To quote Betty Boop (Hi Betty, miss me?):
The scientist's faith is that the world is intelligible. If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling. If he doubted them, he would not be an engineer at all.
We start off with the world being 'intelligible.' If it wasn't intelligible, on some level – no one, no creature even, could survive for a moment if it weren't. You accused 12stCenturion of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or as it is more typically know Reification and then commit it here. Intelligence is an abstract concept and its application, intelligibility, is a function of the human mind, not a attribute of the world. And many aspects aren't particularly intelligible: that at the sub-atomic level particles are simultaneously particle and wave, the Copenhagen Interpretation that they exist only as probabilities until detected and then collapse into point of being or the contradiction between Einstein's Theories and Bell's Theorem. (As an aside the Copenhagen Interpretation is also an example of Reification, know why?) So we take that quibble for starters.
Then the assertion that this is taken on faith. There is faith and then there is 'faith'. To have the confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow morning can be called 'faith' that the sun will rise, but this is not the same as “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The last part of that sentence being an oxymoron since the very root of the word evidence means 'to see'. These are two very different connotations. To equate them is to conflate them.
What's even more interesting is the fact that one must have faith in 'faith' before one can have faith. It is the ultimate self-recursive non sequitur.
Thus the next sentence does not follow:
If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. To 'believe' something due to countless examples of consistency as provided by the senses is not the same as to 'believe' in the supernatural. Since the supernatural is, by definition, beyond the realm of the senses, while the investigation of this world, of this Universe, is dependent upon the information garnered by the senses, the connotations of this word are not the same and it is a mistake to conflate them.
And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling.
Because he has proven their consistency through countless examples of their veracity, not because he wants them to be true, without any evidence.
It seems to me that all human knowledge rests on faith at its very foundation. That is, without faith there is no spur towards knowledge, no scope for the operations of logic and reason, nothing for intelligence to work on.
All human knowledge rests upon experience, period. The 'scope of logic and reason' is to integrate that experience into a coherent whole, without which survival is not possible for man. Faith is not an element in human survival.
To move on:
And yet for countless millenia by now, belief in God has been universal to all mankind everywhere.
Apparently you aren't familiar with Taoism or Buddhism. Shinto doesn't really foot the bill either.
But back to my opening comment, that every scientist must believe the world is intelligible or there couldn't be any science at all; science per se would be a pointless exercise if the fundamental intelligibility of the world was in doubt.
Your argument is Circular and a Glittering Generality to boot. You speak for “every scientist” with an absolute that only exists in your own mind. The world exists as it is and to seek to discover how that world operates doesn't require a 'belief', just a desire to know. And that desire to know started way back when with, How do I survive? How do I keep this fire going that the lightening started?
There is a glaring hole in your reasoning that if the 'fundamental intelligibility' of the world were so obvious, people wouldn't have gotten so wrong for so long. It remains to be seen whether there is some fundamental element that is beyond human understanding but that will take of the future of humanity to determine conclusively, so, once again, it is a moot point. Just like the speculation of the existence of Multi-verses.
And yet I know of no scientist, offhand, who asks the question: Why is the world intelligible? What is it that embues it with intelligibility?
Well, first of all Wigner, which Alamo-Girl (Hi Alamo-Girl, miss me?) quoted, implies this first question in the 'unreasonable(!) effectiveness of mathematics' . Your second sentence Begs the Question that it is 'embued' rather than seeing it for what it is, the explanation of the observable phenomenon of the Universe by mankind. Intelligibility is an intellectual process by Man, not on inherent quality of the Universe. Reification again, my dear. ; }
Then:
Science does not ask these questions. Indeed, such questions seem a bit above science's paygrade, given its utter dependence on sensory perception/observation/measurement which is its fundamental, even sacrosanct method.
Well, as demonstrated, they have been asked. But, pray tell, is there other than sensory perception/observation/measurement by which we obtain knowledge about the Universe we live in? Hmmmmm?
I might add that there are plenty of "non-observables" of the greatest importance to human beings. Indeed, the ability of man to detect them is a sign of his categorical superiority to the lower animals.
You need to delineate these "non-observables" in order for this assertion to have any credibility.
But to not ask such questions doesn't mean the questions disappear. Plus by its own methods, science cannot disprove, or falsify the eternal Presence of God.
Do you remember Boop, years ago, the fallacy I identified when last we had this conversation? I remember. Do you? I AM curious. What was my reply to this Assertion?
Anyhoot, back to my claim that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive: If you were to scrupulously, honestly analyze your own thought processes, I think you would find I am right about this. Actually, they are completely different realms. Faith, in the way you mean it, religiously (and let me make this clear, I am not saying there is anything WRONG with that, per se) and REASON as a means of apprehending and understanding the Universe we exist in, ARE mutually exclusive .
I scrupulously, honestly (more than you can know) analyze my own thought processes - and I know you are wrong.
But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.
Well see there, now we agree. Few people understand their own thinking and critical analysis does seem to increasingly become a lost art.
I am going to post this without much copy editing because I have to go. I will amend as necessary. But it is enough to get us going, I THINK.
Thank you for your comments!
“But, pray tell, is there other than sensory perception/observation/measurement by which we obtain knowledge about the Universe we live in?”
The concept of “intuition” is universal to scientific discussion and study. Not to equate intuition with spiritual knowledge, necessarily, but it is an example of intelligibility which is other than sensory.
“You need to delineate these ‘non-observables’ in order for this assertion to have any credibility.”
Life itself was already mentioned by the great mind of betty b, I think, in this thread. We can neither observe nor describe the substance of life. (I would suggest that this is one of the ultimate stumbling blocks for the atheistic position).
It seems extremely likely that most or all of those from the materialist side of the debate reach their conclusion about divine existence not as a result of objective analysis, but upon deciding which answer they prefer to be true.
This explains why so many of them prefer to ignore historical and forensic evidence (such as the empty tomb of Christ, and the peri-Resurrection behavior of his disciples.)
Finally—reason alone prevents the progression from agnosticism to atheism. To take that final step, you must necessarily employ faith.
Hi LogicWings! Long time no see! Yes, I seem to recall you have a pet peeve WRT faith. I gather the reason you do is because you "believe" (i.e., have faith) that faith and reason are inexorably, utterly, mutually opposed to one another. So you dump faith into the "religion" bucket, and reason into the "science" bucket (so to speak), and demand that "never the twain shall meet."
In short, your unfounded presupposition demands the result you arrive at. Whatta surprise. I say your presupposition is "unfounded," because you provide no evidence for it. It is merely your belief, in which you place your faith, your trust. [The Latin root word, fides carries both senses.]
Maybe a little context would be helpful here:
Until relatively recently, people looked to religion to provide an explanation for the All that Is. Today, science offers its own rendering of the totality of existence, but perhaps it is worth inquiring how much of this highly sophisticated, mostly mathematical account is based upon concepts, assumptions, and a priori intellectual commitments that are no more sophisticated (or critically examined) than the myths of antiquity.Or as A. N. Whitehead put it,
Although you or I certainly do not know how a cosmos may be created out of nothing, how life may be generated from non-life, or how consciousness proceeds from matter, we are assured that science has dispelled the intellectual darkness of the ages and obviated the crude mythological fallacies of our cognitive childhood. Indeed, we are told that a Theory of Everything is on the horizon, a recipe for generating a universe so concise that it may be reduced to a discrete tattoo. If, like the illiterate peasant of the Middle Ages, we don't really understand the language in which it is written, our scientific priesthood will graciously translate and interpret the texts for us.
There is knowledge and there is understanding, and it is always dangerous to conflate the two. Science knows a great many things, but does it actually understand how an exquisitely ordered yet progressive cosmos may instantaneously create itself out of nothing, how something called Life (whatever that is) can suddenly appear on a dead planet, how symphonies, paintings, cathedrals, and novels can pop out of a modified ape brain, or how a man can hit 73 home runs in a single baseball season? Religion is often accused of giving names, such as "God," to things its adherents do not understand. However, is it not equally evident that science has its own set of names for things it does not understand, names such as "big bang," "genetic program," "life," "consciousness," or even "universe" — for what scientist has ever stood athwart and observed this thing called "universe?"
The question is, does science really understand what it purports to know?
— Robert Godwin, One Cosmos under God, p. 18f
modern man's attitude towards the body of scientific knowledge is almost the same as that of archaic man's towards the body of myth: He does not question or seek to understand the implications of his orthodoxy, yet it forms a vaguely defined aggregate of ideas that govern his attitude toward life.In other words, for some "science" is an ersatz religion; the Church of Holy Scientism; or maybe the Church of St. Darwin? ... and such people are most faithful, one could say fanatical adherents of church precepts.
On the evidence, I do not agree that faith and reason are "mutually exclusive."
Which "connotation" of faith did you have in mind?
Definition of FAITHDo any of these "connotations" of faith affect you?1a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty
b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs
— on faith: without question
I really wanted to get into the scientific doctrine of materialism. But I see I'm out of time. Maybe later.
Thank you ever so much for writing, LogicWings!