worldview to be somehow be seen as superior to others?

I'm not a materialist.

fifth monarchy man: Faith doesn't have to be a derogatory term it just means trust or confidence.

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.

Zachriel: We can mechanically assign a level of statistical confidience based on past observations.
…
fifth monarchy man: a scale of confidence is impossible with out faith

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.

fifth monarchy man: 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.

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.

fifth monarchy man: 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…

I have tentative faith that intelligence is required to produce CSI.

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.

fifth monarchy man: In the same way you and I both have a tentative faith in common decent.

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.

fifth monarchy man: I believe you have absolute faith in the validity of induction in the same way.

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?

Uh, because I don't agree with the statement.

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.

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.

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