Is 'faith' really a 'great cop-out'?

[CoxRox]

I ask this as I just noticed a quote of Richard Dawkins. I would love to be able to proove things for myself e.g E=mc2. (I am rubbish at even basic maths and know that I can't fathom equations like this but I have faith that others understand and know the workings of them.) I don't think faith need always be negative as Dawkins asserts. Yes, it can mean you have blindly accepted something without trying to understand it, (which would make you a fool) but it can also be because you are not capable of understanding the whole picture but you understand and 'see' how other related stuff works.

[Jason Jarred]

"Is 'faith' really a 'great cop-out'?"

Yes. :p

[CoxRox]

Ok, to take it a bit further, I've been looking at the definition of 'theory' (scientifically speaking) to see if that was similar to 'faith' and I found this definition: 'In science a theory is a testable model.....' (Wikipedia) so that can't be anything like faith but then I thought of 'string theory' and with my smidgen of understanding, I thought it was an unproven 'theory' and as I read further along the definition I found this: 'The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various theories of everything.' So maybe my speculation about an intelligent designer isn't such a cop out after all.

[leo-rcc]

Actually a Scientific theory can consist of various hypothesis, that can create a workable testable model. The key to science is that even if a testable model turns out to work in practice, when a new discovery is made in one of the components of the theory, it can completely alter the theory, reinforce the theory, or even render the theory as false. Whenever that happens, science will have no problem dropping that theory. But that does mean a new hypothesis or theory will have to be researched to take its place.

Science has no problem with being proven wrong. It is not dogmatic as most/all religions are.

[allan175]

I ask this as I just noticed a quote of Richard Dawkins. I would love to be able to proove things for myself e.g E=mc2. (I am rubbish at even basic maths and know that I can't fathom equations like this but I have faith that others understand and know the workings of them.) I don't think faith need always be negative as Dawkins asserts. Yes, it can mean you have blindly accepted something without trying to understand it, (which would make you a fool) but it can also be because you are not capable of understanding the whole picture but you understand and 'see' how other related stuff works.

"Faith" taken with its usual meaning is definitely a cop out.

"Believing" that there is a god behind the scenes cannot be proved/disproved at all.

My maths skills aren't fantastic but I "believe" that e=mc2 because it can be explained to me by someone who does understand the necessary maths (if they take small enough steps! ).

Same goes for the evidence for evolution. From what I've read I feel I have enough of an understanding to think it is "right" but for DNA/molecular level details I know I could talk to someone who would show me the details.

"Belief" in Intelligent Design cannot be explained by anyone, it is purely a way to shoehorn a "god" into things.
*If* someone one day found something that was "irreducibly complex" (and could prove that it was) then, and only then, would we have to consider that life was "designed".

[CoxRox]

Leo Rcc, you say: 'Science has no problem with being proven wrong. It is not dogmatic as most/all religions are.' I would agree with this. I have no problem with things being proven wrong e.g the earth isn't flat, the earth wasn't made in 6 literal days etc.

Allan 175, you said: ' ''Belief" in Intelligent Design cannot be explained by anyone, it is purely a way to shoehorn a "god" into things.' Not everyone who 'believes' in 'god' is shoehorning him into the equation. They may be tempted to put god there like Einstein who said: 'My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind. ' The 'slight details' for me are the subject of another topic no doubt as is irreducible complexity.

I am trying to draw a comparison to those scientists who propose the 'string theory' for example, even though they can't prove it at this time. I am asking if they are in some way exercising 'faith' that what they suspect, will turn out to be the case or not. The outcome doesn't really matter as far as this discussion is concerned. It's their uncertainty, or lack of proof, which to me seems to be akin to 'faith'. Maybe I have got the wrong end of the stick. I just think 'faith' isn't always a bad thing and maybe is an essential ingredient for achieving knowledge or understanding.

[allan175]

Definitely a degree of faith involed in stuff like String Theory (as far as I can tell that is, as stated my maths skills aren't fantastic).

*But* I think the crucial difference is that someone believing in String Theory would realise it was false if shown an alternative that fitted the available data better (or new data showed Strings were not the unifying theory they believed).

An element of faith is required for everything we haven't personally "discovered". During my entire life I have seen nothing that "proves" the Earth is not flat, wherever I am looking it appears pretty much flat (with a few bumps). I have been convinced by the arguments to the contrary though and don't expect to fall off the edges no matter how far I travel.

[CoxRox]

So, is faith or even a 'degree' of faith as negative as Dickie would have us believe?

[leo-rcc]

I take it with 'Dickie' you mean Dr. Dawkins?

Well for one I don't agree with a lot of Dr. Dawkins work outside his evolutionary biology. He is also the first to admit he is not an expert on physics as he has stated in several videos. That being said, 'degrees' of faith are very arbitrary. I have faith that i will see the sun tomorrow, but I could die. It doesn't hurt me in the least to have faith in seeing the sun tomorrow, so I don't see that as a negative.

Where faith becomes a negative is for instance when you truly believe that you can shoot yourself in the face and live. Even though there are cases where this has happened, all the evidence points to a extreme likelihood you will die from such an endeavor. While I have no problem with people believing such a claim is true, I would try to persuade them of the evidence, and point out that what they are doing is dangerous.

But it becomes really bad when you in your faith while really believing it, think that you can shoot other people in their face and they wont die. That is the part where I really object to. Then you could potentially harm others around you, and that should never be tolerated.

Now my examples are extreme, but this has occurred in suicide cults all over the world. And to what extent faith becomes a negative influence varies, but in any case looking critically at any given evidence is a good thing. Whether you have faith in it or not.

As for String Theory, I have not looked at a lot of evidence for or against it (it is not my field of expertise and I don't really care one way or the other) but I will read the Wiki and come back to you on that.

[CoxRox]

Hi Leo, I would agree with your last post.

Faith, like anything else can be misapplied or misunderstood but faith per se is perhaps a necessary part of understanding (or not understanding) the fuller picture.