faith, religion and cars.

No, a scientific theory is a logical explanation based on the available empirical evidence and is subject to change whenever new empirical evidence contradicts it. Theory is testable, and when testing illuminates a theory's shortcomings, that theory is either revised or thrown out. We don't have faith that the other car will stop at the red light, but rather know from experience that the car will probably stop at the red light; and depending on where you live, you'll probably wait a second or so after your light turns green just to be sure that other car will, in fact, stop.

When you use the word "probably", isn't there an element of guessing there? You do not know for sure that the car will stop until it has stopped, regardless of how many times it has happened before. This is impossible to predict.

The thing is that in traffic faith is in fact all we go by. There are rules, but these rules are frequently broken, and there's no telling when it will happen next.

It's faith.

I have faith that I will take another breath. I don't know it.
I don't know a damn thing.

Faith is the belief in something for which one has no evidence. The fact that cars are likely to stop is based on the evidence of past occurrences, not faith. Of course we cannot predict whether or not the car will stop with 100% accuracy (hence the few extra seconds at riskier intersections), but we can predict that the car will stop and be correct most of the time. It's not faith, but the unconscious assessment of acceptable risk.

However, if you firmly believe the car will not stop no matter what you do then you would not apply the brakes and you will crash. We apply the brakes because we firmly believe the brakes will stop the car. This indicates faith! The smae thing applies to our religious faith. We believe firmly. Unfortunately, in many religions, the proof will have to wait until you die.

Cyracuz wants to exhume Hume who posited much the same thought, only using billiard balls, not cars, as an example.

Science is based on hypothesis - which is not belief, quite the contrary - and testing of that as double-blindly as possible.

Who told you science is based on belief?

If it were not for belief then scientists would not bother with experiments. What would be the point in experimenting if you didn't believe you would get results? Edison firmly believed he could invent the light bulb despite nearly 1,000 futile attempts. When questioned as to why he continued after 1,000 failures Edison replied, "I didn't fail a thousand times, I simply found a thousand ways it wouldn't work". In other words, he had FAITH!

Call it what you want. You believe that the car will stop unless you're actually controlling it. Even then things might happen so that it won't stop when you press the pedal.

Maybe one in one hundred thousand drivers would run you over given the oportunity, and if you don't know wich one, it could be anyone. I do not have problems accepting this risk, but I am aware that I am doing it on faith.

Any scientist with a belief that an experiment will come out a certain way would be likely to skew the data. That is what double blind testing is about, to not have any human bias skew results. One may have a good hunch that a hypothesis will be found to be correct but some of the most interesting results in science come as surprises when data doesn't occur as one hypothesized. Practicing scientists know this.

A hypothesis is absolutely not the same thing as faith.

C'mon ossobuco. A scisntist wouldn't even try if he had no faith in his/her experiments. That would be like beating a dead horse. Faith is important even crossing the street. If you are convinced you cannot cross safely then you won't cross at all!

No, I agree with Osso, Nick. Pure faith is blind. A scientist has an entirely different kind of 'faith' in the experiment he/she is conducting. The scientist is trying to find proof of whatever it is that is being investigated. That isn't really faith; faith needs no proof. It is self-sustaining. Unless we're twisting the definition of 'faith' all out of shape here.

tha_extension

I think you are correctly raising an issue that is usually ignored but you have missed a key factor, namely the human cognitive urge to predict and control.

The differences between science and religion are (1)that the first uses "prediction" with respect to public observation and the second uses "faith" with respect to private observation. (2) The "control" attached to the scientist's predictions is deemed by theists as "conditionally granted by the Big Controller".

Apologies to those who are already familiar with my thoughts on this.

And how do you surmise this, NickFun?

Scientists test hypotheses. Any scientist worth his or her salt is prepared for his or her conjecture to not work out - the experiment is set up as a genuine test. I've been around labs when the conjecture hasn't worked out, and what actually did happen was far more interesting. That could happen because the set up was designed to test, was set up as double-blind, and not manipulatible. Your use of the word faith for science experimentation shows non-acquaintance with science.

I should have added that theists would see "scientific prediction" as a substrate of "faith" on the basis of (2) above.

Exactly.

I am a Buddhist. We define "faith" more as "expectation" that the causes we make will bring the desired results. See my previous comment on Edison. Also, Henry Ford didn't build an automobile because he thought no one would buy it.

NickFun

Presumably that follows from the "detachment" aspect of Buddhism where the "control of one's world" is relinquished in favour of observation of the self in the act of observing/expecting. Ironically as Krishnamurti pointed out, meditational attempts to control the detachment are logically counterproductive.