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.

With the best will in the world, when I read one of your posts (or anyone else's) the content is filtered through my understanding, and coloured by my life experiences, so I may never really hear what you are saying. Obviosly, this works in both directions, so although discussion may help to clarify the situation, there can never be absolute certainty of mutual understanding.

Understanding is relative.

So is (obviously) the idea of real communication or dialogue.

You are absolutely, right! and I absolutely agree--in a relative sort of way.

To have everyone agree that we live within the boundaries of relative precepts, even if they are conflicting or distant from any kind of understanding?

tragedy and desperation does seem to bring people together

This may be true, but it misses my point which is that the understanding of that agreement which each participating individual has will be the result of filtering information through each person's mental/psychological system. Thus, there is no guarantee that participants are actually agreeing to what other participants believe they are agreeing to.

I guess that's why we pay the legal profession an arm and a leg to produce documents in a language that we all agree is incomprehensible to the layman

Not to mention interpreters if the language is not your usual one. The interpreter has to be skilful enough to convey the intent of the message in both the original language and the unknown one.

Thee was a news story on TV here the other day about the need for interpreters for doctors and hospitals. There are over a hundred different languages spoken by people here in Tulsa, and this is just a medium sized city. There are around 750,000 people in the metropolitan area. But when somebody has to see a doctor and nobody around speaks their language there can be huge problems figuring out what their problem is. As you said they need an interpreter that understands both sides of the conversation, and that can be hard to find in a medical setting.

Bill Gill

Rwy'n siwr nad yw un ohonynt yn Gymraeg

Don't trust the Google translation of this!

In the determination of what is good or evil, the will to cast illusions is a force that is vacuous.

Scientists need to be more precise: Of course, just as there is such a thing as junk science--the kind based on flawed theories--there is also such a thing as a blind and irrational kind of faith, the kind singled out above. In addition, there is such a thing as having a little faith, or having a weak one.

But let us not forget: A courageous, strong and sighted faith, like a good theory, is possible. It is the kind possessed by people with a deep respect for reason. It is very compatible with the scientific approach and with having a broad kind of education. People with a strong, educated, courageous and sighted faith will not foolishly leap blindly into the dark, but rather take a careful walk in the light they have.

Rev wrote...." but ... take a careful walk in the light they have."

What apt phrase, and something we should all try to do!

Everyone does the best they can. However righteousness is going to be subjective, and who knows what is good for all?
Growth and evolution is not without challenges. Sometimes you have to create chaos to be able to recognize it. Then it becomes useful and a good thing.

Wisdom often follows a path of education that is outside of determinism and the acceptable programming of the herd mentality. Something not easily recognized by mainstream programs of dogmatic education and social mores.

A person can be crucified for bucking the system.

How about a concrete example, rather than a vague, clever sounding pronouncement which would require blind faith if it were to be accepted?

http://www.cottagemed.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12&Itemid=13

As contrast to a lack of insight, chaos could be determined to be something that has gotten out of the control of those who have great ideas, and subsequently acted upon the idea without the knowledge of the outcome.

One example:
Thalidomide and it's application to ease morning sickness
http://www.google.com/search?q=thalidomi...024&bih=644

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/science/16limb.html?pagewanted=all

Interesting to know just what the thalidomide experience has taught us.

http://www.drhadwentrust.org/downloads/W...l%20testing.pdf

Well I hope it did teach us something. It was a distressing episode that could possibly have been prevented.

That is a thought provoking article you posted Bill S. It seems the tragic outcomes of not testing exhaustively are dire, but we do need medical research to continue, perhaps more than ever now that we have so many resistant organisms emerging.

I have read that once the patent on some quite effective proven drugs expire the big Pharmas do not bother with producing them any more. Maybe we should be using the tested by time drugs that still work as well as the new one-shot wonders that are pushed so hard by the companies.

Even more interesting, will be if sensibility is a valid trait amongst the human species. Will evolution reveal to the current living society, what it has learned about the dead and their ambitions driven by ideals rather than the apparent facts about reality?
Comprehension of reality being a factor.

Will the ability of the human species to make decisions continue to be inclusive of the destruction of life to find what makes it work?
Will the species be able to determine the meaning of life, by observing the death of the species, thru self destructive and self defeating policy?
Will the ineffective authorities guiding the scientific course of action and who determine what is financially useful, rather than useful in preserving the health and life of human life be destroyed by a greater mind as evolution of the species progresses?

Our reasoning says probably, or even possibly. Our history tells us that our intelligence may not be enough to prevent our chaotic choices from anhialating the earth and it's species, since there are those who prefer to go to war and destroy each other as a solution or cure to our differences, which are often diagnosed as the ills of human ambition.

I have been looking at the title of this topic again and I wonder:

What is faith? Why would a scientist need it? Does it include faith in self?

First off, to be scientific, nothing would be ignored.
All things would find a place since ignoring anything might sabotage objectivity.
Secondly. Faith of any kind need not be blind unless one ignores the connections that reside in the relative world as mind dissects reality through experience.
Thirdly. The relationship in connectivity must be present. The philosophical knower, and the known, in the process of knowing as a reality.

Without at least something in the quality of these ideals there can be no foundation to expand or build upon. Faith that these will continue as tomorrow will follow today, is as much a reality as belief and fact.

Meow! Curiosity killed the cat! had to un-ignore!

And that post makes sense TT. You seem to feel that reality is knowing--- does that mean comprehension is there as well. It is possible to know and not to understand--- that's the sort of 'knowing' that has to apply, I think, in matters religious. Or do you feel that belief and/or faith must necessarily accompany knowledge? I would suggest it often does not.

You also connect faith and experience, which is logical, but will curtail faith in things not experienced. You appear to infer that the process of knowing transcends reality, that faith and experience matter more. I, on the other hand, think that reality often shapes belief.

I'll ignore point 1 because I'm not very good at ignoring and because you ARE correct--- ignoring does compromise just about anything!

in the process of knowing, comprehension is relative to states of consciousness and the refinement of the senses. Faith implies devotion, as it is implied, one can have faith in a dog or a cat, or science. To a non scientist, faith in science is often without the knowledge and experience of a scientist, and such devotion to the authority without the fullness of experience and understanding would be blind. Blind faith is not just a religious application.
Physics is beginning to explore the idea that thoughts and beliefs have an impact on creating reality. Medical sciences used to follow the dictates that the body shaped the mind, but in practical approaches to modern day methods in healing, doctors know the mind affects the body in that it can both heal and make the body sick. This has been explored thru the study of placebos.
Faith in a higher process?

I reserve the right to suggest that you are not a higher process.

ALso I think you blur the distinction between reality and belief by the fact of your beliefs. Yes, a placebo works well for some, though not all, whereas the correct medication would probably do the job for many more. The presence of belief and faith does not always indicate the presence of truth....though as others before Bill S (I think it was!) have said, "What is truth?"

http://archive.org/stream/TheHiddenTruth...ge/n25/mode/1up


An interesting read.

I would never make claims to the propriety of Said process. I do however have my door pass to the library..
Your belief is noted

Or not. Not all prescriptions relieve symptoms, and none cure the cause.
The point of interest however is that Doctors are aware of how the mind influences the body and it's health. The unconscious practice of projecting any comments regarding patients status or recovery from the conversation in any surgery has been changed for the known effects it has on patients subconscious activity and patient recovery.

Then there is the controversial subject of consciousness and it's influence at the level of particles in quantum physics.


I like to think it is the ineffable which remains in its integrity of unbounded potential, prior, during, and after the rendering of suppositions that are projected from the personal reality, or belief system supported by the subjective ego.

"How do antibiotics work?"
http://health.howstuffworks.com/medicine/medication/question88.htm

Rede-- What do you think of the possibility of further (if indeed there has been any in the West) research into phages in view of the superbug situation that we have, admittedly unknowingly, brought on ourselves. Could they help? It is similar to the intestinal treatment mentioned on the title page.

Maybe the placebo effect works with effective treatments too. We want it to work so it does.

May I describe a moment of chagrin, at the very least, for me? My doctor, having dealt with my continuing aches and pains for ages, suggested that I try an acupuncturist. I am nothing if not a sceptic, but I had so much of a problem that I went to see a practitioner. It worked! Not only did it work, but he told me I would not get as much relief on the right side as there was a blockage of the chi. There sure was--- a hip replacement which I hadn't mentioned as I thought he was treating my back only!!!! I still continue to have treatment, maybe it is anti-placebo effect.

I imagine that people in need of pain relief are unlikely to postpone acupuncture treatment simply because the scientific method has yet to explain its efficacy. Fortunately, in my opinion, authorities in the US and UK appear to take the same view. It has gained a measure of official respectability and recognition, and it's now possible to receive the treatment (if yer lucky) from the National Health Service (UK):

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/womenshealth/features/acupuncture.htm

It's reasonable, and demonstrable, that attitude of mind affects health and can help or hinder healing, be it related to the placebo effect or not. Let's not get too carried away though - placebos don't work on unconscious patients, but antibiotics do

Re phages, I think there's reason to be hopeful. The following is dated 18thJan 2012...

Phages: The powerful new bio-ammo in superbug war

"Genetically altered phages can be developed for any bacterium and used in hospital settings to reverse antibiotic resistance in bacteria that cause hospital-acquired infections," the Wall Street Journal notes.

If successful it calls a halt to the arms race between antibiotic-resistant bugs, and superbugs (such as MRSA), and the pharmaceutical industry's ever more powerful bunker-busting antibiotics. The NHS has trialled phages as protection against MRSA (Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, a variant of Staphylococcus) noting their success.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/01/18/phages_fight_superbugs/

TRIGGERING THE PLACEBO EFFECT USING WILLPOWER...

FIRST, by now most of us know that only in the Comic Books are there supermen, superwomen, superheroes and supergods who will come to earth to rescue and save us in our hour of need. Agreed?

SECOND, the good news is: YOU CAN BE YOUR OWN PNEUMAMAN, PNEUMAWOMAN, PNEUMABOY, OR PNEUMAGIRL, BY USING YOUR PNEUMA-BASED POWER OF CHOICE. OK?

On numerous occasions, I have used what I call pneumatherapy to help individuals, and/or groups, do as suggested above. I always tell people coming for help: If it is your will, you will soon know how to turn on your personal WILLPOWER, INTELLECT & IMAGINATION functions. This is the first step we need to take in finding the solutions we need to our own pain-and-suffering problems.

When people sincerely and willingly agree to accept and act on the suggestions made above, it always amazes me how quickly they learn how to overcome their own RESISTANCE to the help available. When they do, they invariably begin to find the solutions they need for their physical, mental or spiritual problems.

ICEBERGS AND THE PNEUMA COMPONENT OF OUR HUMAN NATURE

Many icebergs, like the one in the link below are seen every Spring, off Newfoundland and not far from www.bellisland.net the island (about 9x3 miles) where I was born, in 1930. It is 9 miles from St.John's.

PNEUMATOLOGICAL (that is, SPIRITUAL) SYMBOLISM of such bergs

THE PNEUMA-- IS ABOUT THAT WHICH IS ALL-ENCOMPASSING.
The 10% of the ice of a berg, which is seen above the waterline. The sky-blue colour of the berg symbolizes the Pneuma component--that is, the human ability to be self-aware and say:
I am and, therefore, I have WILLPOWER--the power to choose to be, or not to be. Using the principle of the Golden Rule, I choose and agree to take personal responsibility for who I am and what I ought to do about it--for self, for others and for the universe in which we live, move and have our being.

THE GOLDEN SUN IS THE SYMBOL OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
Thus, I have the power of choice to say: I choose to think, learn, know, reason and understand.

THE RED BENEATH THE EARTH, AND OUR SKIN, IS THE SYMBOL OF POWER.

This is the power and energy which enables me to do and to act, as needed.

Take note that 90% of the iceberg is below the waterline. This darker shade of blue symbolizes the unconscious and animal-like mind (psyche) we all have. Located in the skull, our brain is a somatic organ which appears to be connected to every cell of the body (the soma component).

THE ROLE OF THE PNEUMA (spirit, soul, mind)? It is the source of the all-ecompassing will which helps the soma and the psyche to work together and trigger the placebo effect.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150853594032316&l=0fc22e0a4a

Since the mind is almost certainly involved in the placebo effect, that would seem to make very good sense, but has it been scientifically tested?

Actually when you think about it, the placebo is given with the information that the placebo is going to effect a cure or relief of symptoms, so it is the suggestion at work.
Since doctors have found that the unconscious mind is affected by suggestion, the placebo affect can be said to apply when the patient is unconscious or under the influence of anesthesia.

All encompassing suggests the will has created what is in effect determined by the mind as a problem.
If we apply that which the ego then determines is God, good, orderly and designs our experience, there would be a conflict of interest. Healing might be a resistance to the flow of spirit or a determination that spirit is out of control.

Hence a determination that spirit is in need of adjustment.
All that is good orderly and determined to irk the humans sense of spirit, order, design and morality is going to be subject to, the personal determination of all that is or the ego.

Is this a democratic process, or, one left to the righteous who have claims to greater understanding as prescribed historically by the church and it's clergy?

What is Spirit? Can it be broken?
What separates Pneumatology from hypnotism?
What separates Pneumatology from belief, especially in the determination of Spirit?
From the illustration of the iceberg all stability is in the mass under the waterline, therefore how do we align with the greater part if it is unknown or unfamiliar?
Is there a difference in the unconscious and the subconscious?
Is it the conscious mind wrapped up in the ego that conflicts with the source of will, and is the source of will the same as the will when it is ruled by ego?

A technically valid point, Bill. TT has stated that the unconscious can be accessed for specific information input. Be that as it may, placebo medication is inert and relies on deception for any therapeutic effect; drugs such as antibiotics do not.

Somewhere, recently, I read about a study in which placebo medication continued to be effective after the patient had been informed that it was a placebo. I will try to find it, but it may not be until the puppies are off hand.

That's interesting. It would seem that the subject had learned to be confident in the placebo's effectiveness. A conditioned response, perhaps.
Enjoy the pups while they're still with you. I have a soft spot for baby mammals of any kind - as do most people, I guess.

Of course Bill, the same thing happens when patients are told the fact that "all hypnosis is self-hypnosis".

PNEUMATHERAPY--THE ART OF SELF HYPNOSIS
This is why I tell pneuma~self~therapy patients who come to see me: By careful exploration of hypnosis decades ago, I got to know a few things about the art of stage hypnosis. Therefore, like Dr. Milton Erickson, I make no claim to be anyone's master. And patients are not here to be my subject--the kind depicted in the movie (1931), Trilby (the subject), which starred John Barrymore as Svengali (the master). Think of me simply as a teacher and that you are a student.

A thought: typically what hypnosis involves, the suggestion of an idea.
Accepting the idea that one can succeed in a belief that seems to escape ones self in experience, because there is a belief the mind is currently giving priority to.

Where the label of spirit adjustment is concerned/applied by the stage hypnotist, it is not necessarily the spirit inherent in life but the condition of life. An outlook, or a mood?

Obviously no teacher can give a student an experience.

A teacher can be a part in the student creating his or her own experience.
If the teacher is a guide, the teacher will necessarily have their own experience or belief regarding what they are pointing the student towards.

In regards to spirit. If the spirit itself is broken, what is it about the earthly beliefs that take and give of the spirits health?

Is this spirit immortal?

Is this spirit born, nourished and killed with the creation and demise of the physical body?