Replies

Scientists have "faith" that they will uncover "truth" about a thing (whatever they set out to discover) .... using the scientific method. That seems a given to me, otherwise why would anyone undertake examining something if they have no believe that they can understand and/or explain? That is not rational.

In my post(#44) to cornelis I said:

Many English words have more than one meaning or connotation, which a careful thinker will take care to distinguish. ... For example, the word "faith" has several connotations, including trustworthiness (he is a man of good faith) confidence in something (when we sit on a chair we have faith it will no collapse beneath us) or confidence in someone (most of us have faith in our doctors) or religious faith (no one can prove there is a God, you must accept it by faith).

I think you are making the mistake of confusing the different meanings and connotations of the words faith and belief.

First, the word "beleive" only means whatever a person thinks is true. A belief might be totally rational or itmight be gross superstition. That fact that someone believes something does not indicate the basis for the belief. Sometime the word faith is used to mean the same thing as belief. In that case the faith might be perfectly rational. I think when you are talking about scientist's confidence in their work, it is belief or faith in this sense you mean.

But, when you, or anyone else uses the same words, faith or belief, in regard to that for which there is neither evidence nor logical argument from the evidence as a basis for the faith or belief, that is a different meaning altogether.

Essentially, your argument amounts to this: "Everyone has beliefs which are perfectly rational, therefore it is perfectly rational for someone to believe Allah will reward those who blow up buildings by flying planes into them."

Hank

But, when you, or anyone else uses the same words, faith or belief, in regard to that for which there is neither evidence nor logical argument .... There is no evidence or logical argument to support that "science" is real and "faith" (as in spiritual faith) is not. In fact, any scientist will tell you that "science" cannot prove, it can only disprove. Therefore, scientists use reverse logic to "prove" something is true, realizing they do not have access to all other possible evidence. In that regard, the scientist's (or rationalist's) argument is an essentially temporal "faith" in what is known at the moment, or rather what is eliminated as a possibility.

In that science is no more or less "logical" or "rational" than spiritual faith. Since science cannot "prove" just as faith cannot "prove" with absolute certainty that something is or is not what one posits.

But back to the article. I agree that "faith" (as in spiritual faith) has been twisted for the purpose of doing great harm. As only one example, "science" has been twisted by some to posit that a fetus is not a human being worth protecting from harm. Even though rationally, science cannot prove what is or is not a human being, many people who place their faith in "science" use what is currently known about sentience to justify non-protection of a human-like entity. Science can neither prove or disprove what is a human being, but people who put their faith in scientific "facts" can and do pretend to prove just such things.

This is only one example of how "science" can be used, just as religion or spiritual faith can be used, to justify a moral position. Neither is a rational evidence-based argument for making moral determinations, yet both are used all the time for just such purposes. Therefore both the spiritual/religious and the scientific/observation person are going on pure "faith" that their arguments are sound.

Now, if "science" were devoid of human participation, and therefore pure, I would agree that science could not do ill. But the same would be true of philosophy and God (assuming he exists). Toss in humans to any belief system and presto! you have a exponentially increased the probability for both innocent logical error and willful evil.