Reasons for religious studies (and/or study of religion)

[only_human]

[davar55]

Yes, it was a good posting. From the standpoint of academic knowledge, or to study the
foibles of humanity, it is certainly possible to devote time to studying the different aspects
of all the differing inter-contradictory religions and their god faiths. This might very well be
a valuable subject to be more than just aware of. But it would surprise me if anyone truly
devoted to this activity was not devoted to their own faith and thus at odds with reason.
I agree with the poster who suggested reason (science) and faith (god) are not compatible

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

I agree with the poster who suggested reason (science) and faith (god) are not compatible

I have faith that scientific explanations for phenomena which occurred in the past will be just as valid when the same, or closely similar, situations occur in the future.

That is, I have faith in the scientific method and in (some) mathematical models where they claim limited applicability, though the only justification for that faith is that it seems to have worked well in the past.

Some time I'll recount the blue universe story which shines light on the scientific method and whether one can or should have faith in it.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

I have faith that scientific explanations for phenomena which occurred in the past will be just as valid when the same, or closely similar, situations occur in the future.

That is, I have faith in the scientific method and in (some) mathematical models where they claim limited applicability, though the only justification for that faith is that it seems to have worked well in the past.

Some time I'll recount the blue universe story which shines light on the scientific method and whether one can or should have faith in it.

It isn't faith to accept that there are an infinitude of primes, or that pi is transcendental.
It isn't faith to accept that the Earth and Moon and Sun are round.
It isn't faith to accept that if you let drop an apple it will fall to the ground.

It's the word "faith" that is the problem.

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

It isn't faith to accept that there are an infinitude of primes, or that pi is transcendental.
It isn't faith to accept that the Earth and Moon and Sun are round.
It isn't faith to accept that if you let drop an apple it will fall to the ground.

It's the word "faith" that is the problem.

Yet again you define words to ensure that your point of view is "correct" and yet completely ignore other commonly accepted definitions of those terms.

I take particular exception to the third of your examples. Just because I've seen apples drop to the ground in the past is no guarantee to me that they will in the future other than I have faith in the continuing applicability of the presently accepted laws of nature.

[davar55]

Originally Posted by xilman

Yet again you define words to ensure that your point of view is "correct" and yet completely ignore other commonly accepted definitions of those terms.

I take particular exception to the third of your examples. Just because I've seen apples drop to the ground in the past is no guarantee to me that they will in the future other than I have faith in the continuing applicability of the presently accepted laws of nature.

And I think you do exactly the same. "Faith" in gravity? That's just a wrong way of putting the fact that
the operation of gravity is discovered and validated empirically. Have there been any exceptions, any
apples (or pears or bananas or rocks or anything) that fell up? No. The "confidence" we have that all
the next objects will fall downward is based on the abstracted law of gravity and the explanation we give
for it. To be an "agnostic" about the next apple is to ignore the science, a terrible error coming from one
who espouses science so (at least when he is not in his devil's advocate mood).

[xilman]

Originally Posted by davar55

And I think you do exactly the same. "Faith" in gravity? That's just a wrong way of putting the fact that
the operation of gravity is discovered and validated empirically. Have there been any exceptions, any
apples (or pears or bananas or rocks or anything) that fell up? No. The "confidence" we have that all
the next objects will fall downward is based on the abstracted law of gravity and the explanation we give
for it. To be an "agnostic" about the next apple is to ignore the science, a terrible error coming from one
who espouses science so (at least when he is not in his devil's advocate mood).

We can both reason from axioms and jointly accepted to prove the infinitude of primes and the transcendental nature of π which is why I had no disagreement with the first of your three statements.

However, I can make no such reasoning about gravity. I simply have to accept that apples have always fallen down in the past. Note that here I explicitly make exceptions for apples floating in a dense medium, apples within a free-falling container and so on. I also accept that Newton's mechanics and theory of gravity is a set of mathematical equations which give an excellent approximation to the behaviour shown by apples near the Earth's surface --- and elsewhere for that matter.

However, just because Newton's description has worked so well in the past I can not prove that it will continue to work as well in the future. I simply have to take it on faith that it will do so. Given that faith, I can then use mathematical and logical reasoning to make predictions of the behaviour of apples in the future which I believe have a high probability of being very accurate. I can not be certain that they will be very accurate.

Please note that I am not playing Devil's Advocate here. I am reasoning about the foundations of the philosophy of science.

[only_human]

So, proof by challenge (challenging an apple to rise upward and it failing to do so) is necessary but not sufficient to prove that an apple will never rise.

[retina]

Originally Posted by only_human

So, proof by challenge (challenging an apple to rise upward and it failing to do so) is necessary but not sufficient to prove that an apple will never rise.

I doubt that such a step is necessary.

[only_human]

Originally Posted by retina

I doubt that such a step is necessary.

So you believe. Ha! And they said science is hard!

[retina]

Originally Posted by only_human

So you believe. Ha! And they said science is hard!

I may or may not believe, I think it is irrelevant to what I said. Other steps could be taken instead of challenging the apple, so therefore a challenge is not a necessary step if there are alternatives.