On Faith & Reason

[Michael Hardner]

I'm being ignored in this thread. You people make me sad.

I agreed with your post, so I had nothing to add to it, or to challenge there.

My impression was that you were helping the thread along, and absorbing it. Jump right in and add a point, or disagree. I'm interested to hear your thoughts.

[Sir Bandelot]

Surely you must realize that this is a ludicrous oversimplification of what science actually is. I'll repeat, science as we understand it has existed for less than 500 years. The ancients weren't idiots, but a quick glance at the amount of rubbish that got thrown in with reasonable deductions indicates that they did not have a well formulated methodology.

I somewhat disagree. Most people don't realize how much the Greeks already knew and understood. People like Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus. There is even evidence and they knew that the solar system is heliocentric. In 300 BC Aristarchus determined that the planets revolve around the sun. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth, and the distance to the Sun. They did this without advanced technology, without telescopes, spacecraft or RADAR.

The Greeks did not believe that experimentation was necessary, in fact they avoided it where possible. They believed that human reasoning should be capable of understanding the fundamental nature of physical things.

It is almost shocking how much the Greeks understood, but sadly most of their knowledge was lost due to destruction from wars, conducted by irrational barbarians.

[Bonam]

In 300 BC Aristarchus determined that the planets revolve around the sun. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth, and the distance to the Sun. They did this without advanced technology, without telescopes, spacecraft or RADAR.

The Greeks did not believe that experimentation was necessary, in fact they avoided it where possible. They believed that human reasoning should be capable of understanding the fundamental nature of physical things.

This is true in general. However, you should know that experimentation is exactly how Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth. He didn't deduce it through pure logic and reason from the fundamental axioms of existence. Instead, he compared measurements of the angle of the Sun at noon on the solstice at two locations of different latitudes. That is pure experiment right there, and can certainly still be carried out and reproduced by anyone to determine the circumference of the Earth.

Where the Greeks did use pure logic without reference to observations of the natural world, they often got horrendously erroneous results and ideas.

[Bonam]

Ok -

I agree.. but I get the feeling that you're seeing this discussion as faith vs. reason - as in which is better. Humans evolved with both traits - the question I'm asking is: how do they live together in the individual.

Faith and reason are two entirely separate faculties, and should be kept separate. Reason lets one understand the natural world, to respond rationally to external stimuli, to make rational decisions, etc. Faith, on the other hand, is a sort of social glue.

You cannot compare which is "better" than another. It is comparing two entirely different kinds of things.

[Michael Hardner]

Faith and reason are two entirely separate faculties, and should be kept separate. Reason lets one understand the natural world, to respond rationally to external stimuli, to make rational decisions, etc. Faith, on the other hand, is a sort of social glue.

You cannot compare which is "better" than another. It is comparing two entirely different kinds of things.

I agree but do you think that faith & reason sometimes are used together, or overlap ?

[Sir Bandelot]

This is true in general. However, you should know that experimentation is exactly how Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the Earth. He didn't deduce it through pure logic and reason from the fundamental axioms of existence. Instead, he compared measurements of the angle of the Sun at noon on the solstice at two locations of different latitudes. That is pure experiment right there, and can certainly still be carried out and reproduced by anyone to determine the circumference of the Earth.

Where the Greeks did use pure logic without reference to observations of the natural world, they often got horrendously erroneous results and ideas.

I know how he did it, and I agree they did use experimentation. The reasoning came first, of course.

I wouldn't say they 'often' got horrendously erroneous results. I don't really know how often. But the fact remains, they had quite an advanced body of knowledge about physical science, some of which we have only rediscovered in the past few hundred years.

We can argue about whether experimentation is 'good' or 'bad', or why the Greeks believed it to be so. But it touches on certain aspects of philosophy, which the Greeks combined with science.

Interesting article that discusses this in some detail:

History of Scientific Method

Aristotle did not accept that knowledge acquired by induction could rightly be counted as scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, induction was a necessary preliminary to the main business of scientific enquiry, providing the primary premises required for scientific demonstrations.

Because to be accepted as valid, the inductive knowledge (acquired by experiments) requires a sound mathematical/ logical proof based in reason.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Bonam]

I agree but do you think that faith & reason sometimes are used together, or overlap ?

They certainly are sometimes used together. But at first thought, it seems to me that such use is often a mistake and mixing them only leads to tragedy. When reason can be applied, it should be, and should not be clouded by faith. When you are trying to make a sound decision, or to understand how something works, etc, reason should be your only guide.

Similarly, if you are a religious believer, trying to use reason to figure out what your dogmas imply for the physical world will only lead to confusion, as we see with people who, for example, interpret the bible literally and try to develop "scientific" theories (intelligent design, intelligent falling, etc) to fit the real world to their faith. Religious belief is best left solely to the faculty of faith.

My opinion remains that reason and faith are best used separately. Do you have any compelling counterexamples? Forgive me if I've missed some, I haven't read the entire thread in detail yet.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Bonam

[Michael Hardner]

My opinion remains that reason and faith are best used separately. Do you have any compelling counterexamples? Forgive me if I've missed some, I haven't read the entire thread in detail yet.

I don't know that we are always fully aware of when we're using reason and using faith and when we're using both.

[Shwa]

My opinion remains that reason and faith are best used separately. Do you have any compelling counterexamples? Forgive me if I've missed some, I haven't read the entire thread in detail yet.

It seems to me that one will usually place faith in a scientific hypothesis, or the elements of a hypothesis, while they are working through it.

Probability is another area that takes in a little faith. For example, I probably won't get a shock when I flip the light switch.

[ToadBrother]

I somewhat disagree. Most people don't realize how much the Greeks already knew and understood. People like Aristotle, Plato and Pythagorus. There is even evidence and they knew that the solar system is heliocentric. In 300 BC Aristarchus determined that the planets revolve around the sun. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the Earth, and the distance to the Sun. They did this without advanced technology, without telescopes, spacecraft or RADAR.

I never said the ancients didn't have the capability, I'm saying they didn't have a regular systematic approach like methodological naturalism. Some of what they did, and their epistemological concepts presaged science, but even the Greeks did not possess science.

The Greeks did not believe that experimentation was necessary, in fact they avoided it where possible. They believed that human reasoning should be capable of understanding the fundamental nature of physical things.

It is almost shocking how much the Greeks understood, but sadly most of their knowledge was lost due to destruction from wars, conducted by irrational barbarians.

Most of the what the Greeks lost stemmed from their wars with themselves.

[ToadBrother]

Where the Greeks did use pure logic without reference to observations of the natural world, they often got horrendously erroneous results and ideas.

This is exactly what I mean, neither the Greeks, nor the other high civilizations of ancient times, had any singular methodological system. Trial and error alone is not science, it is, at best, the first step in science. The Greeks did not have science as it has been understood since the Enlightenment. If they did, I expect we would have lived in a very different world than we do today. Unfortunately, science's genesis had to wait a long time from the first tentative steps of the Ancient Greeks, and ultimately, I believe, science's ultimate formulation, like much of Western culture, was born out of the collapse of feudalism and the introduction of a new economic system.

For the Greeks, whatever science they possessed was for the most part of the ivory tower kind, philosophers pondering the world and the mind. That's a bit of a generalization, but Greece was a good deal more than just Plato or Aristotle hanging out and thinking deep thoughts. However, by the time you hit Renaissance Europe and you're seeing the birth of modern economics, there was a need for a rigorous system of epistemology. You can see the genesis of it in men like Copernicus and da Vinci, men who sought to redefine the way the world was viewed. They sought rigorous methodologies, testing premises against evidence, refining their ideas to come up with concrete repeatable answers. By the time of the Enlightenment, the great minds were winnowing away at what had been passed down from the classical world and from great pre-science thinkers like Roger Bacon, and created a whole new epistemological language that simply did not exist before.

[Bonam]

This is exactly what I mean, neither the Greeks, nor the other high civilizations of ancient times, had any singular methodological system. Trial and error alone is not science, it is, at best, the first step in science. The Greeks did not have science as it has been understood since the Enlightenment. If they did, I expect we would have lived in a very different world than we do today.

I expect you're right. The development of science enabled the exponentially accelerating technological progress that we have witnessed over the last several hundred years. This period is incomparable to any other period in human history. If the Greeks had tapped this most powerful driver of change in human civilization all those millenia ago, the world today would certainly be unrecognizable.

[Sir Bandelot]

I think your both wrong to belittle or trivialize the accomplishments of the Greeks. And I have taken the tie to back up my assertions. As stated, what was known was lost in a tragedy that affected the history of them whole human race. The burning of libraries of information plunged the world into the dark ages, and if this didn't occur we WOULD be a thousand years ahead of where we are now.

Anyway, despite that I'm sure you'll continue to disagree. Besides, I hate stupid back and forth arguments, like some other thread. And it's off topic.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Sir Bandelot

[Bonam]

I think your both wrong to belittle or trivialize the accomplishments of the Greeks. And I have taken the tie to back up my assertions. As stated, what was known was lost in a tragedy that affected the history of the whole human race. The burning of libraries of information plunged the world into the dark ages, and if this didn't occur we WOULD be a thousand years ahead of where we are now.

Anyway, despite that I'm sure you'll continue to disagree. And it's off topic.

Oh, I have nothing but the highest respect for their accomplishments. Ancient Greece was a beacon of light and knowledge in the ancient world, and much of what they discovered was lost or forgotten for over a thousand years. It's just that the word "science" has a specific definition, which I choose not to ignore.

[Oleg Bach]

I'm being ignored in this thread. You people make me sad.

Tell them you are a very smart and highly attractive female...that should get the monkeys to take notice.

[Oleg Bach]

Faith can be the confidence one has in a creator that grants his creations confidence in their own perceptions of nature - of science - of everything...faith that the human mind is logical and capable of clear observation..Christ said of the human consciousness - "why do you doubt"? - your own perception. If you look up into eternity in awe - You understand and logic dictates that we are a miracle. Not some trick - not some accident - but intelligent - In the endless void - our speck of grey matter is capable of conceiving the heavens - That is God like...and at the same time the great curse of the human experience..to be like god and not have the power of gods...kind of frustrating and a cruel joke - Don't you think?

[ToadBrother]

I think your both wrong to belittle or trivialize the accomplishments of the Greeks. And I have taken the tie to back up my assertions. As stated, what was known was lost in a tragedy that affected the history of them whole human race. The burning of libraries of information plunged the world into the dark ages, and if this didn't occur we WOULD be a thousand years ahead of where we are now.

Anyway, despite that I'm sure you'll continue to disagree. Besides, I hate stupid back and forth arguments, like some other thread. And it's off topic.

Now where in all my posts did I trivialize what the Greeks did? They did wonderful things, creating the foundations of Western thought, and as far as science goes, most certainly made great strides in mathematics and categorization. But they did not possess science.

[Oleg Bach]

Now where in all my posts did I trivialize what the Greeks did? They did wonderful things, creating the foundations of Western thought, and as far as science goes, most certainly made great strides in mathematics and categorization. But they did not possess science.

If it were not for the Greeks - Italians would still be sucking on the tit of a wandering wolf...and -paving roads with great utilitarian vigor - The Greeks civilzed the world - and now eveyone is picking on them cos they want early retirement after 1000 years of working.

[ToadBrother]

If it were not for the Greeks - Italians would still be sucking on the tit of a wandering wolf...and -paving roads with great utilitarian vigor - The Greeks civilzed the world - and now eveyone is picking on them cos they want early retirement after 1000 years of working.

The Chinese would be interested to find out how a culture that came into existence when Chinese civilization was already pretty damned old civilized them. As would the Egyptians, who the Greeks had an absolute fetish for.

[Sir Bandelot]

Now where in all my posts did I trivialize what the Greeks did? They did wonderful things, creating the foundations of Western thought, and as far as science goes, most certainly made great strides in mathematics and categorization. But they did not possess science.

It does not matter if you want to say what the Greeks knew or did was not "science", by some pristine definition of the word or the requirements. You folks distracted me from the point I was trying to make in my two posts, about inductive vs. deductive reasoning. I was using the Greeks as an example. Now I remember what I was getting at.

Arg I can't stand it when people distract with with nitpicking irrelevant things! You people babble and babble on and on with silly nitpicking things, for the sheer sake of argument. Not even, argument. Just the automatic nay-saying of whatever someone else says, without actually saying anything yourselves.

[bush_cheney2004]

....Arg I can't stand it when people distract with with nitpicking irrelevant things! You people babble and babble on and on with silly nitpicking things, for the sheer sake of argument. Not even, argument. Just the automatic nay-saying of whatever someone else says, without actually saying anything yourselves.

Calm down little buddy...it's not as bad as it seems. There is a lot going here besides your direct interest and response to a topic. There are several layers of an evaluation process by friend and foe each time you sally forth. You will be judged on more than technical merit....there is style + gamesmanship...and payback for past transgressions. Relax...and enjoy the entire MLW experience.

[Sir Bandelot]

Calm down little buddy...it's not as bad as it seems. There is a lot going here besides your direct interest and response to a topic. There are several layers of an evaluation process by friend and foe each time you sally forth. You will be judged on more than technical merit....there is style + gamesmanship...and payback for past transgressions. Relax...and enjoy the entire MLW experience.

Who says I am not playing said game, even now? Perhaps you underestimate me, old boy.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who says I am not playing said game, even now? Perhaps you underestimate me, old boy.

That's the spirit...now get back in there and nitpick away!

[Oleg Bach]

Who says I am not playing said game, even now? Perhaps you underestimate me, old boy.

Old boy - BC is a twelve year old in mind...so watch it - he might just spit in your soup ...

[Michael Hardner]

Have we exhausted the topic of faith & reason then ?