Science is based on faith?

[Joccaren]

Wrong.

You were also going well until you stated evolution as undisputed fact (and gravity for that matter too).

You can never prove a hypotheses, only disprove it. That IS science in a nutshell. Just because the theory of gravity has still held up, doesn't mean tomorrow it will. You may argue this to be "semantics", but this is science 101. In this regard, yes, science can also be "faith" based.

Gravity exists as much as you are alive. You can go into the philosophical side of things and say "But I might not be alive, I might not even exist", but that's bullshit for all intents and purposes within the universe. If you're going to say Gravity or Evolution aren't undisputed fact as to existing - not how they work, that is constantly being worked on, and definitely not a fact - then you will apply that to everything in life. That phone/PC/W.E you're typing that message on might not exist, that message itself might not exist, you might not exist.
There is no hypothesis for these things in every day life, unless you take a philosophical path to it all, which is rather pointless. There is also no hypothesis that gravity exists, or that evolution exists. They exist. Even if only in a few subjects, they do exist - we can see them existing with our own eyes. How they work is not certain, but the fact that they exist is.

 

[Wyes]

I think science requires faith in quite a few unfounded assumptions: That laws are constant, that things really exist, that all things are material, that there is only one reality, that reality necessarily obeys laws, that the Correspondence Theory of Truth is accurate, that things exist without being perceived, and most importantly, that cognitively meaningful representations of reality can accurately be produced through symbols. All of these assumptions are not particularly reasonable to assume for any other reason than that they are necessary, i.e. we have to assume them in order to do anything. So in that way, science is based in a faith fundamentally separate from reason or observation.

But there's nothing wrong with that. The whole debate about this is silly because it assumes that science exists to explore and describe fundamental, ultimate reality instead of just explaining and predicting phenomena. Science is a tool, and it's a tool that is more concerned with pragmatic prediction than any kind of existential or ultimate knowledge. Grand unfounded statements about the essential "nature" of things is the realm of religion, not science, and those who have decided to turn science from a tool that predicts to an oracle that illumines are guilty of Scientism and are essentially religious in their devotion.

So yeah, science takes a first step of essential faith when discussing the axioms that guide it, but that's fine because science is only interested in predicting and explaining mechanisms, not finding out ultimate truth. Even if our general assumption that things really exist is wrong, as long as that assumption helps us predict in accurate ways a phenomenon, then I have no problem with it.

This is spot on. This is the only response this thread needs.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Yes, all of science is only 99.99...% certain, but if you've played any game that uses chance, you know that 99.99% is a pretty good chance of certainty.

Exactly. I don't 'believe' the sun will come up in the morning, I know that the probability of it not coming up in the morning is so small as to be insignificant.

 

[Sigmar ov The Hammer]

I value knowledge, and as such I have faith that science is the greater key to knowledge than any religion or belief.
I wont ignore more spiritual aspects of learning, but I will ignore the Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) as I feel they have no worthy contribution to this world and do more harm than good.
I have my own morals and values, all I have faith in is that science is the best way to achieve knowledge that can better humanity and it's wellbeing.

 

[azukar]

It seems like the universe exists.
It seems like I exist.
It also seems like I can make observations about the universe around me that demonstrate some kind of underlying consistency.

Those three assumptions may or may not be true. In the sense that "faith" means "assumption without knowing for certain", then I guess I have faith that they are true. Though, if they're not true, then any other system of belief is pretty meaningless too.

 

[Saxnot]

Again, i wasn't giving my or asking for your opinion about faith. If you are not religious that is your business.

Well I'm giving it anyway Religion poisons everything.

Sometimes. In the middle ages, for example, technological innovation and experimentation was done partly by monks. William of Ockham, for example, was a franciscan monk well-known for his work in philosophy and physics. Afterwards, of course, the church tried to repress technological progress, but it shows that even the church had a time in which it promoted (scientific) knowledge.

The point i'm trying to make is that attempting to disprove god by quoting parts of the bible that turned put to be factually wrong doesn't discredit it to believers, because their belief is (usually) not based on its factual accuracy, but on it's moral and spiritual value to them.

Well than you failed miserably, because a lot of people do take a literal interpretation of the bible, and the bible is anything but moral.

A holy book is not an encyclopedia. Its value does not lie in factual accuracy, but in spiritual and moral guidance. to say that its incorrect about the earth and the sun is obvious, but doesnt adress the essence of why people believe in it and doesn't adress the existence or nonexistence of god.

Well many people who take the bible literally (and there are a lot of them) would disagree with you on that, and you want an answer of why people believe in their religion, it's because they were brought up with it. If you were born in a Muslim country you would probably be Muslim, If you were born in India you might be Hindu and if you were born in China you'd probably be Buddhist. It's not rocket science to figure out the obvious.

There are over 240 active religion in the world, it's absurd to think they are all correct so they're probably all wrong.

We disagree on the amount of people who take the bible literally. But that isn't essential, because it's not the accuracy of what's in the bible that makes it significant. If it was, it would have been chucked out as soon as they got to the wine to water or magic multiplying fish bits. Its significance, again, lies in its moral and spiritual value. You may feel these values are not worthy, but many would disagree with you. To them, the most important part of the bible is the message of love and forgiving that they see in it. To attack the bible on its factual correctness is missing the point of the bible.

As for the country deciding the faith, that is true in many cases, but doesn't really affect the argument. Whether it's the bible, quran, talmud, vedas or mahayana texts, their significance is moral and spiritual, not factual.

I agree it's off-topic, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting or worthy of discussion.

Yes it does.

What, in general? All discussion that go off the topics they started with are no longer interesting or of value?

You asked me what i would say, i answered what i would say, and you concluded that i would not say what i said. If you didn't want an answer, why did you ask the question?

Well I guess I gave you too much credit, because if some nut came up to most people in the street praising Zeus any rational thinking human being would either ignore, run away or call the cops on him to put him in a rubber room.

I disagree. I think most people would probably laugh at him. But that says nothing about the value of what he's saying. Truth is not decided by public opinion.

After all, critical open-mindedness and a welcoming but sceptical attitude towards new ideas are hallmarks of science.

Nope again science stops being open minded when encounters things that cannot be falsified. Or more specifically it doesn't waste its time.

Exactly my point. The significance of non-falsifiable things lies outside the purview of science. In fact, in the falsification theory, anything that cannot be falsified cannot be scientific. That is not by definition a bad thing. Your feelings towards your family cannot be falsified and are not scientific. That doesn't mean they don't exist or are invalid.

[are not the point of holy books.


Ok. You're not christian. That doesn't really enter into it. I never said religion was good or evil.

I did religion poisons everything.

Again, depends on the circumstances.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

Following basic logic here you can make a statement that a deity does not exist in the sense that there is no evidence for one and things that have no evidence to support their existence can be assumed to not exist because otherwise an infinite amount of things would exist. (okay based on some scientific theories an infinite amount of things DO exist but this would imply that an infinite amount of things exist everywhere).

Can it be assumed? If you're talking about the fundamental structure of the universe and the place of belief in our understanding of it, you can't really use an argument like this. Just because it seems ridiculous and silly to you that an infinite number of things potentially exist everywhere, does not mean it isn't true.

The existence or nonexistence of god is fundamentally unsolvable. To illustrate: can you think of a situation that would definitely, without any doubt, prove or disprove the existence of god?

No, but it seems to me that you've missed the point.

I don't NEED to do anything to prove or disprove the existence of a god. Things that can't be proven or disproved can be assumed to not exist. What annoys me is that this would be a great time to start talking about how irrational god is as a concept but this thread is about faith and not god so I can't.

What you're doing here is placing the existence of a god in a special category for no rational reason. I can't prove or disprove that there are an infinite amount of marshmallows inside a magic compartment in one of my cells but I don't NEED to.

Because since you can't definitely prove or disprove anything 100% then if you can't claim that things that can't be proven or disproved to exist or more accurately in this case things that have no proof for them and can't be disproven don't exist then you can't can't actually make any kind of definite claim about things in our reality, ever.

However at this point things have gotten sufficiently philosophical that this is just my opinion. If your opinion is that you can't make definite statements about our reality, that's fine, my opinion is that that's absurd. But it's just MY opinion.

To say that god definitely does not exist just because i don't know of any evidence for him seems rather strange and presumptious to me.

I'm not saying definitely, I'm not even saying probably, I'm just making a (in my view) necessary assumption. My assumption could be wrong but it's necessary.

Also you spelled presumptuous wrong.

 

[The_Darkness]

Yes, all of science is only 99.99...% certain, but if you've played any game that uses chance, you know that 99.99% is a pretty good chance of certainty.
Frankly, saying that science is based on faith is really degrading. It mocks all the testing that millions of scientists have done for hundreds of years, and ironically enough, the statement is based on ignorance.

And, speaking as a scientist and as an agnostic, I'd say you've just degraded Science.
Ok, I'll admit that was an exaggeration, but I still think you're wrong.

Science does not require much faith. It does, however, require some. It requires assumptions. It requires incredibly basic assumptions, but they are there nonetheless.

For one of these basic assumptions... "Take it away, Ghost and Niobe!" (You can stop watching when Niobe says "Here we go.")

Thank-you, Ghost.

Basically, Science assumes that what happened in the past can inform the future. This is how we can make predictions. Without it, the entire Scientific Method would fall apart. But we do not know it to be true. We take it on faith. Well-informed faith, based on the fact that it's worked so far but... well... you see the problem. It's always worked in the past and therein lies the assumption.
Therein lies the faith.

You may not like to call it faith, but it fits the definition. Assuming something to be true when it cannot be proven.

 

[Saxnot]

I'm not saying definitely, I'm not even saying probably, I'm just making a (in my view) necessary assumption. My assumption could be wrong but it's necessary.

Also you spelled presumptuous wrong.

Why is it necessary?

 

[Vegosiux]

Basically, Science assumes that what happened in the past can inform the future. This is how we can make predictions. Without it, the entire Scientific Method would fall apart. But we do not know it to be true. We take it on faith.

No, we do know it to be true. What we don't know is whether or not it will keep being true at any time in the future. An act of faith would be to believe that the scientific method will always work. No faith is needed to believe it works now.

We do kind of rely on it working indefinitely, yeah, but I will not make a claim it will as a statement of fact, even if some people, even scientists maybe would.

 

[The_Darkness]

Basically, Science assumes that what happened in the past can inform the future. This is how we can make predictions. Without it, the entire Scientific Method would fall apart. But we do not know it to be true. We take it on faith.

No, we do know it to be true. What we don't know is whether or not it will keep being true at any time in the future. An act of faith would be to believe that the scientific method will always work. No faith is needed to believe it works now.

We do kind of rely on it working indefinitely, yeah, but I will not make a claim it will as a statement of fact, even if some people, even scientists maybe would.

Well, technically, we don't even know that it works now. We only know that it worked a moment ago. (The present is a remarkably difficult thing to quantify.) But whenever we make a prediction, we assume that it is true.

Let us try an alternative, but related, assumption. Science is based on Statistics. By extension, Science assumes that the universe is mathematical, that things can always be quantified. If we found something unquantifiable, Science would not be able to handle it. Science wouldn't be able to say anything about it. It would be equivalent to finding real magic. (I studied Astrophysics, not Philosophy of Science, so I may not be expressing this very well.)

Alright, let's try a few more. Science runs on the assumption that things happen for a reason. We assume that there are Laws of Physics, and then we try to find them. They may not be there. We assume causality.

Heck, we even assume time - I've seen a perfectly good philosophical argument (that is to say, there is one in my memory) that neither the past or the future exist. That the entire universe is frozen in one moment - there is everything you remember, but it never happened. There are your speculations about the future, but they will never happen. All there is is your mind, in this moment, right NOW. And if you know a way to prove that argument wrong, I'd love to hear it.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Basically, Science assumes that what happened in the past can inform the future. This is how we can make predictions. Without it, the entire Scientific Method would fall apart. But we do not know it to be true. We take it on faith.

No, we do know it to be true. What we don't know is whether or not it will keep being true at any time in the future. An act of faith would be to believe that the scientific method will always work. No faith is needed to believe it works now.

We do kind of rely on it working indefinitely, yeah, but I will not make a claim it will as a statement of fact, even if some people, even scientists maybe would.

If a system is totally dependent on a series of axioms, to the point where if a single one was false the system would fail, and said system has so far never failed it doesnt take faith to assume the axioms are true. Thats the reasoning basically? No one is stating the axioms are always true and will never be proven false. Just that the system that uses them has been 100% accurate so far, like science the axioms themselves are open for critique, if you could disprove or show an exception to the axiom it would be changed. It doesnt take faith to do any of this.

 

[Vegosiux]

If a system is totally dependent on a series of axioms, to the point where if a single one was false the system would fail, and said system has so far never failed it doesnt take faith to assume the axioms are true. Thats the reasoning basically? No one is stating the axioms are always true and will never be proven false. Just that the system that uses them has been 100% accurate so far, like science the axioms themselves are open for critique, if you could disprove or show an exception to the axiom it would be changed. It doesnt take faith to do any of this.

Okay, let's stop on the axiom talk a little. Example, the Peano axioms.

* There is a natural number 0.
* Every natural number a has a natural number successor, denoted by S(a). Intuitively, S(a) is a + 1.
* There is no natural number whose successor is 0.
* S is injective, i.e. distinct natural numbers have distinct successors: if a ≠ b, then S(a) ≠ S(b).
* If a property is possessed by 0 and also by the successor of every natural number which possesses it, then it is possessed by all natural numbers.

They serve as the foundation for natural numbers. A tool that we created in order to further our understanding, one of them. Without those axioms, math as we know it would not exist, correct? Now, I still do not see why I need to have "faith" in them.

We assume them because we need a starting point, they're basically a framework. A different framework would end up in different mathematics. They are not statements about the world and reality in which we live, they are statements upon which we build our understanding. Or in other words, the first axiom doesn't say "There is a natural number 0" because Peano and mathematicians meant to say "In this universe, there exists a natural number 0", but simply because a tool was needed for a job to be done, and that was the first step of creating that tool.

Well, technically, we don't even know that it works now. We only know that it worked a moment ago. (The present is a remarkably difficult thing to quantify.) But whenever we make a prediction, we assume that it is true.

Let us try an alternative, but related, assumption. Science is based on Statistics. By extension, Science assumes that the universe is mathematical, that things can always be quantified. If we found something unquantifiable, Science would not be able to handle it. Science wouldn't be able to say anything about it. It would be equivalent to finding real magic. (I studied Astrophysics, not Philosophy of Science, so I may not be expressing this very well.)

Alright, let's try a few more. Science runs on the assumption that things happen for a reason. We assume that there are Laws of Physics, and then we try to find them. They may not be there. We assume causality.

Again, those assumptions are not made as factual claims about the universe, but as a basis of understanding. If you want to dispute that, find me a fundamental statement that's not merely a definition.

Heck, we even assume time - I've seen a perfectly good philosophical argument (that is to say, there is one in my memory) that neither the past or the future exist. That the entire universe is frozen in one moment - there is everything you remember, but it never happened. There are your speculations about the future, but they will never happen. All there is is your mind, in this moment, right NOW. And if you know a way to prove that argument wrong, I'd love to hear it.

Which argument? I mean, I will not dispute the existance of said argument, but it'd be nice to actually provide me with the argument itself (complete with all the stuff that should support it) if you want to see me have a go at it.

 

[The_Darkness]

Science runs on the assumption that things happen for a reason. We assume that there are Laws of Physics, and then we try to find them. They may not be there. We assume causality.

Again, those assumptions are not made as factual claims about the universe, but as a basis of understanding. If you want to dispute that, find me a fundamental statement that's not merely a definition.

Well, if those assumptions are false, then every single thing that Science has ever said is false. Do you disagree?
We may have no reason to doubt them, but we do not know them to be true. By extension, if we don't know that things happen for a reason, we cannot draw conclusions based on observation on why things happen. We can't say why a rock falls to the ground because there may not be a reason. And, again by extension, whenever we say that anything is Scientific Fact, we are saying that these basic assumptions are also fact. Otherwise the Scientific Fact... isn't. Or at the very least, it isn't a scientific fact of this universe, which makes it next to useless.

Heck, we even assume time - I've seen a perfectly good philosophical argument (that is to say, there is one in my memory) that neither the past or the future exist. That the entire universe is frozen in one moment - there is everything you remember, but it never happened. There are your speculations about the future, but they will never happen. All there is is your mind, in this moment, right NOW. And if you know a way to prove that argument wrong, I'd love to hear it.

Which argument? I mean, I will not dispute the existance of said argument, but it'd be nice to actually provide me with the argument itself (complete with all the stuff that should support it) if you want to see me have a go at it.

The above was the argument. Please, prove to me that the universe isn't frozen in time, that my description above is demonstrably false. Because otherwise you are taking the existence of time on faith. (In other words, please prove time.)

...

At the end of the day, there is another question here. What is Science? What are Scientists trying to do? Are we trying to make Scientific models of the universe? If so, we can never state anything to be true - we can only say whether or not it fits the model. Or are we trying to work out how the universe works? If so, in order to stop the endless, pointless series of the question 'Why?' (Remember doing that as a kid?), we have to take something on faith somewhere.

 

[Vegosiux]

The above was the argument. Please, prove to me that the universe isn't frozen in time, that my description above is demonstrably false. Because otherwise you are taking the existence of time on faith.

The above was a statement. An argument would be making a case for that statement. Actually, I think you and I both know that.

At the end of the day, there is another question here. What is Science? What are Scientists trying to do? Are we trying to make Scientific models of the universe?

Actually that's precisely what I was about to say in response to the first paragraph of your post (that got left out). Wel not precisely, but the gist of it - is "science" a thing that's inherent to the universe, part of its existence, or is it a tool with which we seek to understand the universe? I say the latter.

If so, we can never state anything to be true - we can only say whether or not it fits the model. Or are we trying to work out how the universe works? If so, in order to stop the endless, pointless series of the question 'Why?' (Remember doing that as a kid?), we have to take something on faith somewhere.

The only reason science doesn't just stop is that we keep asking that endless series. The moment we stop asking it...no more science.

 

[Wyes]

Science runs on the assumption that things happen for a reason. We assume that there are Laws of Physics, and then we try to find them. They may not be there. We assume causality.

Again, those assumptions are not made as factual claims about the universe, but as a basis of understanding. If you want to dispute that, find me a fundamental statement that's not merely a definition.

Well, if those assumptions are false, then every single thing that Science has ever said is false. Do you disagree?
We may have no reason to doubt them, but we do not know them to be true. By extension, if we don't know that things happen for a reason, we cannot draw conclusions based on observation on why things happen. We can't say why a rock falls to the ground because there may not be a reason. And, again by extension, whenever we say that anything is Scientific Fact, we are saying that these basic assumptions are also fact. Otherwise the Scientific Fact... isn't. Or at the very least, it isn't a scientific fact of this universe, which makes it next to useless.

What I thought Vegosiux was getting at with his talk of axioms is that they're not strictly assumptions. His example is a good one; those axioms define the natural numbers, they can't be false - it would be like you telling me that I made the wrong assumption of the name of my book, when I named it.

This applies more to Maths than the other Sciences, because in some sense you can prove things in Maths, so long as you're internally consistent. That is, something is true in the framework I've set up. Of course, this doesn't answer the question if we can rely on this to explain the Universe.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

I'm not saying definitely, I'm not even saying probably, I'm just making a (in my view) necessary assumption. My assumption could be wrong but it's necessary.

Also you spelled presumptuous wrong.

Why is it necessary?

I already said this. Because If you don't make this assumption you can't make definite statements about anything. If you want my argument it's in my previous posts.

It's only necessary in my OPINION. This isn't fact. In my opinion it is necessary to be able to make definite statements about reality. If your opinion is that we don't need to be able to make definite statements about reality then that's YOUR opinion, and arguing about it would be like arguing that a certain brand of music is better because you like it better. It's pointless. Neither of us are going to gain anything.

 

[disgruntledgamer]

Sometimes. In the middle ages, for example, technological innovation and experimentation was done partly by monks. William of Ockham, for example, was a franciscan monk well-known for his work in philosophy and physics. Afterwards, of course, the church tried to repress technological progress, but it shows that even the church had a time in which it promoted (scientific) knowledge.

You want to take this to the middle ages where they cracked peoples heads open to let out evil sprites, where they crucified people, with the crusades and where the church threatened Galileo with torture when he found evidence that the earth rotated around the sun? Yeah sure lets go there..........

We disagree on the amount of people who take the bible literally.

This isn't a matter of opinion but of fact.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/01/gallup-poll-46-of-americans-are-creationists/

But that isn't essential, because it's not the accuracy of what's in the bible that makes it significant.

Um yeah it kinda is.

lies in its moral and spiritual value.

Well than you picked the wrong book.

To them, the most important part of the bible is the message of love and forgiving that they see in it.

You must be reading a different version of the bible you know the ones with 90% of it cut out. Because I don't find killing people for working on Sundays, Sending bears to eat children, selling your daughter into slavery and stoning disobedient children very loving or forgiving.

The bible isn't accurate, as a moral guide it's horrible, even as a work of fiction it fails, it jumps around, it is inconstant, contradictoril and the characters are painfully one dimensional.

As for the country deciding the faith, that is true in many cases, but doesn't really affect the argument.

Yes it does.

What, in general?

All of it, stop trying to mislead and derail keep on topic.

I disagree.

I don't.

Exactly my point.

No it isn't.

The significance of non-falsifiable things lies outside the purview of science. In fact, in the falsification theory, anything tha t cannot be falsified cannot be scientific.

Exactly so it's not faith based. Finally you get it, I accept your apology on being wrong.

Your feelings towards your family cannot be falsified and are not scientific. That doesn't mean they don't exist or are invalid.

Yes they can be tested and falsified. Through observation and actions, through questions and answers, through body language. We can very much test a persons empathy and feelings towards others, it's a branch of science called psychology you might have heard of it. It's how we diagnose psychopaths, mental disorders and other personality disorders.

Again, depends on the circumstances.

Nope.

To say that god definitely does not exist just because i don't know of any evidence for him seems rather strange and presumptious to me.

And to say that god definitely does exist without any evidence isn't presumptuous? There is about as much evidence for god as there is for the giant spaghetti monster. But it's one thing to say it's possible although unlikely for the spaghetti monster to exist, but another to say he could exist believe in him, and try and get others to believe in him without any evidence. That's insanity.

"When one person suffers from delusion we call it insanity, when many people suffer from the same delusion we call it Religion"

Richard Dawkins.

 

[Saxnot]

Sometimes. In the middle ages, for example, technological innovation and experimentation was done partly by monks. William of Ockham, for example, was a franciscan monk well-known for his work in philosophy and physics. Afterwards, of course, the church tried to repress technological progress, but it shows that even the church had a time in which it promoted (scientific) knowledge.

You want to take this to the middle ages where they cracked peoples heads open to let out evil sprites, where they crucified people, with the crusades and where the church threatened Aristotle with torture when he found evidence that the earth rotated around the sun? Yeah sure lets go there..........

They threatened Aristotle? Because he found evidence for the earth rotating around the sun? In the middle ages? Don't try to debate on subjects you know nothing about.

We disagree on the amount of people who take the bible literally.

This isn't a matter of opinion but of fact.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/01/gallup-poll-46-of-americans-are-creationists/

That actually illustrates my main point very well. The idea of creation, being unfalsifiable, cannot be effectively debated by pointing out lots of mistakes in holy books. As such, scientific knowledge increasing does not mean less religious people.

Despite that, i don't think the belief in creationism means many of these people believe male fluid comes from between the ribs. Again, religious faith and scientific knowledge don't really act on the same parts most people's lives.

But that isn't essential, because it's not the accuracy of what's in the bible that makes it significant.

Um yeah it kinda is.

lies in its moral and spiritual value.

Well than you picked the wrong book.

To them, the most important part of the bible is the message of love and forgiving that they see in it.

You must be reading a different version of the bible you know the ones with 90% of it cut out. Because I don't find killing people for working on Sundays, Sending bears to eat children, selling your daughter into slavery and stoning disobedient children very loving or forgiving.

The bible isn't accurate, as a moral guide it's horrible, even as a work of fiction it fails, it jumps around, it is inconstant, contradictoril and the characters are painfully one dimensional.

As for the country deciding the faith, that is true in many cases, but doesn't really affect the argument.

Yes it does.

I think you're a little confused. None of what you're saying has anything to do with what i said. You seem to think you're arguing with a christian on the value or validity of the bible. You're not. You're missing the point. try to read what i said again, because you don't seem to have understood it.

What, in general?

All of it, stop trying to mislead and derail keep on topic.

The thread topic is whether science is based on faith. We haven't debated that at all so far. I thought our topic was the relevance of using proof and factual arguments in a discussion on religion and faith. What do you think the topic is?

I disagree.

I don't.

Exactly my point.

No it isn't.

Now this is just getting silly. You are now telling me what i'm trying to tell you? If you're just going to make up what the person you're talking to is saying, why even have a conversation? Do you even need me to respond to you? Should i just leave so you can debate whoever you seem to think you're debating?

The significance of non-falsifiable things lies outside the purview of science. In fact, in the falsification theory, anything tha t cannot be falsified cannot be scientific.

Exactly so it's not faith based. Finally you get it, I accept your apology on being wrong.

Well, in science, as in all things, faith is required in many ways. The validity of observation, human capacity for understanding the universe, the validity of a given theory and so on. There are elaborate philosophical underpinnings to the ideas of being able to observe accurately, theorise properly, and understand fully the world around us. And that's without going into faith in theories that ARE falsifiable and turn out to be wrong.

Your feelings towards your family cannot be falsified and are not scientific. That doesn't mean they don't exist or are invalid.

Yes they can be tested and falsified. Through observation and actions, through questions and answers, through body language. We can very much test a persons empathy and feelings towards others, it's a branch of science called psychology you might have heard of it. It's how we diagnose psychopaths, mental disorders and other personality disorders.

So love is a scientifically defined term? In what circumstances can a persons assertions that he loves someone be falsified beyond a doubt, then?

Again, depends on the circumstances.

Nope.

Why? Do you have any arguments? Have you seen and understood every situation in which faith plays a role?

To say that god definitely does not exist just because i don't know of any evidence for him seems rather strange and presumptious to me.

And to say that god definitely does exist without any evidence isn't presumptuous? There is about as much evidence for god as there is for the giant spaghetti monster. But it's one thing to say it's possible although unlikely for the spaghetti monster to exist, but another to say he could exist believe in him, and try and get others to believe in him without any evidence. That's insanity.

I agree. Again, i never said otherwise.

Look, you don't seem to have understood what i'm saying, so i'll try again.

To debate religion and faith in the context of evidence and proof is to fundamentally misunderstand what religion is and what the significance of a holy book is.

The reason for this is that the value in a faith is not in its accuracy to physics. Its value is personal, moral and spiritual. Even if you disagree with the morality and spirituality of the faith, that's still how faith functions to the faithful.

To debate faith by pointing out male fluid doesn't come from between the ribs, then, is not very helpful or useful in any context. It's true, but it doesn't matter that much within the context of religion and faith.

 

[Saxnot]

I'm not saying definitely, I'm not even saying probably, I'm just making a (in my view) necessary assumption. My assumption could be wrong but it's necessary.

Also you spelled presumptuous wrong.

Why is it necessary?

I already said this. Because If you don't make this assumption you can't make definite statements about anything. If you want my argument it's in my previous posts.

It's only necessary in my OPINION. This isn't fact. In my opinion it is necessary to be able to make definite statements about reality. If your opinion is that we don't need to be able to make definite statements about reality then that's YOUR opinion, and arguing about it would be like arguing that a certain brand of music is better because you like it better. It's pointless. Neither of us are going to gain anything.

Well, we might gain a better understanding of each others position. But i get what you mean. If that's your philosophical position, i understand totally. I'm not saying your position is invalid or strange, i'm trying to debate you in order to find out why you think what you think and how that applies to my ideas about the world. That does not mean you're wrong.