Do you think Science is a faith?

[Furrowed Brow]

science is a methaphysical assumption

mateiralism is a metaphysical assumption

your rejection of superanturalism is a metaphsyical assumption

Science is currently the dominant religion,

I see a connection between the two quotes. If I went and dug hard enough I'm sure I could find similar opinions in this forum. These are just the most recent ones I've come across. If I may generalize - they are the kind of statements made by theists. They seem to reflect a belief/attitude (either explicit or implicit) that the theist's claim to truth or knowledge are just as strong as science, or that science's claim is just as rickety as theism's. This belief might best be summed up as: the rejection of supernaturalism (the immaterial) is just an assumption made by materialism and science, and to presume its truth requires a faith not dissimilar to a religion.

Ok lets define supernaturalism as the belief in non physical/non material beings, entities or existences.

So how do we know science/materialism does not rejecting supernaturalism on faith? To be clear about the question. I am not asking whether supernaturalism is true or false. The question is about the strength of the methodology and logic of material science. To put the question another way: How much faith does the rejection of the supernatural require? None, some or heaps.

To kick off I say none. (And I'll try to back that up if/as the topic advances).

[MagusYanam]

Well, I wasn't going so far as to suggest we entertain serious sceptical doubts about our sense data - that's a tail-chaser if ever there was one! My point was that scientific assent to fact is fundamentally different from religious 'faith' - one is what Marcus Borg would call a 'head matter' and the other a 'heart matter'.

My point about religious 'faith' was that it is often (erroneously) taken to be only a 'head matter', e. g. giving mental assent to propositions which cannot be empirically tested (like God). Even though for a lot of people that mental assent is important, it is not the sole basis of or even the primary element of religious faith, which is more often than not a 'heart matter' before it is a 'head matter'. Scientific belief (I'm not going to use the word 'faith' as I fear it may obscure my point) is much easier to discuss because it is only assent - and assent only to observable, verifiable fact.

Although even in religion there can be openness to doubt. The Dalai Lama once admitted that if a tenet of Mahayana Buddhism was found to be in conflict with our best understanding of the world, the bad theology should be jettisoned. For a good portion of Christianity it is the same way - I have no problem assenting to evolution because evolution is the scientific theory that best fits the available data. It's unfortunate that another portion of Christianity fears it stands to lose something by assenting to what it sees as a threat to its precepts.

[Furrowed Brow]

The Dalai Lama once admitted that if a tenet of Mahayana Buddhism was found to be in conflict with our best understanding of the world, the bad theology should be jettisoned.

Well there are some bits of theology e.g. the holy trinity, that do not conflict with our best understanding of the world, but as a materialist I have no problem rejecting, and I don't think that rejection has anything to with faith. I don't assent to the holy trinity because of its own internal logic.

But what about the big one. The resurrection. This has been debated in other threads. Now admittedly they have just found a guy who survived being lost and injured because his body went into some form of hibernation. And there are cases of people waking up on mortuary slabs, and children being under the ice for several hours and surviving. However, all of these counter examples can be explained from a material/scientific viewpoint. The point to the resurrection is that Jesus did not go into hibernation, or some state that looked like death but was really a coma or some such. For the resurrection to be what it is supposed - for the story to have its full religious significance - requires Jesus being fully dead for 48 hours with all the various decaying processes that entails. That claim conflicts with our best understanding.

I'm guessing you are not ready just yet to jettison the big one. Various philosophers have pointed out that faith requires a leap. The kind of leap that is an anathema to science. A leap of reason is a non sequitur. A leap of the heart? Well yes faith requires that I think.

This maybe how we can define a demarcation. Science assents to trusting sense data, and using the best theories available and treating them as if they are true. Within that world view non sequiturs are bad things and should be eradicated. Whilst the leap of the heart requires leaping into the space left by a non sequirtur.

[MagusYanam]

But what about the big one. The resurrection. This has been debated in other threads. Now admittedly they have just found a guy who survived being lost and injured because his body went into some form of hibernation. And there are cases of people waking up on mortuary slabs, and children being under the ice for several hours and surviving. However, all of these counter examples can be explained from a material/scientific viewpoint. The point to the resurrection is that Jesus did not go into hibernation, or some state that looked like death but was really a coma or some such. For the resurrection to be what it is supposed - for the story to have its full religious significance - requires Jesus being fully dead for 48 hours with all the various decaying processes that entails. That claim conflicts with our best understanding.

You're still thinking only in terms of assensus. Mentally reconciling a literal, factual death and a literal, factual resurrection after 48 hours to our understanding of life and death in this world is, as you say, problematic to say the least. More important to a religious belief in the Resurrection is the fiducia - faith in the meaning behind the event described. The Crucifixion is about a God of self-sacrificial love and a human being who reflected that nature in such a way that we can personally relate to this self-sacrificial love; the Resurrection is what human beings can understand as an assurance of completion; of victory over death. Whether or not the Resurrection 'really happened' (i.e. is a fact to which we must assent) has been for most of Christian history irrelevant to the faith, as it were, because the meaning for believers (victory over death) is what was more important.

This is why I say that the scientific methodology of modest, conditional assent is fundamentally different from religious faith. Science concerns itself with 'how' - if the Resurrection happened, how could it have happened? Religion concerns itself with 'why'. The 'leap of faith' is really only necessary when one demands assensus to the Resurrection in lieu of fiducia. As such, I think that:

This maybe how we can define a demarcation. Science assents to trusting sense data, and using the best theories available and treating them as if they are true. Within that world view non sequiturs are bad things and should be eradicated. Whilst the leap of the heart requires leaping into the space left by a non sequirtur.

Within an assensus framework, as you describe, this is true. Factual non-sequiturs are present in every work of myth, but when one looks at myth as the basis for religion, assensus is not the only or even the primary concern.

[Furrowed Brow]

You're still thinking only in terms of assensus. Mentally reconciling a literal, factual death and a literal, factual resurrection after 48 hours to our understanding of life and death in this world is, as you say, problematic to say the least. More important to a religious belief in the Resurrection is the fiducia - faith in the meaning behind the event described.

Ah. I but I think the subtle path you are trying to follow is deeply problematic. The resurrection if it can be explained materially becomes meaningless I think. Nothing has been risked, or sacrificed, or lost, and there has been no victory over death if in fact Jesus did not die in the scientific sense. The meaning of the event is dependent on its supernatural credentials, and the victory of the supernatural over the natural. But of course from a scientific world view these are not credentials at all. It is the leap towards and into the supernatural that science is methodologically unable to take, and dare I say if one has fully imbibed that world view the leap appears intellectually repugnant.

Have you read Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling (plus some other his other books). I think there is wisdom to be found there, though difficult to find. To sum up: Kierkegaard was a Christian. But the point to Fear and Trembling (which was about Abraham) was that the belief demanded by faith should be troubling to reason. Really troubling. Like absurd. However elsewhere in his other works it arises that if you are able to make the leap into the absurd then the trouble evaporates. (Well that was the way I read him).

Religion concerns itself with 'why'.

This I have often heard. And again I think it is problematic. The 'why' on offer is only as powerful as the story that goes with it. If Jesus did not die, and there was no supernatural element to the resurrection then there is no 'why'.

I think the scientific rational world view causes some theist real problems, and so there is an attempt to tease apart the the 'how' and the 'why'. But I suggest they cannot be teased apart. Like two sides of a coin they are just differents faces of one thing. The 'why' being diluted to the degree one retreats from the 'how' due to the advance of reason and science. Or if, seeing there is no victory to be had over reason, the 'how' is pushed to one side then the 'why' becomes as anemic as the trouble free zone this evasion permits.

[AClockWorkOrange]

it seems that the rejection of the supernatural is the anti-thesis of faith; in fact, it is basically saying "faith is not good enough".


Belief in the supernatural is bizar in itself, considering that to be natural, something has to be existant, and therefor things which are not in the natural world are supernatural.

Literally, the belief in the supernatural s the belief in the nonexistant.

[QED]

it seems that the rejection of the supernatural is the anti-thesis of faith; in fact, it is basically saying "faith is not good enough".

I think you make an excellent point here. Professional scientists are only human so they grapple with the same human compulsions to pick a horse and stick with it. But every good scientist knows that this is a flawed methodology. That's why its been said that "science often proceeds by funerals".

[AClockWorkOrange]

think you make an excellent point here

.

I try

Professional scientists are only human so they grapple with the same human compulsions to pick a horse and stick with it.

So you are saying that sciences soul purpose is to dog faith?
I disagree, it seems that science is an ernest and on going attempt to record the truth to the very best of human ability, and substantiating that data. Faith is by definition a lack of substantiating proof.

But every good scientist knows that this is a flawed methodology.

the scientific method?

That's why its been said that "science often proceeds by funerals"

its also been said that religion kill alot of people.

[QED]

I think you got the wrong end of the stick. I happen to think it's inevitable that professional scientists will exhibit the same sort of faith that can be found in religious minds sooner or later. I say this because I think faith is an evolved trait that, like other evolved traits, serves far too important a function to be easily bypassed by the individual .

But please note that I'm deliberately bending this as far as I can towards the criticism that "Science is a Faith" -- because this is where the funerals come in

Science is a collective effort and what keeps science on track is the constant turnover of ideas and fresh insights. One reason for this is that the participants are rewarded for showing where things are wrong and any reluctance to accept this is only temporary at most. Hence science proceeds by the funerals of those who might temporarily hold it back.

[Goat]

think you make an excellent point here

.

I try

Professional scientists are only human so they grapple with the same human compulsions to pick a horse and stick with it.

So you are saying that sciences soul purpose is to dog faith?
I disagree, it seems that science is an ernest and on going attempt to record the truth to the very best of human ability, and substantiating that data. Faith is by definition a lack of substantiating proof.

But every good scientist knows that this is a flawed methodology.

the scientific method?

That's why its been said that "science often proceeds by funerals"

its also been said that religion kill alot of people.

I think you are misunderstanding the point. What I believe QED is saying is that although , ideally, science will abandon falsified ideas, scientists are only human, and might , against the scientific principles, hold onto falsified concepts. Take a look at Fred Hoyle and his resistance to 'The big bang' theory. He held on to the static universe theory long after it was falsified. It is the younger scientistst that are able to grasp onto the new ideas, and think outside the box. After a period of time, the older folks, even those who were innovated when younger, will tend to find it harder and harder to give up cherished notions.

There is a conflict between the ideal, and the tendancy of people to stop being as flexible as they might be as they get older.

[AClockWorkOrange]

im still not seeing the equation of science religion, ESPECIALLY if you are referencing sciences constant evolution.