to ask how you feel when someone is at the opposite end of the faith spectrum?

[Morphene]

I've recently discovered two separate people I have been getting closer to (professional/friendship wise) are at the other end of the faith scale from me. I have actually felt a little upset and unbalanced by it.

IABU? I mean I know I am, but do other people get this? Does it make a difference if you are the one with or without faith?

I am sure I will still get on just fine with them, but I feel a little sadness that in this important respect we are very far from each others wavelength.

if you have the ability or interest, USE it or DEVELOP it. Or we could just BE.

"So much in science requires a leap of faith"

Really? Not on my planet! What do you mean?

That is an interesting question but a side-step. Boiled down to a single question it is more like:

Given that we never ever see some coherent set of experience come from no principle, could there not be a principle for the very possibility of coherent experience that does not itself depend upon that experience? And I am taking that one step further and saying that even if you find the overall argument not quite convincing, can you see why someone would find it convincing and thus not be tempted to find belief in God as such, irrational?

The rest of what you said just threw up are questions of theology that are just beyond this kind of discussion. The problem of natural evil, of moral evil, the mystery of free will, and those are just the ones I've immediately recognised. They are questions of both faith and reason (see fides et ratio by John Paul II to understand that relationship better). In other words I'm putting those in the too hard basket for now.

Does that make sense?

Even for people employed full time as researchers in a scientific field, the amount of Science they actually understand is limited. They rely on the ethics of the scientific community, peer review and so on, to believe in rather than know/understand various aspects of Science outside their own area of expertise.

It is in no way comparable to religious faith, but it is mostly based on belief rather than knowledge on an individual level.

It's not about knowing about specific bits of science- it's about the scientific method.

I don't think that's what is being said on this thread.

What was being discussed was whether or not people understand the theory of evolution.

I suspect the vast majority of people in developed countries do not understand the theory of evolution, or many other scientific theories.

BertrandRussell

Faith as defined by Kaufmann: “intense, usually confident, belief that is not based on evidence sufficient to command assent from every reasonable person.”

Are you telling me there is no place in science for this? Even as a starting point to a hypothesis/scientific theory?

HYPOTHESIS
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
synonyms: theory, theorem, thesis, conjecture, supposition, speculation, postulation, postulate, proposition, premise, surmise, assumption, presumption, presupposition;
More
notion, concept, idea, contention, opinion, view, belief

Philosophy
a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
"the hypothesis that every event has a cause"

I don't quite understand you, jedbartlett. But I would say that no, there is no place for faith in the scientific method. The difference between science and religion is that science comes to the edge of current understanding and is content with "I don't know- I will wait for more evidence" Religion comes to the edge of current understanding, has faith and jumps.

I'm sorry you don't understand me Bertrand, which of the definitions I posted are you struggling with?

I think I have replied adequately.

As long as you believe that you have done so, then I suppose you must feel that that is true

I said "I think"

Happy to expand if I haven t.

Makes more sense now that you've said you're a scientist. As a fellow scientist I also find it difficult to understand how someone so knowledgeable about science can hold strong religious beliefs but each to their own! Don't let it affect your friendships

aw man. Jed and hidden are clearly on the same wavelength...and I am clearly still tuned into teletubbies.

I think there is a finite chance I am not going to get this without doing a degree in philosophy!

Does 'random' count as an underlying principle that produces a coherent experimental output?

The axiomatic assumption that there is a theory that will explain any experienced data in reality, is indeed an assumption (though not one that it makes any difference if it turns out to be incorrect - we will still have all the answers for the explainable stuff).

But how can you tell the difference between 'inexplicable' and 'not yet explained'?

And what about the theories of chaos and quantum. Is it still observables that can be explained by a theory, when the prediction of the theory is that you can't ever predict the observables?
ie. the mathematics tells you that you can't know the answer.

I have no problem with other people believing in unprovable concepts, as long as they don't demand that I put my safety at risk (or all women in the whole country put their safety at risk) for these beliefs.

Some of my friends are Catholic, and they are lovely people and it has never been a problem, as, while they love their religious rituals and the belief that they will go to heaven after they die, they don't demand that I share their beliefs. Likewise, I do not demand that they share my agnosticism.

I do have a very big problem with people demanding that my safety should be put at risk, or that I should be treated like subhuman because of their (unprovable) beliefs.

It doesn't even matter whether this belief is considered a religion by the believers.

Regarding being a scientist, I think it is possible for religious people to compartmentalise.

It would be impossible to apply rigorous scientific method to the whole of your life. So there is much room for having faith and belief.

Also in theistic religion faith is in the spiritual presence and manifestation of the divine, something which is not scientifically testable. We can only apply the scientific method to physical matter. If you are to have any opinion about the possibility and behaviour of phenomenon which is non physical, this, inevitably, involves faith.

You can have religious beliefs this but still observe physical matter using the scientific method and apply any conclusions made.

It would be impossible to apply rigorous scientific method to the whole of your life.

But we do on a daily basis. We live live lives that embrace technology and science every day.
Science gives us effective and safe medication,, contraception we fly in aeroplanes and vehicles at breakneck speed.
We use the internet, mobile phones, TV, to give such a few examples.

"Rigorous scientific method" whether we understand it or not underpins much of our daily activity,

Not personally, skerry. I don't and cannot undertake a meta statistical analysis every time I make a decision. I can trust the scientist's work and do in my day to day life (but this involves some faith as I do not have access to all their research). Also not everything has been or can be researched.

No but you trust that the evidence exists. And you could find that evidence if you wanted to.
Unlike religious faith where no one has any evidence at all.

Rigorous scientific method is good stuff and a sensible way to carry on but it is (usually) based on a set of unexamined assumptions that there is a physical world in which stuff happens to make hypotheses about. Many atheists are, in philosophical terms, naive or scientific realists as they appear to think that the world that they see actually exists. Philosophers argue endlessly about epistemology plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology/ which is study of how we know what we know. We spent a whole term on the definition of 'good' when I was at university back in the dark ages. Define your terms and examine your assumptions got me through a lot of essays.

Many atheists are, in philosophical terms, naive

How arrogant

Philosophical term naive realist en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

That didn't work too well.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naïve_realism

plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

Yes, skerry, much of my life has by necessity to involve 'trust'. Faith is very similar. I am believing in things in which I've personally no scientific proof or complete understanding of.

That's not what you said though greenheart.

You are being simply rude.