9 ms·

There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence, which is what faith is; faith forms the basis of religion.

camperman 15y ago
Wrong. In the New Testament, faith means assurance based on a reliable track record. It's the Greek word "pistis" and the two terms - faith and assurance - are used interchangeably.
- haberman 15y ago
  " Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:29 This verse has always struck me as directly anti-science.
  - SoftwareMaven 15y ago
    When was the last time you saw a top quark? Yet you surely believe in them because other people "have done the work" to prove they are there. There is no doubt faith is different than science, but I think this particular example doesn't capture the real difference. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would qualify that difference, beyond (good) science will change in the light of new evidence. Faith often requires modifying how one interprets evidence so it fits within one's religious views. I've also met people whose faith stands parallel to science. In that case, changing understanding of the physical world doesn't impact the spiritual world. That is where I try to be.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I am a fan of Rational Wiki's definition of faith. Essentially, it is something that you can use to back up the belief in something. Evidence is also something that you use to back up a belief. You can more or less plug in either of them, but evidence has clear advantages. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith This article explores thoughts on faith that I don't agree are useful, but the opening sentence is the most useful definition I've seen.
  - LeafStorm 15y ago
    In this specific context, Jesus was talking to Thomas - though the other apostles had told Thomas that Jesus had returned, Thomas did not believe until Jesus came to him personally. So the verse isn't promoting "blind faith," it's criticizing those who insist on a direct revelation before being willing to accept the truth. I don't think it really applies to science (at least not empirical science), and it is definitely not anti-science.
    - haberman 15y ago
      Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a bunch of disciples of a religious figure claimed that he had risen from the dead, is it really the virtuous thing to accept these claims without any evidence?
      - camperman 15y ago
        No indeed, it wouldn't. But there is considerable evidence for the event, some would say overwhelming. There are multiple eyewitness accounts written by different people, sometimes using the same sources, sometimes different ones; disinterested Roman and Jewish historians make mention of it and hostile sceptics of the day mock it as offensive (which of course it is - and still is :)). At no point was this movement stopped in its tracks by the simplest means possible - producing a corpse - and even more incredibly, subsequent claims by followers were conducted in the full glare of publicity, to the point of including famous personalities of the day, even a Roman emperor. If you're going to start a new movement based on a lie, you don't generally include people who have the power to nix your claims in a heartbeat. Not only that but the claims often cost those who were making them their lives. Despite that, it was able to subvert the Roman empire in just a few hundred years. Archaeology confirms in minute detail that the historical journeys of the early missionaries were as described and one of the authors is called the finest historian who ever lived. Copies of those documents date back to just after the events they described and centuries of banging on them and subjecting them to the closest scrutiny shows that they are as they say they are. Other ancient literature is meager by comparison. We have a handful of copies of Tacitus dated 800 years to a millenium after the events he describes yet no-one sees him as unreliable. Copies of the NT documents number in the thousands, some of which are carbon dated to a few decades after the fall of Jerusalem and all of a sudden they're questionable. Uh huh. Well, we can chuck out most of Roman history and all of Alexander the Great by that yardstick then. Just what sort of evidence are you looking for?
- burgerbrain 15y ago
  Esoteric definitions of faith have little use in standard discussion.
  - andrewflnr 15y ago
    If the "esoteric" definition is the one used by religious people, then it has a great deal of use in discussing the thought processes of religious people.
    - burgerbrain 15y ago
      I see no evidence to indicate this is the popular working definition of faith for the religious.
      - andrewflnr 15y ago
        I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious. But most of us have had experiences we interpret as God having taken care of us, and instances where even when we suffered pain, it seems like someone was looking out for us and making sure stuff turned out well. I phrase this conservatively because I'm aware of the possibility of assigning motive to events that were actually "happenstance", assuming there is such a thing. But others would phrase it much more aggressively: "I have faith in God because of all the things he has done for me." If they can't, they probably should, in fact, re-evaluate their faith.
        burgerbrain 15y ago
        "I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious." I was. Believe me, I was.... Anyway, if you ask someone "How do you know god exists?" and they respond "Because I have faith." or whatever, they are not using the "assurance based on a reliable track record." definition. Prior track record of what? God existing? In actuality, people use faith to describe the reason they believe in things despite no evidence. When they believe that they have "evidence" the answer to the question tends to be something along the lines of "I _know_ that god exists because...". I find it hard to believe the majority of religious people are even aware of that greek word/meaning.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
>"There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence" I'm not a professional scientist but as a wannabe theoretician I can't concede how this can be correct. Indeed I think it needs to be wrong often in order for experiment to progress from theory. I'd warrant that the LHC was only built because those theoreticians at the forefront of physical advances in particle physics at Fermilab and CERN (and wherever) felt that, despite not yet having the evidence, that nonetheless the Higgs boson (or other particles like the Chi_b (3P)) would be found. Moreover often one adopts a first hypothesis because one is convinced of the truth of that position without a rigorous proof; obviously empirical method then steps in to affirm that belief. Yes beliefs can be found to be false, but they can also be confirmed.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  Ideally, one adopts a hypothesis specifically to prove it false, not because one is sure it is true. Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it. This is not the faith in science you are looking for.
  - pbhjpbhj 15y ago
    I've generally found that the expected mechanism comes first; an opposing hypothesis to falsify comes after. With complex scenarios it's can be necessary to develop in depth the consequential outcomes before one can find something that can readily be demonstrated empirically. How do you determine otherwise which experiments are worth performing. We don't have infinite resources. For example. Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1916 having worked, apparently, on it for 8 years. Do you suppose he worked on it because he believed it false? One of the outcomes of the theory was then first observationally confirmed by Eddington's observations of an eclipse in 1919. Up until 1919 Einstein and other's put much faith in the theory by using it to model reality without knowing if it's predictions would be observed without falsification. I'm all for Popperian falsification as the modus of formal scientific advance but on an individual level it appears to me that those who work for many years on unconfirmed theories are often believing in the truth of those theories without empirical confirmation. >"Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it." Moreover, it strikes me that one could not put faith in anything (the love of your mother say) if it were prevented by the possibility that later evidence would force you to discard it. That statement also appears contrary to the illustration I've given concerning GR too.
gldalmaso 15y ago
There's no reason why one cannot have faith and leave it out of their scientific work.
philwelch 15y ago
On the contrary: the principle that natural laws will be the same in the future as they have been in the past, or that they are the same in one place as they are in some other faraway place, must be accepted without evidence as a premise of the scientific method.
- alephnil 15y ago
  There is evidence for that however. Like that the emission lines from distant stars and galaxies are the same ones as in our own solar system and here on earth (but red shifted). If the laws were not the same everywhere, you must introduce a god that make it look that way, or otherwise explain how it can appear like the laws are the same everywhere without actually being so.
  - philwelch 15y ago
    There is only evidence that the laws of nature have been consistent in all past observations, but actually it's only an assumption on our part that future observations will continue to be like the past. This point is generally credited to Hume.

camperman 15y ago

Wrong. In the New Testament, faith means assurance based on a reliable track record. It's the Greek word "pistis" and the two terms - faith and assurance - are used interchangeably.

haberman 15y ago
" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed." --John 20:29 This verse has always struck me as directly anti-science.
- SoftwareMaven 15y ago
  When was the last time you saw a top quark? Yet you surely believe in them because other people "have done the work" to prove they are there. There is no doubt faith is different than science, but I think this particular example doesn't capture the real difference. Honestly, I'm not sure how I would qualify that difference, beyond (good) science will change in the light of new evidence. Faith often requires modifying how one interprets evidence so it fits within one's religious views. I've also met people whose faith stands parallel to science. In that case, changing understanding of the physical world doesn't impact the spiritual world. That is where I try to be.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I am a fan of Rational Wiki's definition of faith. Essentially, it is something that you can use to back up the belief in something. Evidence is also something that you use to back up a belief. You can more or less plug in either of them, but evidence has clear advantages. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Faith This article explores thoughts on faith that I don't agree are useful, but the opening sentence is the most useful definition I've seen.
- LeafStorm 15y ago
  In this specific context, Jesus was talking to Thomas - though the other apostles had told Thomas that Jesus had returned, Thomas did not believe until Jesus came to him personally. So the verse isn't promoting "blind faith," it's criticizing those who insist on a direct revelation before being willing to accept the truth. I don't think it really applies to science (at least not empirical science), and it is definitely not anti-science.
  - haberman 15y ago
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If a bunch of disciples of a religious figure claimed that he had risen from the dead, is it really the virtuous thing to accept these claims without any evidence?
    - camperman 15y ago
      No indeed, it wouldn't. But there is considerable evidence for the event, some would say overwhelming. There are multiple eyewitness accounts written by different people, sometimes using the same sources, sometimes different ones; disinterested Roman and Jewish historians make mention of it and hostile sceptics of the day mock it as offensive (which of course it is - and still is :)). At no point was this movement stopped in its tracks by the simplest means possible - producing a corpse - and even more incredibly, subsequent claims by followers were conducted in the full glare of publicity, to the point of including famous personalities of the day, even a Roman emperor. If you're going to start a new movement based on a lie, you don't generally include people who have the power to nix your claims in a heartbeat. Not only that but the claims often cost those who were making them their lives. Despite that, it was able to subvert the Roman empire in just a few hundred years. Archaeology confirms in minute detail that the historical journeys of the early missionaries were as described and one of the authors is called the finest historian who ever lived. Copies of those documents date back to just after the events they described and centuries of banging on them and subjecting them to the closest scrutiny shows that they are as they say they are. Other ancient literature is meager by comparison. We have a handful of copies of Tacitus dated 800 years to a millenium after the events he describes yet no-one sees him as unreliable. Copies of the NT documents number in the thousands, some of which are carbon dated to a few decades after the fall of Jerusalem and all of a sudden they're questionable. Uh huh. Well, we can chuck out most of Roman history and all of Alexander the Great by that yardstick then. Just what sort of evidence are you looking for?
burgerbrain 15y ago
Esoteric definitions of faith have little use in standard discussion.
- andrewflnr 15y ago
  If the "esoteric" definition is the one used by religious people, then it has a great deal of use in discussing the thought processes of religious people.
  - burgerbrain 15y ago
    I see no evidence to indicate this is the popular working definition of faith for the religious.
    - andrewflnr 15y ago
      I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious. But most of us have had experiences we interpret as God having taken care of us, and instances where even when we suffered pain, it seems like someone was looking out for us and making sure stuff turned out well. I phrase this conservatively because I'm aware of the possibility of assigning motive to events that were actually "happenstance", assuming there is such a thing. But others would phrase it much more aggressively: "I have faith in God because of all the things he has done for me." If they can't, they probably should, in fact, re-evaluate their faith.
      - burgerbrain 15y ago
        "I mean no offense, but that's probably because you're not religious." I was. Believe me, I was.... Anyway, if you ask someone "How do you know god exists?" and they respond "Because I have faith." or whatever, they are not using the "assurance based on a reliable track record." definition. Prior track record of what? God existing? In actuality, people use faith to describe the reason they believe in things despite no evidence. When they believe that they have "evidence" the answer to the question tends to be something along the lines of "I _know_ that god exists because...". I find it hard to believe the majority of religious people are even aware of that greek word/meaning.

pbhjpbhj 15y ago

>"There is no place in the scientific method for belief without evidence" I'm not a professional scientist but as a wannabe theoretician I can't concede how this can be correct. Indeed I think it needs to be wrong often in order for experiment to progress from theory. I'd warrant that the LHC was only built because those theoreticians at the forefront of physical advances in particle physics at Fermilab and CERN (and wherever) felt that, despite not yet having the evidence, that nonetheless the Higgs boson (or other particles like the Chi_b (3P)) would be found. Moreover often one adopts a first hypothesis because one is convinced of the truth of that position without a rigorous proof; obviously empirical method then steps in to affirm that belief. Yes beliefs can be found to be false, but they can also be confirmed.

andrewflnr 15y ago
Ideally, one adopts a hypothesis specifically to prove it false, not because one is sure it is true. Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it. This is not the faith in science you are looking for.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  I've generally found that the expected mechanism comes first; an opposing hypothesis to falsify comes after. With complex scenarios it's can be necessary to develop in depth the consequential outcomes before one can find something that can readily be demonstrated empirically. How do you determine otherwise which experiments are worth performing. We don't have infinite resources. For example. Einstein published his theory of relativity in 1916 having worked, apparently, on it for 8 years. Do you suppose he worked on it because he believed it false? One of the outcomes of the theory was then first observationally confirmed by Eddington's observations of an eclipse in 1919. Up until 1919 Einstein and other's put much faith in the theory by using it to model reality without knowing if it's predictions would be observed without falsification. I'm all for Popperian falsification as the modus of formal scientific advance but on an individual level it appears to me that those who work for many years on unconfirmed theories are often believing in the truth of those theories without empirical confirmation. >"Even if you believe it before you run an experiment on it, you do so provisionally, without putting "faith" in it, because you know you might be forced to discard it." Moreover, it strikes me that one could not put faith in anything (the love of your mother say) if it were prevented by the possibility that later evidence would force you to discard it. That statement also appears contrary to the illustration I've given concerning GR too.

gldalmaso 15y ago

There's no reason why one cannot have faith and leave it out of their scientific work.

philwelch 15y ago

On the contrary: the principle that natural laws will be the same in the future as they have been in the past, or that they are the same in one place as they are in some other faraway place, must be accepted without evidence as a premise of the scientific method.

alephnil 15y ago
There is evidence for that however. Like that the emission lines from distant stars and galaxies are the same ones as in our own solar system and here on earth (but red shifted). If the laws were not the same everywhere, you must introduce a god that make it look that way, or otherwise explain how it can appear like the laws are the same everywhere without actually being so.
- philwelch 15y ago
  There is only evidence that the laws of nature have been consistent in all past observations, but actually it's only an assumption on our part that future observations will continue to be like the past. This point is generally credited to Hume.