The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Sure, in human interactions we usually do not collect such evidence formally: mine was a simplified example, just to express my point. If we still collected something informally (I believe we do somehow) then the process would be largely unconscious. By the way, I'd like to read Sagan's book (I watched the movie several years ago IIRC).

I'm not one of those who would negate the existence of something just because it can't be measured. On the contrary: I would see it as a limited and limiting approach. Of course being able to "see" and quantify something makes it easier to define and study it, but it also restricts the range of phenomena that can be studied thoroughly.

Regarding faith, sometimes I notice interesting differences in the ways in which people with different backgrounds tend to express it. Overall I try to respect people's religious feelings, but among them I tend to understand some people better than others. For instance, I understand that some people need to have a "personal" relationship with the unknown (which of course can be given names or be left unnamed). On the other hand, I tend to reject crystallized and self-regarding traditions and institutions, and those lines of thought ignoring light and trying to promote darkness instead (as in Asimov's "armies of the night").

Originally Posted by mostlyharmless For some, the inability to measure something negates its existence.

Or, it simply does not exist!

Originally Posted by OregonJim You do have beliefs. Everyone does - it's an essential part of the abilty to form ideas and to think. Much of what you 'know' is merely belief - you can't possibly have tested by first hand experience everything that you 'believe' to be true (or false). You rely on the 'belief' that your sources are accurate. Life is absolutely FILLED with 'belief' and 'faith', no matter WHO you are.

Thankfully some have worked to try to "tighten up" the definition for "belief" but the fact that you mentioned "you can't possibly have tested by first hand experience" insserts an important wrinkle. First hand experience is not essential to knowing. It is just relegated to a confidence level that is less solid, more questionable than those that are firsthand and over time the line blurs as more evidence is gathered.

Regarding Science and scientists, from first hand experience as well as following the history of scientific discovery and testing fundamentals against first hand experience, I know that Logic works, that "A = A" and "A != NotA", that "1 = 1" and "1 + 1 = 2" and how he entire body of Mathematics and Logic have been built up by extending those constructed perfect truths. I further know that while people have failings that generally it is in one's interest to tell the truth, to test assumptions, and alter conclusions accordingly or become "the boy who cried wolf" with no credibility. Therefore I give a modicum of trust to experts in a field depending a great deal on their reputation for truthfullness and expertise factored against how immediately important such discoveries are to me, personally. I may vaguely trust a physician to offer an opinion on some condition but his validity is going to undergo greater scrutiny if I find I or someone I care about has that condition. This is what I meant by "sliding scale".

Regarding larger, seemingly more difficult concepts like the shape of the Earth, though I have posted it here before it bears repeating, that not only did scientists know the Earth was round before 100BCE, by 300BCE it's circumference was calculated with only a 0.15% error almost 2000 years before Man had ventured into space. People noted that approaching ships ALWAYS were spotted by the flags at the top of the mast first and the rest of the ship became gradually visible working downward. This is clear evidence of a spherical world. Eratosthenes, who calculated the Earth's circumference, did so by measuring shadow length at the same time in different locations and using geometry was able to calculate the arc of a world that would create those differences in shadow length. Extending that arc around to complete the circle made it easy to calculate the circumference. He also possibly calculated the distance of the Earth from the Sun. The Circumference of the Earth

So you see just as the body of work that is Science has evolved with various levels of reliability (and degrees of reservation) a person's body of knowledge can be built and evolve into one of confidence in Logic as opposed to one of deference to authority without evidence. As for Love, aside from the feelings of Love, created by electrochemical responses in our brains, Love is as Love does. Even teenagers know that just because someone says "I love you" that it isn't necessarily true or at least can have a very different meaning than what they mean when they feel or say it. Additionally observing others falling in love is clear evidence of the vast changes in a person under the influence of Eros. Less dramatic but equally visible are Agape, Phileo and Storge. Because the external effects are subjective, exact measurement is unimportant to understanding it's existence. A far more complicated issue is Consciousness and Personality but those are not without evidence either.

So I do beg to differ with you regarding "beliefs". I try to not have them and in all the ways most important to me I am successful. I have some trust in secondhand experience but it is subject to firsthand reservations and testing. This is why I know I don't know a LOT, and that's perfectly OK though it was a painfully won bit of understanding at first. I am still driven to learn even though I know I can't know it all. So I just need to choose carefully what concerns me, what I care to know deeply and what matters little.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Okay, a ridiculous one just to illustrate the point. You 'know' the earth is round. But, have you traveled into space to observe it first hand? Have you triangulated the positions of various points along the surface of the entire planet to map it out? No, you 'believe' it to be true because you have faith in the sources that tell you the earth is round. Your faith in the work of others is what you have. Your collective 'knowledge' is largely a personally selected series of 'beliefs', augmented by a much smaller subset of first hand observations. (Now, few would argue about this particular 'belief', but apply the same logic to everything else you claim to be 'knowledge'.)

Duh, I guess I must be really thick. I would have thought that viewing a lunar eclipse where the moon passes through the earth's shadow would be all the evidence you need. When we observe the shadow it is invariably round. The only solid that invariably projects a round shadow is a ... wait for it .... <Drum roll>SPHERE!</DRum roll>
That evidence was enough to convince the ancient Greeks and they seem to have got it right.

Any other examples? Your point is far far from illustrated.
jdk

Originally Posted by jdkaye Any other examples?

I recently read Lies My Teacher Told Me, and it has a paragraph talking how obvious it is that the Earth is round, and how everyone has always known that (for the most part). One of the examples it gave is things slowly disappearing over the horizon. The circular shadow it casts on the moon (which you mentioned) is another. "It looks round" is actually the point that it leads with.

If infinity exists can "god" or is that just another black hole where people are raised to say, "infinity wouldn't exist with out "god?"

∞

To my way of thinking, "both religion and science" are important, and valid. You don't have to choose between one or the other. And, if you should spot "inconsistencies" between one and the other, or even between differing religious and/or scientific perspectives, you just shouldn't get bent out of shape about any of it.

Even "faith," I cautiously suggest, can be "bent out of shape." It shouldn't be seen as a substitute for using your own head. It shouldn't prompt you to cast yourself off of a cliff, "having 'faith'" that someone or something will miraculously catch you. And, so on.

You have "science" to take you as far as (you think) human intellect can take you. And, you have religion to take you still farther. One does not invalidate the other: we live in a world that consists of both the seen and the unseen. The mere fact that we don't "see everything" does not invalidate those things that we cannot see. If "faith" lets us participate in those unseen things, that's not a bad thing at all. If you are struck by an intuition, an instinct, a feeling, don't dismiss it just because you don't intellectually understand it. Just don't lose your head about it.

"Faith and Religion" have been a part of human existence for as far back as we can see ... even among cultures that, as we have begrudgingly discovered, were also very "scientific." There must be a perfectly legitimate reason for that ... which is not "ignorance" or "superstition."

Originally Posted by sundialsvcs You have "science" to take you as far as (you think) human intellect can take you.

Science does not even go that far. Science is constrained by the physical world. Yet even science theorizes mathematically that there exist at minimum ten dimensions that transcend space and time.

So those who cling to the belief that something can only be truth if can be described scientifically are really limiting themselves.

Originally Posted by OregonJim Science does not even go that far. Science is constrained by the physical world. Yet even science theorizes mathematically that there exist at minimum ten dimensions that transcend space and time. So those who cling to the belief that something can only be truth if can be described scientifically are really limiting themselves.

And yet, you can know if a statement is true only if you have some evidence available. I'm not talking about logical truth, for which formal evidence is enough. I'm talking about evidence of facts, of things that actually happen, or do not happen. Of course you can also make hypotheses, but then that's what they are, and you will need further investigation in order to decide if those hypothetical statements can be said to be true. Then you can imagine things freely, and extend your own description of reality beyond the limits of what can actually be seen. You can do that, but of course your "extensions" cannot be given the status of knowledge: they are opinions, beliefs, and you cannot say that they are true unless you can provide some evidence in support of them.

You say that science is constrained by the physical world. So should we assume that there is something "beyond" it? Is this your opinion, or do you have some interesting data you can share with us, showing what that non-physical world is? Negation is a really powerful tool, as by a very simple operation we can form a sentence saying that there are things which are NOT part of the physical world, just as we can say that there are things which are part of it. We can say anything, just by using the interchangeable parts of our own language. On the other hand, if we want our statements to be true we have much less freedom.

Regarding what you say about «science [that] theorizes mathematically that there exist at minimum ten dimensions that transcend space and time», can you provide a source? Are you sure that it's a statement, and not a hypotheses? As far as I know, for instance, physicists working on the strings theory have made such hypotheses, but that's what they are. And even if the existence of those many dimensions can be proved, why shouldn't they be part of the physical world, that is, the only world we actually know?

I love how these discussion inevitably pretend that you're either 100 percent sure of something or 0 percent sure, and there's no degree of certainty in between.

(note: definitely not talking about everyone in the thread).

Originally Posted by dugan I love how these discussion inevitably pretend that you're either 100 percent sure of something or 0 percent sure, and there's no degree of certainty in between.

You can be 100% sure that you cannot be 100% sure about many things.

As long as the topic of this thread doesn't change, I'm not sure that it makes much sense to talk about degrees of certainty, just as it doesn't make sense to talk about its extremes. As far as I'm concerned I don't care, as long as respect and at least a fair use of language are shown.

@dugan. Heh heh +1

Indeed, one of the intrinsic limitations of "science, as a human point of view," is that it mostly is, by design(!), "all or nothing."

This is one of the many reasons why "scientific philosophy," or, "the philosophy of science," was such an important parlor-game(!) of the thinkers of the 19th Century. Including, specifically, Charles Darwin.

Fact is, there are a lot of "valid avenues of scientific inquiry ... or, at least, valid speculation" ... about which "science," constrained as it is both by "available scientific data" and "the momentary lack thereof, cannot even begin to go. (If "pure science" does not find a rock-solid footbridge already set beneath its intended course, it is obliged to remain firmly on the riverside.)

"Scientific philosophy," on the other hand, explicitly recognizes these issues, and (nevertheless ...) explores beyond them. Instead of working from "available evidence proves that ...", it instead works from "available evidence does not logically disprove that ..."

Important difference.

After all, no one can prove (nor disprove) that "man descended from monkeys," but that was never(!) actually Mr. Darwin's thesis. (Because such a thesis, obviously, could not be proved, "unless you were there.") Rather, in his scientific exploration of "The Origin of Species" (note: not Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, nor Genus ...), he methodically considered what the available datum of his day could not disprove.

(And all of his readers, being well-schooled in this game, understood this.)

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix And yet, you can know if a statement is true only if you have some evidence available.

No. Again, you are constrained to the physical world with such 'evidence', so you can only know if those things that can be fully described in time and space, are true (or not true). Evidence is the result of applied science, and therefore limited by its domain.

Originally Posted by Philip Lacroix Regarding what you say about «science [that] theorizes mathematically that there exist at minimum ten dimensions that transcend space and time», can you provide a source? Are you sure that it's a statement, and not a hypotheses?

You answered your own question. As I said, science THEORIZES this. By definition, it cannot do anything more, as the application of such theory would be constrained to the physical world (i.e. three dimensions plus time) by the scientific 'methods' that many believe is 'where all truth begins and ends'.

You should be able to find many sources with little effort - that was not the focus of my point, and not my intention to get sidetracked with it here.

There's "good" diversity and ideas plus "bad" but we don't need both!

If as some say there are "more religious minds" than not? Thanks, just look around... "you" are obviously doing it wrong.