Faith and science

[Jedidiah]

I would say that faith takes up where reason leaves off. Naturally, that places faith in the region of our ignorance, but I really don't see a problem with that. What is the act of creating poetry, if it's not an act of faith? If we knew what we were creating before we created it, it would be a dismal world all around.

I have weighed in on this topic already but, faith should be the final result of reason. We can never be absolutely sure of anything in this life. Once you have tested adequately you can put your faith in something. Another word for faith might be confidence. I am confident the sun will come up tomorrow.

And, what does faith have to do with creating something. Art is emotion related, faith is intellect related.

[Jedidiah]

I would say that faith takes up where reason leaves off. Naturally, that places faith in the region of our ignorance, but I really don't see a problem with that. What is the act of creating poetry, if it's not an act of faith? If we knew what we were creating before we created it, it would be a dismal world all around.

I have weighed in on this topic already but, faith should be the final result of reason. We can never be absolutely sure of anything in this life. Once you have tested adequately you can put your faith in something. Another word for faith might be confidence. I am confident the sun will come up tomorrow.

And, what does faith have to do with creating something. Art is emotion related, faith is intellect related.

[Zarathustra]

And, what does faith have to do with creating something. Art is emotion related, faith is intellect related.

Faith is a creative method of making something true.

[shunyadragon]

What if you're faced with evidence that seems to contradict science? I think these would be along the lines of 'miracle' stories. Is it ever possible for you to consider something outside the realms of science?

So far in history, 'miracle' stories remain anecdotal, whether written or relayed person to person, like UFO accounts, and are not objectively substantiated by scientific evidence. Science is essentially not faced with evidence in these cases, yet. Having written records of miracles 1700 to 1900 years old would not be scientific or historical evidence for miraculous events that occured 100 years or even 50 years prior to the written record.

As far as science considering things outside of science, no science itself does not with the exception of the evolving philosophies of science, and the related the ethics and morals of the application of science. But, in the real world science does not stand alone, most people consider many different sources of knowledge in philosophy, religion and history.

[Hail Mary]

So far in history, 'miracle' stories remain anecdotal, whether written or relayed person to person, like UFO accounts, and are not objectively substantiated by scientific evidence. Science is essentially not faced with evidence in these cases, yet. Having written records of miracles 1700 to 1900 years old would not be scientific or historical evidence for miraculous events that occured 100 years or even 50 years prior to the written record.

What if YOU were faced with evidence that seemed to contradict science? At this point, it ceases to be something historically anecdotal, and becomes part of your being. I think if you look at any of the miracle stories within Christianity, that is what they are conveying, the change of the person who experienced the miracle.

Baha'u'llah also related this quite well to the clerics that demanded he perform a miracle to prove his claims he was a manifestation of God. Baha'u'llah's response was to say in advance, how will this miracle affect your faith? Were the clerics ready to reconsider their beliefs, they had to think about this if they were going to deal with Baha'u'llah!

As far as science considering things outside of science, no science itself does not with the exception of the evolving philosophies of science, and the related the ethics and morals of the application of science. But, in the real world science does not stand alone, most people consider many different sources of knowledge in philosophy, religion and history.

I agree that science can not consider these types of things, but we as people, not necessarily bound by the changing laws of science, certainly can consider them.

[lao tzu]

What if you're faced with evidence that seems to contradict science? I think these would be along the lines of 'miracle' stories. Is it ever possible for you to consider something outside the realms of science?

General Ripper?

Sorry, but that's something of an off-putting screen name you're using. I mean, really, you're identifying with somebody crazy enough to blow up the world in defense of his delusions.

The general scientific resolution of conflicting evidence is to look for repeatability. Run the experiment again and see if you get the same results. Unfortunately, miracles by their very nature are not repeatable.

As ever, Jesse

[lao tzu]

Faith is a creative method of making something true.

Yeah! What he said.

[Jedidiah]

Faith is a creative method of making something true.

That is pretty clearly not the same sort of faith I was describing.

[Jedidiah]

The general scientific resolution of conflicting evidence is to look for repeatability. Run the experiment again and see if you get the same results. Unfortunately, miracles by their very nature are not repeatable.

I don't think that you have responded to the point of his question. I will wait and see if the good general has any such response.

[lao tzu]

I don't think that you have responded to the point of his question. I will wait and see if the good general has any such response.

Hey, Jed,

I do have a tendency to read too much into a screen name. It takes real effort for me to respond to someone with "Purity of Essence" displayed prominently next to his avatar. The finger just wants to move to that "submit to the quick-scrolling list" button all on its lonesome.

My response to Charleen in that other thread actually answers the point of the evil general's post. I remain open to the proof of Thomas.

As ever, Jesse

[Hail Mary]

Sorry, but that's something of an off-putting screen name you're using. I mean, really, you're identifying with somebody crazy enough to blow up the world in defense of his delusions.

I hear what you're saying, and sorry you were put off by it. However, its a comedy of a real world scenario. In other words, how did we really deal with people really poised with their fingers on the button? Not the fictional General Ripper, but real crazy people, like Kim Jung Il? Well, its not easy, but we have to learn to laugh about it, keep going to work and school and praying, and living like we always did, or we're going to go crazy ourselves. (And the eventual 'solution' in the movie was pretty funny too)

The general scientific resolution of conflicting evidence is to look for repeatability. Run the experiment again and see if you get the same results. Unfortunately, miracles by their very nature are not repeatable.

My question to you, as was your question for us, was a personal question. What would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle? You can legitimately say that I'm turning the question in your OP back around on you, but I think if you answer this question, you'll pretty much have my answer to your original question. (I could be wrong, but I bet you that I'm right!) (In fact I'll bet you 5 pearls, how about that?)

So, what would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle that contradicted science?

[lao tzu]

<snip>

My question to you, as was your question for us, was a personal question. What would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle? You can legitimately say that I'm turning the question in your OP back around on you, but I think if you answer this question, you'll pretty much have my answer to your original question. (I could be wrong, but I bet you that I'm right!) (In fact I'll bet you 5 pearls, how about that?)

So, what would YOU do if you were faced with a miracle that contradicted science?

Yawohl, Mein Furhr ... umm, I mean ... Hi, general!

Which one of my original questions? And does the bet still stand if I've already answered yours?

Now I just went to the trouble to find the links referenced in my additional response to Jed so you can see what my position was. My position hasn't changed.

I would welcome a miracle. But I'd also record it.

Thus putting the "and" into faith and science. Of course, I'd accept an alternative miracle, but I would want it to be unambiguously related to a specific conceptualization of the divine. The one I've chosen I chose because of its biblical precedent specific to not only the new testament but to the divinity and resurrection of Jesus himself.

Good enough for Thomas would be good enough for me. But I want equal treatment with Thomas, no more and no less. It wasn't my choice to be born 2000 years later, ya know?

I don't see how my answer to this provides your answer to my original challenge. Maybe we need an independent judge, but I think you owe me some pearls, fella.

As ever, Jesse

[Hail Mary]

Which one of my original questions? And does the bet still stand if I've already answered yours?

The question in the OP of this thread:

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

Now I just went to the trouble to find the links referenced in my additional response to Jed so you can see what my position was. My position hasn't changed.

I would welcome a miracle. But I'd also record it.

Thank you for looking these up and posting the links! (I normally avoid those kind of threads )

Thus putting the "and" into faith and science. Of course, I'd accept an alternative miracle, but I would want it to be unambiguously related to a specific conceptualization of the divine. The one I've chosen I chose because of its biblical precedent specific to not only the new testament but to the divinity and resurrection of Jesus himself.

So you would welcome the miracle, you would record it, but how does this affect your scientific knowledge?

Good enough for Thomas would be good enough for me. But I want equal treatment with Thomas, no more and no less. It wasn't my choice to be born 2000 years later, ya know?

I don't see how my answer to this provides your answer to my original challenge. Maybe we need an independent judge, but I think you owe me some pearls, fella.

I agree that would be one possible miracle, if Christ appeared to you in the flesh.

But you haven't answered the reversed question yet, so I don't want to get sidetracked, and I don't know if I've won the bet or not. Admittedly I may be coughing up the pearls, but I don't know until you answer this:

How would a miracle affect your scientific knowledge?

Or, can faith trump reality sometimes in the natural world? (You discuss this a little bit later in your OP, but you never actually answer it)

[Zarathustra]

That is pretty clearly not the same sort of faith I was describing.

From a perspective of pure reason, faith is a fallacy. You are creative in placing together a subjective series of "adequate tests" then forgoing reason in the move to allow the conclusions therein to form your faith; the certain truth of your conclusions.

Think if it like painting a painting, your "tests" are the paint, and the canvas is your faith. At first the canvas is blank, and you have no faith. You start painting with "tests" and end up with a painted canvas which is your faith. It is creative because it is subjective which "tests" you use to paint your canvas.

[lao tzu]

The question in the OP of this thread:

What do you do when faced with physical evidence that contradicts your spiritual faith? Is it ever okay to believe something in your heart that can be proven untrue in your head?

Thank you for looking these up and posting the links! (I normally avoid those kind of threads )

Thanks, general,

Two questions with distinct answers from my point of view. The first was intended for those inclined to answer in more general terms while the second was intended for those who wanted something more specifically spelled out. I'm not usually able to get a thread of mine to last past a few responses, so I've been consciously trying to find ways to engage more people.

So you would welcome the miracle, you would record it, but how does this affect your scientific knowledge?

I'd have to admit my previous conception of human mortality was wrong. People who have been dead for 2000 years shouldn't be able to walk into my living room wearing a physical body that I could examine in detail, let alone record on digital videotape. It would be a life transforming experience in every way.

I agree that would be one possible miracle, if Christ appeared to you in the flesh.

But you haven't answered the reversed question yet, so I don't want to get sidetracked, and I don't know if I've won the bet or not. Admittedly I may be coughing up the pearls, but I don't know until you answer this:

How would a miracle affect your scientific knowledge?

To continue my above answer: I would specifically have to abandon the idea that humans cannot be gods, or at the very least, something that could pinch hit for a god on most ball teams. I would also be forced to look for extra-natural influences on day to day events. I would lose the ability to have faith in repeatable phenomena, no matter how carefully recorded.

To go beyond your question, the most profound effect would not be on my scientific knowledge, but on my spiritual faith, which, though profoundly different from your own, is still more important to me than my scientific understanding.

Or, can faith trump reality sometimes in the natural world? (You discuss this a little bit later in your OP, but you never actually answer it)

Perhaps some Cliff Notes are in order. Any time you see a thread started by me, it's safe to assume it's intended as a discussion thread, rather than as a debate thread. The more interpretations expressed, the merrier. I know people seem to enjoy the heated battle threads more, but it's just not my thing, and that could be why I never get more than a few responses.

As ever, Jesse