Brant Gardner wrote:marg wrote:Religious faith is different than faith in scientific theories because religion does not offer any means for verification for such claims to God, Gods, afterlife. Religious claims are often mere assertions as opposed to science which warrants its claims with objective evidence or predictive value which can be objectively assessed.
Your first paragraph was so good, I was really disappointed in this one. I agree that there is science behind quantum physics, but that stuff is still really weird. For most of us, we take it on faith because we don't understand it. Is it correct? Pythogoreans had a great explanation for the movement of Venus (I believe I am remembering this correctly). It predicted the movement of Venus accurately, but it was completely wrong. Nevertheless, it had predictive value and was objectively assessed.
Compared to quantum mechanics, it had much less mystery.
Again, the problem is that we confuse the scientific method with an ideology that is based on science. The ideology functions just as religion does. Because religion is supposed to be separate, we tend to cringe at the assignation, but phenomenologically, they operate the same way in people's lives. The majority of people who proclaim science as the "right" way are not scientists and don't do much science. Nevertheless, they are quite sure that science is true (even when it wasn't last year and might not be next year).Let's play devil's advocate. You are willing to accept as true something that someone else says they have experienced and found to be true?Therefore one is rationally justified in relying upon or having faith in science claims which are backed up with support from the scientific community because one has a degree of assurance they are rationally and objectively warranted even if one hasn't done the leg work themselves.
You believe because you accept someone else's definition of what is real even though you haven't experienced it for yourself. That is phenomenologically the same whether you have faith in a scientist or a prophet(ess). You have faith in their explanation and the basis on which it was created. Regardless of their methodology, your belief is ideologically founded.
Now, your other argument is that "one is rationally justified." Notice that you are placing your own definition on what it means to be "rationally justified." You are allowing "rational justification" only when it fits your definition and denying it to someone who elects a different reason for belief. For example, some linguists might have sided with Knorozov early on over Thompson. They would eventually be proven correct, but for years Thompson so dominated the discussion that following his lead was "rationally justified." It was also wrong.
I agree that the eventual justification of Knorozov's ideas (it doesn't matter if you don't know the controversy--knowing this much is sufficient for the analogy) followed principles of scientific discovery. In the meantime, however, "science" did nothing to advance the truth. It proceeded just like a dogmatic religion might--and ignored evidence. It functioned as a religion, but was called, and assumed to be--science.
Were Thompson's followers "rationally justified" in dogmatically believing the wrong thing in spite of contrary evidence? Why didn't science prevent that error?
I'm not marg, just as Runtu is not you.
However, I have examined the root methodology of how science operates and how Mormonism operates. In one situation, all information (from God) is routed through one man (or, if real important, 15 men), for whom it is a taboo to question. In the other situation, all information (from discovery and analysis) grows from tens of thousands of scientists working away, and there is a marketplace of ideas out of which the better are vetted, embraced and passed along for mass consumption (until a better idea comes along and displaces it).
Knowing that the don't wear two earrings per ear directive, for example, comes from the tightly funneled source of alleged 'infallibility' does not give me the same comfort level that I have, say, in a new study about the impacts of caffeine consumption have--even though I know there will be a different caffeine study released in the next 90 to 180 days.