Xargque
08-25-2004, 10:08 PM
I wanted to separate this from the "Religion & Logic" thread because I'd like to hear what others think about this issue.
Original Post:
[ QUOTE ]
The implicit assumption in this thread is that science has "proven" "facts" and that religion is based solely on faith in contradiction to these "facts".
Science, however, requires EXACTLY as much faith as religion.
All logic must begin with assumptions (with the possible exception of tautologies such as A=A).
In logic, when you make an assumption, you are free to make ANY assumption. Furthermore, it is nonsense to claim that one assumption is better than another. All assumptions are equivalent in value.
A scientist picks up a rock and lets go. The rock falls. He does this 10 times, each time the rock falls. He therefore concludes that on the 11th time the rock will fall again. However, he is not entitled to make this conclusion without assuming the following: "that which has happened reproducibly in the past will continue to happen in the future". Let's call this assumption "the principle of induction" (following David Hume).
I would assert that ALL science assumes the principle of induction. Further, it does so without any external justification.
Under that assumption, science makes sense. (Although, even with that assumption, scientific theories can still be disproven -- and have many times.)
However, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to prefer the principle of induction as an assumption over any assumption about the way the universe behaves that any religion makes.
In order to compare the value of two competing assumptions, you must find a third assumption that both parties agree to and then show that one of the competing assumptions is consistent with the new meta-assumption and the other is not. Absent that, science requires you to assume something without justification, which is, by definition, a leap of faith.
-X
BTW, for those who care, I am a research biologist who does basic scientific research for a living, and I am an athiest. I assume, without justification, the principle of induction because it makes sense to me, but I recognize that as a leap of faith on my part.
[/ QUOTE ]
Additionally, there is at least one piece of empirical data that everyone I've ever met takes as true which religion explains easily, but science has as yet been unable to come close to giving a satisfactory explanation: Consciousness.
Assuming you start from a theist point of view, consciousness is easy to explain.
From an athiest/scientific point of view it has proven to be quite a challenge (this is as much of an understatement as saying that pocket Aces is a pretty strong hand when the other two aces have flopped). I personally have faith that a scientific/non-spiritual explanation of consciousness can be found, but I cannot tell you what it is now. That is another leap of faith that I must make as an athiest scientist.
-X
Below is one reply to the earlier posting of this thread and my rebuttal. The reply came from Cerril.
[ QUOTE ]
It's important not to weight that sort of statment too heavily.
The difference in belief isn't just of amount, it's of kind. There are some things we take 'for granted'. But things such as 'there is an outside world, which we have direct access to by our senses, and there are other people which we can communicate with and be understood' aren't principles we accept.
These aren't facts -about- the world we're taking for granted, they're the framework on which everything else rests. These are closer to the realm of tautologies than to conclusions about things even so basic as gravity.
Cause and effect or however you'd like to describe our assumption that the future will resemble the past in ways that allows us to act as if our actions have meaning (that one action will lead to a desirable result rather than a random result) is in the same boat. If you discard that principle then you either need to replace it with something else which allows you to act, or stop acting entirely.
Presumably we could work within a different framework, draw different conclusions from our initial experiences, and if they were coherent and allowed us to function they would be sufficient.
But it's very important to understand that the vast majority of epistemological 'assumptions' aren't assumptions of the same type and weight as inserting a being into the universe we already have access to (the general understanding of 'believe in God'), as an explanatory measure. They aren't even on the same level as things which we take for granted (and which no theist would argue), which are in fact conclusions drawn from those first assumptions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rebuttal:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's important not to weight that sort of statment too heavily.
The difference in belief isn't just of amount, it's of kind. There are some things we take 'for granted'. But things such as 'there is an outside world, which we have direct access to by our senses, and there are other people which we can communicate with and be understood' aren't principles we accept.
These aren't facts -about- the world we're taking for granted, they're the framework on which everything else rests. These are closer to the realm of tautologies than to conclusions about things even so basic as gravity.
[/ QUOTE ]
These things are the framework upon which everything rests if and only if you assume they are true. They are powerful assumptions, in that you can build an entire system of beliefs out of them. In fact the one assumption about causation is so powerful that it alone is sufficient to account for the belief structure built up by science. But do not confuse an assumption from which MANY conclusions can be derived with an assumption that MUST be true. Equally many conclusions can be derived from the assumption that "God is the creator of and cause of all things and all events", but that does not make it any more or less correct to believe that is true.
[ QUOTE ]
Cause and effect or however you'd like to describe our assumption that the future will resemble the past in ways that allows us to act as if our actions have meaning (that one action will lead to a desirable result rather than a random result) is in the same boat. If you discard that principle then you either need to replace it with something else which allows you to act, or stop acting entirely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. I CHOOSE to assume that cause and effect work the same way science assumes it does. I behave according to that assumption. But at the end of the day, I recognize that it is an assumption which I cannot prove without first assuming it is true. There is no external justification for my belief in this proposition, therefore I accept it on faith and live my life accordingly.
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we could work within a different framework, draw different conclusions from our initial experiences, and if they were coherent and allowed us to function they would be sufficient.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that many people, perhaps most people that have lived, have taken the assumption "There is a God" to be more basic than the assumption "There is a physical world which obeys constant and unchanging laws".
[ QUOTE ]
But it's very important to understand that the vast majority of epistemological 'assumptions' aren't assumptions of the same type and weight as inserting a being into the universe we already have access to (the general understanding of 'believe in God'), as an explanatory measure. They aren't even on the same level as things which we take for granted (and which no theist would argue), which are in fact conclusions drawn from those first assumptions.
[/ QUOTE ]
First, I belive that any theist would argue with scientific claims that profess to demonstrate an absence of a God. Most believe in science to some extent, but many (I think) tend toward the belief that God allows us to have access to the world of our senses (i.e. the belief in God is primary and the access to the world we have comes from that).
Second, as I said before, if you want to argue that assumption A is more basic than assumption B, then you must find a meta-assumption which both parties agree is more basic than either and then show B is contradictory to that but A is not. Absent that, an impartial observer would be unable to distinguish your argument from the following hypothetical claim:
"The vast majority of epistemological 'assumptions' aren't assumptions of the same type and weight as postulating that the universe is a complicated mix of causal powers with no intelligence behind them (the general understanding of 'athiesm'), as an explanatory measure. They aren't even on the same level as things which we take for granted; the data that support such a view relies, in fact, on the existence of God to even be properly interpretable."
However, I understand that for most athiests, the faith in science runs so deep that they are unable to see the other side. Ironic, since most atiests grow frustrated with thiests for that exact reason.
-X
[/ QUOTE ]
Original Post:
[ QUOTE ]
The implicit assumption in this thread is that science has "proven" "facts" and that religion is based solely on faith in contradiction to these "facts".
Science, however, requires EXACTLY as much faith as religion.
All logic must begin with assumptions (with the possible exception of tautologies such as A=A).
In logic, when you make an assumption, you are free to make ANY assumption. Furthermore, it is nonsense to claim that one assumption is better than another. All assumptions are equivalent in value.
A scientist picks up a rock and lets go. The rock falls. He does this 10 times, each time the rock falls. He therefore concludes that on the 11th time the rock will fall again. However, he is not entitled to make this conclusion without assuming the following: "that which has happened reproducibly in the past will continue to happen in the future". Let's call this assumption "the principle of induction" (following David Hume).
I would assert that ALL science assumes the principle of induction. Further, it does so without any external justification.
Under that assumption, science makes sense. (Although, even with that assumption, scientific theories can still be disproven -- and have many times.)
However, there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO reason to prefer the principle of induction as an assumption over any assumption about the way the universe behaves that any religion makes.
In order to compare the value of two competing assumptions, you must find a third assumption that both parties agree to and then show that one of the competing assumptions is consistent with the new meta-assumption and the other is not. Absent that, science requires you to assume something without justification, which is, by definition, a leap of faith.
-X
BTW, for those who care, I am a research biologist who does basic scientific research for a living, and I am an athiest. I assume, without justification, the principle of induction because it makes sense to me, but I recognize that as a leap of faith on my part.
[/ QUOTE ]
Additionally, there is at least one piece of empirical data that everyone I've ever met takes as true which religion explains easily, but science has as yet been unable to come close to giving a satisfactory explanation: Consciousness.
Assuming you start from a theist point of view, consciousness is easy to explain.
From an athiest/scientific point of view it has proven to be quite a challenge (this is as much of an understatement as saying that pocket Aces is a pretty strong hand when the other two aces have flopped). I personally have faith that a scientific/non-spiritual explanation of consciousness can be found, but I cannot tell you what it is now. That is another leap of faith that I must make as an athiest scientist.
-X
Below is one reply to the earlier posting of this thread and my rebuttal. The reply came from Cerril.
[ QUOTE ]
It's important not to weight that sort of statment too heavily.
The difference in belief isn't just of amount, it's of kind. There are some things we take 'for granted'. But things such as 'there is an outside world, which we have direct access to by our senses, and there are other people which we can communicate with and be understood' aren't principles we accept.
These aren't facts -about- the world we're taking for granted, they're the framework on which everything else rests. These are closer to the realm of tautologies than to conclusions about things even so basic as gravity.
Cause and effect or however you'd like to describe our assumption that the future will resemble the past in ways that allows us to act as if our actions have meaning (that one action will lead to a desirable result rather than a random result) is in the same boat. If you discard that principle then you either need to replace it with something else which allows you to act, or stop acting entirely.
Presumably we could work within a different framework, draw different conclusions from our initial experiences, and if they were coherent and allowed us to function they would be sufficient.
But it's very important to understand that the vast majority of epistemological 'assumptions' aren't assumptions of the same type and weight as inserting a being into the universe we already have access to (the general understanding of 'believe in God'), as an explanatory measure. They aren't even on the same level as things which we take for granted (and which no theist would argue), which are in fact conclusions drawn from those first assumptions.
[/ QUOTE ]
Rebuttal:
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's important not to weight that sort of statment too heavily.
The difference in belief isn't just of amount, it's of kind. There are some things we take 'for granted'. But things such as 'there is an outside world, which we have direct access to by our senses, and there are other people which we can communicate with and be understood' aren't principles we accept.
These aren't facts -about- the world we're taking for granted, they're the framework on which everything else rests. These are closer to the realm of tautologies than to conclusions about things even so basic as gravity.
[/ QUOTE ]
These things are the framework upon which everything rests if and only if you assume they are true. They are powerful assumptions, in that you can build an entire system of beliefs out of them. In fact the one assumption about causation is so powerful that it alone is sufficient to account for the belief structure built up by science. But do not confuse an assumption from which MANY conclusions can be derived with an assumption that MUST be true. Equally many conclusions can be derived from the assumption that "God is the creator of and cause of all things and all events", but that does not make it any more or less correct to believe that is true.
[ QUOTE ]
Cause and effect or however you'd like to describe our assumption that the future will resemble the past in ways that allows us to act as if our actions have meaning (that one action will lead to a desirable result rather than a random result) is in the same boat. If you discard that principle then you either need to replace it with something else which allows you to act, or stop acting entirely.
[/ QUOTE ]
Not at all. I CHOOSE to assume that cause and effect work the same way science assumes it does. I behave according to that assumption. But at the end of the day, I recognize that it is an assumption which I cannot prove without first assuming it is true. There is no external justification for my belief in this proposition, therefore I accept it on faith and live my life accordingly.
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably we could work within a different framework, draw different conclusions from our initial experiences, and if they were coherent and allowed us to function they would be sufficient.
[/ QUOTE ]
I believe that many people, perhaps most people that have lived, have taken the assumption "There is a God" to be more basic than the assumption "There is a physical world which obeys constant and unchanging laws".
[ QUOTE ]
But it's very important to understand that the vast majority of epistemological 'assumptions' aren't assumptions of the same type and weight as inserting a being into the universe we already have access to (the general understanding of 'believe in God'), as an explanatory measure. They aren't even on the same level as things which we take for granted (and which no theist would argue), which are in fact conclusions drawn from those first assumptions.
[/ QUOTE ]
First, I belive that any theist would argue with scientific claims that profess to demonstrate an absence of a God. Most believe in science to some extent, but many (I think) tend toward the belief that God allows us to have access to the world of our senses (i.e. the belief in God is primary and the access to the world we have comes from that).
Second, as I said before, if you want to argue that assumption A is more basic than assumption B, then you must find a meta-assumption which both parties agree is more basic than either and then show B is contradictory to that but A is not. Absent that, an impartial observer would be unable to distinguish your argument from the following hypothetical claim:
"The vast majority of epistemological 'assumptions' aren't assumptions of the same type and weight as postulating that the universe is a complicated mix of causal powers with no intelligence behind them (the general understanding of 'athiesm'), as an explanatory measure. They aren't even on the same level as things which we take for granted; the data that support such a view relies, in fact, on the existence of God to even be properly interpretable."
However, I understand that for most athiests, the faith in science runs so deep that they are unable to see the other side. Ironic, since most atiests grow frustrated with thiests for that exact reason.
-X
[/ QUOTE ]