by brotherdan 181 Replies latest watchtower bible
Farkel
Yep. As a matter-of-fact, everything in science that I can think of has to be honestly acknowledged as not an absolute fact Absolute certainty can only be achieved with testing every possibility which exists. Possibilities are infinite. Such a thing is impossible for humans to accomplish.
Thanks for your honesty.
Just to be clear. Facts are data and not open to interpretation. They just are. I may and do debate the meaning of the facts and whether the facts were collected in the best manner for testing hypotheses, but facts just are. Facts are not true, false or absolute, they are just data and observations.
It is theories and hypotheses that are open to tests, refinement, acceptance, rejection, and so on. We really never try to prove scientific theories in the fashion of theology, philosophy, or even mathematics. The utility and acceptance of a theory is solely related to its ability to predict the future. The more often it predicts accurately the more confidence we have in the theory. Translated, the more we will use it to predict the future. When it fails to predict accurately, then we try and modify the theory, or even reject it in favor of a new one. Practicing scientists just never use the idea of proving a theory correct. Its just not how it works.
Faith is not a component of scientific work. I don't have any kind of faith in any theory. I have probabilities. Much different than faith. Probabilities are not arbitrary and pulled out of a hat, they are mathematically generated based on the quality of the data and the degree of agreement of tests of the hypothesis with the expected results. Only when well-constructed tests fail to yield the expected results do we begin to question the theory. That's not a loss of faith, rather it highlights the limits of our knowledge and the theories.
There is only one article of faith in science and that is the belief that experiment is the way to knowledge and understanding. In other words, we simply believe that hypothesis testing and accurate predictions are confirmation of a theory.
So, science as practiced by scientists is not a religion or a faith. It is science. Its very good for some things but not everything. If we can't experiment on it, then we are hampered in our studies. If it is a one time occurence in the universe, we can't do much with it.
I'll attempt a good analogy after I fix supper.
Damocles
brotherdan: You may enjoy some of the posts on this thread at JWR. . .
http://www.jehovahswitnessrecovery.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=7025
Damocles, you should post more.
Wow. Long thread. I wanted to mention that I took that outsiders test of faith/ or maybe it was a different test from Luthgow (was that his name, Leaving?), on Leaving's recommendation, a while back.
I sent the answers in (some of which I couldn't really answer because the question itself didn't apply to my faith, and so I stated that in my answer and why), but I never got a response.
*shrug*
Maybe that wasn't the outsider's test of faith then?
Tammy
SBC thanks, I'm kind of mecurial about it.
So I'll try an analogy of how we scientists really work.
Richard Feynman used a Chess analogy. He said scientists were observing a chess game and trying to guess the rules - how kings move, how bishops move etc just from observation. We might predict that rooks move unlimited spaces but only in a horizontal or vertical direction. We predict moves and everything is fine till the player castles. Then our theories on rooks looks pretty poor and we either have to amend our theory or chuck it aside for a new one.
I prefer maps. We can make measurements of roads, mountains, lakes etc and try to put them together in a map that describes the relationship of all the features to each other. We test the maps by getting the car and driving where we want by the map. We judge the quality of the map by how well it helps us get where we want to go. If the map is missing roads, or has roads where there are none, then we likely will not use that map much and will make or get another one. If a theory is like a map, its utility is solely in its ability to help us get where we want to go and how well it predicts.
Now, we have and use all sorts of different maps for different purposes. A map of the United States on the wall is good for one thing but likely not for getting us to the party Saturday night. A road map may be good for getting us to Yellowstone, but not so good for hiking it. So with scientific theories. Newton's theory of gravitation is like a world map, good as a starting point and the underlying science, but you need a more precise theory for landing on the moon. So we have many different theories that are related to each other and should be in basic agreement but are used for different purposes.
If we find a mistake in the map, we may simply put a note on it and still use it. If we find lots of mistakes, we may make a new one. Or if we find some basic fundamental flaw we may revise all of the maps related to that area. So with theories. Newton's gravity was refined again and again with no reason to suspect a fundamental flaw. Later measurements indicated that while it works on many levels it needs refinement and so Einstein and others proposed new theories that are better...for now.
I like maps as an analogy to remind myself the map is not the territory. I love maps, but they are no substitute for the real thing. I admire theories, but its experience that counts.
So, for a practicing scientist, faith has really nothing to do with his or her work. We propose theories, test them, refine the theories, then make things like computers, cell phones, liquid crystal displays (in color no less).
brotherdan... have you given any thought to stepping outside of your comfort zone and looking at other faiths that have been derided by Christianity? One that comes to mind immediately because so many of its traditions have been adopted by Christians is Paganism/NeoPaganism.
I have not done that. While I've rejected the WTS. I haven't rejected Jesus.
BTW
One final brief (for me) comment. Religous faith and science are not mutually exclusive. In my 30 years practicing science, I bet much more than half the scientists I've worked with are pious active believers. One of the better physicists I worked with was a presbyterian who took in disadvantaged kids and retired to doing the peace corps. He was quite devout. My doctoral advisor was religous. Now I'm not anymore, the witnesses helped fry that particular set of neurons. but I don't think I'm in the majority of my fellow scientists. Most of them view science and faith as two different categories.
I haven't rejected Jesus.
I wasn't suggesting that you do. I haven't either. But I am curious about what I have been told by 'Christianity' about other beliefs and faiths. I am merely curious to see if you are willing to investigate all that Christianity has taught you about other faiths as well. You may find some things are not as you were led to believe.
