Hi,
But it *is* true. Logic just lets you draw inferences from statements. It preserves the truth value of the axioms but cannot tell you if the axioms are 'True' (i.e., absolute verities). It can, however, tell you that there is something wrong with the axioms by permitting you to prove contradictory conclusions. Which, by the way, is why most rational people take their religion with whole heaps of salt -- all religions contain huge contradictions.
However, science is little better. The axioms are tentative and change often (however, the changes are usually of the 'refinement' type rather than the 'contradiction' type). The very concept that nature is 'knowable' is an unprovable axion. Indeed, Kant gave an excellent argument that in the final analysis we cannot 'know' anything since our means of knowing are the same as what we know, leading to a circular situation.
Thus we all start with some fundamental assumptions, such as the existence of a universe to know anything about. Such as the existence of natural "laws". Such as our ability to know and understand those "laws". Such as causality. And homogeneity. These are things we take on 'faith'.
The only difference between science and religion is that when one of the axioms of science is shown to be wrong, scientists replace it (after much argument) with something with more subtle errors (however, at each iteration, there are some optimists who think they've finally arrived at the "Truth"). When that happens in religion, the proponents of that religion simply insist that what looks wrong is right but is a test from god. I think they're fooling themselves, but they might well be right. If a capricious god indeed made and rules the universe, then all science is useless and logic does not apply.
--Pete
JustAGuy,Nov 3 2004, 05:35 PM Wrote:That's not true. Faith is, to quote the dictionary, "a belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence".[right][snapback]59136[/snapback][/right]
But it *is* true. Logic just lets you draw inferences from statements. It preserves the truth value of the axioms but cannot tell you if the axioms are 'True' (i.e., absolute verities). It can, however, tell you that there is something wrong with the axioms by permitting you to prove contradictory conclusions. Which, by the way, is why most rational people take their religion with whole heaps of salt -- all religions contain huge contradictions.
However, science is little better. The axioms are tentative and change often (however, the changes are usually of the 'refinement' type rather than the 'contradiction' type). The very concept that nature is 'knowable' is an unprovable axion. Indeed, Kant gave an excellent argument that in the final analysis we cannot 'know' anything since our means of knowing are the same as what we know, leading to a circular situation.
Thus we all start with some fundamental assumptions, such as the existence of a universe to know anything about. Such as the existence of natural "laws". Such as our ability to know and understand those "laws". Such as causality. And homogeneity. These are things we take on 'faith'.
The only difference between science and religion is that when one of the axioms of science is shown to be wrong, scientists replace it (after much argument) with something with more subtle errors (however, at each iteration, there are some optimists who think they've finally arrived at the "Truth"). When that happens in religion, the proponents of that religion simply insist that what looks wrong is right but is a test from god. I think they're fooling themselves, but they might well be right. If a capricious god indeed made and rules the universe, then all science is useless and logic does not apply.
--Pete
How big was the aquarium in Noah's ark?