Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Faith for the Scientist

Faith is an absolutely marvelous tool. With faith there is no question too big for even the smallest mind.
~ Anon: Rev.

Faith is believing something you know ain't true.
~ Samuel Clemens, aka Mark Twain.

The way to see by Faith, is to shut the eyes of Reason.
~ Benjamin Franklin: Poor Richard (1758)

Faith may be defined briefly as an illogical belief in the occurrence of the improbable.
~ HL Mencken: Prejudices (1922)

Religion and Science are Orthogonal - they have
nothing in common, and do not overlap in any way.
Religion is based upon faith and is destroyed by
empirical proof.
Science is based upon empirical proof
and is rendered inoperative by faith.
~ Our very own Uncle Al

[quote]Religion and Science are Orthogonal - they have
nothing in common, and do not overlap in any way.
Religion is based upon faith and is destroyed by
empirical proof.
Science is based upon empirical proof
and is rendered inoperative by faith.
~ Our very own Uncle Al[quote]

I wonder how Uncle Al would have got on telling that to George Lamaitre.

Lemaitre might agree with Al. When the then pope referred to the Big Bang as evidence of Catholicism, Lemaitre wrote:
“As far as I can see, such a theory remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being… For the believer, it removes any attempt at familiarity with God… It is consonant with Isaiah speaking of the hidden God, hidden even in the beginning of the universe.”

http://www.amnh.org/education/resources/rfl/web/essaybooks/cosmic/p_lemaitre.html

If those who accept A can either accept or reject B, that's pretty much the definition of the orthogonality of A and B.

Or you can do as the Red Queen said....."sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!"

That was written by Lewis Carroll, of course, who as Charles Dodgson was a mathematician as well as a member of the clergy.

It's not the 'impossible things' that are the problem, it's the belief.

True, TFF, I believe he was quite strongly opposed to the idea of using the BB as a "proof" of the Biblical creation story. Interesting that Stephen Hawking received Papal recognition for identifying, in the BB, the moment of creation.

Somehow I doubt that Lamaitre would have agreed that science "is rendered inoperative by faith".

Why would science be rendered inoperative by faith? The opposite may be true, but surely the whole point of faith is that it will allow for belief in absolutely anything.

Absolutely! but at the same time it usually stops you from believing anything outside its own dogma.

Do scientists have faith in science?
If so, does that render the scientist and his science to the boundaries of dogma?
Is dogma an attachment to ideas and beliefs in the boundaries of the known (personal) universe, or do the known boundaries (of the scientific universe) create restrictions in process and belief so that science can't/won't approach something outside of the boundaries of scientific process?

Has anyone noticed the number of my postings is at 666 ....?

Surely, Anon, Twain--and at least a few scientists--must have had enough brains to distinguish between a blind faith and a rational and sighted one, eh?

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html#Christian

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_scientists.html

A lot depends on your usage of the word "faith". Are you referring to that which "enables us to believe without doubting whatever God [or someone acting on His behalf] has revealed"? If that is the case, perhaps you should re-phrase your question.

We are at risk here of restricting the definition of 'faith' by subjecting it to the confines of religious dogma,We are familiar with the usage as in 'I have faith in....' or 'He kept the faith", both of which do imply adherence to a code. However I have faith that the sun will rise this morning, and it did! This is a scientific fact, and has nothing to do with my belief that the event will occur.

Cannot the same rational outlook be possible for scientists who are able to reconcile their religious beliefs with the belief in evolution, the big bang, and the other 'impossible things' that we are asked to believe? After all the 'impossible things' which in the past would have been explained as the work of god, often do have a more rational explanation.

It just seems to me that having decided to believe in god it is no great effort to absorb the truth of scientific discovery within that belief.

A repeat of a thought I have given before: In Latin, there are two kinds of faith--fides & fiducia.

For example, when I say that I believe there is a bank and a church in the centre of town, this is fides. However, when I put my money in the bank, and when I attend and support the church, this is fiducia.

There are clergy who say: We have a fiduciary trust in science and strongly believe that, in service of the public good, it can have a real, positive and practical value. Therefore, we are scientists. For example,
www.ordainedscientists.org
http://www.ordainedscientists.org/history.html

Faith applied to something tangible and experienced is mostly what I was speaking of.
If a person makes a sweeping remark towards faith as inviting dogma, then I would assume it applies to the beliefs of the individual as they are attached to the personal experience.

Since there are varying differences to the personal experience(s) regarding any subject, the subjective and objective experience is usually what defines something. That something does not always define itself..

Dogma usually isolates the broad spectrum of possibilities in individual experiences to the common interests of a few, rather than the open ended and continuing approach to varying results within the field of continuing or continuous observance.

Bearing in mind that all our observations are subjective, is it possible for anything to define itself in the frame of reference of anyone/anything other than itself?

"... anything"? Bill, because I have no idea what you have in mind, please imagine that I am a 12 year old, or perhaps younger. Now, put the question another way.
================
Meanwhile, your latest signature reminds me to ask you: What's the difference a duck's bottom and a post office box?

Rev, if I were to treat you as a 12 year old, that would probably make me much too young to attempt an explanation.

How's this:-

Let us assume that the “something” is a person – person A. The “anyone else” becomes person B. (To avoid he/shes we will say that A is female and B male)

B observes A, but B’s observation is subjective so any definition he might give of A will be a definition of his subjective assessment of A.

If A defines herself, it is probably safe to assume that that is a definition of A. (TT will probably take issue with that, but we will deal with that if/when it comes). However, if A tries to communicate that definition to B, the communication must pass through the filter of B’s subjective understanding.

Perhaps what the question comes down to is: Is there any way in which A can be sure that what B hears is actually what she intended to say; or any way in which B can be sure that what he hears is what A meant by what she said?

BTW, Rev, is there any truth in the rumour that people in Canada have been trying to post letters in some very odd places?

Come to think of it, YES!!! And I am shocked.

Can you imagine...? Many among my clergy-theologian friends--not to mention, intellectually speaking, the "lesser breeds without the law" (Rudyard Kipling)--did NOT know...And I am talking about people qualified as philosophers, scientists and artists. IMAGINE!

If you ask me, we should tell our fellow posters the secret; but only if they ask: What IS the difference?

Bill, if no one asks what the difference is, it is our secret, OK?

"If no one asks me, I know;
if I wish to explain it to someone who asks, I know not."
St. Augustine.

In my opinion and experience, real communication will only take place when, and if, all parties involved truly want it to happen.

If all parties truly want communication to happen, they will agree to WILL it to happen. Then, in good faith, they will proceed to make real communication take place. And it will.

IN THE DOING OF GOOD, OR EVIL, WILLPOWER IS THE GREATEST HUMAN STRENGTH--the greatest power, bar none, in the universe.