11 Nov 05
1 edit
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality.
2. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for having chosen to deal, in its plenary session, with a problem of great importance and great relevance today: the problem of the emergence of complexity in mathematics, physics, chemistry and biology.
The emergence of the subject of complexity probably marks in the history of the natural sciences a stage as important as the stage which bears relation to the name of Galileo, when a univocal model of order seemed to be obvious. Complexity indicates precisely that, in order to account for the rich variety of reality, we must have recourse to a number of different models.
This realization poses a question which concerns scientists, philosophers and theologians: how are we to reconcile the explanation of the world -beginning with the level of elementary entities and phenomena- with the recognition of the fact that "the whole is more than the sum of its parts"?
In his effort to establish a rigorous description and formalization of the data of experience, the scientist is led to have recourse to metascientific concepts, the use of which is, as it were, demanded by the logic of his procedure. It is useful to state exactly the nature of these concepts in order to avoid proceeding to undue extrapolations which link strictly scientific discoveries to a vision of the-world, or to ideological or philosophical affirmations, which are in no way corollaries of it. Here one sees the importance of philosophy which considers phenomena just as much as their interpretation.
3. Let us think, for example, of the working out of new theories at the scientific level in order to take account of the emergence of living beings. In a correct method, one could not interpret them immediately and in the exclusive framework of science. In particular, when it is a question of the living being which is man, and of his brain, it cannot be said that these theories of themselves constitute an affirmation or a denial of the spiritual soul, or that they provide a proof of the doctrine of creation, or that, on the contrary, they render it useless.
A further work of interpretation is needed. This is precisely the object of philosophy, which is the study of the global meaning of the data of experience, and therefore also of the phenomena gathered and analysed by the sciences.
"Contemporary culture demands a constant effort to synthesize knowledge and to integrate learning. Of course, the successes which we see are due to the specialization of research. But unless this is balanced by a reflection concerned with articulating the various branches of knowledge, there is a great risk that we shall have a "shattered culture", which would in fact be the negation of true culture. A true culture cannot be conceived of without humanism and wisdom. etc. "
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by howardgeeWhen was Galileo threatened with torture? I believe he was threatened with excommunication, and as he was a very religious man, that could hurt, but I don't recall any torture in his story. I'm going to have to check the biography I have sitting here on the shelf.
Tell that to Galileo when he was threatened with torture for his observations!
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeNow, this passage sounds very smart, but it makes some serious jumps. First, it makes a big deal about something being greater than the sum of its parts. This is true for any working machine--heck, it's true for jigsaw puzzles, too, for if you just throw the pieces in a pile you have no picture so clearly the picture, when it is formed, is greater than the sum of all the pieces--but that does not link these things to any great philosophical or spiritual truth. Second, there is only a connection between the metaphysical and science because society forces one but disagreeing with the findings of science. I won't deny that there are many people who try to use the findings of science to prove things that have nothing to do with the subjects of the study (e.g. the existence or not of a "soul" etc.) but that has nothing to do with science in the pure form.
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality.
2. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for having chosen to deal, in its plenary session, with a p ...[text shortened]... hout humanism and wisdom. etc. "
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
I agree with the title of this thread, which is what drew me to use my limited time to check it out: "Faith can never conflict with reason." I believe this to be true because any connection between the two is purely imaginary. Either you move on reason or you move on Faith--two go on both is like going around both sides of a tree at the same time, ala Bugs Bunny. The are quite similar and even comparable, but, like apples and oranges, they are quite different and seperate. Faith can be a reason, but faith cannot be reason. Let's not get confused--or, better yet, let's get un-confused.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by thesonofsaulyou must read about Giorgio Bruno, before you can say Galileo wasn't threatened.
When was Galileo threatened with torture? I believe he was threatened with excommunication, and as he was a very religious man, that could hurt, but I don't recall any torture in his story. I'm going to have to check the biography I have sitting here on the shelf.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by frogstompI didn't say he wasn't threatened. I actually said he was. Just not with torture. At least not in any of the accounts I have read. Does this work that you mention talk about a threat of torture?
you must read about Giorgio Bruno, before you can say Galileo wasn't threatened.
11 Nov 05
2 edits
Originally posted by thesonofsaulThat depends on how you define faith. Most people who contrast faith and reason do so by defining faith as belief without reason. This makes the contrast of faith and reason valid by definition.
...
I agree with the title of this thread, which is what drew me to use my limited time to check it out: "Faith can never conflict with reason." I believe this to be true because any connection between the two is purely imaginary. ....
However, if you define faith as belief - period - then the separation disappears - faith and reason are tied together because both are required for there to be knowledge.
Reason is mental process by which one draws conclusion. The most exact form of reason is deductive logic. The conclusion of a logical argument is a proposition (a declarative sentence - a subject and a predicate) - and this proposition is either true or false. Knowledge is by definition justified true belief. What is true (or false) are propositions. So knowledge is propositional. To 'know' means to believe a proposition is justifiable true. So to go from faith to knowledge (or belief to know) one merely adds justification. Another word for justification is sound reason. So the connection between faith and reason is both are required for knowledge.
Another way to look at the connection between faith and reason is to determine the foundation for knowledge. The is epistemology. There are several views or schools of epistemology - but all of them have one thing in common (if they are rational) - they are all based on some sort of axiom or first principle. These are propositions that are required for that world-view to function - but can not be proven (or deduced) by prior or external propositions. They can always be show to be true within the world-view in questions but this is necessarily circular or tautological. And since the axioms can not be deduced from prior propositions - they are assumed true. And to assume something is true is to believe it. To do so without proof is - you got it! - FAITH. All knowledge is deduced from axioms that can not be proven. The ultimate foundation of knowledge therefore IS FAITH.
11 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by ColettiBut then the term becomes superfluous. There is no need to use it at all - just use belief instead. One would only take this route if one intends to later equivocate about the nature of faith, intending to say that it is not simply belief.
However, if you define faith as belief - period - then the separation disappears
A better use of terminology is to have different terms mean different things. Faith becomes a useful term in the same universe as belief only when faith means something different than belief does. It may as well mean an unjustified belief if we're going to have it in the mix at all.
Alternatively, we could have faith be the standard term, and have belief denote an unjustified faith. Whichever way you choose, it makes sense to distinguish them, rather than to have two terms with identical meaning. A Christian Logician should already be aware of this.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe NT Greek words pistis (noun) and pisteo (verb) have more the meaning of confidence or trust than contemporary senses of the word belief as what you think or conclude. pistis can also mean assurance, persuasion, trustworthiness.
But then the term becomes superfluous. There is no need to use it at all - just use belief instead. One would only take this route if one intends to later equivocate about the nature of faith, intending to say that it is not simply belief.
A better use of terminology is to have different terms mean different things. Faith becomes a useful ter ...[text shortened]... to have two terms with identical meaning. A Christian Logician should already be aware of this.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2383320
Belief can still be used in the same sense as pistis, but often is not. The English word believe originally meant to hold dear, or to love—and hence to trust. It’s really a matter of shades of difference.
I may consult the sky and the weather reports and conclude, “I believe it’s going to be a sunny day.” I may also choose to go ahead with a planned picnic in the sun: that’s closer to pistis. When a quarterback throws the “hail Mary” pass in the final seconds of the game, and throws with all the confidence he can muster, without a reasonable certainty that the pass will be completed, that’s pistis with gusto, at least as I understand it.. (And it’s not necessarily “blind faith”—the quarterback and his receivers have trained and practiced and honed their skills, and studied the patterns and plays, and have some reasonable belief that such a pass can be competed.)
11 Nov 05
3 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesYou have illustrated my point - the only argument that makes a contrast between faith and reason valid presuppose a definition of faith that makes it unreasonable. That is a tautology.
But then the term becomes superfluous. There is no need to use it at all - just use belief instead. One would only take this route if one intends to later equivocate about the nature of faith, intending to say that it is not simply belief.
A better use of terminology is to have different terms mean different things. Faith becomes a useful ter ...[text shortened]... to have two terms with identical meaning. A Christian Logician should already be aware of this.
Historically, the definition of faith was the same as belief - and also reasoned belief:
Faith
1. Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is declared by another, resting on his authority and veracity, without other evidence; the judgment that what another states or testifies is the truth. I have strong faith or no faith in the testimony of a witness, or in what a historian narrates.
2. The assent of the mind to the truth of a proposition advanced by another; belief, or probable evidence of any kind.
Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of American English
And the biblical definition of term faith does not included justified or unjustified. (This would lead to confusion since justify has a separate Biblical meaning.) In the Bible, faith means simple belief.
Since I have not used the term 'faith' with different a different meaning then belief - there is no equivocation. The nature of faith is identical to the nature of belief - and the terms are used throughout the Bible interchangeably.
"A better use of terminology is to have different terms mean different things. Faith becomes a useful term in the same universe as belief only when faith means something different than belief does. "
You have a law against synonyms? It may be more useful to have all terms paired with different meanings - but the fact is that synonyms exist in language. To change the meaning of a term leads to equivocation. To preserve the meaning of a term leads to sound reasoning.
There already is a term that means unjustified belief - that is the definition of an opinion. An opinion is a belief that can not be deductively proven. Since justification means reasonable proof, then an belief that is unjustified is an opinion.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoePointing out that the RCC murdered Bruno just before they went after Galileo might not be exactly what you want to hear, but since its the truth , ain't that just too bad.
Please, don't change the thread's subject and don't hijack this thread with your usual spam.
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by ivanhoeIvanhoe, do you mean that 'Faith ought never conflict
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
"The 'Galileo case' teaches us that different branches of knowledge call for different methods, each of which brings out various aspects of reality.
2. In the first place, I wish to congratulate the Pontifical Academy of Sciences for having chosen to deal, in its plenary session, with a p ...[text shortened]... hout humanism and wisdom. etc. "
http://www.its.caltech.edu/~nmcenter/sci-cp/sci-9211.html
with reason?'
I'm not even sure this makes sense. Belief in the
Resurrection, Assumption, Ascension, and a whole host
of other things are 'unreasonable' in the sense that
the dead coming back to life or living beings ascending
into heaven defies logic.
In fact, I would argue that faith is predicated on the
'unreasonable.'
No?
Nemesio
11 Nov 05
Originally posted by vistesdYou are talking about connotations as much as denotations. Faith and belief and trust are all related to reason and knowledge. To say you trust someone means you believe what they say. Faith/belief entails trust because we trust what we believe is true. And we know what we believe is justifiably true. If I say I know that bridge will carry the weight of my vehicle, that is to say the same as I believe it will hold or I have faith it will hold, or I trust it will hold. Particularly if I then go ahead and drive over the bridge.
The NT Greek words pistis (noun) and pisteo (verb) have more the meaning of confidence or trust than contemporary senses of the word belief as what you think or conclude. pistis can also mean assurance, persuasion, trustworthiness.
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2383320
Bel ...[text shortened]... udied the patterns and plays, and have some reasonable belief that such a pass can be competed.)
If I say I have reason to believe - then I am saying I know it. (I might be wrong - but I still believe and drive over the bridge.) So to say that faith and reason have no connection leads to an inability to have knowledge. Faith and reason are not the same things - and in that sense they can not contradict each other - but they are inexplicable tied together for coherent thinking since both are required for knowledge.