Comments on: Facts are NOT Anti-Religious

By: Science is Agnostic to What People Think « Fresh Views From Reality

Science is Agnostic to What People Think « Fresh Views From Reality — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 06:37:53 +0000

[...] few weeks ago, I read perhaps the most lucid and hard hitting blog post about creationism in America and what can happen when cherished beliefs are challenged by scientific [...]

By: Neuroskeptic

Neuroskeptic — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 20:51:44 +0000

Ha, excellent post, had me fooled for a good while.

The Krishnas, by the way, also don’t believe in evolution…

By: CertifiedCyborg

CertifiedCyborg — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 18:34:23 +0000

The definition of Faith has always been a hazy one. Some people seem to take it to mean “a belief system, or system of understanding that one has confidence in.” Still others refer to it as “a fixed belief system, or system of understanding that one has confidence in.” The difference being that by both definitions faiths may or may not involve logic and evidence, but faiths of the latter definition can only use these tools to justify previously held beliefs.

Science is a faith by the first definition, and the opposite of faith by the second.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 16:29:20 +0000

crim – you are making a number of false dichotomies and poor arguments. The end result is that you are downplaying the key differences between the process of science and faith.

First, your straw man – I don’t know any serious scientist or philosopher who argues that science is 100% objective, or that it does not have serious limitations as a human endeavor. Quite the opposite – I hear and tout these limitations all the time.

Further, it is not my position that there is never any logic or evidence that can be brought to bear to support a contention of faith. Rather, faith does not arrive at its conclusions based upon logic and evidence.

Regardless of how a faith-based belief arose, once it becomes an article of faith it is fixed, and is perpetuated based mainly upon authority and tradition.

Science operates very differently. No one is saying is is perfect, or without bias or opinion, but rather that the process is designed to be empirical, self-corrective, to weed out biases as much as possible.

You seem to be saying that it cannot be 100% objective, therefore it is not all that different from faith. This view is extremely flawed. The process of science is radically different than faith.

By: crim

crim — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 15:25:35 +0000

If science does not possess 100% logic or 100% evidence, it cannot be considered opposite of faith as you define it. Or if it does possess those things, then it is a concept that is out of the reach of humanity until we are 100% objective and omniscient, and to call one’s self a scientist would then be a misnomer. I’ll assume the first, so that I don’t have to deal with it as an abstract, absolute concept in this discussion.
To claim that faith has no evidence or logic is false; thought doesn’t exist without some level of logic, even though it is not 100%. And the entire human experience is evidence, even if it can’t be reproduced and quantified in scientific method. The reason it can’t be is that science is limited, not that unknown evidence simply doesn’t exist. This isn’t an argument in support of faith, which even if it has some degree of logic and evidence, does not generally have as much as science. But this refutes a common definition of faith as being without things which it cannot possibly be completely without, or can’t be proven to be without, even if it lacks them in comparison to science. The point of refuting that definition is that to consider science to be more different than faith than it is, further subjectifies science and its conclusions by allowing it to be illogical about its own limitations.
Just as faith has potential evidence within the human experience, which science cannot ‘desubjectify,’ science also exists within this experience and this subjectivity. Due to the nature of being subjective awarenesses, everything is about belief, because until omniscience is mandatory, knowing things involves a choice to believe they are true. The centrality of what you call opinion, to our process of understanding things, means that bias and self-deception will be serious problems up until the moment we are completely objectified, if ever. They’re chronic symptoms of not knowing everything. So even our best attempts at being correct will have the capacity to resemble ‘blind’ faith. Underemphasizing our vast subjectivity will only increase it. This conclusion is supported by both logic and evidence.
In any case, the things science and faith have in common, was not my point to begin with, although it was related. My point was that if science is not conscious of its limitations, it does things like compare a recent historical event to a period of hundreds of millions of years and calls it a good analogy, or completely disregards in other ways, the scale of human existence and the evidence we have, relative to what is being theorized.

By: twhit

twhit — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:53:27 +0000

Great post.

On the matter of science in relation to faith and/or belief, this may be of interest:

http://curricublog.wordpress.com/2009/01/27/change-dont-need-belief/

(or, to try out the new WordPress short URL feature, this shorter link should also work:
http://wp.me/p1V0H-o9 )

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:41:13 +0000

crim – your position is not valid because you simply redefined “faith” as “belief” – you substituted a specific term with a vague and ambiguous one.

Science is not about belief, it is about logic and evidence. Yes, scientists do have an opinion about the interpretation of the evidence, and this can loosely be called “belief” but that does not equate it to “faith” – which is belief without logic and evidence.

Faith and science are opposites.

By: Steven Novella

Steven Novella — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:36:27 +0000

Michael,

I think the problem you are having understanding my position is that you are confusing the fact that other people inconsistently use the terms faith, science, and religion with my position. I am advocating a consistent application of science.

I do NOT make distinctions between religious and non-religious claims in any way. The only distinction I make is whether or not a claim is within the methods of science – i.e. (here comes my quicky definition for the “realm” of science) falsifiable claims made within methodological naturalism.

My criticism, in fact, is often that people want to have one foot in science and one out. ESP is scientific, but the claims are ultimately non-falsifiable. Science and reason support God, but you must have faith. You can’t have it both ways.

My position is that you are either doing science or not doing science.

The thing is, people can chose to believe in things outside of the realm of methodological naturalism. They have the right to do so. Their justification may be illogical, and if they are inconsistent or exhibit poor logic that can be criticized (and we do so, frequently). But if they retreat to faith, and say they just choose to believe, without any logical or empirical justification, then all that can be done is to keep them consistent in that position and not let them encroach into science.

It does get tricky when you deal with people who adopt faith-based beliefs about scientific claims. I do take the position that this is a bad idea – it is irrational and ultimately a losing strategy to hitch your faith to a claim that can be proven false. The problem is, people have the right to be wrong and irrational. So when it comes to the question of what we teach in public schools, and to what applies the separation of church and state, the only approach that works in my opinion is to say that within the system of methodological naturalism (science), this is the answer we get. You can believe whatever you want.

For example, with regard to teaching evolution – the school system can say that students have to demonstrate an understanding of evolution, but you do not have to profess belief. Again – how they deal with the resulting cognitive dissonance is their problem.

I will also go further and say that to reject the answer that science currently comes up with (for ideological and not scientific reasons) does make one anti-science and does place ideology above science. People have the right to do this, and I have the right to call it what it is.

By: jester700

jester700 — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:34:19 +0000

Just another positive vote for the Krishna analogy. It may make less difference to most of the crowd here, but is perfect in introducing the story to xian friends. Perhaps even seeding an “AHA moment”.

By: jo5ef

jo5ef — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:48:55 +0000

I checked out that thread mindme, whackamole is perfect description.
I think Buzz himself has the best retort for this lunacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4