3 ms·

Scientists do not generally have faith in their hypotheses in the same way that religious believers have faith in the claims of their holy book or their religio

by sofal 10y ago

Scientists do not generally have faith in their hypotheses in the same way that religious believers have faith in the claims of their holy book or their religious leader. That would be an equivocation on the usage of the term 'faith', one usage being merely confidence or trust, which can be apportioned to the available evidence, and the other usage being a religious belief in doctrines regardless of available evidence. If you start with the conclusion that the claims in your holy book are true and then work backwards from that by reinterpreting it when it seems to clash with the available scientific evidence, that would be exercising religious faith. If you hypothesize something and withhold a certain level of confidence in your hypothesis until it can be tested, you are not exercising faith in the religious sense of the term.

contravariant 10y ago
It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there. I remain unconvinced that people who consider themselves religious are any worse at adjusting their world view to scientific evidence than people who do not.
- sofal 10y ago
  I'm only describing how the term faith is used by religious believers. They take a certain set of claims "on faith", and when contradictory evidence comes along there are various reactions, like outright denial, shelving of the issue entirely in the hope of getting answers later (like after you're dead), reinterpretation of the religious claims to better fit the existing models or to be completely unfalsifiable and therefore out of reach of investigation, and full on apologetics. I've been a religious believer for decades, and have been surrounded by religious believers my entire life. I enjoy talking with them about what they believe and why (when they're willing to engage of course). They can be completely rational and skeptical, appropriately adjusting their worldview according to the evidence with no problems in any other realm except when it comes to the religious claims they have been brought up to believe. The psychology of it is fascinating to me.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there. Faith must be, yes. All faith. It's what exists in absence of, or despite, evidence. > I remain unconvinced Thankfully that's a bridge we don't need to cross. We've led you to water, your unwillingness to drink it isn't anyone else's failure.

by sofal 10y ago

contravariant 10y ago

It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there. I remain unconvinced that people who consider themselves religious are any worse at adjusting their world view to scientific evidence than people who do not.

sofal 10y ago
I'm only describing how the term faith is used by religious believers. They take a certain set of claims "on faith", and when contradictory evidence comes along there are various reactions, like outright denial, shelving of the issue entirely in the hope of getting answers later (like after you're dead), reinterpretation of the religious claims to better fit the existing models or to be completely unfalsifiable and therefore out of reach of investigation, and full on apologetics. I've been a religious believer for decades, and have been surrounded by religious believers my entire life. I enjoy talking with them about what they believe and why (when they're willing to engage of course). They can be completely rational and skeptical, appropriately adjusting their worldview according to the evidence with no problems in any other realm except when it comes to the religious claims they have been brought up to believe. The psychology of it is fascinating to me.
EdHominem 10y ago
> It sounds as if you've taking your conclusion that religious faith must be blind and ignorant and worked backwards from there. Faith must be, yes. All faith. It's what exists in absence of, or despite, evidence. > I remain unconvinced Thankfully that's a bridge we don't need to cross. We've led you to water, your unwillingness to drink it isn't anyone else's failure.