Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Fallacy of Faith
Message-ID: <1652@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 14-Jan-84 09:02:29 EST
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.1652
Posted: Sat Jan 14 09:02:29 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jan-84 09:26:49 EST
References: <487@hou5a.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 83

The reason that other scientistics haven't made Tom Craver's claim is that
we philosophers will get you for it. Oh well, here goes:

Here is the claim:

	The statement has been made that science is a religion, because both
	science and those systems that are commonly called religions are based
	at the most fundamental level upon faith.  This is false.  Science is 
	not based upon faith.

He then goes on to present the classic objectivist (note -- small "o",
ie not necessarily connected with Rand, though the name "Objectivism"
with the big "O" didn't come from nowhere) position on knowledge.

Definition:

	Knowledge is a true belief in the light of sufficient evidence.

Okay. this is pretty basic stuff. However, there is a problem here.
This very deifinition is  also a belief.
How do we know that it is true -- ie how do we make sure
that it is knowledge, which one accepts not out of faith?

the first crack is to say -- oh well, there is lots of evidence that
this definition is a true belief, therefore it is knowledge. However, here you 
have only made the claim of consistency -- if it is a true belief then it
is a true belief. If, however, it is false then all hell breaks loose.

This is similar to the claim that "the Bible is true because it says so
in the Bible". (Note -- it doesn't, but people say the funniest things.
Assume that it did for the purpose of arguement). 

Okay -- have I dismissed this proof? I can do this one for hours but I
don't want to beat a dead horse.

The second crack is to say that certain things are obviuously true.
These are called "innate ideas" and a good example is "I exist". Okay.
Tom has made the secondary claim that people who claim that they don't
exist have been brainwashed by religion. This is not valid, since Hume
made the similar claim and he remained a sceptic on the matters of
religion. So not only "religious people" have these ideas.

Moreover, it is very hard to say that Tom's innate ideas are any
different in kind than somebody who claims that they have the innate idea that
"God exists and he is Jesus Christ my saviour". They claim that this
is an innate idea. And I have no idea of knowing the true from the
false (from an objective point of view).

* * * *

However, I think that the claim that science is a religion because it
relies on faith is a silly one. Everything relies on faith, since there
are always some axioms which are either innate ideas or are only true
if they are true. Your only reason for making such a claim would be to
promote tolerance, or to befog the issue. "Science is just based on
faith, so religion is a great thing." Hmm. Somehow the people that
bring this argument out of the closet tend to believe that their
religion is the one big TRUTH and we had all better kowtow. They are,
in effect, denying that their religion depends on faith for the purpose
of the converxion argument. "I can logically prove the esistence of God"
they shout -- and, of course they can, if I give them their premises.
(it is a long standing joke that if you give a Jesuit his premises
he can prove anything). But in any arguement of that sort I can find
one or more premises that must be taken on faith. So logical arguements
for the existence of God don't wash with me.

Of course, a logical argument on why I should be an objectivist don't wash
either. I like consistent systems, which is why objectivism holds its
attractions and Christianity (which flunks for other reasons as well,
as net.religion readers will know) doesn't -- for me. I like a consistent
system because it is useful, according to me. Don't bother telling me
that i am selfish, because I think that this is a virtue and I intend
to adopt belief systems purely out of their usefulness to me.

I am aware that other people may find other things useful, including
having an illogical system. Poets and mystics have been known to go
on about it for ages. thus this is useful to them. More power to
them -- as long as they understand that just because illogic is
useful to them it is not necessarily useful to me.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura