Replies

There was plenty in earlier posts that I may get back to but this one is one of my oldest pet peeves, that of Conflating the various connotations of the word “Faith” and treating them all as equivalent. They are not.

To quote Betty Boop (Hi Betty, miss me?):

The scientist's faith is that the world is intelligible. If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling. If he doubted them, he would not be an engineer at all.

We start off with the world being 'intelligible.' If it wasn't intelligible, on some level – no one, no creature even, could survive for a moment if it weren't. You accused 12stCenturion of the Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness or as it is more typically know Reification and then commit it here. Intelligence is an abstract concept and its application, intelligibility, is a function of the human mind, not a attribute of the world. And many aspects aren't particularly intelligible: that at the sub-atomic level particles are simultaneously particle and wave, the Copenhagen Interpretation that they exist only as probabilities until detected and then collapse into point of being or the contradiction between Einstein's Theories and Bell's Theorem. (As an aside the Copenhagen Interpretation is also an example of Reification, know why?) So we take that quibble for starters.

Then the assertion that this is taken on faith. There is faith and then there is 'faith'. To have the confidence that the sun will come up tomorrow morning can be called 'faith' that the sun will rise, but this is not the same as “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” The last part of that sentence being an oxymoron since the very root of the word evidence means 'to see'. These are two very different connotations. To equate them is to conflate them.

What's even more interesting is the fact that one must have faith in 'faith' before one can have faith. It is the ultimate self-recursive non sequitur.

Thus the next sentence does not follow:

If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. To 'believe' something due to countless examples of consistency as provided by the senses is not the same as to 'believe' in the supernatural. Since the supernatural is, by definition, beyond the realm of the senses, while the investigation of this world, of this Universe, is dependent upon the information garnered by the senses, the connotations of this word are not the same and it is a mistake to conflate them.

And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling.

Because he has proven their consistency through countless examples of their veracity, not because he wants them to be true, without any evidence.

It seems to me that all human knowledge rests on faith at its very foundation. That is, without faith there is no spur towards knowledge, no scope for the operations of logic and reason, nothing for intelligence to work on.

All human knowledge rests upon experience, period. The 'scope of logic and reason' is to integrate that experience into a coherent whole, without which survival is not possible for man. Faith is not an element in human survival.

To move on:

And yet for countless millenia by now, belief in God has been universal to all mankind everywhere.

Apparently you aren't familiar with Taoism or Buddhism. Shinto doesn't really foot the bill either.

But back to my opening comment, that every scientist must believe the world is intelligible or there couldn't be any science at all; science per se would be a pointless exercise if the fundamental intelligibility of the world was in doubt.

Your argument is Circular and a Glittering Generality to boot. You speak for “every scientist” with an absolute that only exists in your own mind. The world exists as it is and to seek to discover how that world operates doesn't require a 'belief', just a desire to know. And that desire to know started way back when with, How do I survive? How do I keep this fire going that the lightening started?

There is a glaring hole in your reasoning that if the 'fundamental intelligibility' of the world were so obvious, people wouldn't have gotten so wrong for so long. It remains to be seen whether there is some fundamental element that is beyond human understanding but that will take of the future of humanity to determine conclusively, so, once again, it is a moot point. Just like the speculation of the existence of Multi-verses.

And yet I know of no scientist, offhand, who asks the question: Why is the world intelligible? What is it that embues it with intelligibility?

Well, first of all Wigner, which Alamo-Girl (Hi Alamo-Girl, miss me?) quoted, implies this first question in the 'unreasonable(!) effectiveness of mathematics' . Your second sentence Begs the Question that it is 'embued' rather than seeing it for what it is, the explanation of the observable phenomenon of the Universe by mankind. Intelligibility is an intellectual process by Man, not on inherent quality of the Universe. Reification again, my dear. ; }

Then:

Science does not ask these questions. Indeed, such questions seem a bit above science's paygrade, given its utter dependence on sensory perception/observation/measurement which is its fundamental, even sacrosanct method.

Well, as demonstrated, they have been asked. But, pray tell, is there other than sensory perception/observation/measurement by which we obtain knowledge about the Universe we live in? Hmmmmm?

I might add that there are plenty of "non-observables" of the greatest importance to human beings. Indeed, the ability of man to detect them is a sign of his categorical superiority to the lower animals.

You need to delineate these "non-observables" in order for this assertion to have any credibility.

But to not ask such questions doesn't mean the questions disappear. Plus by its own methods, science cannot disprove, or falsify the eternal Presence of God.

Do you remember Boop, years ago, the fallacy I identified when last we had this conversation? I remember. Do you? I AM curious. What was my reply to this Assertion?

Anyhoot, back to my claim that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive: If you were to scrupulously, honestly analyze your own thought processes, I think you would find I am right about this. Actually, they are completely different realms. Faith, in the way you mean it, religiously (and let me make this clear, I am not saying there is anything WRONG with that, per se) and REASON as a means of apprehending and understanding the Universe we exist in, ARE mutually exclusive .

I scrupulously, honestly (more than you can know) analyze my own thought processes - and I know you are wrong.

But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.

Well see there, now we agree. Few people understand their own thinking and critical analysis does seem to increasingly become a lost art.

I am going to post this without much copy editing because I have to go. I will amend as necessary. But it is enough to get us going, I THINK.