From: crb7q@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Cameron Randale Bass)
Subject: Re: STRUCTURE OF TIME  --  interpretation?
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 03:00:03 GMT

In article <1992Oct9.230025.13593@seas.smu.edu> mhosea@seas.smu.edu (Mike Hosea) writes:
> I write:
>>     That is why the process of physics includes experimental data
>>     for falsification.  Faith offers no such falsification.
>
>It is often the case that people assume beliefs as a matter of Faith about 
>things that ARE subject to falsification.  Your definition of Faith is
>idealist and too narrow.

     The  point is that they are only subject to falsification by
     your rules.  Faith does not play by these rules.  If I had Faith
     that the chair below me was actually the hand of God, then 
     there would be no way for you to show me that it wasn't.  However,
     if I admitted the possiblity that you could show me, through
     apparent evidence, that it was 'really' a construction made of
     wood and metal, then I would no longer have my previous Faith.

>I agree that Faith has nothing to do with science, but science has become
>a kind of religion to atheists.  Faith gives people the power to fill in
>gaps of knowledge that science may never be able to address.  Scientists 
>and laymen alike seem to find it difficult to separate their Faith from 
>science, irrespective of whether that Faith's origin is theistic or atheistic.
>One scarcely has to mention the word "evolution" and a hot debate ensues
>that rarely has an intellectual tone.  I think the source of this conflict
>is that some beliefs held in Faith are clearly out of the domain of science
>and some are not.  When some tidbit of scientific knowledge casts doubt on
>a belief held in Faith, people seem to find it easier to defend their Faith, 
>sometimes to the point of violence, rather than reassess whether the belief
>has any real relevance to the core of their theistic or atheistic tenets. 

     Even the ones that appear to be in the domain of science are not science
     if they are articles of Faith.  This is the difficulty with the
     evolution debates.  Most of the participants that I have seen have
     this prejudice about what things 'really are' without realizing that
     the question of what things 'really are' is not science.  For example,
     biological evolution in various guises is a scientific theory that 
     seems to conform to the apparent evidence. The theory is also falsifiable
     under the evidence.  

     The difficulty arises when certain sects attempt 
     to call one of their articles of Faith a scientific theory.  One
     of the most common things for scientists to do is to say 'it
     doesn't conform with observation'.  To me, these are the right words
     within science, but it fails to recognize that the proponents are 
     not playing by your rules.  In their view, the observations DO NOT
     MATTER.  Within their religion is is *perfectly 
     consistent* to claim that the earth is 6000 years old, and that
     all the fossils were put there by God.  You cannot prove that this is
     *not* true, just as you cannot prove that my chair is not actually the
     hand of God.  You cannot prove that the moon isn't actually made
     out of green cheese that happens to have no organic molecules and
     look, smell, feel and taste like dirt.   This is a key issue that 
     frequently traps scientists debating with religious folk (at least it
     has a number of the times I have heard this debate).   

     In my view, the proper way to proceed for science is to point out
     that, regardless of the issue, if you don't play by the rules of the 
     game, then you cannot use the name of the game.  The rules of science
     do not actually allow us to search for the Truth or to Prove anything,
     regardless of our usually loose usage of these terms.  We can only
     describe and incrementally verify or falsify.  Miracles cannot
     be verified or falsified (the stance of the Catholic Church 
     notwithstanding) since by their very nature they are not the orderly
     products of what came before.

     About people taking science as their religion, there will always
     be gaps in knowledge and places that science will never intrude.
     If people wish to fill these places, they do it outside of science.

                              dale bass
-- 
C. R. Bass                                           crb7q@virginia.edu
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering
University of Virginia
Charlottesville, Virginia                            (804) 924-7926
Xref: sparky sci.physics:16426 sci.astro:10687 sci.math:13115 sci.philosophy.tech:3651