[ExI] Faith, Religion, Science and PCR [was Re: Tolerance]]

[moulton at moulton.com]

I have changed the Subject since we are drifting from the original subject.

On Thu, 2009-12-10 at 18:02 +0000, jameschoate at austin.rr.com wrote:
---- Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote: 
> > 
> > Yes, because surely it's obvious that not believing in unicorns is 
> > just another way of believing in unicorns. Oh, wait.
> 
> You, and most others, confuse two different things here. The issue
> is 'faith' not unicorns. Whether the unicorns exist is irrelevant to
> the question of faith.
> 
> http://www.waythingsare.com/news/what/religion/a-pantheist-s-manifesto.htm
> 
> Atheism, like science, are religions and philosophies. The only
> difference is the axioms you put your faith in.
 
First thanks for giving the URL; it helps put your comments in perspective.  However I still disagree but based on reading the webpage I think I know why there is a disagreement.

The difficulty stems from the usages of the word "faith"; so let me contrast two different usages:
1. Faith as being confident and having (at least implicitly) doubt and acknowledging the possibility of error
2. Faith as being without doubt usually or often coupled with denial of the possibility of error

My experience that "faith" in the second usage is often (but not always) associated with religion; particularly (but not exclusively) Monotheism.  Thus for example a Christian (particularly a Fundamentalist Protestant) might declare faith in the second sense by saying their Faith in the Trinity is absolute and there is no doubt about Christianity.  For that Christian that is the meaning of faith, there is no doubt or "let us put all this to a critial examination".

Now compare that to the usage of a scientist commenting (to use your example) if two hydrogen atoms had been exchanged.  Would the scientist be more clear if she said "I have faith that the two hydrogen atoms have not been exchanged" or if she said "I have confidence that the two hydrogen atoms not not been exchanged; of course this confidence is subject to further testing and attempts at falsification since there is the possibility of error and we need to maintain the appropriate doubt and skepticism".  Particularly if the scientist was aware of PCR Pan Critical Rationalism.  Well actually the scientist would most likely say "I have confidence that the two hydrogen atoms have not been exchanged" and leave off the rest because it is implicit.

My point is that using the term "faith" in relation to science often leads people to get confused and can cause a real impasse in communications.  There is no need to use the term "faith" in relation to science; it does not add anything to the understanding of science and it can cause major problems.  Now at this point someone will usually say "But you need to have ultimate faith in the scientic method or testing or falsifiability or something".  And the response is "No, an uncritical faith in some ultimate something is not necessary; Bartley has shown us a set useful tools".

Many on this list will be aware of Pan Critical Rationalism and will have noticed how I used certain phrases and sentence structures to make my argument lead to this recommendation of the book The Retreat to Commitment written by W. W. Bartley.  I highly recommend the book although it is rather dense and contains a lot of detail on the historical conflicts between science and religion.  If you do not have time to read the book then you might want to read the essay on PCR by Max More which I also highly recommend:
http://www.maxmore.com/pcr.htm

To summarize: Science (and by science I include all scholarly inquiry) must contain doubt and continual testing to refute error.  To use a term such as "faith" which has as one of its common usages "the absence of doubt" seems to me to be counter-productive.  In discussing science one can say "confidence with continual testing and criticism" and be more accurate and less confusing than saying "faith".  That is why personally I try to only use the word "faith" when discussing religion; I have found doing so eliminates a lot of misunderstanding.

Fred