/sci/ - Science & Math

Why do you need faith if you have knowledge?

If you didn't have faith, where the FUCK did you get your starting axioms from?

G'wan, deny that you use received knowledge. I dare you.

>>1383755
>thinks axioms are faith-based

>>1383755

oh look prepositional apologetics.

How does it feel knowing you must use intellectual dishonesty to maintain your delusional belief system?

>>1383764
> HURR HURR I NO HAVE ANSWER SO I MAKE FUN OF YOU.

Okay, so don't call it "faith," since you guys get so emotional about that word. So what do you call where you get your axioms from for deductive reasoning in natural philosophy?

>>1383755

>>1383771

How does it feel to use ad hominem attacks to dodge the question?

>>1383772
I don't think you know what axioms are, bro.

>>1383780

>>implying the point you are trying to make hasn't been debunked ad nauseum.

>>1383772
>can't take anyone disagreeing with him.

The other person wasn't making fun of you, bro. Lighten up. I'm not in this discussion, though. I don't know shit about "axioms" or whatever.

>>1383806
thank god we have you mediating this conversation... fuck off, kid

>Intelligence is only beautiful when it does not destroy faith

However intelligence is only useful when it destroy faith.

>>1383744

Intelligence, or more importantly reason, destroys faith outright in a virtuous mind. It's only the irrational mystics that reject reason for wishes, whims, or emotions. A fully rational person knows they have to disregard faith and wish thinking if they want to maintain their mind properly.

Faith is never beautiful. It corrupts minds.

ITT: trolls

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty"---that is all. Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.

>>1383821

Faith is just another word for trust.
I trust that Einstein was right. Does that make me a bad person? Don't you have faith in the scientific method? What's wrong with that?

>>Implying there is no difference between axioms required for self awareness and faith in that with zero evidence.

In other news, firecrackers and atomic bombs are just as dangerous because they both explode.

>>1383831

Am hope you're troll. Einstein was a non-believer and science is the antithesis of faith. Here's a nice jingle to help you remember:

"Science changes its view based on what's observed, faith is the denial of evidence so that a belief may be preserved."

>>1383857

What a strange way of putting it......

>>1383772

Where do I get my axioms from? Reality. No ghosts or goblins. Observable and objective reality. For example the law of identity, A equals A. A completely ghost free axiom on which we can cover massive metaphysical grounds.

yeah id kind of agree with that to a point.

although it is a purely subjective statement

>>1383857

How come atheist can see nothing new?

>>1383897

No. Faith is objectively irrational, and in a properly functioning mind, one that values consistency over inconsistent, faith gets crushed by intelligence.

I asked (rudely at first, then more politely) where do /sci/entists get their axioms for deductive reasoning in natural philosophy.

I get insulted, and I'm told I have a delusional belief system (I didn't even say what my belief system is so you must be assuming I'm... what, pastafarian?). I get told I don't know what an axiom is, but damned if I can see where I've misused the term. I'm told I'm trying to make a point (what point?) and it's already been debunked (what? huh?).

I understand why you're getting defensive -- I was rude. ("I dare you.") Still, your accusations are non-sequtirs; it does not follow from my questions that I'm proposing an intellectually dishonest philosophy to replace whatever it is you're using now. Furthermore, I assert that it is NOT "debunked" that some rational reasoning in science starts with received knowledge.

SOME, not ALL. Don't strawman me, bro.

>>1383903

What is this I don't even

totally agree with op, that rhyme was unintentional but awsome

>>1383921

Trust necessarily is irrational?

>>1383939

Trust =/= faith.

>>1383831
No, faith and trust are different things. You can trust something based on evidence and reason, you have faith in something despite a lack of those things.

>>1383744

Why most scientist are ugly?

> "Science changes its view based on what's observed, faith is the denial of evidence so that a belief may be preserved."

Interesting definition. Fits with the RAAAAEEEG HAET there is for /sci/entists 'round here. The definition flies right in the face of what OP proposed, since this kind of "faith" must naturally oppose inductive reasoning by denying discovered counterexamples. I suspect /sci/entists expect people with faith will avoid looking for counterexamples entirely, since the incongruity can be upsetting.

All knowledge starts with faith.
You can't learn anything without assuming the truth of various things.

Something I like about science is the willingness not only to abandon received knowledge, but to seek out means of undermining it.

Something I don't like about /sci/entists is how cynical they (we?) can be when people ask questions. This place is lousy with Fundie trolls trying to trap /sci/entists into contradicting the "holy words of science..." that people genuinely wondering and doing the rational "but how do we know? really?" approach are mistaken for someone trying to lay a semantic trap.

TL;DR 4chan is a bad environment for discussing metaphysics.

>>1383958

It's not so much a definition, but it is a memorable way to drive the message home.

The incongruity you're talking about isn't just avoided and upsetting, it is 'finger-nails across a chalk board' mixed with 'chewing tinfoil'.

um no faith covers up the truth that is out there with something that looks appealing because people are either to weak to control their own lives so they use lies, i.e. faith to control it for them, or they are too afraid to accept the truth their are things out there that you may not like to see hear understand accept etc

'intelligence' does not care about beauty or anything like that.

what you are saying is i will accept anything into my mind as long as it makes me happy, i dont care if it hurts other people due to my being nieve that I will not learn certain things.

so what you want to believe you will live forever, for eternity. its because you have wasted so much of your short life already and want to pretend that it doesn't matter if you have endless time to actually do something with your life

>>1383971

No.
No.

>>1383971
That's not necessarily faith. For example, I may assume that my experiences by and large are real and that I am not a brain in a vat or whathaveyou, since to do otherwise would render me incapable of making any sort of judgment whatsoever. This is not faith, it is a rational choice preferable to the alternatives, and can be changed if evidence or reasoning indicates that it is incorrect or not ideal. It is disingenuous to equate such a choice to something like religious faith.

>>1383984

4chan is a less than perfect place for exchanging ideas of metaphysics -- but to be honest -- so are university classrooms. Any environment is going to have irrational fuckups that muddy the water, it doesn't follow that we shouldn't try to exchange anyways. You just take what you can get.

Try saying the terms "objective reality" in a meeting of modern philosophers or students; you're lucky to escape with your life.

>>1384000

>This is not faith, it is a rational choice
One can rationally choose to have faith that one is not a brain in a vat.

Faith and reason do not contradict each other.

I just checked the dictionary. First def of faith is trust.
You can all stop equating faith with insanity now.

Faith = Trust

>>1383740

ｓＴOP fUｃkｉNＧ ａtｔAｃkiＮＧ wＷＷ.ａｎoＬawlｔＡｌK.Ｓe_ｒＥＰlaCE Ｌawｌ_wITH ｎ
f n ffhgtcj b tuq s y c l gyfauuc bv

>>1384019

Wrong. Faith means accepting things based on want, not evidence or logical consistency. Reason tells that we cannot accept a thing, even as a hypothesis, without that evidence or logical consistency.

Reason and faith have always been, and always will be, diametrically opposed.

>>1384019
>One can rationally choose to have faith

No. A rational person should always be *open* to the possibility that everything we know is a lie, etc. It's stupid to invest much thought into it, and it is rational to assume and treat it as a practical truth that we aren't in the Matrix, etc, but it is not rational to have "faith" (like the religious sense) in it.

>>1384019
No, one cannot. A rational choice is based pm evidence and reasoning which support it. In the vat example, this could include the fact that there is no real evidence that you are in a vat, that trying to as though you were in the vat would paralyze you intellectually and functionally, and that even if you were in a vat your experience in this artificial world would be largely unchanged. To have faith that you are not in the vat you would need to make that decision without consulting said evidence or reasoning, making the choice despite the reasons or lack thereof and not because of them. While the decision may be the same, the faith-based version is made without rational support. This is what makes it faith.

>>1384027

Faith deals with trust, but it is not trust. You're equivocating.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/faith-re/

>>1384049

You would have us all doubt everything?
What a horrible prospect.

>>1384049

Not quite. In order for something to be known, it has to be true.

It's a bit strange to say that which we know can later become a lie.

>>1384027
Yes, in the sense that "I have faith in anonymous' ability to make me laugh", then faith and trust mean more or less the same thing. However, there are many different senses to use faith and we are discussing it in the religous sense here, not in the trust sense.

"Intelligence is only beautiful when it does not destroy trust, and trust is only beautiful when it is not
opposed to intelligence" doesn't seem to mean the same thing, does it?

>>1384075
Being open to the possibility that you're wrong and doubting everything aren't really the same thing.

>>1384080
Yes, he should have said 'believe' not 'know'. That being said, you're splitting hairs.

>>1384075

Agreed. Radical skepticism is a nasty thing to deal with, but sadly most people I've talked with dwell in it. Kantian philosophy has helped solipsism in a strange way; and that is the garbage that's being taught to credulous young minds by our 'great thinkers'.

>>1383744
It is a shame faith is the reason that are race isn't as advanced as it could be.

>>1384096

Establishing epistemological ground rules is far from splitting hairs.

I'm not debating what the definition of 'is' is.

>>1384114
As I see it his meaning was clear and your distinction was unnecessary. I might as well have pointed out that
>It's a bit strange to say that which we know can later become a lie.
is inaccurate because what was true may change and so what we knew becomes false. Technically correct, but a pointless statement.

>>1384145

Meh, it may have been clear to you, but I think it's helpful to use the correct words to reflect meaning. I don't really want to get into an exchange about who understood/misunderstood something, or how a person didn't manage to say what they may have meant to say, or even jabbering about things being 'technically correct'.

I want to exchange about faith and reason, and their complete lack of compatibility.

>>1384168
Well I think we've won that argument, or at least outlasted the trolls.

>>1384185

I think you're right. Grats to us. Chalk another one up for reason!

THAT'S A W! THAT'S A W!

I feel what you say is sound. Humans, as much as we like to act strong and independent in groups are naturally fearful and frail creatures. Perhaps that is the way were made, and it certainly is the way we are. I do not wish to spark a debate when I say that as you observe humans in greater detail, they all worship something. Whether it is a god or an object, we need something to comfort us. This is all good and fine as long as it does not hinder our ability to think for ourselves and learn of the universe. Inversely, Intelligence and knowledge is a wonderful thing, but if one uses it to attack faith, something that is undeniably carved into our being, the person destroys a good part of themselves and as such, becomes very unpleasant.

The official position of the Catholic Church is thus: Reason and Faith are brothers, neither can contradict each other.


This stands in stark contrast to the damned evangelicals

It was a joke.
You guys can stop now.
Jesus fucking christ.