Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think a definition of faith is required.
unless you have a definition of faith that includes "things that are objectively verifiable", I think we should be ok
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Boy, that is a hard one. First it is not a what. A fundamental is a part of physics that drives the rest of physics. Wow, that is terrible. I'm not very good at translating math ideas into words.
fair enough... I think you might be confusing mechanisms and models, however.
So like, "Newtonian Physics" is a model for how things behave at large sizes, whereas "quantum physics" is a model for how they behave at small sizes. Mechanisms, like gravity or string theory, are explanations for why such models behave the way they do.
The "faith" then, would be that some explanation for observations within the quantum model is possible. Whichever theory is adopted by science will, by definition, have to have empirical evidence supporting it, so that is not the faith judgement.
Individual scientists might believe string theory is the best explanation, however, string theory (most of it at least) is not considered to be scientific at all, in that, it doesn't have a specific type of evidence demonstrating it yet. The faith that science has is that such evidence can be found in the first place, not in what that evidence eventually is interpreted to mean.
Originally posted by Mindship
Work with me. 😐I would say he is believing blindly, so perhaps I should add, the romantic. 😉 In any event, you make a good point, reminding us we're splitting a fine but vital hair here, between blind faith and justified faith. Your friend's faith is still "blind" (imo - hard to say because I don't know him) because he is making an untested assumption about what he is witnessing and its cause.
That sounds like the stupid (though I could see fearful or even lazy). I don't think an "honest theist" would put blind faith on par with empirical science because I don't think honesty is that blind.
Originally posted by inimalist
at its core, the only real "faith" assumption in science comes from the idea that laws and patterns of effects in the universe are determinable. given things like technology, we can sort of assume this is more logical than the opposite. it is certainly not an absolute truth, but it isn't a blind faith.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I got you, and I agree with you. However, sometimes the word faith is a whipping boy. And blind faith is despised.
Sometimes. Not usually. Everyone believes something based on some level of faith, even atheists. We couldn't function in our lives without it. But there's different kinds of faith, and yes, religious faith usually ends up being blind faith.
To me, faith is an interesting meme, or rather an adaptation to existing memes, because it shows that when shaping beliefs, the mind has the power to override direct sensory input and logic without clear refutation. Sans faith, a belief that isn't congruent with a person's logical faculties will create profound cognitive dissonance. But not so in the presence of faith.
The fact that faith piggy-backed itself onto the religious institution's societal memeplex is perhaps the single greatest reason religion exists today in such force. Remove it, and you destroy a large part of what all supernatural or religious belief is based on. Even secular groups who represent a cause or tight-knit organization will allude frequently to that which we can't see or describe. Same root tendency.
Originally posted by Digi
Sometimes. Not usually. Everyone believes something based on some level of faith, even atheists. We couldn't function in our lives without it. But there's different kinds of faith, and yes, religious faith usually ends up being blind faith.To me, faith is an interesting meme, or rather an adaptation to existing memes, because it shows that when shaping beliefs, the mind has the power to override direct sensory input and logic without clear refutation. Sans faith, a belief that isn't congruent with a person's logical faculties will create profound cognitive dissonance. But not so in the presence of faith.
The fact that faith piggy-backed itself onto the religious institution's societal memeplex is perhaps the single greatest reason religion exists today in such force. Remove it, and you destroy a large part of what all supernatural or religious belief is based on. Even secular groups who represent a cause or tight-knit organization will allude frequently to that which we can't see or describe. Same root tendency.
In my religion, faith is important, but blind faith is of no value. The kind of faith that is important to me, is the same faith that we all have in every day life. I describe it this way: if you turn on a light you have faith that the light will come on, but if it doesn't, then don't pretend like the light is on.
Originally posted by inimalist
no, but I will check it out when I can access articles at work tomorrow
Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's a fairly revolutionary outlook on science and the place of irrationality therein. The main point is that when trying to figure out a scientific problem there isn't necessarily just one rational approach to solving it and it sometimes pays to pursue "scientifically/epistemically irrational" theories over "rational" ones. He uses the examples of Phlogiston and Tectonics.
it looks interesting, JSTOR let me see the first page.
I'd agree in principle though. Scientists as individuals need to use their own imagination and creativity to test things, especially if they don't turn out. I guess this sort of runs into the "file-drawer effect" issue of how to deal with null results, but ya, I'm of the opinion that no hypothesis should be discounted a priori, and if a trained scientist thinks there is a reason to pursue something, we can only have our base of knowledge enriched by discussing the results.
Originally posted by Mindship
That sounds like the stupid (though I could see fearful or even lazy). I don't think an "honest theist" would put blind faith on par with empirical science because I don't think honesty is that blind.
but at some point, the theist has to say, "ok, I believe in empirical science in all cases but this one", because science either contradicts dogmatic representations or doesn't/can't have a position on the divine (depending on how you define the divine).
Sure, you can have reasons for believing that it is rational to exclude science from this single question, but those are largely going to rely on rationalizations based on personal, subjective, experiences.
I guess you could probably find single examples, idk, it was tongue in cheek, though I think it is closer to a rule than a joke. Heuristic lets say.
Originally posted by Omega VisionAh. From a Christian pov, that would be quite the conundrum.
I'm not sure how one would decide which faith is justified and unjustified. As I understand the mainstream Christian definition of it, faith is unjustified belief that is precious precisely because it's unjustified (those who believe without seeing are the blessed). That's not to say that experience is the way justification must be conferred (indeed, many epistemologists believe that personal experience is irrelevant to whether or not a belief is justified), just that it seems to be what Christianity holds as justificatory.Have you read Philip Kitcher's paper on the Division of Cognitive Labor?
Originally posted by inimalistTo reject contradictory stuff out of blind faith: that to me is not being honest. To address what science has no, or can't take any position on, to go "blindly" forward in that regard: I see your point, though I'd still say the theist is honest as long as he realizes that's what he's doing. In this manner one would know (I hope) not to pass off what "conclusions" one comes to as some absolute truth. To do so: that, imo, would be dishonest.
but at some point, the theist has to say, "ok, I believe in empirical science in all cases but this one", because science either contradicts dogmatic representations or doesn't/can't have a position on the divine (depending on how you define the divine).
I guess you could say, one could be honestly blind, though there seems to be some "vision" implied in that.
Originally posted by Mindship
To reject contradictory stuff out of blind faith: that to me is not being honest. To address what science has no, or can't take any position on, to go "blindly" forward in that regard: I see your point, though I'd still say the theist is honest as long as he realizes that's what he's doing. In this manner one would know (I hope) not to pass off what "conclusions" one comes to as some absolute truth. To do so: that, imo, would be dishonest.I guess you could say, one could be honestly blind, though there seems to be some "vision" implied in that.
I'm not trying to pass judgement though. Every person, ultimately, builds their own reality out of previous experiences, so someone who uses blind faith has no real claim to truth over someone who uses science. I'm just saying, religious faith, at least in the terms of believing in divine-esque beings, requires some suspension of empirical scientific belief, what I would call "blind faith".
I'm not even trying to say science is better than blind faith (I would argue that, different thread though), just that any form of theism has to break down at some point into saying, "yes, for no good reason, I believe this situation confirms the divine" (of course, with my own cynical interpretation).
I see empiricism to be a philosophical approach on reasoning (it is, literally). It is more rife with blind "faith" than any other philosophical approach because it makes deliberate concessions on what it cannot know but proceeds on assumptions, anyway. "Science" could not happen if these assumptions were not use.
Much of what modern empirical science "knows" requires an absurd amount of blind assumptions: most of which no theism will ever directly address (meaning those theisms are largely ignorant or agnostic to those).
It is only when you get (for example) the strong Christian types that try to inject God into everything last thing called "science" that we start to see a second layer of blind faith in our empiricism. Obviously, some will argue that it cannot be considered "empirical" when such an injection is undertaken but that is quite obviously intellectually dishonest. But on the same note, one cannot claim the "knowledge" gained from a double layer of blind faith, like that, is somehow better than just a purely secular approach to science.
At the base of it all is the load of "unknowns" upon which all empirical science is built. This is why everything is not objectively knowable.
It's fairly impossible to know anything objectively. Not unless one of you is God? If so, I have many questions and I expect some answers. 😐
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just a note: blind faith is not restricted to religion. Science also uses blind faith. For example: it is believed that there is a particle called an electron. However, none of the information we have to support the idea of an electron is direct. We have faith there is an electron because we have theories that make predictions that match observations, but no one really knows if what we think is an electron is real. We have blind faith. The difference is, the scientific method dictates that if there is information that proves an electron does not exist, then we must cast away that belief. While many religions do not want to change.
"You can't ever really know anything." is that kind of freshman philosophy that sounds really deep when you say it but is fairly meaningless on examination. My personal favorite response is to ask a person to do some simple task in order to demonstrate that it is impossible to act as if it were true.
I prefer Russel's take on this kind of thing. "All beliefs are ultimately based on at least one unprovable assumption." In this case mostly because it removes the very charged, very poorly defined phrase "blind faith" from the discussion.
Originally posted by inimalist
aside from the "it is possible to know patterns in the universe", what other assumptions do you think science makes?
That's one base you could use as a typical "unknown". Another assumption we could use is set theory (which is similar to what you already mentioned). Just a subjective way we have designed how we do anything empirical and it is the most basic form of math. That's just one approach/assumption that we use.
You must set parameters for how you seek to answer questions (test for your hypothesis and/or eliminate the null) so you make major assumptions in every empirical endeavor.
But, if you want, name any type of study we do and then look for all the assumptions that must be made to even conduct the study. Any relevant study. Try it. You'll be surprised because it is pretty absurd how much assuming we do with everything: blind faith is probably a fundamental trait of sentient life, in general...imho.
Dudemon, and perhaps others, you're using "blind" wrong. Blind implies an entire lack of rationale behind it. We have to make assumptions just to function due to the subjective nature of our experiences, but it's explicitly false to label such assumptions as "blind" because we do have explainable reasoning behind it. In other words, there's evidence. Thus, educated guesses instead of blind guesses. Because blind guesses, or blind faith, by their very nature, have zero explanation behind them. They are a priori statements of belief.
Trying to use such an argument to either undermine science or put it on level with religious faith is a disservice to the scientific process. We take it for granted that the Earth is round, but how many of us have seen it from space or done the calculations to prove it ourselves? No, we have a certain amount of faith. But it is not unfounded faith, it is not without reason. There's the difference.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
"You can't ever really know anything." is that kind of freshman philosophy that sounds really deep when you say it but is fairly meaningless on examination. My personal favorite response is to ask a person to do some simple task in order to demonstrate that it is impossible to act as if it were true.I prefer Russel's take on this kind of thing. "All beliefs are ultimately based on at least one unprovable assumption." In this case mostly because it removes the very charged, very poorly defined phrase "blind faith" from the discussion.
Of course you can know something. I never said faith = false.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Of course you can know something. I never said faith = false.
Your argument is the traditional argument against empiricism.
Or more specific to what you said: If it is blind faith to accept indirect evidence than it is blind faith to believe that anything exists at all because all evidence is indirect at some level. That's the kind of hardcore rationalism that makes me think of philosophy majors.
I'm not sure how your second sentence relates to what I said. Certainly you can believe something through faith and have it turn out to be true but I'd argue that doesn't really mean you knew it.
There's a thought experiment that goes like this: A woman is sleeping. In her dream she says to herself "It is raining outside." She awakens and sees through he bedroom window that it is raining. When did she know the state of the weather?
If we accept faith/belief as a form of knowledge she knew in the dream.
If we accept empiricism as a form of knowledge she did not know until she looked out the window.
If we accept hardcore rationalism she still does not know.
What I've never heard an answer to is what faith/belief arguments say if it isn't raining outside.
Originally posted by Digi
Dudemon, and perhaps others, you're using "blind" wrong.
Perhaps not.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith
"belief without true understanding, perception, or discrimination"
True understanding and perception, at the most basic of basic level, would necessitate an objective knowledge which is impossible as far as we know: that would imply omniscience.
Originally posted by Digi
Blind implies an entire lack of rationale behind it.
By your definition, sure.
But the rationale itself can always be boiled down to something subjective making it always not objective and a very large set of assumptions...aka, blind faith.
Originally posted by Digi
We have to make assumptions just to function due to the subjective nature of our experiences,
Which is an exercise in blind faith as I have explained, prior.
Originally posted by Digi
but it's explicitly false to label such assumptions as "blind" because we do have explainable reasoning behind it.
I just rooted your reasoning: your conclusion is incorrect.
Originally posted by Digi
In other words, there's evidence.
...evidence based on a set of assumptions whose assumptions are anthropic and virtually arbitrary.
Originally posted by Digi
Thus, educated guesses instead of blind guesses.
Only if you choose to label them as such but they are still blind guesses because the framework with which you work is a massive assumption, always. It is simply a word game to differentiate and it is a necessary word game because we wind up in a hole of agnostic oblivion where nothing can be objectively known or discerned.
Originally posted by Digi
Because blind guesses, or blind faith, by their very nature, have zero explanation behind them. They are a priori statements of belief.
Which is almost exactly why anything you think you know is just based on a massive set of assumptions: a framework of blind guesses.
Originally posted by Digi
Trying to use such an argument to either undermine science or put it on level with religious faith is a disservice to the scientific process.
Incorrect. Putting science on a pedestal that is beyond reproach is quite intellectually dishonest and runs directly counter to what we know "science" to be defined: as fact, science MUST be able to be criticized, torn down, broken down, debated, destroyed, etc. because that is the system by which we have improved our knowledge (perfect science is objective science which, like I said before, is pretty much impossible). If you're going to use philosophical inspection on sets of thought, you must also apply the same method on another system of thought (to be able to point the gun or finger at yourself, basically).
Originally posted by Digi
We take it for granted that the Earth is round, but how many of us have seen it from space or done the calculations to prove it ourselves?
Exactly. You're getting it. You're closer to what I mean. Still, that's a simplistic approach but pretty much all of us take the earth as round on blind faith. Even if you have seen the earth and know it is round, there's a giant set of assumptions you must make, even still, to conclude that.
Originally posted by Digi
No, we have a certain amount of faith. But it is not unfounded faith, it is not without reason. There's the difference.
No, there is no difference. The difference is only one of semantics on your part, not an actual difference.
There will always be a massive slippery-slope when one accuses another of blind faith. It can be philosophically talked into the ground until we all must admit to being either irrational or convert to stoicism (lol).
Edit - Isn't this subject philosophy 101? In other words...aren't we just talking about basic philosophy stuff and this is actually a rehash of what others have done for centuries?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
What I've never heard an answer to is what faith/belief arguments say if it isn't raining outside.
I don't understand this statement, at all. The scenario assumes faith is involved on a metaphysical level, no? If it is, then from the beginning, it is flawed. How are metaphysics involved? Which system or belief? How would you like it applied? Who is the audience?