[MD] Faith

[Gene M]

On 7/26/06, ian glendinning <psybertron at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Gene, You've shifted the ground from evidence to proof, which is
> another matter, but ....


I felt Evidence was too wishy washy. The religious will tell you they have
"evidence" for  their beliefs too. I think Science's evidene is a far bit
better, but that doesn't mean both sides won't claim it.

I completely agree with your sentiment about scientists who live in
> glass houses throwing stones at the "faithful" behind their stained
> glass windows. We're all in the same boat - I'm looking for the
> (excluded) middle ground here, not getting caught in the ritual
> stoning. (Somebody gimme a Python / Life of Brian quote please.)
>
> The only point I would add is that the metaphysical foundations of the
> axioms may seem little more than faith, but a scientist sees and
> places a lot of evidential value in) the consistent explanatory whole
> (consilience to use my word of the month) derived on top of such
> axioms too. The elegant beauty of structures built on these counts for
> a lot in both churches.


I would readily agree that science is a much better structure than religion.
The point I am trying to make is that they are both based on Faith.

Craig:

> Good scientists do not ever assume a theory true.  They create repeatable
> tests of the theory.  Successful tests confirm the theory, unsuccessful ones
> falsify it.
> Craig
>

I pretty much agree, but I'd change confirm, to strengthen. No theory is
ever confirmed as True. That's how they can continually be modified and
improved. All theories are essentially on a "for now" basis.

-Gene