Slate: No Faith In Science

[alexey]

Let me stress this. Please use medicine and advocate that other people do too. Please do so even if you think that evidence for healing with medicine is not different from evidence for healing with prayer. This is where beliefs hit the road and people can (and do!!!) get hurt.

Also, let me add a big fat **** you for saying that I must prove to you that I am not who you say I am.

[PeterMP]

Let me stress this. Please use medicine and advocate that other people do too. Please do so even if you think that evidence for healing with medicine is not different from evidence for healing with prayer. This is where beliefs hit the road and people can (and do!!!) get hurt.

Also, let me add a big fat **** you for saying that I must prove to you that I am not who you say I am.

 

Let's consider two different possibilities:

 

1.  The assumptions of science hold

2.  The assumptions of science do not hold

 

Given 1, medicine is an effective way to treat diseases,  Prayer, AT LEAST, isn't nearly effective.

 

Given 2, medicine might not be an effective way to treat diseases.  I don't know.

Given 2, prayer might be an effective way to treat diseases.  I don't know.

 

Why wouldn't I take medicine?

 

I guess things get a little more complicated if I have evidence that the money to pay for the medicine will likely to have more "value" than the medicine in case 2, but I wouldn't claim that to be true either.

 

If case 1 is true, I'm good.  If case 2 is true, who knows, but it isn't like there is a possibility that I'd be sure of, and especially one that would be mutually exclusive with not taking medicine and praying.

[dchogs]

If there is a difference, somebody should be able to put up some real evidence that there is a difference.

And I just use the simulation to make the general point. I'm as happy to talk about the possibility that the universe is in some thermodynimcal non-minimal state that has a high degree of local kinetic stability (i.e. the state is unstable, but getting to a new state is slow for some reason).

But that it might change to another (more thermodynamically stable) state locally and/or globally quickly.

And there is evidence that things that we thought were constants might vary in a local manner consistent with local changes in the universe:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050512120842.htm

(and other possibilities)

If when you get on an airplane, thinking that there is a low probability that the plane won't crash because a bunch of planes didn't crash yesterday is a good way of thinking, then somebody should be able to rigorously defend that point.

Somebody should be able to say, I'm going to take into account these different possibilites and come up with at least some ball park figure of what the probability of a plane crashing today based on information from yesterday.

And here's how I'm going to do it.

Otherwise, a paradigm that says that sort of idea is different than many others is just word games.

You want to say you're different, then the burden of proof is on you.

Google gives two definitions for faith:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

antonyms: mistrust

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More

a system of religious belief.

plural noun: faiths

"the Christian faith"

Your Faith is definition 2. My faith in science is 1. That's the difference. No math needed.

You love flying examples, don't you! Glad I'm home for a while. People do kind of do on the spot probability analyses, though, don't they? If planes started dropping out of the sky on a regular baisis, people will stop flying. Different people have different risk tolerance and will determine the probability differently and act accordingly. Do I have to write down my methodology for everything I do and every decision I make, submit it to you for approval, and then finally be free of the labels, that you are putting on me and demand that I accept, without a lot of extra work that I don't have time for? All because you are defining all kinds of faith the same way, against common practice and common definition. Or do you have to prove that all faith is the same because that is the extraordinary claim?

Big F Faith is believing in something without proof. Little f faith is believing in something with proof. YOU should want there to be a difference in Faith and faith because it is what separates you from the ignorant heathens. Why elevate the godless and their actions to be just like the believers? In doing so, you're tarnishing your own belief system. Relish the difference. Faith is exceptional because you don't need proof to believe. Doesn't the Bible sneer at Doubting Thomas who needs to see the wounds of Jesus to believe? Why do you say "those wounds may have predicted a cruxifictuon in the past but doesn't prove anything now, so Thomas wasn't really Faithless?" It diminishes the Faithful to have Thomas in their company.

[alexey]

Peter,

I do not have any faith. I would not use the word faith to refer to myself, to explain any thoughts that I have, to ground my models of the world, or anything like that.

Everything I know could be wrong. I do not know whether I am "ultimately" correct about anything. I do not assume or believe that reality is real or that patterns will continue. I have no faith that they will.

I am simply acting according to the model of the world that my brain has built through genes and experiences. I am making no claims about this model being correct. I have no idea whether it will continue to work. I have no knowledge that it will and no faith that it will.

I am using the best and only tool at my disposal and I am using it without faith.

Do you think that I am wrong about myself? Do you think i have faith? Well, that simply means you do not understand me.

[dchogs]

Alexey,

i think you've created that position over time and over numerous defenses of your agnostic religious beliefs. i'm not saying that they are wrong, but you've been forced to think of those beliefs in such a way that they are consistent with your religious beliefs... largely due to debate.

personally, i have little f faith (definition 1 in my post above) that the sky will be blue tomorrow based on thousands of years of data of the sky being blue. i would wager serious sums of money with anyone taking the opposite side. and while i suppose there is a mathematical possibility that it might not be blue tomorrow and there is apparently some validity to the idea that someone could turn a dial on the simulation and change it to green, i would be seriously shocked to see it anything but blue. and living/working under the assumption that the sky will be blue, to me, doesn't mean that i'm big F Faithful or that i'm inconsistent.

[alexey]

dchogs,

Maybe it is due to debates... But also I have an interest (and a BS) in psychology. If there is something I learned, it has to do with all the numerous mistakes I can make and ways i can be wrong. It is humbling.

And so for me there is a bright red line between knowable and unknowable things. Wagering on the sky being blue or the pen dropping to the floor is in the realm of the knowable. In this realm probabilities make sense, and they are based on observations. Gods and simulations are in the realm of the unknowable, and probabilities either do not exist there, or they are based on speculations.

I think it is easy to confuse these two realms by using language - in the unknowable realm, possible is the same as "conceivable", while in the knowable realm possible is something that conforms to the current model of the world.

If we take "conceivable" stuff from the unknowable realm, and try to handle it like something knowable, we get mumbo jumbo. That is my understanding of what's happening here.

And after the unknowable is mixed with the knowable and forced down our throats, the next step is to transfer the burden of proof. The unknowable is already there, you see, and now we must use faith to affirmatively reject it.

[PeterMP]

Google gives two definitions for faith:

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

"this restores one's faith in politicians"

synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

antonyms: mistrust

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine More

a system of religious belief.

plural noun: faiths

"the Christian faith"

Your Faith is definition 2. My faith in science is 1. That's the difference. No math needed.

You love flying examples, don't you! Glad I'm home for a while. People do kind of do on the spot probability analyses, though, don't they? If planes started dropping out of the sky on a regular baisis, people will stop flying. Different people have different risk tolerance and will determine the probability differently and act accordingly. Do I have to write down my methodology for everything I do and every decision I make, submit it to you for approval, and then finally be free of the labels, that you are putting on me and demand that I accept, without a lot of extra work that I don't have time for? All because you are defining all kinds of faith the same way, against common practice and common definition. Or do you have to prove that all faith is the same because that is the extraordinary claim?

Big F Faith is believing in something without proof. Little f faith is believing in something with proof. YOU should want there to be a difference in Faith and faith because it is what separates you from the ignorant heathens. Why elevate the godless and their actions to be just like the believers? In doing so, you're tarnishing your own belief system. Relish the difference. Faith is exceptional because you don't need proof to believe. Doesn't the Bible sneer at Doubting Thomas who needs to see the wounds of Jesus to believe? Why do you say "those wounds may have predicted a cruxifictuon in the past but doesn't prove anything now, so Thomas wasn't really Faithless?" It diminishes the Faithful to have Thomas in their company.

 

I'm also not stating that all faith is equal.  A faith that some god exists is more reasonable/probable than the faith that a particular god exists.

 

**EDIT**

More directly to the conversation, I'm not even claiming they are the same.  I'm saying that there isn't good evidence they are different and without good evidence, they are different I don't see any reason to claim one is different.  That's basic science.  You want to claim they are different, that's on you.  I'm happy to say, I don't know if they are different. With respect to the probability that god exist and that the assumptions of science hold, I have two things that I know little about the probabilities of and do not know how they are related to one another.  I'm happy to make no statements about their values (other than I can't say they both are 0 or 1).**/EDIT**

 

Read your own post.  You complain about people putting lables on you, but then you put lables on everybody else.

 

"Big F Faith is believing in something without proof. Little f faith is believing in something with proof."

 

That's a label.  If I believe in a god, then I believe without proof.

 

(which is true, but it is still a label you are trying to force on others to make a distinction between them and yourself)

 

And I'll point out that if you have proof that the future is a good predictor of the past, then this debate would be over, and you would have responded with it in the other thread.

 

You are also misinterperting the the doubting Thomas story.  He had evidence.  He had the testimony of all of the apostles. We can argue over if that was good evidence or not, but it is certainly evidence in the same vain of people taking antibiotics because people tell them that they will make them better.

 

The story of doubting Thomas is broadly applicable to human life beyond religion in that at some level we must trust others.  We must accept things without absolute individual proof if we are going to be part of a larger human community.

Peter,

I do not have any faith. I would not use the word faith to refer to myself, to explain any thoughts that I have, to ground my models of the world, or anything like that.

Everything I know could be wrong. I do not know whether I am "ultimately" correct about anything. I do not assume or believe that reality is real or that patterns will continue. I have no faith that they will.

I am simply acting according to the model of the world that my brain has built through genes and experiences. I am making no claims about this model being correct. I have no idea whether it will continue to work. I have no knowledge that it will and no faith that it will.

I am using the best and only tool at my disposal and I am using it without faith.

Do you think that I am wrong about myself? Do you think i have faith? Well, that simply means you do not understand me.

 

Realistically, I'm not particularly interested in your individual beliefs, and I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong about your beliefs.

 

If you want to claim that you do not get on airplanes with a belief that there is a low probability that they will crash because they did not crash yesterday, I'm not going to tell you that you aren't right about yourself.

 

HOWEVER, the OP isn't about YOU.

 

AND it doesn't make that argument or distinction, and YOU did post it.

 

If you want to write your own essay on scientific knowledge and how we should use it without having a strong belief that the past is a good predictor of the future, then do so.

 

But that's not what the OP is.

[alexey]

Peter you are right, the article is not about me. It is about people who conflate different meanings of the word "faith". It is about you.

[PeterMP]

Peter you are right, the article is not about me. It is about people who conflate different meanings of the word "faith". It is about you.

 

Explain how they are different at the real rubber meets the road level.

 

Why should I believe the assumptions that underlie science are more likely to be true than god existing?

 

How are you taking into account things like this could be a simulation during the process?

 

If you can't say they are different, then why should I conclude that the "faith" required to believe in one vs. the other is different?

 

You, the OP, and dchogs want to claim they are different, the ball is in your court.

[PeterMP]

I do want to make a point that I've made before, but I want to be clear.

 

Either god exist or he does not.  Either the assumptions behind science are true or not- if we talk about binary choices.

 

The probability is 1 or 0.  I'm talking about what the evidence we have supports.

 

Some would argue, we know they are 0 or 1 so we should select one of the options.

 

In that case, I would be refering to the strength/quality of the prediction that is 1 (or 0, depending on what you choose) based on the evidence.

 

If you flipped a coin, but hid the result from me, and asked me whether it was heads or tails, I'd randomly select one.

 

But I wouldn't have greater than 50% probability that my choise was correct and so wouldn't have greater than 50% confidence that I made the proper selection.

[dchogs]

**EDIT**

More directly to the conversation, I'm not even claiming they are the same. I'm saying that there isn't good evidence they are different and without good evidence, they are different I don't see any reason to claim one is different.

so, they are not the same. but they are not different. gotcha.

You want to claim they are different, that's on you.

that's just untrue. the common definition has them listed as two separate things. you are creating new definitions based on highly theoretical science and using PhD level debate tricks. granted the author of the piece is being a little disingenuous and plays word games, but you're really doing the same thing on the other side. pointing at the article's author and crying "but he did it first" shouldn't fly and is really beneath you.

I'm happy to say, I don't know if they are different. With respect to the probability that god exist and that the assumptions of science hold, I have two things that I know little about the probabilities of and do not know how they are related to one another. I'm happy to make no statements about their values (other than I can't say they both are 0 or 1).

As a Christian, are you really saying that your belief in God lies somewhere between 0 and 1? I honestly forget and don't want to mix you up with someone else here, but you're a college-level scientist, right? if not, disregard. if so, why do we even bother with science if the reality of our world is that the assumptions of science aren't likely to hold true?

Read your own post. You complain about people putting lables on you, but then you put lables on everybody else.

"Big F Faith is believing in something without proof. Little f faith is believing in something with proof."

That's a label. If I believe in a god, then I believe without proof.

(which is true, but it is still a label you are trying to force on others to make a distinction between them and yourself)

come on. you are really trying too hard here. belief without proof is the very definition the Bible gives to faith; the dictionary give the same definition to the religious version of faith. i didn't come up with that myself, and certainly not to make a distinction. if such a distinction exists, it comes from somewhere else.

"faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see."

"we live by faith, not by sight."

"Though you have not seen him, you love him; and even though you do not see him now, you believe in him and are filled with an inexpressible and glorious joy, for you are receiving the goal of your faith, the salvation of your souls."

"Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

those are not words that i wrote. seems that the Bible is also putting the same big, bad label on you religious folks that i am.

And I'll point out that if you have proof that the future is a good predictor of the past, then this debate would be over, and you would have responded with it in the other thread.

1. i'm including this because your mistake made me chuckle. i know what you mean, though.

2. it may not be a perfect predictor, but it is a pretty good place to start. one can't invalidate everything that happened in the past and start each day at zero knowledge or understanding of the world. if we did, we would be cold cavemen hanging out in the cave wondering how to make a fire.

You are also misinterperting the the doubting Thomas story. He had evidence. He had the testimony of all of the apostles. We can argue over if that was good evidence or not, but it is certainly evidence in the same vain of people taking antibiotics because people tell them that they will make them better.

i certainly may be, but why does the Bible then have Jesus say "blessed are those that haven't seen and yet believe?" also, i only take antibiotics when a DOCTOR tells me to take them and hope that's what other do too. do you really only take medicine as a version of Pascal's wager? i take some advil when i have a headache. it's worked in the past and made my pain go away. next time i have a headache, i shouldn't take advil because there's a mathematical theory that says the probability of the past predicting the future isn't 1? what the hell should i do when my head hurts?

you are standing on your head to make a point that doesn't need to be made. atheists and agnostics shouldn't feel the need to not have little f faith in anything for the sole reason of being consistent with their lack of religious big F Faith. similarly, religious folks shouldn't try to equate big F Faith and little f faith when they are such different things (as commonly understood, and as defined in the dictionary).

[dchogs]

1. Explain how they are different at the real rubber meets the road level.

2. Why should I believe the assumptions that underlie science are more likely to be true than god existing?

3. How are you taking into account things like this could be a simulation during the process?

If you can't say they are different, then why should I conclude that the "faith" required to believe in one vs. the other is different?

4. You, the OP, and dchogs want to claim they are different, the ball is in your court.

1. Faith = belief in without proof; faith = belief in something based on knowledge or experience.

2. Because the nature of science is that it changes as knowledge changes. We can discard a disproved theory and move forward with a new one. science can evolve, belief in god cannot.

3. i'm not. it is a theoretical, philosophical exercise.

4. the common usage has multiple meanings for the word faith. you are making the contrary claim that all faith is the same. the burden isn't on us.

[PeterMP]

I've deleted a whole bunch of text here because I want one thing to stand out (the post below).

[PeterMP]

THIS Is what I want to stand out:

Here was my question:

"2. Why should I believe the assumptions that underlie science are more likely to be true than god existing?"

 

2. Because the nature of science is that it changes as knowledge changes. We can discard a disproved theory and move forward with a new one. science can evolve, belief in god cannot.

You're looking at at the wrong level. That's at the level of the science and yes that's true.

BUT that assumes the assumptions that underlie the science are right, and science can't test the assumptions that underlie it.

If I assume A and based on that assumption demonstarte that B is likely, and then demonstrate C is likely, and then demonstrate that D is likely.

And then find new evidence that suggest D is not likely and change my conclusion to D is not likely.

NONE of that is evidence that the underlying assumption (A) is true!

The nature of the underlieing assumptions NEVER changes or it isn't science.

(I really do not understand how you can read this thread and not get this. Science corrects itself in the context of the underlying assumption being true. That is not evidence that the underlying assumption is true.)

THE SELF-CORRECTION PROCESSES RELATED TO SCIENCE DO NOT CORRECT FOR ISSUES WITH THE UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS!!!

THEY HAPPEN ONLY IN THE CONTEXT THAT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS ARE TRUE!!

[PeterMP]

delted post.

[dchogs]

well, ****.

those other comments were good too, Peter.

i understand the basic premise of what you've written. i've either missed it in this thread somehow, or it was in another thread that carried over via your debate history with alexey, but what are the basic assumptions of science, and which are not true?

to your other points (they are still up on my ipad... i tried responding on it and it was a cluster. went to my laptop only to see your edits):

1. same/different- gotcha. should have know you were using the more correct definitions- i read it simply, incorrectly.

2. it isn't the dictionary definition, per se. it is how people use the word differently. maybe it comes from the same place, which is likely why alexey has insulated himself in his debates with you to being a man of absolutely no faith. (no offense meant, alexey, and no judgement).

3. if the assumptions behind science are incorrect and render the act of science invalid, why do you do it? are you just a scientific mercenary? no snark intended. how can you like doing something (as a smart guy that could do many other interesting things) that is inherently incorrect and flawed? if you really feel that way, your profession cannot be very fulfilling. you don't have to answer, of course, as this is a pretty personal question.

4. I see evidence in what i have learned and what i observe in the natural world around me. i have not seen evidence to the contrary. i have also not seen evidence that leads me to believe in religion. "we live by faith, not by sight" refers to believe without evidence, as does "being certain (probability of 1?) of what we do not see." those are labels created by the Bible, not me. Christians celebrate the difference as something that makes them special and different from non-believers. I may not be religious, but i've heard this message in churches and youth groups for the bulk of my life. "they don't have Faith" was said in a sad and superior/paternalistic tone.

5. i have to go back and try to digest sOcrates posts. there seemed to be background there that i didn't have, so i skipped over his posts and your replies.

6. Jesus did not say that those that believe based on evidence are better off. he just didn't. in the quoted passage and in the others, the Bible repeatedly uses sight (see, seen, sight) as a metaphor for evidence. they (the early church) held THAT up as the ideal the people should strive for. the fact that people needed the stories to help them believe isn't surprising, is it? "oh you crazy kids, you shouldn't need evidence, but since you do, here's a story..."

7. the doctor. not infallible, of course. folks get second opinions for a reason. there are legitimate malpractice suits where they have made mistakes. but i can't do the tests or read the results, so a certain amount of trust (faith) has to be placed in their taking of the Hippocratic Oath. i'm honestly not certain it applies to "do no harm to my wallet," as i was just seriously questioning the medical billing just received from our dentist. i know you advocate the taking of medicine, but you do so in the same way Pascal advocated for believing in God. or am i misreading your response?

8. they are different, and not just in the dictionary. to take proof, and its absolute, off the table, i have not encountered evidence that God exists. i have encountered evidence that science explains the world around me. i imagine we'll get more into this when you answer my assumption question. i just hope it isn't the "science is naturally occurring" assumption because that will just be a circular argument involving religious Faith or some mythical and hypothetical simulator that cannot be disproved (and, hell, is there a difference between the two there?).

9. i discount the simulator/simulation exercise as something that really smart people are investigating on a theoretical level. what if the simulator itself is in a simulation and the knobs that he is turning don't have any effect on us in his simulation? smarter people than i might find devoting a couple of years worth of funding to splashing around in that metaphysical wading pool, but at the end of it all, they are not going to be able to prove it (of course) one way or another, and i have no idea what kind of evidence could support or not support such a thing. until Neo comes and offers me the red pill (yes, i had to look that up) and shows me the proof/evidence first hand, what choice do we have but play the hand we are dealt? if life is a simulation and the laws of nature can be toyed with at some beings will, why bother with much of anything? I will say, that folks once believed that we were the playthings of the gods and used that belief to describe the occurrences of this world. science later explained those phenomena and we look back at those quaint romans and greeks and their silly (but cool) stories. how sneaky of the simulator to pull a double cross... show us the truth and then give us the evidence to disprove it.

overall, i'm not going to change your mind, Peter (i'd guess a number much closer to 0 than 1 if you want to avoid the absolutes of the masses). you are not going to change mine (same probability as you-ish). from what i've always seen, you're a respectful debater, else i wouldn't even be here, and i respect your opinion and don't think less of you for it. i don't find "faith" or "Faith" to be the slur that the OP's author does but i do see the distinction. you don't, and that's fine. maybe we're both using and assigning each other labels, when we get right down to it. you're "offended" (either really offended or intellectually offended) that i'm drawing a distinction that you don't see, and i'm offended (intellectually offended) at being lumped in with the nutters that had Faith that they were going to be whisked up by their alien overlords, hightops and all (enough Faith to die for their beliefs). and hell, we can't disprove that they were wrong and weren't taken out of the simulation by their suicide to live a life of extra-simulation luxury being served by hotties in hightops.

i have to go to bed, though this definitely helped keep me up in a very jetlagged state. much closer, now, to my natural cycle (if one is to believe in circadian rhythms and all... i kid, i kid (kind of)).

[s0crates]

I'll try a slightly different, though related, tactic here.

Is the belief in fate (as in God's plan) really so much different from the belief in causal determinism (that like causes produce like effects such that we can predict the future)? Both assume order (either God's or nature's).

I have a hunch that science is really an evolution of religious belief. I think we had to believe in fate and order before we could believe in understanding that order. We had to believe in divine laws before we could believe in natural laws.

Now if religion is an ancestor of science, we might say science is derived from religion. It begins with faith. We might also say science has gone beyond religion (in the same way a new species goes beyond its ancestors). It is a new adaptation of an old belief system.

The adaptation of science from religion is in what counts as an authority. In religion the authority is a book or a sage figure, in science the authority is experience. This was a major revolution in thought that has rid us of much dogma, superstition, and oppression (to say nothing of the technological advances like antibiotics).

Yet it is important to remember that fate and divine law are not that far from determinism and natural law, no more than we are that far from apes. You have to be dogmatic before you can be scientific. Consider it.

[s0crates]

Sorry for the slow reply on this alexey, better late than never I suppose.

I am still uncomfortable with calling it an "assumption".

I think that I made a good point earlier that we should not generalize metaphysics of individual people onto the whole enterprise.

Some people may have faith.

Some people may assume.

Some people may accept the premise.

. . .

faith - this is the end of the world

assume - i did not realize this could happen

premise - looks like my premise does not hold, i need to re-evaluate my model of the world

This is a slightly unusual use of the terms, as we typically talk of assuming our premises, but I see the point you wish to make.

Essentially you are saying you will assume the future will resemble the past until proven otherwise. I think that is a fair point, very in line with empirical thinking.

That sort of belief, let us call it hypothetical, is certainly different from the way you define faith, as something superstitious and silly

I'm not sure how much any of these distinctions get to the root of the issue though. I still want to push that what is observed is somehow revealed or given, call it what you like.

When discussing possibilities of simulations within simulations within simulations, I think we hit the limit of usefulness before we hit the limit of computational capacity.

I had a good chuckle at that.

[s0crates]

i understand the basic premise of what you've written. i've either missed it in this thread somehow, or it was in another thread that carried over via your debate history with alexey, but what are the basic assumptions of science, and which are not true?

The fundamental assumption of empirical science is basically one, and we can put it several ways:

Like causes will produce like effects such that we can make predictions.

OR

The universe is governed by laws (or law-like in its patterns) such that we can understand it.

OR, most simply:

The future will resemble the past.

The question is how do you know the future will resemble the past? It seems the only answer is that the past resembled the past, but that just begs the question.

This is the point where empirical science becomes self referential.

5. i have to go back and try to digest sOcrates posts. there seemed to be background there that i didn't have, so i skipped over his posts and your replies.

I hope my more recent posts save you the trouble, although I may have explained it better at another time.

[Special K]

Whelp, I don't know about anyone else, but I've thoroughly enjoyed reading through the semantics argument ass-whooping delivered by PeterMP in this thread.  

[Burgold]

Just curious, I wonder if the argument changes if we use other articles of faith.

 

Instead of God, what about faith in your country, faith in your team, faith in your children?  Are those equally dangerous/misguided/bad?

 

Empirical evidence suggests that none of us should be Redskins' fans.  Looking back at their history all the way back through the Sammy Baugh era, you likely will find a losing team much more often than a winner.  Why support your team?  Why believe they have a chance on any given Sunday?  Why invest your time, hope, passion money?  If you truly are a person who believes in logic and knowledge... how can you have faith/believe in any sports team?

 

Same with your children.  Is it foolish to have faith to do the right things in life or in a given situation?  You don't have knowledge that they will.  You have some qualitative and quantitative evidence about what they are like outside of your presence via report cards, teacher reports, etc. but there are any number of variables in play that you have no knowledge of or control over.

[alexey]

Explain how they are different at the real rubber meets the road level.

Before we go there, do you accept that the word "faith" has different meanings?

Why should I believe the assumptions that underlie science are more likely to be true than god existing?

Neither belief is necessary.

How are you taking into account things like this could be a simulation during the process?

I acknowledge them, but take no stance on their probability.

If you can't say they are different, then why should I conclude that the "faith" required to believe in one vs. the other is different?

Do you accept that the word "faith" has different meanings?

[alexey]

Just curious, I wonder if the argument changes if we use other articles of faith.

 

Instead of God, what about faith in your country, faith in your team, faith in your children?  Are those equally dangerous/misguided/bad? 

...

Same with your children.  Is it foolish to have faith to do the right things in life or in a given situation?  You don't have knowledge that they will.  You have some qualitative and quantitative evidence about what they are like outside of your presence via report cards, teacher reports, etc. but there are any number of variables in play that you have no knowledge of or control over.

I love my country but I have no idea what you mean to have "faith in country"...

My view is that we can act without knowledge and without faith. I think it would be incorrect to say that we are using faith whenever we act without knowledge.

[alexey]

Peter,

Let me add another question, hopefully it will not prevent you from answering my previous post.

If we are talking about faith that the future will resemble the past,

are trees required to have it?

are insects required to have it?

are dogs required to have it?

are people required have it?

at what point of our evolutionary history did we acquire this requirement?

[PeterMP]

Before we go there, do you accept that the word "faith" has different meanings?

Neither belief is necessary.

I acknowledge them, but take no stance on their probability.

Do you accept that the word "faith" has different meanings?

 

I acknowledge that the dictionary has a separate line for a faith in god vs. other types of faith.

 

That they are on separate lines though has nothing to do with the quality of the evidence supporting a belief in god vs. the assumptions that science is based on.

 

The different definitions have no real bearing on whether one is more likely to be true than the other, unless the definition is probability based, which it isn't.

 

I also acknowledge that people will consider different evidence with different strengths if the evidence is very subjective in nature as it is here and therefore some people will look at the evidence and say this is good evidence and I don't really need (much) faith and other people will look at the evidence and say that isn't really good evidence and you do faith (and I made this point earlier in the thread to dchogs).

 

Realistically, alexey if you are going to say that you do not wish to claim that science is more likely to be true (partly because of issues with knowing if the underlying assumptions are true) than the exsistence of god, then I don't have an issue with you at that level.

 

There really is nothing else for us to talk about on this particular topic.  In fact, I'd say we are in agreement.

 

But that wasn't the point of the OP.  The point of the OP was to at least suggest the evidence supporting one belief was greater than the other.