The official Apolyton Reason VS Faith thread

Vesayen · May 11, 2003, 15:08

Speak and be hear! Where do you fall?

Spiffor · May 11, 2003, 15:11

Neither. Reason is, to some extent, a faith.

Jaguar · May 11, 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Neither. Reason is, to some extent, a faith.

Oooh, deep words from the Spiffor.

Vesayen · May 11, 2003, 15:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Neither. Reason is, to some extent, a faith.

I see what your saying, but your wrong lol.

Science admits it dosent have all the answers, what it dosent have it shows-you dont put faith in some made up answer for those questions, you simply take it as an uknown to be discovered.

Al B. Sure! · May 11, 2003, 15:25

reason and faith? what about passion or instinct?

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Vesayen

I see what your saying, but your wrong lol.

Science admits it dosent have all the answers, what it dosent have it shows-you dont put faith in some made up answer for those questions, you simply take it as an uknown to be discovered.

Actually science does have faith - it has faith that the laws of nature are immutable. For example that which is true today was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow.

St Leo · May 11, 2003, 15:43

Vivent la raison!

For example that which is true today was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow.

Feel free to cite examples of mutability.

Vesayen · May 11, 2003, 15:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

Actually science does have faith - it has faith that the laws of nature are immutable. For example that which is true today was true yesterday and will be true tomorrow.

It dosent say the laws of nature are immutable, it says according to current evidence, the laws of nature are immutable, if however evidence is found to be to the contrary, then that would be brought into consideration and studied.

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 15:46

The whole foundation of physics requires things to remain the same. All theories are meaningless if they (the laws of nature not the theories describing them) change from one moment to another.

Edited for clarity of what I meant by 'they'.

Az · May 11, 2003, 15:50

Reason.

Reason Reason Reason Reason Reason.

Worked A LOT better than faith, so far.

mrboo123 · May 11, 2003, 15:53

Faith

Vesayen · May 11, 2003, 15:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The whole foundation of physics requires things to remain the same. All theories are meaningless if they change from one moment to another.

They are not meaningless, but some are shown to be more likley to be true, and others false.

Gibsie · May 11, 2003, 15:56

I dont quite know why, but I originaly read this as "The official Apolyton Reason VS Ned thread"

(Reason)

yavoon · May 11, 2003, 16:00

wrong big crunch, science already thinks that the speed of light has changed over time. so there goes that. science hsa no faith. it has postulates if u wna go there.

it is willing to go in whichever direction that works.

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 16:02

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
wrong big crunch, science already thinks that the speed of light has changed over time. so there goes that. science hsa no faith. it has postulates if u wna go there..

The speed of light isn't a law of nature.

yavoon · May 11, 2003, 16:34

the speed limit of the universe isnt a law of nature? what on god's(HAHA) earth makes u think that?

Dr Strangelove · May 11, 2003, 16:35

I'd like to abolish the term "laws of nature" and replace it with "properties of nature". The later is more accurate.

Faith and reason often go together.

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 16:39

Fundamental 'constants' are no more a law of nature than the transcendental numbers are laws of mathematics.

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 16:55

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
The whole foundation of physics requires things to remain the same. All theories are meaningless if they change from one moment to another.

No, the theories just change and alter as new evidence and ideas comes about.

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 16:59

I'm not talking about the theories changing, I'm talking about the laws themselves.

An electron doesn't say "I am moving in an electric field, the theory says I should react thus" before it reacts. It just does. I am refering to the just doing, which has nothing to do with our theories or their accuracy.

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 16:59

Remember, theories only matter if they work for a certain model. If the mmodel expands, often they fail, such as Newtonian physics at extreme relative speeds and extreme forces . Relativity is then a new theory that deals with this. Yet on an even larger model, that encompasses the very small, relativity breaks down and an individual theory of quantum physics must work alone. It is the hope of amny that some day a theory of everything that works on a model of the whole picture may be found some day.

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch
I'm not talking about the theories changing, I'm talking about the laws themselves.

An electron doesn't say "I am moving in an electric field, the theory says I should react thus" before it reacts. It just does. I am refering to the just doing, which has nothing to do with our theories or their accuracy.

which laws change? and if they do change, a new theory can be made to compensate.

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 17:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

which laws change? and if they do change, a new theory can be made to compensate.

You have faith in science to be able to do that? Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

yavoon · May 11, 2003, 17:08

ur being utterly convenient. ur saying because something acts that way at a certain time and position that it will always act that way in that time and position.

I give examples of laws changing over time(speed of light) or over space(black holes) but u don't care. cuz ur definition is so ridiculously narrow.

Elok · May 11, 2003, 17:08

A "reason versus faith" poll is kinda like a "food versus air" poll. You shouldn't swallow oxygen any more than you should inhale a bag of fritos. They're both useful but in ways that are, or ought to be, completely independent of each other. If you define your ideals in terms of theses and dissertations, or plan all your tasks around the hope of divine intervention, you or someone near you is in for a lot of grief. Why compare the two?

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 17:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

You have faith in science to be able to do that? Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

All i know is that on my scale of things (everyday life), science has been quite able to identify the theories that make my life easier and more enjoyable.

Never to my knowledge have "Laws of Nature" changed, if they did, they wouldnt be "Laws". I suppose, if a Law of nature did change, it wouldnt be too hard to develope a new model using the new Law of Nature. I think this has more to do with faith in the human ability to reason and think than it does with faith in science.

If a law changed for no logical reason, and a no theory could be made to formulate it, then my faith in the human abilty of thought had been misplaced. Like i said before however, unless this affects my menial and insignificant (in the perspective of the universe, of course

) everyday life, ultimately i could careless if the Speed of light changed a few thousand meters per second 14 billion years ago.

Kman

Kramerman · May 11, 2003, 17:11

Quote:

Originally posted by yavoon
ur being utterly convenient. ur saying because something acts that way at a certain time and position that it will always act that way in that time and position.

I give examples of laws changing over time(speed of light) or over space(black holes) but u don't care. cuz ur definition is so ridiculously narrow.

I hope your not talking to me. Because if you are you have completely misunderstood me.

yavoon · May 11, 2003, 17:12

no big crunch, my bad.

Dauphin · May 11, 2003, 17:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Kramerman

If a law changed for no logical reason, and a no theory could be made to formulate it, then my faith in the human abilty of thought had been misplaced. Like i said before however, unless this affects my menial and insignificant (in the perspective of the universe, of course

) everyday life, ultimately i could careless if the Speed of light changed a few thousand meters per second 14 billion years ago.

I almost fully agree (I am in no way refering to the human capacity to describe things), I am not saying that you shouldn't for I do the same thing. I am just pointing out that there is a presumption that science will win out.

Quote:

ur being utterly convenient. ur saying because something acts that way at a certain time and position that it will always act that way in that time and position.

I give examples of laws changing over time(speed of light) or over space(black holes) but u don't care. cuz ur definition is so ridiculously narrow.

My definition is not narrow, its just that you are using examples that have no relevance to my point.

Lorizael · May 11, 2003, 17:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Big Crunch

You have faith in science to be able to do that? Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

If, for some inexplicable reason that happened, the difference between Science and Faith would shine through. Science would continue trying to discover a reason for the sudden change through rational means, and Faith would simply ascribe the change to some supernatural force or entity. That is why there is no faith in science.

That being said, people can have faith if they want to; it's a great emotional support structure. But not everyone needs it.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure that sounded horribly condescending. Grr, I don't intend for it to sound that way. But it's true, one of the great things about Faith is that it provides people with a method of coping. A cynical person might call it the "opiate of the masses."

Personlly, I am able to use friends and family as support structures. But I'm an odd individual.