Jump to content
Science Forums

Faith and uncertainity


hallenrm

Recommended Posts

Often in life one is confronted with situations where one cannot be sure of the end result, be it a health problem, a court case or even a competitive examination. These are situations where one is anxious to know, what will happen next. But, unlike physics, where one is often certain of the consequences of application of a force on an object, in such matter one is confronted with gross uncertainty, that leaves the only recourse: faith. Faith in the medical profession?science, faith in the legal system or if one is not very well acquainted with either of them, faith in the ultimate universal entity, the God.

 

Am I on the right track! :D

 

Any comments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't understand the question...

Well, let me explain a bit. Uncertainity is an essential part of human existence, it has been incorporated in science too, thanks to our reverred scientist Heisenberg. But Faith is becoming a dirty word, among many a scientists I have witnessed here on Hypography, because by convention, it is related to religion.

 

But is it really sensible, one needs faith everyday, even in science. One cannot be a scientist unless one has faith in the truth of the utterances of Science Academies and their publications.

 

Isn't it the time that we reconsider our scorn of faith?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this is yet another thread that tries to explain faith as something equal to religious faith.

 

We all have faiths of some kind. But there is nothing religious about this. I have faith in my car. I believe it will start every morning. And lo and behold, as long as I take good care of it, it does indeed start every morning. Except those mornings when it doesn't. I must then call the Car Priests (my garage) and arrange for a Service. I must also pray that it doesn't cost more than I can afford and I must repent because I have probably not taken good enough care of my car after all...

 

It doesn't work that way. Faith in things and faith in existence is completely different than faith in supernatural things that require worship and contemplateion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

… Am I on the right track! :eek_big: …
This is, I think, a very personal question that none but you can answer. Does confidence in medical science, or a particular clinician, lie on the right track for me? Yes. Does faith of the existence of the ultimate universal entity, God? No. Does it work for you? I can’t say, but suspect it does. That two people answer this question differently doesn’t seem to me an unexpected or bad thing.

 

Personally, I have, as nearly as my introspective abilities can reveal, absolutely no need for any assurance of future success, the absence of future personal pain and death, a powerful entity to protect and preserve me, life after death, or any of the assurances commonly associated with religion. Why this is so for me encompasses 4 decades of experience, and is more than I care to explain in this post. Suffice it to say that religious faith is not for me, because I feel no emotional need for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...But is it really sensible, one needs faith everyday, even in science. One cannot be a scientist unless one has faith in the truth of the utterances of Science Academies and their publications....

A very good observation. I've concluded that the reason that faith has become so widely scorned is because the historical Judaeo-Christian definition has been largely abandoned in favor of one concocted by the likes of Bertrand Russell.

 

The Russel definition of faith could be stated as "belief in something in the complete absence of evidence or in the face of evidence to the contrary"; one of it's corollaries is "if it's supported by evidence, it cannot be faith".

 

The Judaeo-Christian definition of faith is very different. It could be stated as "an act of the will in which one aheres to another who is known". As in your example of making a decision to rely on the peer-review process of an acadamy of science because you know that that process has proven to be reliable in the past. Or else, as in making a decision to rely on the data reported by another, because that person has proven to be a reliable collector of data in the past.

 

Without faith, we cannot truly believe in anything that we did not personally observe. In fact, most of what we believe, be it scientific or not, we believe because we have faith in others. I don't see this as being any different than having faith in God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder why animals don't have sleepless nights wondering if the sun is going to come up in the morning, do they have 'faith' in nature or do they just not worry.

 

What Tormod wrote about his car sums it up really well, there are different faiths on different levels, I think the position of our security affects our choice of faith, those with nothing and a bleak future tend to have faith in religion, those mega-rich people like Bill Gates have faith in their alarm systems and back up plans (like an off shore account and a nuclear bunker), then there's those of us in between who have a mixture of both and most have faith in themselves 'I'm alright thanks'. :-S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without faith, we cannot truly believe in anything that we did not personally observe. In fact, most of what we believe, be it scientific or not, we believe because we have faith in others.
A very sensible statement, IMHO.
I don't see this as being any different than having faith in God.
One distinction is that others in whom we have mundane faith are ordinary humans. We can exchange mail, speak, and see them. If we speak with them in the presence of honest companions, our companions hear the same words, and can confirm and verify the contents of our communication.

 

God, in whom many people have faith, is not an ordinary human. We can’t exchange mail, speak with, or see Him in an ordinary way. If we speak with God (eg: pray) in the presence of honest companions, they do not hear any words, and can’t confirm and verify the contents of our communication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God, in whom many people have faith, is not an ordinary human. We can’t exchange mail, speak with, or see Him in an ordinary way. If we speak with God (eg: pray) in the presence of honest companions, they do not hear any words, and can’t confirm and verify the contents of our communication.
This is all true, and it certainly complicates matters.

 

I can easily think of situations in which none of my conversations with another person can be verified by others; I would nonetheless know the person with whom I had my secret conversations to be a real person.

 

For that matter, I can't exchange communication with or see any person of history, and the farther back in history they were the less personal evidence of their existence we have today. Nonetheless, I accept as proven (and I assume you do as well) the existence of Plato, Aristotle, and the like, because we at least implicitly agree that scientific standards of proof are inappropriate to establish the factual existence of historical events and persons. None of the evidence for any historical figure or event rises to the level of scientific proof, because by its very nature scientific proof requires the ability to repeat experiments.

 

The existence of historical events and figures is proven by evaluating the marks of their passage, and the standard of proof is not "beyond all doubt" but rather "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

Because God (at least in the Judaeo-Christian ethos) is a person, it seems to me that the correct standard of proof of his existence is the one we use for persons. Has he made any marks in history? Is the evidence of those marks compelling enough to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he does exist? What does my conclusion imply with regard to the evidence for other historical events and figures and my conclusions about their existence?

 

And of course, the evaluation of that evidence necessarily involves an act of faith such as hallenrm originally discussed - reliance on the testimony of ancient sources and witnesses, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because God (at least in the Judaeo-Christian ethos) is a person, it seems to me that the correct standard of proof of his existence is the one we use for persons. Has he made any marks in history? Is the evidence of those marks compelling enough to cause a reasonable person to conclude that he does exist?

Isn't this a bit like looking at a portrait and saying that the portrait is what caused the paint pigments to combine?

 

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't this a bit like looking at a portrait and saying that the portrait is what caused the paint pigments to combine?

 

 

Post hoc, ergo propter hoc... :artgallery:

I'm not sure what you mean, but I'd use a different analogy.

 

I don't know that hallenrm really intended to talk about God here, and I usually like to have at least 10 posts to my credit before hijacking a thread. ;) Me bein' a new guy and all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not mistaking, St Paul (Saul) of the New Testament defined faith as "the assurance of things not seen". For example, the "strings" of the String Theory of physics, have never been seen, yet all the scientists that support this theory believe they exist. They do this with faith, according to St Paul.

 

He also mentioned, "faith in the wrong things" or assurance of an outcome that may not occur. For example, many young men have faith that buying a new sports car will turn them into a chick magnet. He was not preaching blind faith to anything that stirred one's fancy.

 

I suppose what separates religious faith for God from the physic's faith for strings is only the procedure that goes with the faith. Faith in God uses a more intutuive analysis, while faith in strings uses a rational analysis. It is not a question of the charisma of faith being being useful, but whether intutitive perception as the basis for faith carries as much weight as a rational perception as the basis for faith.

 

The visionaries of the atomic bombs had faith that this would be possible. It was half reason and half gut (intuitive) feeling, since it had never been done before and the solid reason could only be used so far. In this respect, if faith is based on both reason and intuition and not just intuition or reason, both religion and science will cut it some slack. For example, most religious people will not discount faith in medical procedures that bring hope, even if they don't always work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:artgallery:

 

Oh I'm getting dizzy.

 

Why is it that people play up "certainty" when it comes to science? Science says that there is an *assumption* that the current theory may be wrong, and thus science is actually all about *looking for* the failings, analyzing them and formulating modified or new theories to accomodate them. Thus the counter-examples are *sought out*.

 

Conversely, evidence that religious faith is unfounded is a devastating and destructive experience. Most commonly the reaction at least initially to such counter-examples is to deny their truth (I won't argue that this isn't sometimes the reaction of scientists emotions, but then they might be indeed be showing "faith"! But it ain't science...)

 

As a student of history, its obvious that historical documents are often questionable ("the winners write the history books"). Corroboration from multiple sources--especially independent ones--can raise confidence. Certainty? Hardly. Very high probability? Sure! Enough to draw conclusions? Why not! Find a new book with a different story (Dead Sea Scrolls!)? Cool! New interpretations to make up!

 

Conversely, your prophet said yesterday was the Rapture? You and your friends are still here! Your prophet is missing with all your money! Was he a thief? No! Not possible! That would mean your entire belief structure was a BIG LIE! No, its probably that you just weren't as good: better prepare for Armageddon...

 

Don't these feel any different to anyone? Is there really an argument that "blind faith" and "confidence in the odds" are *identical*?

 

Certain of uncertainty,

Buffy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gambling is a good example of statistics and faith. A good gambler will use the odds to make their decisions. The best and worse gamblers also add a little faith in charms and winning streaks. They seek the blessings coming from the goddess of gambling "Lady Luck"."Come on 7, daddy needs a new pair of shoes!" 7 wins! Yahoo! Let them ride!

 

Lady Luck is not a formal religious figure but she is sort of the goddess of statistics, chaos and gambling. Even the predictable nature of statistical odds contains chaos that that can defy the odds, in the short term. The gambler uses faith is their ability to sense the direction of Lady Lucks fickle chaos nature, which at times can defy the long term odds, but only in the short term.

 

For example, if one had a six sided dice and threw it 600 times, it would roughly fall on each side 100 times. Yet in the short term, the sides don't have to come up in rotations of six. One can also get 10 out of the 100 sixes in a row. Lady Luck adds her chaos to what should be systematic statistical series of events. At the end of 600 rolls one ends up where they expected, never knowing they had been taking the chaos express up and down hill and dale. Faith in lady luck looks for her short term chaos among the long term statistics.

 

If one looks at the current scientific theory for the creation of life on earth they sort of have faith in Lady Lucks ability to create a short term chaos pertubation of a statitically unlikely event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...