Faith in Science?

[Alex K]

---

Interesting though, he does not seem to question the ability of science to pursue truth here but takes that - and what it means to pursue truth, as a given. His question of faith is situated at a deeper level, apparently - whether the pursuit of truth is useful and recommended in the first place. That is not what most people mean today when it is argued that science requires faith. Nietzsche doesn't seem to talk all that specifically about science, is my impressjon.

Kudos for the fact that you read German. There are so many classic works that I would love to be able to read in their original language.

To add to what you, benny, and Julia said, I take Nietzsche to be saying something to the effect that "Truth" is to science what the categorical imperatives are to religion; that is, a "thou shalt..." (fill-in-the-blank; example: "...pursue Truth by this means as opposed to that.") No matter to what extent a person would like to reject faith, especially as it relates to religious propositions, one must have faith... in something, whether it's one's own goals or a societal utopia or it's the utility of the scientific enterprise or again, fill in your own blank. To live completely without faith in anything or anyone is to be Nietzsche's "ubermensch," to be "beyond good and evil," to "live dangerously," as he liked to say. I think he's to some extent (er, to paraphrase what I believe he states elsewhere) correct that humanism is basically an adoption of the Christian ethic but without God or superstition. What I love about Nietzsche is that he's all about questioning everything, having an "intellectual conscience," and not taking yourself too seriously.

Another thing I wonder is if he's suggesting that all faiths are equally beneficial or dangerous depending on the individual. So, for example, say I don't care about whether or not science can describe the origins and demise of the Universe, or the cause for each and every human thought and behavior; say, the thing I care most about is being happy, feeling hopeful, that my life has purpose; these are natural needs and cravings that every person has, and it seems like the most rational thing I could care about. If the only thing that a person finds satisfaction in with regards to these ideals is a self-delusion, isn't it on some level perfectly reasonable to accept this delusion as my truth? Hasn't our species by and large survived on delusion anyway?

What if certain truths (or the "Truth") are dangerous in the end? Would it still be rational to pursue it, or to share it? Should some truths be ignored or suppressed? By the way, there's an excellent little philosophical narrative found in Douglas Hofstadter and Daniel Dennett's book The Mind's Eye called "The Riddle of the Universe and Its Solution" by Christopher Cherniak that deals with a similar theme. (You can read a brief synopsis of it here or the full story here).

---

It is a nice skill to have, but it is not worth such a big kudos if one, as in my case, is actually German
Anyways, could one not say that this primacy of truth is not only the categorical imperative for science, but, almost tautologically, for philosophy in general? Any statement denying it seems to render itself irrelevant. I wonder though how instincts and irrational desires fit into this picture. If humans have an inborn curiosity, as is hard to deny, one can ask - curiosity for what? Isn't curiosity the interest in what are the properties of the world around us, and isn't that the pursuit of truth? I can only speak for myself, but I desired to have knowledge about the world before I knew that I needed a justification for it, and I suspect it is part of the human condition.