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]

[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.

You routinely assert I am playing with words, but you introduce and remove the word religious at your pleasure to try and support your point about faith. I never claimed Alan Guth used the word believe in a religious sense or as if he described faith in God.

On the contrary, I merely pointed out the way Alan Guth uses the word belief is the exact same way Christians use the word believe when speaking of events in the bible. He uses the word to believe, and then provides reasons why a person should believe as he does. Contrast that with a Christian who believes in Jesus Christ and then points out reasons why a person should believe as they do.

You summarized the 6 reasons Guth gave for believing as he does, that cosmic expansion is "really the way that our observed universe began."

1. Any successful theory of the origin of the universe must somehow lead to the result that it contains at least 1090 particles. The fundamental theory on which the calculation is based, however, presumably does not contain any numbers nearly so large. Calculations can of course lead to factors of 2 or π, but it would take very many factors of 2 or π to reach 1090. Inflation, however, leads to exponential expansion, and that seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one.

2. The second reason is the Hubble expansion itself - the fact that the universe is observed to be in a state of uniform expansion. An ordinary explosion, like TNT or an atomic bomb, does not lead to expansion that is nearly uniform enough to match the expansion pattern of the universe. But the gravitational repulsion of inflationary models produces exactly the uniform expansion that was first observed by Edwin Hubble in the 1920s and 30s.

3. Inflation is the only theory that we know of that can explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe

4. Inflation goes a very long way to resolve what is known as the is known as the flatness problem. It is concerned with the closeness of the mass density of our universe to what cosmologists call the critical density.

5.The fifth reason for believing the inflationary description is the absence of magnetic monopoles. Grand unified particle theories, which unify all the known particle interactions with the exception of gravity, predict that there should be stable particles that have a net magnetic charge.

6. The prediction that the inflation theory makes for the detailed structure of the cosmic background radiation. That is, inflation makes very definite predictions not only for the uniformity that we see around us, but it also predicts that there should be small deviations from that uniformity due to quantum uncertainties.

To this I replied:

Do you call this emprical evidence? Some of these reasons are not empirical evidence. The evidence you presented is
1. Inflation "seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one."
2. Universe is expanding. Expansion from a explosion does not explain observed uniformity, so it must have inflated like a balloon.
3. Inflation is the only way.
4. Inflation solves most of our mathematical problems
5. Believe in inflation because it unifies all of the known particle interactions except for gravity. (Don't ask about gravity)
6. Inflation predicted that there would be cosmic background radiation. Since there is cosmic radiation, it must be true.

Now, if I were to switch out the word inflation for God, you would argue that none of these reasons are empirical evidence.
1. GOD "seems to be the easiest way to start with only small numbers and finish with a very large one."
2. Universe is expanding. Expansion from an explosion does not explain observed uniformity, so it must have inflated like a balloon. GOD blew up the balloon.
3. GOD is the only way.
4. GOD solves most of our mathematical problems
5. Believe in GOD because it unifies all of the known particle interactions except for gravity. (Don't ask about gravity)
6. GOD predicted that there would be cosmic background radiation. Since there is cosmic radiation, it must be true.

Even in the link you provided, the author begins by describing a defense for a belief system.

This was conveniently overlooked in your last few responses. So Guth provided reasons why he believed cosmic inflation is the way our universe began. Whether or not these reasons contain any direct empirical evidence to verify the theory does not appear to matter to you. So a Christian should be able to provide similar evidence (not empirical or not directly proving one's claim) to support the belief that Jesus is the son of God and died and was resurrected for the sins of mankind.

I am making a big deal because on separate threads it has been argued that a well reasoned person should not accept the claims of supernatural occurrences made in the bible because of a lack of direct empirical evidence. Yet, when it comes to a theory like cosmic inflation, this is easily acceptable despite direct empirical evidence. I just want to point out the hypocrisy of championing Alan Guth for belief in cosmic inflation, and yet criticizing believers for exercising the same type of faith that Alan Guth uses.

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.

There is a lot of data that supports the bible. We have extra-biblical records that support much of the historical timeline of the Jewish people. The extra-biblical record of Canaanite migration into Egypt and then out of Egypt, the record of captivity by Babylon/Assyria, the rebuilding of the temple after years in captivity, the rule of Rome in Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and resulting scatter of the Jewish people. All of these are data points to which allows a person to believe in the bible, just like Alan Guth believes in inflation.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 271 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 Two[/center]

You routinely assert I am playing with words, but you introduce and remove the word religious at your pleasure to try and support your point about faith. I never claimed Alan Guth used the word believe in a religious sense or as if he described faith in God.

On the contrary, I merely pointed out the way Alan Guth uses the word belief is the exact same way Christians use the word believe when speaking of events in the bible.

You just contradicted yourself.
You seem to disagree with me, and then you prove my point.

_________________

Argument:

KingandPriest contradicts himself:

P1 ) KingandPriest accuses Blastcat of introducing the term "religious" in an ambiguous manner to make a case.
P2 ) You then claim that you never claimed Alan Guth used the word believe in a religious sense.
P3) You go on to say in the very next paragraph that Alan Guth uses the word belief the exact same way Christians use the word believe when speaking of events in the bible.
P4 ) Since it is reasonable to think that Christians tend to use the word "believe" in a religious sense when they are describing the Bible, you are saying that Alan Guth doesn't and does use the word "Believe" in a religious sense, which is a complete contradiction.

C ) Therefore, KingandPriest contradicts himself.

_________________

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 271 by KingandPriest]

[center]
Fallacious Religious Reasoning:
"A person uses a word that can be used in religion, so THEREFORE, that person is using the word the same way as a religious person would. "[/center]

This was conveniently overlooked in your last few responses. So Guth provided reasons why he believed cosmic inflation is the way our universe began.

Blastcat do love hiz conveniences !!!

Yes, Guth uses words like "believe" and "the way".

But I don't think we will find much BELIEF expressed in his scientific papers. He is speaking for a NON scientific audience here.. so is using more CASUAL language.

Maybe THE WAY he is speaking is easier for us non theoretical physicists than the math way and the physics way his papers use. I think he arrives at his convictions by WAY of science, and NOT by way of faith.

Language difficulties, my friend.
Communication breakdown !!

[Danmark]

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.
....

This is utter nonsense. Science does not rely on 'faith' at all.
Or, perhaps you can give an example of science today relying on faith rather than observation. If you can, please do so.
if you can't, please retract your claim that science relies on faith.

[KingandPriest]

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.
....

This is utter nonsense. Science does not rely on 'faith' at all.
Or, perhaps you can give an example of science today relying on faith rather than observation. If you can, please do so.
if you can't, please retract your claim that science relies on faith.

Many branches of natural science rely on underlying assumptions to create, test and validate a theory. These underlying assumptions are statements of faith in that we have no way of guaranteeing these assumptions or verifying the assumption with empirical evidence.

Here are three:

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

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.

So it is upon the faith that these assumptions are true/correct that certain fields create and test theories. If you notice, I did not say all of science depends on faith. I made a clear distinction that modern science relies on a bit of faith. The scientific method attempts to remove as much guess work, assumptions and faith as possible. In some cases, we need to begin from positions of faith, and then apply the scientific method. We begin with an assumption or belief, and then build models and reasoning on those core beliefs. I am not saying there is anything wrong with using some faith to build a model, and then support that model with empirical evidence. Ignoring the original assumptions and claiming that science does not rely on faith at all would be a blatant lie and mis-characterization of actual recorded scientific history.

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. By definition alone, I can make the argument that underlying assumptions are underlying statements of faith.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to KingandPriest]

A firm commitment that you cannot reject based on an absolute authority claim?............well if you are a Santa Claus believing child that would make sense.

Its foolish for an adult to hold those standards to reality.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 275 by KingandPriest]

Many branches of natural science rely on underlying assumptions to create, test and validate a theory. These underlying assumptions are statements of faith in that we have no way of guaranteeing these assumptions or verifying the assumption with empirical evidence.

"Equivocation: misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings). Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

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

You are equating "underlying assumptions" in science with "faith".

______________

Questions:

• 1. What do you consider ARE the underlying assumptions of science?
  2. How are these assumptions IN ANY WAY similar to "faith"?
  3. How do you think scientists GOT these assumptions?

_______________

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 275 by KingandPriest]

Many branches of natural science rely on underlying assumptions to create, test and validate a theory. These underlying assumptions are statements of faith in that we have no way of guaranteeing these assumptions or verifying the assumption with empirical evidence.

"Equivocation: misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time). It generally occurs with polysemic words (words with multiple meanings). Albeit in common parlance it is used in a variety of contexts, when discussed as a fallacy, equivocation only occurs when the arguer makes a word or phrase employed in two (or more) different senses in an argument appear to have the same meaning throughout.

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

You are equating "underlying assumptions" in science with "faith".
______________

Questions:

• 1. What do you consider ARE the underlying assumptions of science?
  2. How are these assumptions IN ANY WAY similar to "faith"?
  3. How do you think scientists GOT these assumptions?

_______________

1. Science as a whole does not have underlying assumptions. Each branch of science has different underlying assumptions. Some overlap, while others do not.

I presented an example of underlying assumptions back in Is faith logical?: Post 275. Did you respond before reading the entire post?

It is best to read the whole post before asking a question. Your question has already been answered above.

2. Once again already answered in Is faith logical?: Post 275

An assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof. By definition alone, I can make the argument that underlying assumptions are underlying statements of faith.

3. In some cases these assumptions were based on evidence, and in other cases they are a 'most likely scenario' type of guess.

As you wrote in a separate thread

"Just because something happened consistently in the PAST doesn't mean that it will consistently CONTINUE to happen in the present or future."

The purpose of Faith: Post 153

So by your own words, you equate an assumption with faith.