Do you believe in God?

[Frogberto]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

I disagree. I'm not saying it's the same kind of faith as religious faith, but it still takes a certain level of faith to accept unproveable axioms (I'm talking a=a; if a=b and b=c then a=c, etc.) as, or close enough to, true. Yes, it is clearly different in that those axioms are open to change should evidence otherwise come forward, but the fact remains that to get off the ground, to make any mathematical or scientific progress, one must believe that certain things are true without proof. Experimental evidence, yes, but not proof. I, for one, do believe them to be true.

Well, and this may just be semantics, but I disagree with your disagreement. (I also can't help the double negative).

If you're saying that if you regress enough questions, than the underlying assumption of anything about reality, then that might be true. Nothing is categorically absolute in science, because there may always be additional data that requires the modification or the "throwing out" of an entire theory. So in that sense, it's provisional. But, if I ask you enough questions about anythinng, you have to admit that there are some unknowns at a deep level. We have to act with things consistent not only with our understanding of how reality behaves, but also consistent with everything else we know and have tested. For that reason, no one's ever seen an atom, true, but we have other ways of measurement, and everything is consistent with atomic theory, to the extent that rejection of that theory is madness without overwhelming proof.

I hear again and again that "science is just another type of faith". But science is anything but. Whenever evidence is found to contradict previous conclusions, those conclusions are abandoned, and new beliefs based on the new evidence take their place. This "seeing is believing" basis for any theory in science is exactly the opposite of the sort of "faith" you've implied by your statement.

In fact, your statement implicitly equates faith with believing things without any basis for the belief. Such faith is better known as gullibility. Equating this sort of belief with faith places faith in anything on exactly the same level as belief in UFOs, Bigfoot, and modern Elvis sightings.

Science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Science is a method of thinking, a process, if you will, based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops.

Faith, on the other hand, is a conclusion, and science is a process. Because scientific results are tested, the results have two very important consequences: First, the scientists know that their results will be subject to challenge, so they work harder to make sure the evidence really does support their results. Second, published ideas that the evidence does not support will get rejected, especially in times or places with different cultural biases.

Scientists, as opposed to those of faith, usually welcome disconfirming evidence when it comes along. They key problem with your statement is that science is not a position - it's a process.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Look, I'm a scientist, I know all this. But I will always maintain that the whole of science holds true only if our fundamental perception of the universe is true. And that's something that, by definition, simply cannot be proven or disproven by observational science.

Again, all of this is taken, by me, as a purely mental exercise. I don't believe that our base pereceptions are wrong, but I'm fully cognizant that they could be. I do believe it's possible that what I observe is entirely a product of my own dellusional consciousness, that "reality" is something outside of my observational ability. Of course, I also accept that that doesn't particularly matter and that within the limits of what we can observe, everything you say is true. I don't live my life constantly qualifying everyting with, "Yes, but only if you assume the universe actually exists." But that's just as implicit as Alex's "In my opinion" reviews.

[Frogberto]

That sounds like an "argument from authority" to me.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Frogberto

That sounds like an "argument from authority" to me.

Huh? First of all, this isn't an exercise in logic. I'm simply stating what I believe. Second of all, argument from authority? Huh? What authority am I using? Are you talking about saying I'm a scientist? That was just to stop the scientific method lectures. I've read The New Organon. I'm well aware that science is not religion.

[Alex]

Ok, but my experience is that when most people say things like "science is just another kind of faith" they don't mean what you say you mean, though I still disagree with what you mean as even under those conditions I don't see anything resembling "faith". I don't have "faith" that the base assumptions are true, I only hold to those base assumptions so long as they are seem to better explain observation than other assumptions. That, to me, is pretty much the opposite of faith.

But if god wants to be a liar (and, for example, create a universe that only looks old but was actually created 97 minutes ago), it can't blame me for believing him. Also, it's an ass.

[Not Afraid]

I believe we've moved on from God to semantics.
I think we've moved on from God to semantics.
I have faith that we've moved on from God to semantics.
I theorize we've moved on from God to semantics.
I feel we've moved on from God to semantics.

[Motorboat Cruiser]

But you cannot prove that we've moved on from God to semantics, can ya?

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

But you cannot prove that we've moved on from God to semantics, can ya?

I probably could, but that would mean I would have to put forth some effort and I don't believe that I actually want to do that.

[RStar]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I probably could, but that would mean I would have to put forth some effort and I don't believe that I actually want to do that.

I'm with you, L!

This is too exausting....

[alphabassettgrrl]

Excellent post, ISM.

Personally. I believe we co-create our universe though I am unclear on the details. I like how Einstein put it, something about that which is out there, we call god.

I'm an animist- I see god in rocks, dirt, and flies. Among other things. Everything to me has a soul. Not like the movie-version of soul as having a personality and a name and a specific existance after death, but an energy signature. Everything has it.

The tooth fairy and Santa and all? I caught my folks bringing the Santa presents in from the car one night and I got it. The Easter bunny scavenger hunt notes were in my dad's very distinctive handwriting. I guess we knew, but we didn't think about it, nor did we care. It was a fun game. I still believe in Santa as the spirit of the winter holidays.

My practice? I'm a pagan. I follow a relatively typical course, if there is such a thing. It informs my universe and is a way it all makes sense to me. More than that, I don't need.

Originally Posted by innerSpaceman

But what if God is not the designer, but rather the creation designs itself? What if the meaning of man being created in the image of God does not mean the flowing white beard, but rather the power of creation?

Everything in the universe connected by via an intricate web of energy, interacting and influencing ... with the thoughts and words and actions of every living thing having an effect on the universe.
...
For myself, I am encouraged that man's explorations into quantum physics lean more and more toward evidencing the universe of metaphysics which is the underpinning of my spiritual philosophy. Namely, that we are indeed made in the image of GOD ... we have the power to create, and we are - all of us - doing so, whether consciously or not - with every thought and word and action. The universe is made by us.