Question for KevinSim- biblical gospel articulation request

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Doc
This isn’t a both sides situation. To equate atheism with the hubris of theism is wildly out of order. One ‘ism asses this world for what it is, and the other assesses this world for what it isn’t.

Far too simplistic. It's not merely an either/or

That’s just a throwaway hand wave statement.

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

And it works because we have faith in its coherence and intelligibility to continue doing so. We don't know it will continue being this way. It's why Einstein said every good scientist has to have that faith, that the universe is coherent and intelligible - i.e., we can learn about it, otherwise we would not do mathematics and physics in the first place. There is nothing strawman about it. Our discoveries are consistent because it is intelligible, and remains so, and that is what we hope will continue being the case, we have no guarantee it will hold. Just because it has for billions of years is no proof it will be like this always, as any simple logic tells us.

What does that actually mean? Can you give a concrete illustrative description of your paragraph above?

Also, when you talk about universe-coherence, and faith in the such, that’s a theistic position because I don’t know of any atheists, prominent or otherwise, who would describe the universe as coherent. It’s the theist or spiritualist that assigns coherency to the universe - they imbue it with human structuralism.

- Doc

The universe is intelligible, comprehensible, meaning, we can know about it when we look, study, and test it, calculate, etc. It is that which we have faith in in order to do our math and physics, otherwise we wouldn't even try to. It stays the same, ,meaning we trust it, i.e., have faith it will continue being like it has been in order for us to learn about it. That is the faith Einstein was talking about for scientists. "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensible."

[Philo Sofee]

Far too simplistic. It's not merely an either/or

That’s just a throwaway hand wave statement.

- Doc

Yep... so was your either/or statement. So see? there is progress!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

What does that actually mean? Can you give a concrete illustrative description of your paragraph above?

Also, when you talk about universe-coherence, and faith in the such, that’s a theistic position because I don’t know of any atheists, prominent or otherwise, who would describe the universe as coherent. It’s the theist or spiritualist that assigns coherency to the universe - they imbue it with human structuralism.

- Doc

The universe is intelligible, comprehensible, meaning, we can know about it when we look, study, and test it, calculate, etc. It is that which we have faith in in order to do our math and physics, otherwise we wouldn't even try to. It stays the same, ,meaning we trust it, i.e., have faith it will continue being like it has been in order for us to learn about it. That is the faith Einstein was talking about for scientists. "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensible."

I’m not sure how you’re conflating Newtonian and Einsteinium physics with faith, but there you have it. You’re essentially saying because I expect an answer of 4 when I add 2 + 2, it’s equivalent to faith. That’s absurd.

Going back to “coherence” as it applies to the universe, let’s make sure we’re on the same page first:

Coherence - the quality of being logical and consistent

I view the universe as being chaotic, random, and acting without rhyme nor reason. It doesn’t mean that it’s not intelligible, as we’ve come to find out. <- that isn’t faith. That’s just mathematics and a host of scientific disciplines using testable reasoning that produces consistent results. Literally science. No magic. No woo. Just science. This is your quote:

Faith in a God is no more idiotic than atheist faith in the Cosmos working coherently and intelligibly day by day so we can study it with our science. We all have faith of one thing or another, there is no other way.

That is a nonsense statement. You’re conflating an expectation in something undefinable and untestable (god) with an approach to measuring datasets that produces consistent results once tested and verified (science). Hell, even quantum mechanics breaks down once once you get to 10-33 in size and 10-43 in time. So much for “coherency”.

And if you really want your to get twisted, try to wrap your mind around an amplituhedron:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron

There’s been a lot of hard work put in by women and men in this field, so to simply declare that their efforts are as faith-based as, say, someone doing yoga in the woods having a spiritual awakening is disrespectful and kind of sad. You’re conflating two approaches to understanding reality that are radically different. One takes a LOT of work while the other take a pair of lululemons and a tree.

- Doc

[Philo Sofee]

The universe is intelligible, comprehensible, meaning, we can know about it when we look, study, and test it, calculate, etc. It is that which we have faith in in order to do our math and physics, otherwise we wouldn't even try to. It stays the same, ,meaning we trust it, i.e., have faith it will continue being like it has been in order for us to learn about it. That is the faith Einstein was talking about for scientists. "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is its comprehensible."

I’m not sure how you’re conflating Newtonian and Einsteinium physics with faith, but there you have it. You’re essentially saying because I expect an answer of 4 when I add 2 + 2, it’s equivalent to faith. That’s absurd.

Going back to “coherence” as it applies to the universe, let’s make sure we’re on the same page first:

Coherence - the quality of being logical and consistent

I view the universe as being chaotic, random, and acting without rhyme nor reason. It doesn’t mean that it’s not intelligible, as we’ve come to find out. <- that isn’t faith. That’s just mathematics and a host of scientific disciplines using testable reasoning that produces consistent results. Literally science. No magic. No woo. Just science. This is your quote:

Faith in a God is no more idiotic than atheist faith in the Cosmos working coherently and intelligibly day by day so we can study it with our science. We all have faith of one thing or another, there is no other way.

That is a nonsense statement. You’re conflating an expectation in something undefinable and untestable (god) with an approach to measuring datasets that produces consistent results once tested and verified (science). Hell, even quantum mechanics breaks down once once you get to 10-33 in size and 10-43 in time. So much for “coherency”.

And if you really want your to get twisted, try to wrap your mind around an amplituhedron:



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amplituhedron

There’s been a lot of hard work put in by women and men in this field, so to simply declare that their efforts are as faith-based as, say, someone doing yoga in the woods having a spiritual awakening is disrespectful and kind of sad. You’re conflating two approaches to understanding reality that are radically different. One takes a LOT of work while the other take a pair of lululemons and a tree.

- Doc

Come on, this isn't hard. The faith scientists have in the universe is that it is comprehensible, that it remains having the same effects with the same laws, otherwise there is no point in doing mathematics and science. You appear to me to be terrified of the word faith, when in fact, it is an everyday word we all use all the time. It is from the Latin word Fides which means trust. We all know what takes trust and that is evidence. Remember the banking crisis a few years back? We lost trust in them and it really effected our economy. Scientists trust that the laws of the universe are the same today as they were yesterday. There is a regularity, a comprehensible aspect to the universe that amazed Einstein and he said so. Yes there is a lot of hard work of men and women, and because there is hard work on the universe, shows they trust that it will continue being how they have found it with the laws of the universe. They trust it is still comprehensible today. You need to forget Dawkin's lunatic redefinition of faith and just see for what it is, a real force in us that encourages us to continue exploring our Cosmos. It is a very good thing!
And it's a dang good thing mathematics continues working the way it does, or we wouldn't use it. We all have faith it remains the same today as it did yesterday, since, after all, there is nothing saying it will remain so. EVERYTHING changes, yet we have faith in the intelligibility of our maths and sciences to give us accurate and real answers. Without that faith in the usefulness and continued validity of mathematics, we would not use them.

[Philo Sofee]

Doc
I view the universe as being chaotic, random, and acting without rhyme nor reason.

Well that certainly cannot be right. The galaxies (trillions so far!) have shown they function with terrific regularity, not just chaotic randomness. Our Solar System is beautifully organized and law-like in its relationship to the planets and the sun and have been for at least tens of millions of years, which is the reason we know about it all here in our local location.
Chaos and random is exact what the universe and mathematics is not, but really more on the order of regular and orderly, with the elliptical orbits of the planets in our solar system giving us the ability to remain alive day to day. Just look at the magnificent pictures of the James Webb telescope! That is not all random chaotic nonsense we are seeing, but stunning images of beauty and "space art" as it were, with great regularity. I mean, there is a reason we can keep looking up in the sky and seeing the same constellations and our own moon night after night and month after month. ...

[Philo Sofee]

Doc
I’m not sure how you’re conflating Newtonian and Einsteinium physics with faith,

I'm not. Your argument is with Einstein. "The only incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible." And he noted that every scientist he knew had faith in the comprehensibility of it, or they wouldn't do science. He was using faith in its proper sense, as trust, trust in the regularity, the mathematical ability we have to continue seeing that regularity and learning new things, which blew him away as it ought not to be comprehensible, yet, he formulated his Theories of Relativity exactly on that premise, that he COULD do so. It isn't religious faith he is talking about. Faith is not a religious word, the New Atheists are simply wrong on that score, and I don't pay attention to their incorrect use of faith. Faith means trust. It's that simple.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

It seems to me you’re using faith and trust interchangeably. If that’s the case, then we don’t really have a disagreement. The trust in a scientific approach to comprehension is founded in proofs. If you’re using faith in its traditional sense to describe how we comprehend the world around us then that’s spiritualism. They’re not equivalent in any sense.

Being able to measure the universe and discover that it operates within datasets, or behaviors, isn’t equivalent to saying that the universe is subject to panpsychism, or theism, or some other spiritualism. I’ll remind you that you said:

Faith in a God is no more idiotic than atheist faith in the Cosmos working coherently and intelligibly day by day so we can study it with our science. We all have faith of one thing or another, there is no other way.

The two are radically different approaches to observing the world around us and coming to completely different conclusions. It’s only because we rejected woo that we were able to understand the universe in the manner that we do, not without a LOT of pushback from theists.

Perhaps you’re feeling a spiritual awakening that has led you to a panpsychism sort of philosophy? Whatever the case may be, stating that one believing that 2+2=4 requires the same kind of faith that theists employ is astoundingly misguided at best. I don’t how you’re getting there.

- Doc

[Chap]

The faith scientists have in the universe is that it is comprehensible, that it remains having the same effects with the same laws, otherwise there is no point in doing mathematics and science. You appear to me to be terrified of the word faith, when in fact, it is an everyday word we all use all the time. It is from the Latin word Fides which means trust.

Nope. You are trying hard to equate what scientists do to what religious believers do, and it is not working.

I continue to use the scientific approach to the universe simply because it has worked well so far. If it suddenly stops working, and the universe behaves with mere caprice, I'll stop. That's just a matter of practical judgement.

Religious faiths (and there are a LOT of them, very different in content and at times hostile to one another) are another matter altogether, and as commonly practiced they are surrounded (unlike a scientific theory) with all kinds of buffers and protections against any event whatsoever having the power to make the believer say "My faith is not consistent with the way things appear to be." Science, on the other hand deliberately sets out to make itself as vulnerable as possible to disproof.

I am not terrified of any word, including "faith". But I think your attempt at claiming "scientists exercise faith just like religious people do" is to unreasonable as to make me wonder how you can continue it in the face of the reactions you have had so far.

[dastardly stem]

Doctor Cam and Chap have made the point well, I think. You can use the word faith anyway you like. no one will stop you. But to think what science does is the same as what religion does in their quests for truth is completely wrong, no matter from which angle we look at it. Not in the same ballpark at all.