There is a big difference between not understanding something and believing that there might be some kind of power that we don't yet understand and deciding that because we don't understand something that a bunch of unrelated made up shit must be true.
There’s also a big difference in having faith to find aspiration, direction, and strength versus using it to abrogate responsibility or rationalize bad behavior.
For example, praying for god to fix your problems rather than using the gifts they ostensibly gave you to solve them yourself, or not stopping doing the thing that is causing the problem to begin with. Or evading responsibility for things you do that cause suffering, misery, and harm because it’s somehow god’s will.
In Islam, we are taught to both to utilize reasoning and causes (الأخذ بالأسباب), as well as to supplicate and ask God for assistance. The two are not mutually exclusive, but necessary and complementary.
I don't think that "miracle" is the correct word to use with science as by design, the experiments should be reproducible, whereas a miracle is surely an unique event. The use of statistical methods to eliminate chance events would surely eliminate miracles too.
However, certainly there's elements of belief involved with the underlying explanations of scientific phenomena, but there's also a push to try to reduce the number of things that scientist are required to take on faith. There's also more reliance on equations rather than the interpretation of why experiments agree with the equations - the "shut up and calculate" approach.
It's interesting when people try to figure out experiments that can rule out certain beliefs, such as the Bell inequality. An important point though is that failing experiments can rule out certain options too, whereas a failed religious experience may be explained away by any number of reasons ("God moves in mysterious ways").
Not faith in the religious sense, no. I get the sense you are overloading the term to make a false equivalence to bolster religious faith as valid. It’s not.
Faith in science, even basic assumptions on fundamental axioms, is grounded in reality .
> I get the sense you are overloading the term to make a false equivalence to bolster religious faith
I think this is a poor argument. It's swinging the "no true scotsman" because it's convenient to what you want to define. Faith in science and faith in another religion is not a false equivalence. Religion is the poorly defined term. Science fits well within it.
A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life.
> A faith that stems from knowledge and a tradition of rigor is quite different from a faith that stems from indoctrination or a desire for there to be some kind of greater meaning to life.
You're making a false (and biased) distinction. You almost certainly have been indoctrinated into valuing the thing you label "rigor," and your faith in it stems from that indoctrination. Your position is just an obscured version of "my gods are the true ones, and all others are false or inferior, because my gods are mine."
It's not false, and any bias is irrelevant since the distinction is accurate.
People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at. The same is not true for religion. A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe. 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment.
> People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at.
Come on. That's myth that beggars belief. Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not. It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into).
> A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe.
And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding.
> 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment.
You're taking my statement too literally.
It's very hard to get out of one's own mindset to see it for what it is .
> Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not.
Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science.
> It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into).
That's simply not true. These attempts to equate science with a religion are always so disingenuous and show a fundamental misunderstanding.
> And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding.
It's the faith in gods based on absolutely nothing which is irrational. Come on.
> You're taking my statement too literally.
No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence.
> Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science.
I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it?
>> It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where [most likely] explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into).
> That's simply not true. These attempts to equate science with a religion are always so disingenuous and show a fundamental misunderstanding.
Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness. It's therefore a construct privileged by them. That's often accomplished by a little mental game, that works much like when a job description is written to fit a particular person and reject others. It's not very surprising to see that truth insistently denied, because to accept it would undermine the the work the construct is being used perform.
Science is also a means to technology, but we're not really talking about that.
> No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence.
I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.
> I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it?
This is just semantics.
> Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness.
It'snot as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference.
> I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.
The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.
> Not really, because the difference is rather significant here.
No, it really isn't. It's 100% semantics. The context makes the meaning clear.
But how about you explain what you think the rather significant difference is to progress the discussion? So it isn't just is too/is not which it seems to be becoming.
> There's that little mental game I was referring to.
Sure, an accusation without basis.
> There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.
No, I get it, and my reply made that clear. It seemed to have passed you by, possibly because you seem hyper-focused on semantics.
As an aside, are you religious yourself? I typically only see these lines of argument from people that are and feel defensive.
The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect. There is no belief or indoctrination necessary. Having faith in science is an oxymoron (although it's all too common).
> The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect.
I'm not sure it's about observation of cause and effect. There are excellent youtube videos about the strangeness of time and how cause and effect are convenience terms. Reason is the basis for science, which we construct practices around that are effective in describing the physical universe.
Having a unique characteristic is not sufficient to differentiate a practice that serves the same purpose as any other religion. Other religions are more sociologically founded and aimed, but they serve a similar niche.
ie There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact (although many have died trying), given the wealth of knowledge that exists and extreme costs to even perform the experiments. Faith in science is not an oxymoron, unless you want to define faith tautologically, to assert it is so.
Predictable reliable cause and effect is entirely sufficient to cleanly differentiate science from religions that have no such demonstrable experiments.
> There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact
They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.
Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion? - WE can about the bulk facts in science.
> > There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact
> They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.
In all fairness, I made a straightforward statement and you have assumed I said something else - I did not say any single scientific "fact". This is not the point that I was making (trying to disprove a fact).
> Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion?
You're getting into the weeds here. If I have a religion that's called AlmostScience that includes a fairy tale that teaches morality but otherwise teaches the history and practices of the scientific method. Is it not a religion? I'm making an equivalence claim and you're attacking details of a strawman religion.
It's a way of drawing a new line in the sand. There are plenty of religions that don't have indoctrination (all have rituals) or a desire to find a greater meaning. eg Abrahamic religions don't promote a search for greater meaning.
Teaching and indoctrination are different things. The keyword criticality is very common among many religious schools. There is a difference in rigor for those arguments, but they are allowed. This is why many people fall out of their ancestral religion.
> Teaching and indoctrination are different things. The keyword criticality is very common among many religious schools.
Even if a religious school is teaching critical thinking regarding the religion, and I'm skeptical of that, the church (or equivalent) and parents likely are not.
Faith in science is actually worse. At least religious faith dares to tell you something and asks that you have faith in it. Science tells you this is what is for the time being, until we know better, and there is no guarantee that we won't reach a limit to knowledge that we will not be able to pierce. With science you can count on one thing: you'll die before you know the fundamental truth.
>with science you can count on one thing: you’ll die before you know the fundamental truth
Now that’s a hilariously ironic take within a comment declaring religious faiths (belief absent evidence, meaning it’s impossible to “know its true”) superiority.
That science tries not to deal in absolutes is a feature, not a bug. You’re looking at the pursuit of knowledge from an entirely incorrect perspective.
I think "dark matter" bullshit is a good example of that: you create mathematical model of the universe, but the reality does not match predictions of your model, so what do you do? You invent "dark matter".
Dark matter is in a sense the opposite of an invisible dragon in your garage. Nobody wants to have an unexplained, invisible cloud of particles hanging around.
It's as if every time you get into your garage you can smell sulfur, you see huge talon marks every once in a while, along with half-eaten carcasses, and you occasionally find your thermometer melted into a pool of plastic. However you hate the idea as a homeowner, the only available conclusion is that there's an invisible thingy in your garage made of god-knows-what that does things that cannot be explained unless you assume its existence. So you call this thing "that invisible thingy in my garage," and next thing you know, everybody's calling you names and talking of phlogiston and ether.
It's different in the sense that the idea of dark matter allows you to make predictions. If it makes the model work, it gives you new directions to go and new things to discover. If the predictions don't work out, the model gets tossed.
> I think "dark matter" bullshit is a good example of that: you create mathematical model of the universe, but the reality does not match predictions of your model, so what do you do? You invent "dark matter".
Another example is dismissing experiences that your model can't handle as illusions. I've seen both the passage of time and consciousness dismissed in that way.
Also scientists aren't above inventing enormous fanciful constructions make the universe conform to their ideological assumptions and intuitions: see steady-state theory, the multiverse, etc. At some point (probably now or soon), humanity will reach the limit of what can be probed scientifically. When that happens, I predict those invented constructions will stick around and perhaps become even more prominent.
> Now tell me: how is this any different than claiming that you have invisible, untouchable dragon hanging out in your garage?
Dark matter is the exact opposite of this. Dark matter is a term used because we don't understand it. It's a place-in for "matter that doesn't match our existing understanding of matter". People aren't embracing it's existence. They are trying to figure out what it is, and why do our current models not account for it properly.
You can look at the data on NDE. The aware studies are interesting. Then there's remote viewing and CIA notes on those things that point to interesting research.
> You can look at the data on NDE. The aware studies are interesting.
If it's possible and testable and reproducible, then it falls under the umbrella of science. So I don't see how it's special in any way. The dragon example consciously resists any attempt to test it at every turn, which is not true of NDE.
