Bar said:
To Van_Damm
Further to your point regarding proof that God etc exists.
Science is merely a series of coincidences that fit a certain formula. When something outwith the formula happens we change it to fit the new series of coincidences. There are no facts in science merely actions that fit a formula. I consider myself a scientific person and studied all three sciences to a reasonable level but physics to a high level.
Science is constantly searching for big answers to big questions. Look at all the numerous experiments underway at the moment - off the top of my head there is the experiment involving lasers over huge distances trying to identify the basic building blocks of the universe. There exists no proof that it will happen. If it does not happen they will continue to search. These blocks may never be found and yet people will continue to believe in them and search for them.
Tell me how that faith in something that has not yet been proven differs in the faith someone has that God exists.
Do you not think that the reason that God will never be proven or disproven is the damage that it would cause to the world. Just try to imagine what would happen to civilisation. For me it is a truly scary thought.
I too am studying physics at a post graduate level
I think there is a big misconception in the meaning of "belief": there is the scientific meaning of belief and the religious meaning of belief. (<-- my 2p's worth regardless of dictionary defintions
)
As you point out there are many unkowns and experiements are trying to prove/disprove certain ideas (do neutrinos have mass, alternative theories to general relativity that do away with dark matter etc...), so in that respect if I say I believe in, say, general relativity, this is (in my mind
) saying: I believe that the current theory of general relativity best fits the data that is reproducable.
IF someone comes long with a better explanation of gravity then I will beleive it (in the scientific sense), infact (don't know if you read it?) it was claimed in Physics World that some scientists are losing their objectivity by "clinging onto the theory of general relativity at all costs" and as a consequence are bad scientists. (if you interested here is a link to one theory of gravity called MOND:
http://www.astro.umd.edu/~ssm/mond/)
The point I am trying to make is a theory or proposal of something in science (to be credable) has to be based on current physical laws: e.g. If I say general relativity is wrong and my theory is right, it has to fit observable data AND be consitent with our current understanding of laws (if not then I must explain that as well). All of this is under close scrutiny of my peers and logical arguements. A religous proposal (such as the existence of god or jesus walking on water) goes against the physical laws that we currently understand them (esp. for jesus walking on water). The burden of proof for science is massive (as close to fact as the human mind and endevours (SP?) can get) but for religion it is zero, it merely has to be said (i.e. "god exists") and that is it, nothing more than that, in that respect I can not accept the existence of god becasue someone says so and there is no evidence (someone might: the bible is evidence, however it is not up to the standard of what scientific evidence is).
Therefore I think the burden of proof lies with the believer if the believer has outlandish claims (no offence to any intended, e.g. If i said I was god would anyone beleive me? Would the burden of proof be on me to prove it? If I did make that claim does it mean there is a possiblity that I am because I said so even though before that I believed I was not?) such as god made the world in 6 days, where scientifically this is contradicted by the accretion (SP? it is bad today
) disc theory/belief.
There an arguement that religion is "hard-wired" into our brains and only 1% of the population do not have this trait of anything that is supernatural or religous:
Stewart Guthrie's recent book "Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion" proposes the challenging thesis that the psychological basis of religious belief is the nearly universal human tendency to anthropomorphize.[13] He argues that humans have a nearly universal and overwhelming tendency to attribute human characteristics to nonhuman things and events. He suggests that this tendency is hardwired -- an evolutionary adaptation. Thus, we see faces in clouds and Jesus in a picture of spaghetti on a billboard. (This really happened!) More seriously, we tend to see random events as orchestrated by unseen benevolent or malignant intelligences. When I curse the traffic light that always stops me or the photocopier that breaks down whenever the job is urgent, I'm anthropomorphizing.
Then there is a belief of "Spinozism" (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinozism) which Einstein himself believed, especially when was quoted when talking about quatum mechanincs "god does not play with dice". I personally do not believe in this (because I fall into the 1%
) but I would describe it as phisophical rather than religous.
EDIT: To answer your question directly:
Tell me how that faith in something that has not yet been proven differs in the faith someone has that God exists.
I found this (from:
http://www.flashback.se/archive/atheism_faq.html) which sumerises my point of view and holds the key difference between belief/faith of the unknown in the scientific sense and of the religious sense:
that it (religion) creates information from no information. This is considered invalid in information theory.
Whereas a belief in the scientific sense creates information from the observable world around us.
