Is faith logical?

[KingandPriest]

Although I am still relatively new to this forum, I have posted an interacted with multiple theist and non-theist. The conversation typically breaks down when faith/belief is introduced. This prompted a question about which rules apply to faith and which rules apply to logic.

1. Is faith/belief logical/rational? (simple yes or no should suffice)

2. If yes, what rules of logic apply to faith/belief?

3. If no, can any 'rules of logic' apply to faith?

[KingandPriest]

Astronomers make three assumptions about the universe based on theory and observation:

• The laws of physics are universal and don’t change with time or location in space.
• The universe is homogeneous, or roughly the same in every direction (though not necessarily for all of time).
• Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as at its very center.

When astronomers make these assumptions, there is insufficient knowledge to prove these assumptions correct.

There are a kind of supernovae called type Ia, that result when a white dwarf pulls 1.4 solar masses of gas from a companion star. These explosions have the same intrinsic brightness and other characteristics and are used as "standard candles" to estimate distance. If the laws of physics changed from time and location in space, we would only see these supernovae in one small region of the universe.

The COBE satellite determined the cosmic microwave background is indeed homogeneous to within 1 part in 100,000 after the sun's motion around the galaxy, and the galaxy's motion with respect to the CMB rest frame is accounted for.

The fact that our local group of galaxies moves at 630 km/sec with respect to the CMB rest frame itself is evidence we do not occupy a privileged "center" of the universe, or that if we once did, we are rapidly moving away from it.

If the laws of physics do not change with time or space in the universe, there would be no reason to search for alternative laws to help explain the BBT. In fact, the laws of physics break down as we attempt to move back in time and reduce space to the size of a singularity. So this assumption is proven untrue and inconsistent

Homogeneous cosmic background radiation is not the same as a homogeneous universe. This is like saying the background stage of a play is homogeneous but ignoring the actors on the stage. Yes, the background radiation is homogeneous but to leap and assume "The universe is homogeneous."

The statement about the rate of speed we are moving can describe our potential position in the known universe. We don't know the true size of our entire universe. We estimate based on the farthest distance light would be able to travel to and from our planet. The truth is we do not know for certain if we are not at a privileged location in the universe. Rather than assume we are not, it is safer to say we do not know.

[OnceConvinced]

Would you like me to prove you are conveniently lying to ignore the question by quoting you directly to show that you understand what I mean when I use the word faith?

Moderator Comment

Please be careful not to imply that people are liars on this forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Talishi]

If the laws of physics do not change with time or space in the universe, there would be no reason to search for alternative laws to help explain the BBT. In fact, the laws of physics break down as we attempt to move back in time and reduce space to the size of a singularity. So this assumption is proven untrue and inconsistent

The laws of physics do not "break down" when the density of the universe is that which was present at the Planck epoch. The laws simply demonstrate a symmetry we are currently unable to investigate with our largest colliders. If you run the clock back to the instant of the big bang, the laws of regularities of succession have a behavior that is different that the behavior of currently known laws in our state of broken cosmic symmetry.

[KingandPriest]

The laws of physics do not "break down" when the density of the universe is that which was present at the Planck epoch. The laws simply demonstrate a symmetry we are currently unable to investigate with our largest colliders. If you run the clock back to the instant of the big bang, the laws of regularities of succession have a behavior that is different that the behavior of currently known laws in our state of broken cosmic symmetry.

I must have quoted physicists wrong when they claim:

In the centre of a black hole is a gravitational singularity, a one-dimensional point which contains a huge mass in an infinitely small space, where density and gravity become infinite and space-time curves infinitely, and where the laws of physics as we know them cease to operate. As the eminent American physicist Kip Thorne describes it, it is "the point where all laws of physics break down".

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/top ... ities.html

or

If you really want to know what's happening at small distance scales you can't use the classical physics behind Hooke's law. At some point x drops below the spacing between molecules in the spring's metal. Now Hooke's law no longer applies and you have to use atomic physics to explain the spring's properties. So in the large-scale theory (Hooke's law) there was no fundamental distance scale: x could be as small as you want. But at some point this law breaks down.

Most people worry about singularities involving general relativity: two examples being a black hole and the singularity that classical general relativity predicts was our universe at the moment it began. If you try to apply the laws of general relativity in these situations you will inevitably find the same 1/x singularities I've been talking about. How are we going to resolve these singularities? We expect quantum mechanics to do the job, since it is the theory that correctly describes physics at small distance scales. Unfortunately, while we have good theories of atomic physics, we don't real have a good theory of quantum gravity. Many of us think string theory will ultimately provide the resolution to these problems.

http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm

or

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down. This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html

Do all of these physicist have it wrong too? When I wrote my statement, did I use the term singularity or planck epoch?

You attempt to say I am wrong by changing my statement. I did not say the laws of physics break down at the level of planck epoch.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 258 by Blastcat]

Could you give us your definition for "hypothesis", "faith" and "believe" so that we can compare the three? Because you seem to think they have identical meanings.

Here are mine:

______________________________

Hypothesis:

1. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. ‘his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe’

1.1Philosophy A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. ‘the hypothesis that every event has a cause’"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hypothesis

Faith:

1. "Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. ‘this restores one's faith in politicians’"

2 . "Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/faith

Believe:

1. "Accept that (something) is true, especially without proof.
‘the superintendent believed Lancaster's story’ ‘some 23 per cent believe that smoking keeps down weight’"

1.1 "Accept the statement of (someone) as true. ‘he didn't believe her’"
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/believe

Hypothesis: same as yours
1. "A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation. ‘his ‘steady state’ hypothesis of the origin of the universe’

Faith slightly different
Acceptance of something as true based on some evidence resulting in trust

Believe similar to yours
Accept statement as true, often without additional evidence

If I remember, you stated in an earlier post you are a skeptic and rarely if ever place complete trust in anything, so your definition of faith does not include "complete".

I don't know about you, but I see a bit of a difference between those three words.
Do you think the guys and gals at Oxford got those bits about hypothesis and faith wrong?

I also see a bit of difference between those three words. That is why each word is unique.

I do think the folks at oxford have overstepped some definitions and others are lacking. No dictionary is perfect so we accept the balance of the excellent definitions with the weak definitions. As it pertains to the three words we are discussing, I think there are better definitions available for faith and believe.

You say that modern science RELIES on faith "a bit".
Have you adjusted your initial claim? I thought that you said science ITSELF is founded on faith.

Science as a whole, which includes ancient knowledge does rely on faith. Modern science has attempted to move away from faith with the advent of the scientific method. Modern science relies on a bit of faith, while science as a whole has relied on faith. Modern science only relates to the past 200 years or so of knowledge and discovery. We know that records exist back to over 3000 years ago. By comparison, 2800 years of science which relied on claims of faith, compared to 200 years of recent history which has relied less on faith, it is safe to say that science is founded on faith. 93% of the history of science was founded on claims of faith.

The word science is synonymous with the word knowledge. Science is the segmentation of knowledge. There are different types of knowledge which we call science. There is knowledge about finances, government, family issues, religion, nature. All of these types of knowledge are types of sciences. This is why universities offer degrees in science of a branch of knowledge. A person can graduate with a Bachelors or Doctorate in the science of business.

If you want to specify the natural sciences as the only type of science, you have made an error. Natural sciences is one of the many sciences which exist. When I affirm MadeNews claim that science (as a whole) is founded on faith, I am looking at all types of knowledge/science and not just natural sciences.

When I segment the branch of science known as modern science (which deals exclusively with the natural sciences) I make a delineation that this branch relies on a bit of faith, and not the same as science as whole.

Actually science itself is founded on faith, we wouldn't have science without it. "
"Even today, modern science still relies on a bit of faith."
"The science of the modern BBT is founded on a claim of faith."

I can't tell by these statements if you're saying that science relies on a bit or a whole lot of faith, or really , what kind of "faith" you are even talking about.

Why bother insisting on the word FAITH, if modern science methodology doesn't USE that concept?

Those statements were articulating the difference between science as a whole, and the more recent interpretation of the word science. When you read the word science, do you only think of the natural sciences or the intellectual activity encompassing the systematic study of a branch of knowledge.

The word science is the systematic study of a branch of knowledge. Most commonly it is the study of the natural world, but there are branches of science which focus solely on theoretical concepts.

I bother insisting on using the word faith, because I try to call things what they are. If you are wearing a red shirt, and I say to you I like your red shirt. You may reply, this shirt is not red but crimson. Does your choice to call the color a different name make my analysis wrong. What you call crimson, another person calls red.

What some scientist call a theory, I call a statement of faith. Both rely on belief. Both lack direct empirical evidence supporting the claim. Both often rely on assumptions of other events as true, even if these events have never been observed by anyone.

Are you still insisting that faith=hypothesis=belief ?

I never said faith=hypothesis=belief. I do insist that faith, hypothesis and belief are all synonyms. As such, when appropriate the words can be substituted. This is the power of synonyms. Like above, red and crimson are synonyms. You can call a shirt crimson, and I can call it red. Because the two words are synonyms, we can use different words and both be correct in our analysis.

If you look up synonyms for faith, you will see belief as one available synonym. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/faith?s=t

If you look up synonyms for hypothesis, you will also see belief as an available synonym. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hypothesis?s=t

If you look up synonyms for belief, you will find both faith and hypothesis. http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/belief?s=t

Hence why I claim modern science is still founded on a bit of faith. Modern science needs to make certain assumptions or beliefs in order to perform testing. This belief, what ever it may be is synonymous with a claim of faith. For example, cosmologists believe inflation is the best theory which explains the current disbursement of background radiation we see today. This word believe is littered all over modern scientific research just like it is littered all over biblical claims. Because of some evidence X, we are told to believe Y. This is true for both modern science and the religious claims you refute.

Is the God Hypothesis able to be revised, like scientific hypotheses are?
Is the God Hypothesis a dogmatic belief that cannot be discarded if proven false?
How CAN the God Hypothesis be falsified?
By what MECHANISMS can scientists evaluate the God Hypothesis?

1. Yes, and it has been revised. In the ancient past people used to have a hypothesis that included many Gods for any and every occasion. It was then revised to monotheism.
2. I dont know. This is a question of opinion. Whether something is dogmatic is subjective and relative to a persons perspective.
3. Prove that God does not exist
4. So far all of our scientific mechanisms have proven to be inadequate. No mechanism has been able to disprove or falsify the hypothesis. For a long time, some scientist relied on a hypothesis of an eternal universe. This hypothesis was then disproved. The old theory was not rejected by many in the scientific community until it was disproved. So far, the God hypothesis has not been disproved, so it can't be rejected.

If in the future it is disproved, then we can reject. Often some in science have moved too quickly to dismiss a hypothesis because it does not look promising. Only to find that the person who remained entrenched in an old hypothesis is proven correct years later. Theists have the belief that they will be proven correct years later.

The concept of cosmic inflation is a statement of faith.

Oh, good.
I almost forgot that you mentioned that about a dozen times, and that it's the topic of our fun debate.

By "faith" do you mean "hypothesis"?
It's really hard to tell, you know.

But just for the record, "cosmic inflation" describes a scientific THEORY.. and is not a "statement of faith" in some sciency church. I am NOT aware of a prayer to "cosmic inflation", or a Cosmic Inflation Creed.

You seem to paint everything with a religious brush, which I assure you, is mistaken.

So if I use the word faith outside of a religous context, you assert I have made an error. By your own words, you claim to use the word faith in a secular context. So that means faith can be used in a secular context.

Faith, whether used in a religious or secular context is used the same way. I have faith in God. You have faith in politician X. What is the difference in the usage of the word faith?

When Alan Guth writes about his beliefs, is he not arguing about the faith he has in those beliefs?

When I argue in favor of my beliefs, I am defending the faith I have in those beliefs. I am presenting examples as to why I think my belief is justified.

What is the difference between defending a belief?
Is defending a belief the same as defending ones faith in that belief?

But to answer your question, yes. I presented what I think to be empirical evidence for the Inflation Theory. I can't do better.. if you want more evidence, I suggest you do the research. I'd start with Alan Guth, of course. And I would URGE you to find and quote where Alan, or any OTHER renowned cosmologist uses the word "FAITH". Try this for starters:

Alan does not use the word faith, but uses the word believe quite often. As I have shown above, the word believe is synonymous with faith.

For example Alan Guth writes "So far I have tried to describe how inflation works, but now I would like to explain the reasons why many scientists - including certainly myself - believe that inflation really is the way that our observed universe began."

If I change out the word believe for faith, the statement is exactly the same. This is the power of synonyms.
"So far I have tried to describe how inflation works, but now I would like to explain the reasons why many scientists - including certainly myself - have faith that inflation really is the way that our observed universe began."

Not using the word faith, does not negate the implications of ones writing. Both statements whether using believe or faith say the exact same thing.

No, you did NOT give evidence that "science" has relied on faith in the past. You merely asserted it. And you did NOT give any evidence that modern science relies on faith but again, merely stated your opinion that it does.

If science relies on faith as you CLAIM, please provide evidence.
Your opinions are not evidence for your opinions.

Find some other evidence, or drop the claim.
Opinions from apologetic sources don't really count as proof that science itself "relies" on faith.

So far, I have not presented any apologetic sources. I do not need to. I presented evidence from wikipedia on the history of science. This was not my opinion.

Here it is again:

Science in a broad sense existed before the modern era, and in many historical civilizations. Modern science is distinct in its approach and successful in its results: 'modern science' now defines what science is in the strictest sense of the term.

Science in its original sense is a word for a type of knowledge, rather than a specialized word for the pursuit of such knowledge. In particular it is one of the types of knowledge which people can communicate to each other and share. For example, knowledge about the working of natural things was gathered long before recorded history and led to the development of complex abstract thinking. This is shown by the construction of complex calendars, techniques for making poisonous plants edible, and buildings such as the pyramids. However no consistent conscientious distinction was made between knowledge of such things which are true in every community and other types of communal knowledge, such as mythologies and legal systems.
...
Working scientists usually take for granted a set of basic assumptions that are needed to justify the scientific method: (1) that there is an objective reality shared by all rational observers; (2) that this objective reality is governed by natural laws; (3) that these laws can be discovered by means of systematic observation and experimentation.[15] Philosophy of science seeks a deep understanding of what these underlying assumptions mean and whether they are valid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

These basic assumptions are on par with statements of faith.

The "cosmic inflation" theory is still being tested.
It is the ONLY theory that explains all the known fact about the cosmos.

Really, the only theory. I think not.

https://arxiv.org/abs/0902.4731

Another alternative is the Eternal Inflation theory. After the Big Bang, the universe expanded rapidly during a brief period called inflation. The Eternal Inflation theory posits that inflation never stopped, and has been going on for an infinite length of time. Somewhere, even now, new universes are coming into existence in a vast complex called the multiverse. Those many universes could have different physical laws.

The Oscillating model of the universe involved an endless series of Big Bangs, followed by Big Crunches that restarted the cycle, endlessly. The modern cyclic model involves colliding "branes" (a "membrane" within a higher-dimensional volume called the "bulk").

Implications found in quantum gravity and string theory tantalizingly suggest a universe that is in reality nothing like how it appears to human observers. It may actually be a flat hologram projected onto the surface of a sphere, for example. Or it could be a completely digital simulation running in a vast computer.

http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-the ... aphic.html

Neither of these are apologetic sources that present alternative theories.

In addition, there is still that hypothesis hanging around that God is the progenitor of the universe. Still being claimed by billions around the world, and has yet to be disproved.

But I don't think it's called the "Inflation FACT", right? Although, you might imagine that scientists take hypotheses as TRUE, most good scientists use SOUND reasoning, and do not confuse what is a hypothesis with what is a fact.

FYI. a hypothesis is not the same word as a FACT.

Never said hypothesis is the same as fact. Never even insinuated that a hypothesis is a fact. I did insinuate that some hypothesis and theories are taught as facts in schools. This is not a fault of physicists or cosmologists, but it has resulted in false doctrines being taught even in a secular school system.

Please note that the THEORY explains empirical DATA. It makes PREDICTIONS, it's a good theory. It may be WRONG.. and then REVISED.

Can I make a slight modification to your sentence.

Please note that the THEORY attempts to explains empirical DATA. It makes PREDICTIONS, it's a good theory. It may be WRONG.. and then REVISED.

The attempt to explain empirical observations is what a good theory should do. It is an attempt until proven.

Can the God Hypothesis make predictions about the BBT?
Can the God Hypothesis be revised by believers, or must they follow some CREED?

Yes, predictions can be made. If God created the universe, we can make several predictions and observations. So far so good for creation scientists. They begin with a theory, test it and then validate their findings.

Can the God hypothesis be revised by believers? Yes. Should the hypothesis be revised is a separate question. I argue that the only times humans have been at odds with natural science is when believers have revised the hypothesis that God is responsible for creation. When the catholic church added to the bible and made predictions that were not founded on actual scripture, the church was proven to be in error. When the church relied solely on what was written, the predictions were validated.

Creeds are created by men. There is no such creed in scripture. The closest thing to a creed you can find in the bible is to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind and soul. And to love your neighbor as yourself"

I do not think this creed would impact any scientific research.

Also notice that it says MOST scientists accept the theory, and the article goes on to say that a sizeable minority do NOT accept it. That's GREAT for science. It appears that holding on to science DOGMA isn't happening in the case of the Inflation Theory.

Do you have any evidence that scientists on one side or the other are making TRUTH claims about the Inflation Theory? Do you think that good scientists would say they have found this "truth" and move on to something else to study?

Or is it still just a hypothesis that yields good predictions about the state of the cosmos at it's origins? The Bible seems to have that covered already in Genesis, right?

Same thing for claims in the bible. Some believe creation of the earth as described in the bible to be literal and correct, while others do not. So balance exists in both sects of knowledge.

Nothing new to learn IN THERE...
In the beginning, apparently, God created the heavens and the earth, and then populated the earth with nice people and plants and animals.

The nice people became bad people.
And that's why people suffer... so believe in God or else.

End of STORY.

Well, that's a nice creation story.
Now what about HOW it happened?

What does the "God Hypothesis" have to tell us about THAT?

This is a horrid summary, but if you want to know how it happened, there are two options.
1. Ask God
2. Do the work and find out on your own

However, we DON'T find that any scientist take the Inflation theory as a fact.. or do we?
If you found reputable cosmologists who claim to know for a fact that the inflation theory is TRUE.. please.. that's the kind of evidence I'm talking about.

I never presented an argument claiming that cosmologist claim the theory of inflation is true. You are asking for evidence for a claim that was never presented. My claim was that modern science relies on a bit of faith. By presenting inflation as something that needs to be believed in, Alan Guth is verifying that cosmic inflation is a claim of faith and not a verifiable fact.

Good, sound, empirical evidence for your claim.
You say that somehow, science relies on FAITH.. it should be easy to find quotes from reputable scientists. There might BE a few.. I can think of a few.. some scientists are apologists, after all, and THEY rely on faith.. at least, for their religious beliefs, they do.

Maybe THEY will play with the meaning of the word faith like you do. Like Paul Davies.
He's very GOOD at playing with words.

No need to play with words. I have taken direct quotes from Alan Guth to show that he believes cosmic inflation is true.

When I say I believe God is real, you take this as a statement of faith.
When Alan Guth says he believes cosmic inflation is real, I take this as a statement o faith. What else is it?

Here is another article I found interesting on the topic:

"Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while others – the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity — may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be wrongheaded.

So when Alan Guth says he "believes inflation is the way that our observed universe began", despite a lack of empirical evidence to be certain of its veracity, can I call this statement a claim of faith?

Though his reasoning may include very good reasons, that does not move the veracity of the claim from being a claim of faith to a fact. Just like the article you presented, when a person says the sun will rise tomorrow, this is a statement of faith because there is no way to be certain this will occur. By our own calculations, only the next 8 minutes of sunlight are guaranteed. Outside of this, the sun may have already imploded and we don't know yet.

The prediction can be accurately predicted, but it is still a faith statement that can be predicted and justified. When those like Alan Guth write about inflation, they are writing statements of faith which can be justified.

Assumptions about the universe are also statements of faith.

Astronomers make three assumptions about the universe based on theory and observation:

• The laws of physics are universal and don’t change with time or location in space.
• The universe is homogeneous, or roughly the same in every direction (though not necessarily for all of time).
• Humans do not observe the universe from a privileged location such as at its very center.

http://www.space.com/24781-big-bang-the ... aphic.html

When astronomers make these assumptions, there is insufficient knowledge to prove these assumptions correct. These are the foundation assumptions (claims of faith) that some branches of science rely on.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

Logic is about deriving conclusions from premises. The "faith" I believe we are talking about is the kind that provides base premises. Base premises are not a logical function, nor are they derived conclusions from logical functions. They are the fodder you dump into the logic machine to derive conclusions. Therefore, asking whether faith is logical or illogical is kind of like asking if the color red is up or down.

All foundational premises are "faith", including the belief that induction leads to meaningful knowledge.

What's illogical is how monotheists have faith in induction AND in miracles at the same time. You cannot rationally believe in both.

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

Logic is about deriving conclusions from premises. The "faith" I believe we are talking about is the kind that provides base premises. Base premises are not a logical function, nor are they derived conclusions from logical functions. They are the fodder you dump into the logic machine to derive conclusions. Therefore, asking whether faith is logical or illogical is kind of like asking if the color red is up or down.

All foundational premises are "faith", including the belief that induction leads to meaningful knowledge.

What's illogical is how monotheists have faith in induction AND in miracles at the same time. You cannot rationally believe in both.

Can you specify the type of induction to which you refer?

INDUCTION:
1.
the action or process of inducting someone to a position or organization.
"the league's induction into the Baseball Hall of Fame"
a formal introduction to a new job or position.
plural noun: inductions
"an induction course"

2.
the process or action of bringing about or giving rise to something.
"isolation, starvation, and other forms of stress induction"
MEDICINE
the process of bringing on childbirth or abortion by artificial means, typically by the use of drugs.

3.
LOGIC: the inference of a general law from particular instances.
the production of (facts) to prove a general statement.

MATHEMATICS: a means of proving a theorem by showing that if it is true of any particular case, it is true of the next case in a series, and then showing that it is indeed true in one particular case.
noun: mathematical induction; plural noun: mathematicals induction


4. PHYSICS: the production of an electric or magnetic state by the proximity (without contact) of an electrified or magnetized body.
the production of an electric current in a conductor by varying the magnetic field applied to the conductor.

5. the stage of the working cycle of an internal combustion engine in which the fuel mixture is drawn into the cylinders.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

Number 3, of course.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 259 by KingandPriest]




[center]Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
"Alan Guth uses the word "believe" so he must be using faith to arrive at a scientific theory, and therefore, all scientists use faith."
Part One[/center]

When Alan Guth writes about his beliefs, is he not arguing about the faith he has in those beliefs?

I think he means that he is convinced by the evidence that his theory is the best one so far. I don't think that he is stating an act of religious faith.

He extends a high probability ( always conditional, in good science ) that his theory is correct. UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE.. new data comes in all the time.

You are just playing with words.
Words like faith have more than one meaning..

And you're making a big deal out of that.
To somehow prove that science is the same as religion.
When it's patently NOT.

For example Alan Guth writes "So far I have tried to describe how inflation works, but now I would like to explain the reasons why many scientists - including certainly myself - believe that inflation really is the way that our observed universe began."

So, ok, he has a belief.
I don't think he bases that on any kind of faith, dogma, trust, hope or anything OTHER than the careful analysis of data.

When it comes to "God", where IS the data?

You seem to want us to think of science as another form or religion.
That's a very fallacious bit of religious reasoning, and I'm not biting.

Sorry, but scientific methods just aren't THE SAME as religious ones.
I completely reject your hypothesis.

It's based on language difficulty.
And the reasoning ain't so hot, neither.

I give this apologetic a spectacular FAILZ.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 265 by KingandPriest]

I do think the folks at oxford have overstepped some definitions and others are lacking. No dictionary is perfect so we accept the balance of the excellent definitions with the weak definitions. As it pertains to the three words we are discussing, I think there are better definitions available for faith and believe.

You don't seem to understand the purpose of a dictionary.
That's not too uncommon.

People attach meanings to words.. We call that a language of some sort, in this case, the English language. The dictionary is a list of the most common words with a list of the most common definitions for those words. OF COURSE, there are many other meanings that people can attach to those, and words that they make up. If the new words get USED enough, they make into a good dictionary.

The dictionary REPORTS the definitions that other people have for the words. Oxford does NOT dictate what the words mean to us... They REPORT what the words mean to a lot of people in the same language.

So, forget about Oxford, or anyone else.
This is about YOUR use of YOUR terms, and not someone at Oxford.

In philosophy, we must define our terms ourselves, and try to seek agreement, about the definitions, if at all possible.

When Blastcat cannot accept your definitions, it's because of some language difficulty, bad reasoning, or something else.

I don't DISAGREE with people's definitions frivolously.