The official Apolyton Reason VS Faith thread

[yavoon]

so big crunch ur saying if something random happened science would have no way of explaining it? like say in quantum mechanics?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yavoon
so big crunch ur saying if something random happened science would have no way of explaining it? like say in quantum mechanics?

Nope didn't say that either.

[Kramerman]

I am just pointing out that there is a presumption that science will win out.

For some it may be a presumption, for others it may even be faith, i think this varies from person to person. For me it is just a HOPE that science can and will ultimately prevail in describing the universe. If it doesnt.... well, like i said, ill probably be dead LONG before we even get that far, and if not, it wont affect my life, so i dont care. But in the long run, its a good bet that science will get a HELL OF A LOT further than faith alone would get.

[yavoon]

so why instead of being a snob u explain it to me? since obviously I'm not quite there at understanding ur meaning. I guess that'd be too much for u tho.

[Lorizael]

You're probably going to respond that I have faith that science will be able to find an answer. But it doesn't work that way, actually.

Maybe science can't find the answer, but if we don't try to figure it out, we never will. Just saying, "Oh God did it," is, in my mind, like giving up. I don't understand how a person could be content to simply believe that an inexplicable supernatural entity is the cause of a particular event.

Supernatural entities cannot have definition, for they are above the natural way of things, and because of that, they cannot be used to define anything else. They help the advance of knowledge and understanding of the universe in no way, and because of that, there is no reason to use them as an answer.

[yavoon]

yes, there are two options. try to understand something, don't try to understand something. science tries to understand something, it is not faith that it goes on. it is pragmatism.

[Kramerman]

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

In truth this is the same for me. However I long for the day when i nedd NO support, muhahaha.

Ive found that holding a gun also makes me feel real big and is excellent support .

[GePap]

Both

reason is a better tool than blind faith, but as Spiff sort of pointed out, you have to tae various few, but crucial articles as faith before you can start.

[Odin]

Reason shall always triumph over faith. Religion is dying, that is the reason that there is so many fundies out there, religious leaders are loosing control so they have gotten desperate to retain the status quo.

ALL HAIL THE ENLIGHTENMENT!!!

[Kirnwaffen]

Is it just me, or are there two working definitions of faith running in this thread?

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by yavoon
so why instead of being a snob u explain it to me? since obviously I'm not quite there at understanding ur meaning. I guess that'd be too much for u tho.

I'm sorry you feel it necessary to attempt personal insults, unfortunately I find it hard to express my thoughts on this subject in written words and can fully appreciate misunderstanding on the subject. I will attempt to explain what I mean to you in a step by step manner:


Nature acts without human theories to describe them.

Humans measure how things in the universe interact and attempt to explain these laws in a method we can comprehend. With more and more refinement we assume that we are getting closer and closer to describing the way nature acts.

Nature may have a consistent theory that can describe its being, if so then science may be able to describe natures being with a single theory of everything. Nature may be consistent in its laws, but have things that are ultimately unknowable about them, and science is unable to describe everything that happens.

Nature may alternatively be inconsistent, with no logic or reason behind it, and all we are measuring is nonsense, which makes all our theories to date meaningless. This is not an issue of refinement, this is an issue of throwing everything we have learnt out the window as its nothing more than at attempt to rationalise the irrational. Science can only work on the presumption that the universe is rational, and so there is by association an element of faith that it is doing so.

That is my view.

[yavoon]

thats like saying "wut if you are a brain in a jar" yah ok its possible. but its such a defeatist theory that its not really worth exploring.

like has been said earlier, u can try to understand it, or u can not. to do the former is not faith, its pragmatism.

[yavoon]

oh and I only call ppl snobs when they are being snobbish. so fear not, unless u r snobbish I wont call u it.

[Lorizael]

Actually, he's not saying there's no point in trying, if you read what he says. He's just saying that because there is the possibility that the universe does not act in a rational manner, scientists must have faith that it does.

But faith still isn't necessary. There were many things that once appeared to be irrational, but which we were able to later comprehend. It's not faith that the universe is rational, it's belief built on evidence. Thus far, the scientific method has been able to explain and predict a good many of the phenomena around us, and there is no reason to believe that it will not continue to do so.

But, of course, past events do not prove future ones, they simply suggest what is more likely.

Another thought popped into my head. Logic and ration are the ways in which the scientist figures things out. Logic and ration require two things, however, to function.

They need to be implemented properly; a stupid, crazy person may not know how to use logic correctly.

And they require starting assumptions on which to base the conclusions reached. Without starting assumptions, without a foundation, there is nothing with which a rational, logical person can work.

But because nothing can be absolutely proven to be true, no starting assumptions are perfect. A scientist must have faith that those assumptions are true for any future work to be believable.

Still not faith, though. It's more a compromise. You can't know it's true, but it's the most true thing, so you have to go with it in order to make progress.

[Spiffor]

Actually, in the second post, I wasn't referring to science, but to reason in general. Reason is exerted by people who think a rational/logical thought allows to be closer to the truth. To me, believeing in the human ability to find truth through reason has as much credit as through religion.

However despite, my scientifically heretical beliefs, I must admit my daily behaviour is that of reason, because of my education.

[Lorizael]

If you're responding to me, I wasn't talking about you. I was referring to Big Crunch, and talking to yavoon. I should probably make those things more clear in the future.

[Spiffor]

Lorizael :
I was responding to the thread in general, not specifically to your post.

[Kontiki]

Originally posted by Elok
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?

Sometimes it's fun to inhale a bag of fritos, though.

[yavoon]

yes lori science needs things to get going. but it only picks the things it thinks will work. which just points back to the pragmatism argument. and I believe ur making a distinction w/o a difference. big crunch is calling for faith that the world is not random. but to assume it is, is defeatism. so its really only pragmatic to go ahead like it snot. much less once the # of things this pragmatism has accomplished grows ever larger.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Kontiki


Sometimes it's fun to inhale a bag of fritos, though.

[St Leo]

Nature may alternatively be inconsistent, with no logic or reason behind it, and all we are measuring is nonsense, which makes all our theories to date meaningless.

Statistics suggest otherwise. If what you are suggesting is true, we are screwed whether we utilize scientific methods or don't. If it's false, we are screwed if we don't. I don't see a good case against science here.

Suppose there is no logical reason for it to change and no theory can be used to decribe it.

Assuming that the change does not impair the ability to exist of our particular species -- very unlikely -- we get to remap the properties of nature and hope that they don't change again.

[Vesayen]

Only ONE person voted faith so far........... where are the legions of faithfull?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Only ONE person voted faith so far........... where are the legions of faithfull?

They are embarrassed.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Reason is exerted by people who think a rational/logical thought allows to be closer to the truth. To me, believeing in the human ability to find truth through reason has as much credit as through religion.

First of all, what is "the truth?" Are you accepting the notion that there are so called "universal truths?" If so, what are they? What is truth as opposed to facts?

Secondly, if we somehow arrive at "the truth" through religion, how could we tell if that is it? On what basis could you form such a judgement?

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by GePap
reason is a better tool than blind faith, but as Spiff sort of pointed out, you have to tae various few, but crucial articles as faith before you can start.

Hm. It seems that the word "faith" has been used a bit loosely. Are you using it in the sense of "axioms" or "postulates," certain ideas and concepts taken to be true without proof? Still, systems based on these axioms needed to be examined and compared with the objective reality as far as reason is concerned, which will point out any flaws in the original postulates.

[Kuciwalker]

I used to have as my sig, "Look in the dictionary, and you'll find that the definition of gullible is 'belief without evidence. Look in the dictionary, and you'll find that the definition of faith is 'belief without evidence'."

[Sava]

of course reason... but a little faith isn't a bad thing... the problem occurs when you let faith outweigh reason.

[monkspider]

I'm with Sava, though there are times where faith is reason.

[alva]

Originally posted by Vesayen
Only ONE person voted faith so far........... where are the legions of faithfull?

Maybe they got confused after reading the first page of this thread.

[Ben Kenobi]

Abstain.

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.