Belief, Faith, Truth, and Science

[Larv]

One thing you did not reply about which I am still curious has to do with your opinion regarding truth in science or "scientific truth."

 

Would you be willing to expound on that a little?

I suppose there are several kinds of "truth." And I suppose that some people would choose to use the term "scientific truth." Personally, I am suspicious of "truth," per se; it seems too absolute-ish for scientific purposes. For example, many physicists once believed that Newtonian gravition was universally "true," or otherwise applicable to all physical situations. Then Einstein came along and made a good case that Newtonian gravitation was only a local affair. What once was perceieved as an absolute became relativistic. So I simply solve the "truth" problem by avoiding using of the term scientifically. But, probably like you, I have asked my children, "Is it true that you did or didn't do this or that? I want want truth, and I want it now!"

 

As a biologist who doesn't even know what life is or where it came from, I am in a poor position to speak of any biological "truths."

 

What is you take on "scientific truths," Reason?

 

—Larv

[niin]

Believe, belief and faith are pretty much the same thing.

If you have experience with something and you think it is worth something ,you can chose to believe it.

 

Science and religion is belief systems that have value for people and you can chose to believe in em.

You can think that only science is good, that only religion is good or that both are good. :)

 

What you believe is limited by what you know!

 

this look like a tautology to me.

 

I imagined this test situation: A Christian fundamentalist, by way of religion, happens to become a neo-Darwinian biologist, by way of science. In this case I would expect that person to limit what he/she believes by what he/she knows. I might even expect that person to shave off those old beliefs altogether, given the power of Occam's razor.

 

If the person was a Christian fundamentalist, i would expect that person to reject the darwinian model.

 

Religion does not provide facts, it seeks to conjure belief without facts through faith.

 

I don't believe that is true.

"believe it and you will believe it" is not an effective persuasive argument.

There actually is some facts associated with religion.

 

Are you suggesting here that evolution just is, such as water just is? If so, I would agree with that.

Yes, one might even say it's all about "the flow." In any case, evolution is every bit as natural as water.

 

Evolution is a theory and can be falsified.

Water is not at theory. It is a fact.

[REASON]

What is you take on "scientific truths," Reason?

 

—Larv

 

I've always understood that once a hypothesis or theory had achieved enough scrutiny that it could be deemed a fact, it would therefore qualify as a truth based on the notion that the words fact and truth are synonymous. But your example above, and probably thousands of others, have shown that new, more advanced methods of scientfic analysis, can render a fact obsolete and open up a new set of questions, or refine the conclusion.

 

Buffy suggested that getting close to the facts, or the truth, may be good enough considering the research, which is an example of why scientists may consider absolute truth a meaninless concept. This is what I hear you saying as well, and it makes sense. This notion is similar to what my signature is stating.

 

I do believe though, that there is information that science has revealed as fact that can stand the test of time, and that scientists will continue in their efforts to refine their conclutions to the point of virtual certainty.

[REASON]

this look like a tautology to me.

 

So you think knowledge is the same thing as belief? Knowledge is information one has acquired. Belief is one's opinion, or their validation of that knowledge. One can gain information that they choose not to believe. One can form a belief around a small amount of information, that thay may change with additional, or different information.

 

If the person was a Christian fundamentalist, i would expect that person to reject the darwinian model.

 

The example Larv suggested is perfectly accurate. Anyone, incluing a Christian fundamentalist, can change thei mind or modify their beliefs if they so choose.

 

I don't believe that is true.

"believe it and you will believe it" is not an effective persuasive argument.

 

I never said that. Belief and faith are not the same thing as you suggest. Belief is an opinion, faith is trust.

 

There actually is some facts associated with religion.

 

Name some, please!

[niin]

So you think knowledge is the same thing as belief?

No.

 

I never said that. Belief and faith are not the same thing as you suggest. Belief is an opinion, faith is trust.

I never said that you said that. :hihi:

Belief and faith is almost the same thing.

You have information and you act on it.

If someone ask why you did it, you can say:

1) I believe this information

2) I have faith in this information.

 

both seem like valid answers to me.

[Larv]

There actually is some facts associated with religion.

Name some, please!

If I may jump in here...

 

My favorite fact associated with religion is the fact of "holy terror." You can see it historically and you can see it today. Religions characteristically inspire a belief that your spiritual comfort in the after-life will be determined by your adherence to their specified dogma in present-day life. To those who beieve in that sort of thing, "holy terror" is a natural fact, worrisome enough to induce desperate pleas for mercy by way of prayers, confessions, and penance—even self-flagellation and suicide bombings qualify as paths to glory or whatever. The manifestation of this religious fact—"holy terror"—is the consequence of the bicameral mind stiffling the emergence of consciousness, if I may invoke Julian Jaynes' principle once again. And it may be literally measurable by examining the evolution of language.

 

—Larv

[Rade]

Science = "uncertain knowledge". To say you "know" something (via science)is not the same as to say you "believe" something (a non scientific process).

Knowledge derives from interaction of a material being with the "metaphysical", belief derives from interaction with the "transcendental" (the two operations are opposites, and the reason why science has nothing to say about belief and the transcendental). To say you "know" [X] you have 0.0 % belief that [X]. To say you "believe" [X] you have 0.0 % knowledge that [X]. "Reason" is the only standard of truth--"truth" is the identification of a fact of reality. "Faith" is a state of mental tension falsely attempting to form synthesis of belief and truth.