the outcome of the election

[JustAGuy]

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.

Your last statement is precicely why lots of people don't bother with religion.

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'.

If you don't take these things on faith, and make no assumption, then you can't be ignorant of the faith behind the assumption, because it does not exist. Your assumption is that we are indeed making assumptions about the nature of the universe. This is not provable; if one did not take, for example, the concept of causailty on faith, then the setting of a value based on causailty has nothing to do with the underlying faith in the concept (since it does not exist). For example, I have not made any assumptions about causality, rather I have perceived its effects. I know that killing leads me to jail, therefore I set a value of "killing is wrong", and don't kill because of it. No faith required, no ignorance of said faith.

The belief that faith plays a role in the setting of all values is the point of contention; I am not ignorant, I am simply in disagreement, since I believe that I am taking nothing on faith, rather acting and making decisions based on what I perceive.

Your assumption is that we are indeed taking things on 'faith'. My contention is that we are not, no faith is required so therefore there is nothing to be ignorant of. You don't even need to understand a concept to know what the repercussions of it will be. A value is set by the determining literal and direct consequences of doing something for or against it (i.e. kill = loss of freedom, so don't do it). It's not faith in the underlying principles of the universe, it's conformity to those you can perceive. You perception of these concepts requires no faith, just that you understand them (and in the case of setting one's values, abide by them).

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.

See, I don't contend to know what "Truth" really is. Science is the pursuit of that truth, and they don't pretend to know it all either. So, for now anyway, they're the team to stick with in my book. Cold and rational Science.