Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

Your partially correct. I do have a problem with accepted theories, but only those which are disguised as factual rather than assumptions of best fit which they are.

Can't think of a single theory that people regard as fact. Perhaps you could name one for me?

The Big Bang comes to mind straight off the bat.

Ugh no. No one considers any theory about HOW the big bang started as fact. School, school, and more school.

You seem to think that because a theory is accepted, it is beyond challenge.

I've stated many times as part of my examples of how you can't have faith in theories is due to them being able to be challenged, changed, or just dropped. The reason they are exepted theories is due to the DATA and evidence thus far collected in favor of them. This doesn't make them beyond challenge at all.

Forgive me if I wish to question that which others blindly accept. Isn't that what denying ignorance is all about?

Agreedm which is why I have a problem with you ACCEPTING IGNORANCE as a friggin lifestyle.

"If it walks and roars like a lion, don't assume it to be a lion, ruling out the possibility that it may be a tiger"

I like this one better, "Just because he can think in simple minded way's, doesn't make him intelligent."

And the all time oldie, "Ignorance is bliss".

wang:
I almost completely agree with everything you say. The only point where I differ is in the definition of a religion. Is it a necessity for ALL religions to require the dogma they have faith in to be taken as fact? If there is an exception to this, then it is not a pre-requisite if what distinguishes a religion apart from a non-religion. To use your sharks and humans analogy, we can say that yes, despite their many differences they both belong to the umbrella of animals.

LCKob:
As I mentioned to wang above, I am not convinced that a pre-requisite of faith is that you must consider that which you have faith in to be fact, for as you say, faith only exists in the absence of facts.

There is no reason why "faith in it's principles" should be interpreted as absolute faith, which is what you seem to be suggesting by stating "without proof or evidence." There are degrees of evidence and proof, and it varies inversely with the amount of faith required. As the volume of proof approaches the absolute, the volume of faith required approaches zero.

Again, is it a pre-requisite of ALL religions that they must adhere to the absolute concept of fact, in the form of unreproachable truth (i.e. dogma)? If so, then you have a point, but I'm not so sure that that is the case. Whatever portion of scientific theory that is not factual requires faith that it is accurate, otherwise it would be abandoned in favour of a more suitable theory, would it not?

In order for a religion to originate, it too must start off as an new idea that only becomes established as it gathers support from it's followers. It may very well be the case that science never claims anything to be irrefutable fact, but it bases additional theories on the assumption that they are, such as searching for dark matter or the missing link. Without some degree of faith in the validity of assumptions they have made, they would not be expending resources to discover these things.

Once again, I am not convinced that ALL religions require you to start with a set of building blocks with the express intent of justifying them. I imagine these building blocks would have originally been generated as a result of an attempt to explain observed actions by the founders of a given religion.

In your example, it could be argued that the founder of the religion came to the conclusion that there is one true God through direct observation, just as scienctific method might come to the conclusion that there is a green car in my driveway through direct observation.

Your request for evidence of one true God attempts to fit religion to the definition of science, but as I have already stated, my contention only requires science to fit the definition of a religion.

Agreed, the critical element to resolve this contention is the existence of faith in science. As you yourself have already stated, science never claims anything to be irrefutable fact, which gives rise to the possibility that a given theory may not be correct, thus faith is ALWAYS involved in the absence of certainty. In this instance, faith that the chosen theory as sufficiently accurate to use as building blocks for further theory.

Prot0n:
Invalid arguments often do help a great deal in arguing a given perspective, usually via the construction of a convincing yet erroneous argument, however it doesn't make it any more valid.

Remember that you mentioned the Big Bang has already been proven, for I will refer remind you of this later. In order for something to be proven it must be a fact. How can you prove something that is not a fact? The best you can do is present evidence which supports your hypothesis to such a degree that it strongly suggests your hypothesis may be accurate.

I believe I've covered all this before. With a cause and effect philosophy, how can one know a given effect with certainty without knowing the cause? The Big Bang and Evolution are both examples of this. I already stated and backed up my case for faith in scientific methodology, I do not wish to repeat it, just go back and re-read earlier responses I presented on this.

99% sounds like an extraordinary exaggeration! Could it be that 99% of the threads you participate in degenerate to this level? I wonder why that might be?

Prot0n:
Amazing how I answered your question before you even asked it. You even agreed that the Big Bang was already proven in your previous post, yet now you've changed your tune for some reason. Everything else in this post has already been addressed.

If he can think in simple minded way's why would one consider him to be intelligent as a result?

[edit on 1/6/06 by mytym]

Invalid arguments often do help a great deal in arguing a given perspective, usually via the construction of a convincing yet erroneous argument, however it doesn't make it any more valid.

Holy sweet jesus, that's gotta be the most friggin intelligent thing you've posted as of yet, even despite it not making alot of sense!

Remember that you mentioned the Big Bang has already been proven, for I will refer remind you of this later. In order for something to be proven it must be a fact. How can you prove something that is not a fact? The best you can do is present evidence which supports your hypothesis to such a degree that it strongly suggests your hypothesis may be accurate.

Remind me all you want lol. Take the time out of your ignorant little lifestyle and LEARN something for once. There's no need for me to educate you here on ATS. If your unwilling to look into these thing's yourself, that is your own undoing. Your own williness to remain ignorant.

I believe I've covered all this before. With a cause and effect philosophy, how can one know a given effect with certainty without knowing the cause? The Big Bang and Evolution are both examples of this. I already stated and backed up my case for faith in scientific methodology, I do not wish to repeat it, just go back and re-read earlier responses I presented on this.

Ah yes, your half arsed analogies that make literally no sense and seem as if they were authored by a four year old. THE MOOOON! WHERE'S THE MOON! Ah dang ... stupid windows are covered again.

99% sounds like an extraordinary exaggeration! Could it be that 99% of the threads you participate in degenerate to this level? I wonder why that might be?

I read more then I post. I argue against such ignorance as what you and a select few have chosen to display so ... joyfully. Typically, I argue against religous topics, or idiotic topics such as this one. I've tried arguing against the new world order topics, but those people seem even more ignorant and paranoid then anyone else. Politics I generally try to stay out of as it can get rather heated. Science topics I generally just read and then look up more information about what's being discussed. Yea, it's called learning. Ah nooo, not you. Science big bad evil religion and has it all wrong. The great mytym has all the answer's. A=68u and a pineapple!

Mytym:

As I mentioned to wang above, I am not convinced that a pre-requisite of faith is that you must consider that which you have faith in to be fact, for as you say, faith only exists in the absence of facts.

www.m-w.com...

faith

(1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof

synonym see BELIEF

belief

3 : conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
synonyms BELIEF, FAITH, CREDENCE, CREDIT mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance. ... FAITH almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof .


LCKob:

Thus as provided by a standardized definition from MW online, shows elaborates on the nature of "Faith" with a high degree of certitude i.e. "an unshakable faith in God"

Therefore, it can be argued that the term faith is strongly tied to certainty despite the lack of evidence.

SM has degrees of correlation, and levels of probability which grant for less than absolute conditions in the formation of a hypothesis. As far as I have seen and experienced, there is no middle ground for faith. Either one believes or not ... there is no such thing as I "kinda" believe sometimes when its convenient ... hardly the "an unshakable faith in God"

Otherwise, it would not be called faith, but rather an opinion that has no basis in proof or evidence.

mytym:

There is no reason why "faith in it's principles" should be interpreted as absolute faith, which is what you seem to be suggesting by stating "without proof or evidence." There are degrees of evidence and proof, and it varies inversely with the amount of faith required. As the volume of proof approaches the absolute, the volume of faith required approaches zero.

LCKob:

Simple test, go out and query whomever you respect as a religious authority and ask this simple question ... is there such a thing as "semi-faith" or "casual faith" or the "sorta kinda" belief?

mytym:

Again, is it a pre-requisite of ALL religions that they must adhere to the absolute concept of fact, in the form of unreproachable truth (i.e. dogma)? If so, then you have a point, but I'm not so sure that that is the case.

LCKob:

Most of not all religions are tied are tied together by the mechanism of "Faith" ... the views may often differ (sometimes greatly) but the basis of firm conviction in the face of differing views remains constant.

mytym:

Whatever portion of scientific theory that is not factual requires faith that it is accurate, otherwise it would be abandoned in favour of a more suitable theory, would it not?

LCKob:

What ever portion of scientific theory that does not effectively explain the full extent of the phenomena does not require faith ... because its not kept as truth unless it is validated by substantial evidence and causal corroboration... there is no intrinsic value placed upon the faulty or unreliable or unsubstantiated ... in other words, unlike the subjectivity of the typical religion value is not abitrarily placed on a phenomena, or bit of information for its own sake, it must prove its worth and validity. There is no vested interest to keep this theory intact (as with religion) the goal is to uncover the truth as a stepped methodical process that gathers data, follows through with documented expermiments and draws tentative conclusions ... and with these conclusions, it repeats and refines the process with any and all additional information to further narrow or remove the element of variance.

Continued from above...

mytym:

In order for a religion to originate, it too must start off as an new idea that only becomes established as it gathers support from it's followers. It may very well be the case that science never claims anything to be irrefutable fact, but it bases additional theories on the assumption that they are, such as searching for dark matter or the missing link. Without some degree of faith in the validity of assumptions they have made, they would not be expending resources to discover these things.

LCKob:

As I have requested before, please give examples of a modular or open ended religion ... as for the expenditure of resources, SM will focus on topics and phenomena as deemed important for various reasons, which include, the ongoing refinement of a theory, the discovery of linking implications which allow for branching research, the presentation of a discrepancy or new mystery ... therefore, it is not for the literal "nothing" that motivates the researcher, but rather the "something" that catalyzes interest or curiosity in an uncharted unknown.

mytym:

Once again, I am not convinced that ALL religions require you to start with a set of building blocks with the express intent of justifying them. I imagine these building blocks would have originally been generated as a result of an attempt to explain observed actions by the founders of a given religion.

LCKob:

Well the standard practice for SM is if one disagrees with the assertion, a counter proof example is given to provide for a logical discrepancy. Therefore, name the religion or religions that do not have these established "building blocks".

mytym:

In your example, it could be argued that the founder of the religion came to the conclusion that there is one true God through direct observation, just as scienctific method might come to the conclusion that there is a green car in my driveway through direct observation.


LCKob:

Which is perfectly fine, the only requirement that SM would impose to this "founder" is that he follow the basic procedures established by the Scientific Method to document and provide evidence of this "one true god" so that others can acertain for themselves the validity of the claim.

As for the Green Car, I could set up such a proof with the hypthetical car as the object of contention within the driveway as documented by repeatable methodical techniques that are or can be readily accertained for material validity.

mytym:

Your request for evidence of one true God attempts to fit religion to the definition of science, but as I have already stated, my contention only requires science to fit the definition of a religion.

LCKob:

Which I have answered above by the direct refutation of faith as a component of SM - where faith is the accepted truth with no evidence. SM by basic charter mandates evidence and data as the MOST BASIC requirement for the promotion of a hypotheisis let alone a well established theory.

Simply put, once again, Religion requires faith, Science requires proof. Thus the so called "faith in principles" is not compatible with SM ... which would probably be closer to something like proof in principle vs. faith in principle.

mytym:

Agreed, the critical element to resolve this contention is the existence of faith in science. As you yourself have already stated, science never claims anything to be irrefutable fact, which gives rise to the possibility that a given theory may not be correct, thus faith is ALWAYS involved in the absence of certainty. In this instance, faith that the chosen theory as sufficiently accurate to use as building blocks for further theory.


LCKob:

Its not "faith" in a sufficiently accurate theory" but demonstrated effectiveness of the stated theory which manifestly displays a consistency and accuracy in explanation, and extrapolative projection ...which is used as a tentative base for further research and understanding into related but unexplored fields of research.

Or to put it another way, ther is no "lack of faith" in discarding a faulty hypothesis any more than there is "faith" in the promotion of a highly effective predictor model in the form of an advanced hypothesis or established theory. The proverbial proof is in the pudding.

Another example. Gravity. We know it exists, yet we don't know wtf creates it. We just know it's tied to mass. Larger the mass, larger the gravitational field. Smaller the mass, smaller the gravitational field. But HOW it works is still a theory. Do we all then have a "religous faith" in gravity being real just because we don't know how it works? Do you have a religous faith in your tv set even though you don't know specifically how it works. Do you have a religous faith in brains even though you don't know how it works? C'mon kid, use some god damned common sense, and use the word theory for the last damn time.

EDIT: Or even light ffs. Don't have to have faith in light! We know it's there. But no one knows wtf it is. Partticle? Wave? Wtf is it? Do YOU have faith in gravity/light/electricity etc etc etc. ???

[edit on 2-6-2006 by Prot0n]

Prot0n:
Try disputing something that I have said, rather than regurgetating the same old rhetoric over and over. I looked through your entire post and could see nothing that required a response.

LCKob:
May I just say firstly, that it is quite refreshing to encounter someone here that can share an opposing viewpoint yet still demonstrate a certain degree of respect, civility and openness to an alternate perspective. It certainly makes a nice change to the usual suspects I have been encountering on this thread and I sincerely hope I am reciprocating the qualities you demonstrate in my replies to you.

Point taken on the faith definition, I cannot argue with that. In that case I suppose I could argue that for the purpose of building on accepted theories scientific methodology considers relevant theories to be fact despite acknowledging the possibility that aside from the specific instance a given theory may be inaccurate. To use the example of the car in the driveway, I can take is as fact that it resides there when determining how long it will take me to drive to the supermarket, but acknowledge that there is a possibility that it has been stolen seeing as how I haven't checked that it is in the driveway.

It certainly seems from the definition provided that faith and certainty go hand in hand, however they are obviously not interchangeable as faith and facts only exist when the other is absent. As a result there must be some acknowledgement that without proof the possibility of that which one has faith in not existing, cannot be ruled out.

Faith is not confined to religion, thus there is no reason why this test should be limited to a respected religious authority. With that in mind, I believe my driveway analogy suffices as proof of degrees of faith. You tell me if you accept that analogy as accurate.

Granted, I believe all religions are tied together by the mechanism of faith, science included, as per the definition presented earlier. However a firm conviction does not constitute absolute certainty, for as alluded to above, there must be some acknowledgement that in the absence of facts, the possibility of the which you have faith in being innaccurate, exists. I'm sure in the past that once presented with seemingly indisputable truths, such as the Earth revolving around the Sun, religions have accepted the inaccuracies of their faith and adapted to it, despite the contradiction between what they had faith in and what later became accepted to seemingly be fact.

The instance of the preservation of energy under ALL circumstances seems to be violated when one accepts that the Universe has a beginning, yet this conservation law, nor the Universe having a beginning, has been abandoned despite the failure to co-exist without contradiction.

LCKob:
I fail to see the relevance of providing examples of a modular or open ended religion. All that must be acknowledged is that in it's initiation a given religion was open to change in it's set of principles as they changed status from non-existence to existence. The same can be said for science, where a theory comes into existence the founder of that theory is able to set the principles of what a given theory encompasses. From that point on, many of us laypeople have the choice to accept the theory or reject it. The theory in question is rarely open to change once established.

In regards to the expenditure of resources, this something that motivates the expenditure requires some degree of confidence that the expenditure is in the right areas. This confidence comes from the degree of accuracy a given hypothesis demonstrates through testing and experimentation.

You seem to be trying to fit religion into the definition of science in regards to the building blocks. I am no expert on religions, but I don't recall the definition of a religion requiring the establishment of building blocks as a pre-requisite. Perhaps Bhuddism, but as I said, I am no expert.

Again, the one true God explanation you speak of indicates that you are trying to fit religion into the definition of science. There is no requirement for this to be achieved.

In regards to faith v proof, as I have alluded to, there MUST be some degree of faith that the volume of proof sought is sufficient to accept a givben hypothesis over another, must it not?

You raise some very valid and challenging points, but all seems to rest on the existence of faith in the unproven portion of a given theory which lend itself to alternate possibilities. You contend that faith plays no part, but I am unconvinced by this part of your argument. As there is no requirement to convince me of this ascertion, as far as you are concerned, science is not a religion. Likewise, due to the lack of conviction I have in your argument concerning the absence of faith in scientific methodology, I maintain the opinion that science is a religion. As for everyone else, they must decide for themselves which side of the fence they wish to position themselves.

I appreciate the opportunity you have provided for a constructive, intelligent discussion on the matter.

I've got to chuckle on this thread. You gotta love the sprinkling of religious dogma, science dogma, etc...

I feel for you Point. Some very fine posts. It would have been nice if someone... anyone even responded to a single one of your points... or contentions.

Anyhow, good show Point.

A good 75% of this thread is absolutely void of real content. When the arguments become about how religion/science work in theory, it regresses into rhetorical whatifs and whatevers.

Is it OK for me to talk about the topic?

As has previously been mentioned... (way way back ) You don't have to look any farther than the Big Bang theory. It's nothing more than a scientific creationist theory. The Universe sprang in it's entirely from nothingness.

It's an embarassment to the ideal that is SUPPOSED to be the scientific principle...Basically arguing 0=1.

It gets far worse. Some branches of science are finding 'mathematical' (via Physics support from this. What's that I hear? Oh... It's an echo from the Big Bang?

Don't even get me started on Quantum Mechanics...



I'm catching up, but way back from page...

Prot0n:
>There are still some tribe's that actually believe they can casue rain through ritualistic dance's and through the few time's it actually happen's to rain, that seem's to be proof enough for them.

They MUST be scientists also...

Reading foward:

(What can I say Prot0n... You give good quotes )

Prot0n:
> Pretty much everything once considered "mystical" back in ancient time's is now fully explainable...

Talk about your gross oversimplification.

I've got to tell you I disagree.

If you talk to MDs, as in doctors, who view themselves as the epitome/personal embodiment of the scientific principle... They ALSO like to PRETEND like they have all of the answers.

It's easy to shoot them down with one simple question...

Show me a cure for cancer?

Quite frankly doctors (they are scientists ) are absolutely clueless. 'Mystics' (in the form of quacks... also known as many types of Alternative Medicine practioneers) actually cure people.

The sad sad truth is doctors are the leading cause of death in the ENTIRE world. They are just better at changing the subject...



Let's drift more back toward the we have all of the answers world of physics. The wheel has landed on...

SETI. Applied scientific conjecture at its very finest.

It never ceases to amaze me how people hold this project about so adoringly as the pinnacle of human scientific cooperation.

Man are we in trouble!

The biggest defect in the religion of science is basically two-fold... mostly in the basic limitations of the human cognitive process/areas.

The first is the question almost always presupposes the answer.

The second is scientists preperceptions of WHAT IS REAL is so engrained. It literally keeps their eyes from seeing the TRUE RESULTS of what is being served up in response to their queries.

Another show stopper is all of their basic assumptions hinge on a presupposition of the physical world. There is a LOT of evidence that immediately destroys the basic validity of this supposed XYZ reality context.

Do you guys remember that line in Braveheart about the ONLY thing wrong with Scotland is it was full of SCOTS! ?

Well, the same thing can be said about Science. The only thing wrong with Science is it's run by scientists... and unfortunately, they are all humans with our frailties/limitations and almost infinite stupidity.

If human Science ever wants to get anywhere, or have any real perspective on what is really going on around them, they need to start with these words in response to a question...

I don't know.

There, now you can maybe actually learn something.

mytym:

Point taken on the faith definition, I cannot argue with that. In that case I suppose I could argue that for the purpose of building on accepted theories scientific methodology considers relevant theories to be fact despite acknowledging the possibility that aside from the specific instance a given theory may be inaccurate. To use the example of the car in the driveway, I can take is as fact that it resides there when determining how long it will take me to drive to the supermarket, but acknowledge that there is a possibility that it has been stolen seeing as how I haven't checked that it is in the driveway.\

LCkob:

What you fail to address in such a proof is that the experiment or documenation of evidence for the presense of the car is limited to the scope of verification. Thus, no assumptions are made nor subjective valuations by setting the quantifiable criteria for validation i.e. as checked by remote camera every 5 seconds ... the car has not moved ... note that no assumptions are made for the intervening 4 seconds (by scope of study). Therefore, by accurately quantifying and qualifying the METHOD, one avoids assumption or variance.

mytym:

It certainly seems from the definition provided that faith and certainty go hand in hand, however they are obviously not interchangeable as faith and facts only exist when the other is absent. As a result there must be some acknowledgement that without proof the possibility of that which one has faith in not existing, cannot be ruled out.

LCKob:

What you describe

"as some acknowledgement that without proof the possibility of that which one has faith in not existing, cannot be ruled out."

is actually the basis for Scientific thought where the possibilities exist in the form of odds or statistics. Faith on the otherhand makes no such claim, "the unshakeable faith in god" postulates just that ...

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Unshakable:

ThesaurusLegend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms

2. unshakableunshakable - without flaws or loopholes; "an ironclad contract"; "a watertight alibi"; "a bulletproof argument"
bulletproof, ironclad, unassailable, watertight
incontestable, incontestible - incapable of being contested or disputed

Now, replace unshakable with any of the above synonyms i.e. bulletproof, iron clad, unassailable ... and what do you have?

mytym:

Faith is not confined to religion, thus there is no reason why this test should be limited to a respected religious authority. With that in mind, I believe my driveway analogy suffices as proof of degrees of faith. You tell me if you accept that analogy as accurate.

LCKob:

See my elaboration on the scope of experiment in regards to the promotion of method that eliminates variance in the form of concrete scope and demonstrated intent in the experimentation process. As to faith being confined to religion, I would then pose this test:

Ask the religious authority to explain said phenomena in concrete causal terms or if that is not possible attribute it to "faith". See what kind of response is generated.

Ask the causal scientist to explain said phenomena in concrete causal terms or if that is not possible attribute it to "faith". see what kind of response is generated


mytym:

Granted, I believe all religions are tied together by the mechanism of faith, science included, as per the definition presented earlier. However a firm conviction does not constitute absolute certainty, for as alluded to above, there must be some acknowledgement that in the absence of facts, the possibility of the which you have faith in being innaccurate, exists. I'm sure in the past that once presented with seemingly indisputable truths, such as the Earth revolving around the Sun, religions have accepted the inaccuracies of their faith and adapted to it, despite the contradiction between what they had faith in and what later became accepted to seemingly be fact.

LCKob:

Once again, see the evolution of terms which include "unshakable".

mytym:

The instance of the preservation of energy under ALL circumstances seems to be violated when one accepts that the Universe has a beginning, yet this conservation law, nor the Universe having a beginning, has been abandoned despite the failure to co-exist without contradiction.

Scientific Methodology poses the best guess that fits the present database, any and all discrepancies are noted as such and used as the means for modification or refutation in favor of a more accurate model. SM embraces change for the sake of accuracy or predictive effectiveness.

continued from previous post:

Now, if we follow similar suite with religion, and question the central tenet, "is there a god" what is the usual outcome from those with "faith"?

What do you suppose the answer would be? I will hazzard the guess that the faithful will say a loud "YES THERE IS A GOD"...

... but when asked how does one know? ... is it from causal evidence or is it from perhaps ... Faith?

So once again, I refute the connection or integral nature of faith to SM ... faith, assumption, variance, subjective percepton all have no place in the causal sciences as documented and ratified by SM.

In other words, the scientist or researcher who conducts any such experients will have the method, criteria, goal and outlined outcomes available to answer any question regarding the nature of the research the veritable who, what,where, why and how ... documented, reproducable, in nomenclature that is standardized for meaning with intent for critical distribution for third party assessment.

Does religion do this or even allow for such assessment? And if so, would that not invalidate the very concept of "faith"?

Thus, as stated previously, the very notion of faith is counter the the very basis for rational Causal Scientific Methods used to determine the mechanistic nature of the world around us.

mytym:

I fail to see the relevance of providing examples of a modular or open ended religion. All that must be acknowledged is that in it's initiation a given religion was open to change in it's set of principles as they changed status from non-existence to existence. The same can be said for science, where a theory comes into existence the founder of that theory is able to set the principles of what a given theory encompasses. From that point on, many of us laypeople have the choice to accept the theory or reject it. The theory in question is rarely open to change once established.

LCKob:

The basic model of debate revolves around the concept of point-counterpoint ... which in turn relies upon the the particular view as demonstrated by concrete examples to the contrary to the point being contested.

As such, I as for these concrete examples.

mytym:

In regards to the expenditure of resources, this something that motivates the expenditure requires some degree of confidence that the expenditure is in the right areas. This confidence comes from the degree of accuracy a given hypothesis demonstrates through testing and experimentation.

LCKob:

Yes, for the most part, it begins with curiosity and the desire for knowledge ... as aided by the existing database of accumulated data pertaining to the area in question.

mytym:

You seem to be trying to fit religion into the definition of science in regards to the building blocks. I am no expert on religions, but I don't recall the definition of a religion requiring the establishment of building blocks as a pre-requisite. Perhaps Bhuddism, but as I said, I am no expert.

LCKob:

... and you are right, because, religion is not discrete, nor is "built upon blocks" of research and data into causal phenomena ... I asked you to provide the means to compare religion to Science ... and as you conclude yourself religion does not contain analogous elements required by science ... you see, the building blocks represent the scientific process as it builds upon existing research by means of proof in the form of evidence and predictive capacity. Religion does not have this capacity or built in process because the so called "building blocks" are already established in the form of dogma which require the aforementioned "unshakable" faith in its accuracy.


mytym:

Again, the one true God explanation you speak of indicates that you are trying to fit religion into the definition of science. There is no requirement for this to be achieved.

LCKob:

As elaborated above, Science does not fit with Religion nor does religion fit with science for the concrete reason that these two views use diametrically opposed means of validation. Keep in mind, once you mention terms like "unassailable, bulltetproof, iron clad ... with no sustantive evidence, you have a scenario that is completely opposed and excluded from SM ...

SM builds upon a process that intentionally tries to eliminate that which cannot be substantiated .... thus faith in the form the "unstubstatiated" is and never will be a ratified part of the Scientific process.

Therefore once again, Science does not embrace Faith in anything let alone principles

mytym:

In regards to faith v proof, as I have alluded to, there MUST be some degree of faith that the volume of proof sought is sufficient to accept a givben hypothesis over another, must it not?

LCkob:

No, as demonstrated by this example, say I was a policeman and was in the process of apprehending a criminal, whereby the criminal overpowered me and took my gun ... Now, I being a professional with extensive knowledge of firearms in theory and practice ... now see that gun pointed at me with the trigger finger being pulled.

Is it faith or understanding of the elements involved that makes me come to the conclusion that should the criminal pull the trigger in line of site of me, that causal forces would then manifest as a chemical reaction resulting in a metal projectile being forced down a tube at high velocity with the designed intent of doing catastrophic tissue damage to ones target.

Faith has nothing to do with the conception of probability in regards to the mechanistic forces put into play.

To sum up, I would condense the critical element here as being the concept of "faith" as an unshakable or unassailable truth ... which has no privision for evidence or corroboration or means of dispute.

If this is the case, then I think it conclusive to say that as long as "faith" is an integral part of religion, it cannot be reconciled with a method that requires validation as its primary tenet.

Prot0n:
Yes, we do have faith in gravity being real because we don't know how gravity works. Cause and effect as you would put it. We call this force gravity, and it seems to have some relationship to mass but until we work out what causes it we can only assume that it exists, and have faith that our assumption is accurate. I've already covered this. Again you bring up the concept of religious faith. I have no idea what that is. Light is a great example. Is it a particle, if so why does science believe it has no mass? Is it a wave? If so, why does possess so many particle-like qualities? Yeah, great theory behind that one!

LCKob:
With the car example, I know I left it in the driveway last night, thus I have faith that it will still be there in the morning. The fact that I haven't checked in the last five seconds is why it is reliant on faith and not fact. The less time that passes between when I last observed the car to be in the driveway to when I go out to use it, the lower the degree of faith involved in my conclusion that it still remains there. This analogy serves two purposes. One, that degrees of faith exist and two, that as a result one can still be open to the possibility that what they have faith in is not accurate, regardless of the certainty behind it. Even if I had a camera showing me vision of the car in the driveway at the time, there is a possibility that the image on the screen doesn't reflect what's in the driveway. In the absence of being able to accurately quantify or qualify the method, one must rely on some degree of faith. If we could quantify it, we would be dealing with a fact not faith.

The unshakeable faith in God comment was preceded by usually always or something to that effect I believe. It was an example of the use of the term, not a definiton. If faith automatically dictates that the degree involved must be unshakeable, why would one be required to categorise it as unshakeable? The term faith should suffice, shouldn't it? At any rate, my driveway analogy addresses this issue already. Faith is only required in the absence of facts. Once facts are known, faith is redundant. The very absence of facts, lends itself to the possibility that that which one has faith in is inaccurate, despite the level of subjective certainty the subject believes themselves to possess.

Show me what experiment or test you are aware of that can eliminate variance in the conclusion drawn. To my knowledge there are none. This should eliminate your requirement to ask either religious or scientific scholars.

Show me where a best guess (asumption of best fit) does not involve some degree of faith? How does one decide which guess is the best one, what criteria is critical to the outcome and what volume of testing is sufficient to determine if the assumption satisfies the requirement? I contend that faith is involved in determining the answers to all three of these components.

LCKob:
From this am I to assume you have never come across a person with faith who answers, I believe there is, but acknowledge that I can't be certain? I certainly have. Even in the event that I hadn't, your use of the terms "usual" and "guess" indicate that your assumption is open to the possibility that one may answer in the way I suggested. Here is an example of you having faith that your assumption is accurate. Using the term know is contradictory to the concept of faith. Knowledge relies on facts, faith relies on belief. Again show me something that you science can claim with certainity is a fact, I expect you cannot? In the absence of facts, faith, assumption, variance, subjective perception all dwell in scientific methodology.

Once again, you are trying to fit religion into the definiton of science. As I alluded to in a previous post, I can see that I'm not going to convince you, nor you are going to convince me of the existence (or lack thereof) of faith in science. As a result we are just going to go round and round until one of us grows tired of responding. Just as many religions may be reluctant to accept the possibility that they may be wrong, science is reluctant to accept that faith always exists in the absence of facts.