Is faith a reliable path to knowledge?

Write4U said:
I understand the term in a religious context. That is the Abrahamic mindset. But I am atheist.

I was referring to the more general definition of "faith" as in "trust".
Click to expand...
This has been a wonderful example of how the word 'faith' is often mistaken. Although faith and trust are synonyms, faith is often used for the unseen while trust is used more for observations and evidence. One would have faith in a god but trust their flight will not crash.
 
I've always thought that faith is more about introspection.

Know yourself.

The rest of the world has it's own problems.
 
James R said:
Maybe you should go back and read the first few posts of this thread.
Click to expand...
From post #15
Yazata said:
Faith is an idea that's found in many religions. They needn't be theistic.

Buddhism has a concept of faith ('sraddha') which means 'trust' or 'confidence'. It's very important for beginners in Buddhism, since beginners have to have enough confidence in the path to initially begin practicing it.
Click to expand...
Faith requires trust in the teacher. There is always a teacher.
This is why atheists do not have faith. We don't trust the teachers.
 
Please post on topic. Do not try to hijack the thread.
exchemist said:
Yet for some reason you trust a showman like Tegmark, or Hameroff.
Click to expand...
As a practitioner of mathematics I have faith in its logical power as a fundamental property of spacetime mechanics.
Tegmark does not need to convince me. I trust my own experience with mathematics as expressed in the natural world.
Note that I have carefully stayed away from any speculation of multiple universes, etc. To me that is just a waste of time.

Having had 3 heart ablations, I have placed my trust in anesthesiologists like Hameroff to "know" what it is that renders me unconscious and then bring me back to consciousness. Of all biological experts dealing with consciousness, I have both faith and trust in Hameroff.

p.s. Hameroff had already worked on potential quantum level consciousness before he read Penroses' "The Emperors New Mind".
He recognized what Penrose was looking for in his quantum gravity hypothesis. Migrating birds use some very interesting ways of navigation.

Moreover, the recognition of Nobel Prize is bestowed by a concensus of peers and I do trust concensus in science.
"Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics."

Would you label Penrose as a showman? He seems to trust Hameroff's knowledge and have sufficient faith in his recommendation to collaborate on the only potentially testable hypothesis of ORCH OR.
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
As a practitioner of mathematics I have faith in its logical power as a fundamental property of spacetime mechanics.
Tegmark does not need to convince me.

Having had 3 heart ablations, I have placed my trust in anesthesiologists like Hameroff to "know" what it is that renders me unconscious and then bring me back to consciousness. Of all biological experts dealing with consciousness, I have both faith and trust in Hameroff.

Moreover, this recognition is bestowed by peers and I do trust concensus in science.
"Sir Roger Penrose is an English mathematician, mathematical physicist, philosopher of science and Nobel Laureate in Physics."

Would you label Penrose as a showman? He seems to trust Hameroff's knowledge and have a modicum of faith in his recommendation.
Click to expand...
Penrose has given up on Orch OR.
 
How about instead of the "collapse of the wavefuction", we end up with a "change in physical expression of the wave function"?
At what point does a quantum value become subject to gravity?

I post faith (and trust) in the power and functionality of Science (mathematics) as a juxtaposition to faith (and trust) in the power of Religion (speculation).
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
From post #15

Faith requires trust in the teacher. There is always a teacher.
This is why atheists do not have faith. We don't trust the teachers.
Click to expand...
I don't know ... When in the lab searching for a cure for new strains of viruses, there is enough trust in the process to accommodate for what some call faith. That's why the research continues.
 
Pinball1970 said:
We've done all this !
Click to expand...
Stick around any board long enough and you notice a constant. It's typically new not so new grand epiphanies newbies can't resist showing and telling us about. I know, been there done that ad nauseum .

Typical stuff really, all those things we think are great at first hearing or insight, only to find out that most long standing members can hardly wait to burst those grand epiphany bubbles.
 
Oh, but not before allowing them to argue the premise brought the table - ad nauseum.

It's not so much ... Zzzzzz
It's quite a show, really.

I enjoy it.
 
I lurk sometimes

it's about the debate, I guess. How well can you argue a point?
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top