Faith vs Science - A False Dichotomy?

[Kendel]

Paul, it’s good to see you back to your thread again. It’s been a while since I looked it over. I’ve been reviewing this afternoon.
I also read about 1/3 of the Plato article about Scientific Realism. It’s pretty long. I wonder what sections, or better, what points you find most valuable in it.
Sorry my reply is so chopped up. There hasn’t been more time to pull together something more unified.

Since the beginning of the thread, I have felt like there’s a need for some precise definitions of “faith” and a clarification of their appropriate contexts. For example, you offered Hebrews 11:1-3 in the OP, but that is part of a wider context including Hebrews 10:32-11:40, which cannot appropriately be applied to science…

32 But recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. 37 For, “Yet a little while, and the coming one will come and will not delay; 38 but my righteous one shall live by faith, and if he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls. By Faith 11 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. 2 For by it the people of old received their commendation. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible. 4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God.

The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Bibles, 2016), Heb 10:32–11:4.

This can’t apply to science, if for no other reason, we have no promises from God related to science, even if we are forced to make assumptions about how to go about carrying it out (which does not constitute “faith”).

@Paulm12

the faith or trust many Christians have in Jesus is based on evidence (and for the early Church, “many infallible proofs”), not just claims about the world.

@Paulm12

For me, there’s a personal element and transformation in my own life. I have been far happier, kinder, and less judgmental after becoming a Christian.

You mentioned these as giving evidential weight to faith. While I am inclined to agree with you as far as faith in Jesus goes, these are very different kinds of evidences than what is required as evidence in science. One cannot be repeated and would be hard, if not impossible to verify, the other is subjective. These should be thrown out as scientific evidence.

I think T_aquaticus expressed it well:

@T_aquaticus

I often think about it as the difference between objective and subjective. I try to be as objective as I can when I’m doing science, but there are many, many things in life that I judge subjectively, such as the beauty of a sunset or the power of a story in a book. I think part of being human is experiencing both sides of the human intellect, both the objective and subjective.

Moving from spiritual faith to scientific understanding and authority:

@Paulm12

What I meant by this is science doesn’t produce “truths,” it produces models that try and describe observed data in some particular way. The claim that some (or all) of reality can be understood from scientific models is a philosophical assumption, not a scientific one. In other words, claiming science describes reality needs to get its authority outside of science to avoid being circular. Is this “faith” in science and the scientific method to (asymptotically) approach true propositions about the way the world works (instead of simply good approximations) similar to faith in God?

What else would this process be describing or attempting to describe? (Does anyone claim “all of reality”?)
From where would you say the current claim of authority originates?
No. It’s not faith. It’s an honest assessment that the methods used now (and whatever methods will developed and used in the future, because those keep changing) will continue to help people learn more about the world and how it works.

@Paulm12

I think the history of natural science shows it was deeply linked to mathematics, theology, and philosophy (hence it was practiced by universities that originally taught the quadrivium and trivium). I’d argue now modern science relies even more heavily on mathematics and philosophy than empirical observation (more so than in previous generations). This is especially true in disciplines like theoretical physics, evolutionary biology, etc where experiments are difficult to do.

I think you’re really limiting your view of what is going on in the sciences.
But sure, there are whole branches that are math dependent, which I can’t even imagine. But what is the math’s purpose? In at least some areas of physics the math indicates there could be or likely is something to explore or anticipate. That “predictive” power is not treated as proof, is it? But rather gives direction to study and the development of tools to do the study.
And the math itself is an evolving tool, isn’t it? It wasn’t “just there” from the beginning.

As far as the quadrivium and trivium go, we are not bound to past educational philosophy, values and practice. They all have their glories and follies.

@Paulm12

For Weinberg’s quote, the issue I see is this realism itself is not reached by scientific conclusions, but instead by one’s empirical senses, mental faculties, and memories which science itself questions the reliability of (hence hallucinations, false memories, etc).

Hallucinations, false memories, etc. are hard to replicate in lab settings, much less in scientists employing them personally in their research. Hallucinating scientists would be found out. Lying ones are – eventually. Along with dishonest ones paid by the tobacco and oil industries.
Here I refer you to one of James’s many, many explanations of radiometric dating, how it’s done by a variety of methods and how measuring in a variety of ways helps confirm the conclusion.

Soft Tissues in Fossils

It’s called measurement, Adam. Measurement. The only methods that are accepted into the fold are ones that have accurate measurements and that interpret them honestly. The ones that get “thrown under a bus” are the ones that do not. As they should be. There are radiometric dating methods, known as Isochron dating, that do not need to know the starting point and that include built in tests for contamination. and they work by taking measurements from multiple samples from the same rock formati…

@Paulm12

My sense of touch tells me the table in front of me is solid, while scientific models suggest it is mostly empty space. Which is more “reality”? Of course, they both are. But the assumption that objects are, in fact, solid (and thus that our senses are in fact reliable) was an incorrect assumption that humans had for a long time.

Of course the observation was both wrong and right. The marvel is that empty space can be so solid, as my pinky toe regularly affirms. The other marvel is that people have learned about this aspect of the natural world by means of the senses.

Thus the ever expanding development of observational strategies and tools, the ever greater attempt to extend the reach of of our senses for observation.

In brief, I still don’t see your point about “faith” related to science. Unless you were to adopt @mitchellmckain view expressed here.

But assuming you made it, and I were convinced, then what?