Faith and Science

[ArcticFox]

These guys don't just make great history videos. This one is on examining the relationship between faith and science.

[ArchAngel]

Yeah, so far, I've loved all their stuff, from their core Extra Credits episodes to the new James Recommends and Remixes series.

So, I'm not really sure if I agree with their characterization of Faith, but they do provide a really good springboard for a good conversation on the subject. Certainly better that I could kick one off, but, now that we have it, let's go!

So, one of my reservations is I feel the lump lump in axiomatic positions with faith (which is not necessarily untrue), but then it's often then characterized to be the same as faith positions for much bigger, more unsupported positions.

Given that I'll accept axioms, like A=A, on faith, or very basic positions like "the world is a solipsistic illusion," that does not automatically validate other positions that rest on faith. Just because we accept the euclidean geometric axioms "on faith," doesn't mean that one weird neighbor who believes her guardian angel/spirit animal, Melchizorath, helps her make life decisions based on her set of slightly pornographic Furry tarot cards has any more valid of a position.
And that, perhaps, is the center of my reservation. These axiomatic faiths, such as our faith in our ability to observe the world or that Math actually works, is both reduced down as far as we can until the belief is no longer distillable, and then even after, must be supported by evidence. A=A is brought down as the most basic level it can go, and still, hasn't been shown to be wrong. It's not simply accepted on faith that it's true, it passes tests. And even on that, they are continually subject to reproach.
In the example, our understanding of Euclid's 5th axiom was further corrected. Our ability to observe is called into question, and even shown that we simply can't, in cases of Quantum physics.

For these reasons, I just can't equivocate axiomatic faith, and other faith claims that make far more bombastic claims with less proof. "Faith" in A=A does not validate a faith claim in God simply because "everybody uses faith" so any faith claim must be valid. That doesn't make sense.

So, maybe, I'll best leave the characterizing of religious faiths to those who still actively believe. What makes Faith in God (alter this statement to best fit your belief system) a valid faith position?

[Deepfreeze32]

Given that I'll accept axioms, like A=A, on faith, or very basic positions like "the world is a solipsistic illusion," that does not automatically validate other positions that rest on faith. Just because we accept the euclidean geometric axioms "on faith," doesn't mean that one weird neighbor who believes her guardian angel/spirit animal, Melchizorath, helps her make life decisions based on her set of slightly pornographic Furry tarot cards has any more valid of a position.
And that, perhaps, is the center of my reservation. These axiomatic faiths, such as our faith in our ability to observe the world or that Math actually works, is both reduced down as far as we can until the belief is no longer distillable, and then even after, must be supported by evidence. A=A is brought down as the most basic level it can go, and still, hasn't been shown to be wrong. It's not simply accepted on faith that it's true, it passes tests. And even on that, they are continually subject to reproach.
In the example, our understanding of Euclid's 5th axiom was further corrected. Our ability to observe is called into question, and even shown that we simply can't, in cases of Quantum physics.

This is more or less how I view it. I really don't think science isn't about proving things (which is why I always roll my eyes when someone says it proved something), it's about demonstrating whether or not assumptions hold up to tests (heavily distilling here). Given axiom A, does experiment B work as you would expect if A were true? It's like performing a basic test on a function.

For example, take the function: bool isNegative(int a){ return a>0?false:true;} (ignore my highly compressed C code for a moment).

You make the assumption that isNegative will return true if a is a negative number. So you test it with the basic cases: positive 1 returns false, negative 1 returns true. So you base your program on the assumption that it works.

But you've probably already seen the problem: 0. 0 is neither positive nor negative, and in this function, it returns as negative. This is a problem. It becomes clear that your faith in this function's correctness was wrong, so you're faced with two options: change your faith (change the hypothesis) or change the function (change the experiment).

Obviously, I've just described the methodology behind unit testing (and if you're a programmer and don't do it, shame on you), but it kind of describes how I view "faith" as a concept. Does what I've seen back up the faith assumption I hold? If not, what do I change: my faith or the way I'm viewing things?


And that, I think, is the biggest struggle I've been having. Like James was, I'm exploring the oceans of possibilities. I don't have answers, only questions. Which is why I'm not trying to state this an authoritative fact, only the way I'm viewing things based on my current explorations.

[ArcticFox]

So, maybe, I'll best leave the characterizing of religious faiths to those who still actively believe. What makes Faith in God (alter this statement to best fit your belief system) a valid faith position?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "valid." Valid to me? Or to you? There's a difference.

Didja ever see the movie Contact? (I know you said you haven't read the book but I can't remember whether you saw the movie.) If not, stop reading. Spoilers incoming.

Still here? Ok here we go. In the movie, Dr. Arroway indeed travels to distant stars, galaxies, and meets with an alien. When she gets back, all evidence of her trip is gone. From the outside of the machine that sent her, it didn't even look like the device worked at all. (Same as in the book, except that Dr. Arowway doesn't go alone, she's with a team.)

Once back, she knows, from her own, personal experience, that she did indeed travel across space-time, but can convince no-one, because she has no evidence for them to examine. For other people to know as she does, they'd have to experience what she did. Until that happens, they remain skeptical.

My Faith in God is exactly the same. The evidence I have, the knowledge I have, is exclusive to my own personal experience. I can neither prove it to anyone else, nor deny it to myself. I did not arrive at that knowledge through an exhaustive, clinical research project. I arrived at it through faith in axioms like my own perceptive abilities, my own cognitive processes, my own instincts. I know God has spoken to me, I have heard the voice of my Creator, my Heavenly Father, my God, and it doesn't require anyone else's agreement or understanding to be true.

James 1:5