Science is entirely based on faith

[Anfauglir]

However, when the situation that we are in is recognised, it does require a little humility.  If another cell, or another ant, or another human starts to question the nature of its reality and see if any bigger insights can be gleaned, it is not right to tell him to shut up and conform.  It's not right to tell him to be satisfied with his senses and not to question.

Quite right!  When the little cell says "hey, maybe there is more!" we should indeed tilt our head sideways and say "interesting idea - do you have one shred of evidence for it?  Can you coherentl describewhat the heck you mean?"

And if those two questions repeatedly go unanswered, but the little cell still insists there is more, THEN it is reasonable to tell him o shut up until he is able to come back with an answer.

Otherwise, I might say "hey!  I bet we are all just imaginary characters created by the thoughts of 8th dimensional beings in their after-work role-playing game!", and expect the idea to be given as much credence and respect as the "idea" of the physical universe.....

[Skinz]

Conforming to sense perception as if it was the sole guide to the nature of true reality should not be considered best practice nor must it be the default position.

We can make a hypothesis, but if we can't test it with sense perception, it's just an interesting idea.

Though I guess it all depends what you mean by sense perception. If you mean touch, taste, smell etc. exclusively, Then I agree. But we've had microscopes and telescopes for a long time now, to extend our sight. The chemical labs in our nose aren't up to sniffing out the different elements on the periodic table, but we have chemistry, and so on.

My point is that technology is our way of extending our senses. Do I think we should scoff at any idea outside of current scientific consensus? No way. We would, as a species, stagnate. But should we rewrite our understanding of the laws of the universe because some very smart people tell us it is made out of tiny strings and shifting chaos? Until our extended senses positively perceive it, hell no. I do not believe the shifty clothiers and their tales of silk spun too fine to see, and I'll be damned if I'm walking around naked.

[Seppuku]

One of the key underlying assumptions of science is that human sense perception is able to accurately detect the nature of reality.  Where devices are used to confirm or enhance human perception (eg camera, thermometer, computer, geiger counter... and many others) then human sense perception is still required to confirm those device's results.

This underlying assumption itself cannot be tested by science because it must first be assumed before science can begin.


This leads to a couple of necessary conclusions which are very significant:

- Science is entirely based on faith.  (ie faith in the underlying assumptions of science)

- To the extent that Atheism relies on science (as the only reliable source of truth) it is thus also entirely faith based.

However science produces useable results. It is able to back itself up with lots and lots and lots of tests for validity, there are limitations and science makes a certain number of assumptions, generally science will accept the explanations that make the fewest assumptions, this is a principle called Occam's Razor. And of course, they're accepted if there's enough evidence to support it. In regards to how we measure science and human perception. Yes, we do rely on the idea that the data we receive is accurate and we assume the reality we experience through our senses are accurate. Of course, we could all live in the Matrix and our would could be a lie, it could be like Plato's allegory of the cave. The problem with unknowns is that they're unknown, this is why we use the scientific method, we can measure the data we have, we can build and build on that data and learn more and more about the environment. I would not say individual perception gets in the way, as for anything to become a theory, it is tested and tested and tested and not all by one person. Scientists try to avoid individual bias by having such a rigorous process.

Whilst I understand science does not have a perfect assessment of the way things work, but there is a high degree of accuracy, we can tell things because of the results it has produced. Without our scientific understanding things like modern medicine, space travel, GPS, computers and various things we rely on in our day-to-day lives. To my mind, science isn't entirely based on faith, whilst I'll admit there is a certain amount of faith, as I know the scientific process, I myself have not analysed the data nor do I have a PHD in any of the sciences - so I am relying on the scientific community to stick to the scientific process. Would you say the procedure for successfully completing brain surgery is completely based on faith? No, the procedure is a result of years of medical science. To say science is faith based is an over simplification and one that's seemingly based on ideas related to Plato's allegory of the cave, the idea that the reality we see is not necessarily the reality that's out there and pretty much creates the argument, "everything is faith".

For that reason, you may wish to call empiricism 'faith-based' on any imaginary scenarios where our senses are unreliable, but this is seemingly an attempt to try and devalue the scientific approach to put it on the same level as anything that's 'faith' based, like religion. Science has so much more to offer to back itself.

Also, two things about atheism. One, it's not capitalised, it's 'atheism' not 'Atheism', just as 'theism' is not 'Theism'. One is an abstract noun, whilst the other is a proper noun, 'atheism' is a lack of belief in any deities, 'Atheism' implies the name of an organisation or group of people united by common ideals, like 'Christianity' or 'Marxism'. The reason I feel the need to point that out leads into point 2. People tend to think of atheism as a group or organisation of people united by common ideals, which includes disbelief in deities, science, Evolution, criticism of religion and humanism. Atheism is no way relies on science, this is a misconception. Many atheists may rely on science, but this is not the same thing, many Christians do too...even the ones not willing to admit it. 'Atheism' is not the name of something, it merely describes a quality in a person.

Atheism is the lack of belief in any deities, nothing else. Hence many Buddhists are considered atheists, as Buddhism is a religion without a deity, theistic Buddhist either deify Buddha or belief in the god(s) of another religion. Siddartha Gautama was a Hindu, hence the Hindu gods are sometimes acquired, but it is by no means a part of the Buddhist religion.

[jaimehlers]

To my mind, science isn't entirely based on faith, whilst I'll admit there is a certain amount of faith, as I know the scientific process, I myself have not analysed the data nor do I have a PHD in any of the sciences - so I am relying on the scientific community to stick to the scientific process. Would you say the procedure for successfully completing brain surgery is completely based on faith? No, the procedure is a result of years of medical science. To say science is faith based is an over simplification and one that's seemingly based on ideas related to Plato's allegory of the cave, the idea that the reality we see is not necessarily the reality that's out there and pretty much creates the argument, "everything is faith".

I suppose you could consider it the kind of 'faith' where you trust what other people have been studying.  You trust that they know what they're talking about, even though you aren't very knowledgeable about that field; if you studied it, you would understand it given enough time.

But religious faith is different than that.  While it's superficially similar (religious believers trust what their leaders say even though they don't understand it themselves), the leaders can't base what they say on provable facts, but have to use their own subjective opinions.  They can't deal well with constant questioning; they have trouble tolerating dissension and varying beliefs; and it's all too easy for them to whip their followers into a tizzy because "God says".  Science as we use it avoids all three of those traps; it's based on constant questioning, it requires dissension in order to keep moving forward, and people who understand science aren't likely to let themselves get whipped into a frenzy based on someone's opinions.

[Seppuku]

Aye, they are different. One dedicates their life to using the scientific process to learn about the world and apply their findings and scrutinise the crap out of them, whilst the other is interpreting from ancient scripture and attempting to apply it. However, I'll generally go for the option that has the most evidence and the fewest assumptions. With religion, it requires you to make many assumptions based on religious faith and not base them on knowledge. Religion is all about faith and as a result I tend to respect the religious who defend themselves by saying "I don't know, I just have faith that it's so" than those who try to convince me what they believe is provable or measureable fact and attempt to show me using logic games and pseudo science. Whilst I think the former is wrong and maybe thing it's a bit a silly, but I feel that it is a lot more honest than the latter, the latter is somebody more interested in convincing me than their own beliefs, or heck may have lied to themselves enough that they themselves believe it.

[ParkingPlaces]

It is faith that is based on faith, not science. That every religion requires it should make it even more obvious that the whole concept of religion is a scam, but instead we get a whole bunch of people who believe fervently that their religion is obviously true while all other religions are obviously false. With nothing more to show for their assumptions that, well, you know, faith.


I heard yesterday that both HP and Samsung are working on a new type of electronics circuit (called a memristor) that will, within the next five years, make it possible to store one petabyte of data on a chip less than 1cm^2. Plus, while some of that chip is retained as memory, if more processing power is required, part of it can be instantly transformed into a CPU, or video ram, or any other circuit needed by the computer to do its job. Using less power than todays computers, and the chip will be able to store the data and other configurations for periods of time measured on geologic rather than normal electronic time scales. None of this is relevant to the discussion in any way other than a) faith be damned, current progress predicts this outcome, b) while I understand that there may be unforeseen roadblocks that make this level of progress (including a 100 fold increase in computer processing power) difficult or impossible, I trust that there is a pretty good chance of this outcome actually happening and c) in the meantime, I don't have to believe silly stories or hope that absurd sounding crap isn't actually absurd.


No, science is exciting and useful and exhilarating and gives me cause to be optimistic about the future. Religion? Not so much.


Science doesn't require faith. It is too busy doing stuff. It is not amenable to having outdated limits foisted on its ideas


But religion can fuck up the world all it wants, as long as it leaves reality out of the equation.

[Dominic]

Just a bit more clarification.  I'm not trying to have the last word -

I am not introducing a secret invisible world about which we know nothing.  I am equating the concept of 'spiritual world' with consciousness.  Everyone knows consciousness.  (Although there is plenty of debate about what it actually is.)

Apart from anything else it would fit with Ockham's Razor to equate the two.

But the main idea that I am introducing is that the physical world may be a subset of consciousness rather than consciousness being a subset of the physical world.

And if you think about these two alternatives you will sooner or later realise that science cannot solve this problem (ie whether the physical world or consciousness has primacy).  The reason for this is because science must either ASSUME that the physical world has primacy before the process of science even begins or IGNORE consciousness altogether.

Recognise also that I am not attacking science.  Science is essential within the physical realm where it applies.

For people who are more visual than auditory -


Here is the 'Primacy of matter' physical paradigm -
 ________________________
|                                           |
|        Physical world               |
|    _______________            |
|   |                           |           |
|   |   Consciousness   |           |
|   |_______________|          |
|                                           |
|________________________|


and here is the 'Primacy of consciousness' paradigm -
 ________________________
|                                           |
| Consciousness/Spirit/Soul     |
|    _______________            |
|   |                           |          |
|   |  Physical world     |          |
|   |_______________|          |
|                                           |
|________________________|


In each model the inner 'world' is a subset of the outer 'world'.

They looked much neater in Notepad :-(

[JeffPT]

Until you can prove that consciousness can exist without a physical brain, then acknowledging that consciousness is directly related to a physical brain is the most logical stance.  We have billions of examples of conscious people with brains.  We also have people with brain injuries that directly affect consciousness.  We have chemicals that can affect consciousness. There is no reason to jump to the conclusion that the physical world is unrelated to consciousness.

Consciousness could simply be a function of neurological complexity in a functioning brain. 

[3sigma]

I am not introducing a secret invisible world about which we know nothing.  I am equating the concept of 'spiritual world' with consciousness.

In that case, why bother? Why introduce another name for consciousness when that other name does nothing to improve our understanding and only serves to confuse the issue with a vague and ill-defined concept? What is the point? Is there any solid evidence that this “spiritual world” exists? If you can’t give us any solid evidence then please stop trying to equate it with anything real.

[Dominic]

Until you can prove that consciousness can exist without a physical brain,

Can you prove that a physical brain can exist without consciousness ?

And by consciousness I mean a conscious observer of that brain.

We are both in a similar boat when trying to 'prove' either paradigm.


[post number 666.  if I don't post again then you can assume that the dark side has won  ]

[William]

....I am equating the concept of 'spiritual world' with consciousness.  Everyone knows consciousness.  (Although there is plenty of debate about what it actually is.)

Apart from anything else it would fit with Ockham's Razor to equate the two.

Ockham's Razor!!!!!  You're kidding yourself mate

The MUCH simpler alternative is that the 'spiritual world' does not exist, except as a delusion. 

[keeta]

just by reading this subject line, i know we have some crack smokers in the room...

[ParkingPlaces]

Until you can prove that consciousness can exist without a physical brain,

Can you prove that a physical brain can exist without consciousness ?

And by consciousness I mean a conscious observer of that brain.

We are both in a similar boat when trying to 'prove' either paradigm.


[post number 666.  if I don't post again then you can assume that the dark side has won  ]

Well, I remember back when I didn't have a physical brain. I had no consciousness.


Once born, I had one, and I was. Conscious, that is.


I think you're being silly, but if you can link to some great thinkers that agree with you, I'd love to see their take.

[Dominic]

just by reading this subject line, i know we have some crack smokers in the room...

I've never used any drugs¹, or even smoked.  From what I've heard, I'm probably missing out.  Religious mystics and NDE experiencers report some similar experiences to those who take certain drugs.  I would suggest that all 3 groups have let go at least temporarily of the artificial constraints of a material/physical paradigm.

Keeta, the OP is quite short.  Would you like to read it and just make a brief comment.  All perspectives are welcome.


^{1. Other than vitamins, Aspirin and a few mild ones occasionally prescribed by a GP}

[Seppuku]

You can measure brain activity when people are thinking, whilst there's still a lot of research needed to work out precisely how the brain works. Also, when a person is brain damaged, how they think, how they perceive things and heck even their personality can be affected - there can be behavioural changes when brain damage is involved. It can also affect a person's intelligence. If our 'consciousness' really is separate from the physical world, then the physical world shouldn't be able to affect it. And we shouldn't be able to measure our thoughts in our brain. To assume our conscious comes through our brain takes fewer assumptions than assuming there's an external consciousness, because we can see a relationship between the brain and consciousness, but see nothing to suggest an external conscious.

[keeta]

You can measure brain activity when people are thinking, whilst there's still a lot of research needed to work out precisely how the brain works. Also, when a person is brain damaged, how they think, how they perceive things and heck even their personality can be affected - there can be behavioural changes when brain damage is involved. It can also affect a person's intelligence.

you have no idea seppuku...it changes everything.
alrighty dominic, reality is relative. my reality may not be your reality. and your reality isn't my reality, even though we co-exist on this big marble in the sky..even if we were right next to each other, we all have our own reality, though we may share a common experience.
this coming from a girl with a brain injury. that's my reality.

[Skinz]

Current science suggests no separate ethereal force being in relation to the individual, key word being current. Who knows what tomorrow may bring?

Personally, I think the idea of a separate mind/Id/Logos or however it may be described, is simply the meatsack's way of mentally escaping their meatsackery. It's ego wishfully overstepping reality.

The thing to recognize is that there is no shame or degradation in being a meatsack. We are amazing biological machines, the product of billions of years of mutation and death, with massive brains to accommodate all the data that won't fit into our DNA. With those massive brains, we can actually contemplate those millions of years of mutation and death, we can think about what tomorrow may bring in far, far more complex terms than food and sleep and sex, we can store the scores of orchestras for our enjoyment, and we can design logical traps for our fellow meatsacks. I personally think that the potential presented by humanity is far more astonishing and awe inspiring than the concept of an intelligent creation event.


EDIT: I have taken many hallucinogens and their Friends, and I've had some amazing experiences that made me wonder about our generally agreed upon version of reality. I've read minds, I've taken intense visual journeys through different spectrums of energy, I've felt the power of all the universe concentrated in my tingling fingertips... And I, the addled experiencee, believe 100% that it can all be explained by biochemical reactions. I would be willing to take them all again while hooked up to an EEG, if you're paying

[Bagheera]

One of the key underlying assumptions of science is that human sense perception is able to accurately detect the nature of reality.  Where devices are used to confirm or enhance human perception (eg camera, thermometer, computer, geiger counter... and many others) then human sense perception is still required to confirm those device's results.

This underlying assumption itself cannot be tested by science because it must first be assumed before science can begin.


This leads to a couple of necessary conclusions which are very significant:

- Science is entirely based on faith.  (ie faith in the underlying assumptions of science)

- To the extent that Atheism relies on science (as the only reliable source of truth) it is thus also entirely faith based.

That's just silly. The key underlying assumption for every living thing is that sensory input is the only legitimate basis for interacting with the universe. And that is what it is; a base. What you do with that base is what separates "science" from just making stuff up.

Science applies reason and logic to that sensory input in an effort to determine  the qualities of the universe at large that we experience through our limited suite of senses. Religion doesn't care about that, only "[insert text or tradition] promises that I get to live forever".

Philosophers: people who will argue ad nauseum about the existence of a ham sandwich but will still eat it when get hungry.

[Bagheera]

Well, I remember back when I didn't have a physical brain. I had no consciousness.

Once born, I had one, and I was. Conscious, that is.

I think you're being silly, but if you can link to some great thinkers that agree with you, I'd love to see their take.

Well, technically, you don't remember when you didn't have a physical brain. You can, however, imagine that you remember back when you didn't have a brain.

In fact, I suppose when it comes right down to it, imagining that you remember something can actually create a memory of that something, and I guess from a personal perspective, a memory of that imagined something is the same as a memory of something real.

Which is why I don't trust half of what people tell me about how they remember dreaming about grandma's death right before it happened, or how they remembered seeing a ghost walk right through their wall when they woke up, or how that black  looks just like the guy that stole their car with their kids in it. . .

[Bagheera]

PP,

I'm not saying that the same level of faith is reqd for science and religion.  And I'm not saying that all claims have equal validity.

But I do want to burst the bubble of those who think they have taken some royal high road by accepting science while rejecting all religion.  Those people have simply made a faith based decision.

I call bullocks.

One can make a decision based on a discipline which produces results and verifiable predictions,  versus that which does not.

Although I appreciate the place of pure philosophy, it has limitations, in that it also requires one to accept an a priori a set of conditions its adherents must accept, making it no more reliable than science or religion.

And I'm not saying that all claims have equal validity.

Why even entertain the discussion then? "We are all characters in a comic book being written by a character in the Marvel Universe" is a claim that is pretty audacious to make, especially if I add to that ". . . and there's no way to prove it." Some claims are more valid than others. Let's stop there until a different claim can establish its 'better' validity.

[Bagheera]

If the question is raised of whether they are in fact simply dreaming, imagining, being tricked, in a matrix etc then the only defence is 'I don't believe it' - pure faith.  Nothing but faith.

Interesting. I watched 'Total Recall' the other day (the unnecessary Colin Farrell remake). At the end of it, I was struck by the thought that I might be a superhero who is in reality being mind-controlled by Mastermind, an X-Man villain. See, the interesting thing about Mastermind is that he can basically shape your memories and perception any way he wants. I have been thinking for the longest time that these suicidal thoughts I've been having are really Professor X trying to connect with me, letting me know that only by terminating myself in this reality will I be able to wake up,  escape this psychic prison and go back to the X-Mansion where I belong.

Thank you.  You let me know that there's really no reason to continue being trapped here in this nightmarish existence that's been fabricated for me when all this time my true powers were only a ritual suicide away.

[Bagheera]

Conforming to sense perception as if it was the sole guide to the nature of true reality should not be considered best practice nor must it be the default position.

It is the best guide to the nature of true reality. It is the best practice. And it should be the default position.

If you can provide a practical way of supplanting these statements without using any of your senses to do so, I am willing to entertain. I will not however be able to act on it, because that would require not using my senses.

[Dominic]

You can measure brain activity when people are thinking, whilst there's still a lot of research needed to work out precisely how the brain works. Also, when a person is brain damaged, how they think, how they perceive things and heck even their personality can be affected - there can be behavioural changes when brain damage is involved. It can also affect a person's intelligence.

you have no idea seppuku...it changes everything.
alrighty dominic, reality is relative. my reality may not be your reality. and your reality isn't my reality, even though we co-exist on this big marble in the sky..even if we were right next to each other, we all have our own reality, though we may share a common experience.
this coming from a girl with a brain injury. that's my reality.

You sound as sensible and normal as all the other people on these forums.  Hope that's a compliment

[Anfauglir]

Until you can prove that consciousness can exist without a physical brain,

Can you prove that a physical brain can exist without consciousness ?

And by consciousness I mean a conscious observer of that brain.

We are both in a similar boat when trying to 'prove' either paradigm.

Yeah, I get this - it IS a solipsistic position where we are unable to progress beyond step 1 to determine whether the physical, or consciousness (or 8D roleplaying puppet) paradigm is the one we can use.

So we come back to the question of whether we can consistently define the paradigms, and whether we as individuals experience specific, predictable, and measurable results when we attempt to live as if that paradigm were true.

For example: if I really believed that the consciousness universe were the true paradigm, then potentially it would be possible - by "force of will" - for my brain to override the "physical laws" that spring from consciousness and - lets say - cause a pen to fall upwards when dropped.

Silly example?  Maybe.  But is there ANY way in which - if I attempted to live as if physical was an illusion derived from consciousness - I would NOT experience exactly the same results that would be expected from a life in the physical paradigm?

Now if there is....let's hear it!  But if there is not....then sure.  We may be one paradigm, we may be another.  But if the RESULTS are identical either way, then (like I said) who gives a damn?  And, indeed, why bother with naming them at all?

The only conflict comes when one side or other says "here is something that can ONLY work if MY side of the argument is stronger" - such as where a person claims there is a god outside of the physical universe.  But to make that claim, they must perforce be able to give details of a test (from either paradigm) that supports their contention.  The fact that nobody on the "consciousness side" is able to detail such a test - or, it seems, even feel able to give a consistent definition of their paradigm - is ample evidence to me of which the "true" reality is.

[wheels5894]

Anfauglir, so far as people living according to another paradigm, we do have a real example in the world, the Church of Christ Scientist who believe the the spiritual is everything and the present world something lesser. Due to failing to use the advances in medicine they have a pretty high rate of premature death and disease as they don't 'believe' in immunisation and so on or even the use of doctors.

by now, I would have thought people ought to imagine that, since they 'spiritual healing' doesn't work, they paradigm must also be wrong and the church closed down but with the money religion holds I doubt that will ever happen.

[Anfauglir]

Anfauglir, so far as people living according to another paradigm, we do have a real example in the world, the Church of Christ Scientist who believe the the spiritual is everything and the present world something lesser. Due to failing to use the advances in medicine they have a pretty high rate of premature death and disease as they don't 'believe' in immunisation and so on or even the use of doctors.

Wheels, many thanks - that's an excellent example.  If their paradigm were correct, we should expect to see greater longevity in this group, not less, as their paradigm would overrule the (lesser) physical one.

Cue Dominic now saying that our "knowledge" of this is gained only through the physical environment, and thus no less a matter of "fact" than anything else we've said.....   

I note though that he hasn't answered my question as to how he believes he communicated with us - whether or not he truly believes he sends mental messages to us that just happen to be resolved on a perceived PC screen as opposed to physically typing.  Mind you, perhaps he has been attempting to answer me over the conceptual paradigm and refraining from doing anything physical - but (since I ONLY get results when he DOES use the physical) that seems - again - to give a lot more weight to that paradgm.....

[screwtape]

Until you can prove that consciousness can exist without a physical brain,

Can you prove that a physical brain can exist without consciousness ?

That's not how it works, Sunny Jim.  If you think the physical exists within the "spiritual", then you should explain, at least is some basic way, how all that works. 

For example, how are spirits attached to physical bodies?  Why can spirits not switch physical bodies?  From where do these spirits come?  When are the spirits attached?  Consciousness appears to be a spectrum, not a binary quality.  So how does your theory explain that?  What about babies?  That is, we observe personality develop as the physical body develops.  How does your idea explain that?  There are noted cases where personality radically changes with brain injury or disease.  How does your idea explain that?

[Add Homonym]

I've never used any drugs¹, or even smoked.  From what I've heard, I'm probably missing out.  Religious mystics and NDE experiencers report some similar experiences to those who take certain drugs.  I would suggest that all 3 groups have let go at least temporarily of the artificial constraints of a material/physical paradigm.

You can suggest it all you like.

Users of LSD and DMT also reckon that there is another set of competing "realities" that are just as valid as this one. However, they seem to have to come back and eat food in this reality. Also, when they come back from the other realities, they seem to know nothing of import, besides that they know there are other realities.

I wouldn't mind so much about your tack, if Genesis started:

Well, you know, there are other realities, and you can have out of body experiences, and this is how to do it, and these are the herbs to take.

But, it doesn't, because it says virtually nothing about anything of philosophical importance, and contains only the dull guesswork of dull people.

[Hatter23]

One of the key underlying assumptions of science is that human sense perception is able to accurately detect the nature of reality.  Where devices are used to confirm or enhance human perception (eg camera, thermometer, computer, geiger counter... and many others) then human sense perception is still required to confirm those device's results.

This underlying assumption itself cannot be tested by science because it must first be assumed before science can begin.


This leads to a couple of necessary conclusions which are very significant:

- Science is entirely based on faith.  (ie faith in the underlying assumptions of science)

- To the extent that Atheism relies on science (as the only reliable source of truth) it is thus also entirely faith based.

"You have a belief without evidence, just like I do. That's faith" as your justification. I have a parable for just that situation.

Yes it is a kind of faith. It is that same kind of faith that I have that my shoes do not fly around my round when I am asleep and no recording devices are present. I'm sure you share that same faith, the faith of NoFlyingShoeswhlesleeping, how's that faith working out for you? Does it require a deep conviction of resolute solemnity, or do you have that faith because the proposition that your shoes fly around when you are asleep is in contradiction to everything observable about reality?