You read a definition of science, then goes on to creating your own definition? Why did you have to do that? Hmm. "What science DOESN'T do, is talk about the metaphysical world: questions regarding gods existance for example." Wait, what? Cosmology? Biology? Theoretical physics? All these branches of science have had enormous impact on religious questions and religious claims - including shaping religious ideas about ethics/morality, the nature of reality, creation, gods nature/characteristics/attributes. Why do you think most christians today no longer believe in the christian creation myth? And then, 3 minutes later, you argue against yourself, saying that William Lane Craig is "using the cutting edge of cosmology and biology to demonstrate that god does in fact exist". Make up your mind! Again, regarding "faith", you dismiss the definitions you read because you dont ...like them? Then create your own definition that fits your own narrative. "A source of knowledge alongside science and other things"? This is not a common position for theologians or religious people. You know, we have data on this. What you are regurgitating here is an outdated talkingpoint used by some western apologists - usually within conservative christianities or islam. This view is not being taken seriously within modern discourse. "I think its in bad faith to say that faith is against facts somehow". Almost every religious thinker/philosopher/theologian since early 1800s would disagree with you here. I wonder: what are you basing this on? From where do you get your information?
Religious people tend to want their misunderstanding of science and logic to take the forefront over learning what science actually says (newsflash: there is zero scientific evidence for god/s)
Hey, thanks for stopping by! Valid points. I think I didn't do an amazing job at stating what I meant by the bit about science. There's general consensus in the philosophy of science that science is committed to methodological naturalism (ie. to understand the world by assuming that no supernatural forces act upon it.) I think methodological naturalism is absolutely necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge, because it stops us from simply saying "God did it!" to anything we don't understand. However, by definition, methodological naturalism is not concerned about answer metaphysical questions. Strictly speaking, science doesn't say one way or another whether God does or doesn't exist. HOWEVER! We are well within our rights to make interpretations of scientific findings to answer metaphysical questions. As you rightly point out, cosmology, biology, and theoretical physics (and even evolutionary psychology or history!) have loads to contribute to the metaphysical questions. I presume that you are a non-theist, and you are one because you are persuaded that the scientific evidence points against the existence of God. I think that is perfectly valid. I am, in fact, working on a video on evolution and atheism, and believe that many of the arguments against theism from evolution is quite good (although some are not!) On faith, though, I'm afraid I do have to disagree with you. My definition of faith is still routinely taught in religious seminaries, especially in Christian and Muslim ones. As a non-theist, faith is, of course, an invalid source of knowledge. All I'm pointing out is that it's at least a little misleading to say that the very definition of "faith" is opposite to "fact;" no practicing theist would agree with that. In any case, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I appreciate your comment!
@@ponderphil Thanks for replying! "I presume that you are a non-theist, and you are one because you are persuaded that the scientific evidence points against the existence of God" My beliefs are irrelevant, but logic/science doesn't work in that direction! The atheist would not be "persuaded by evidence against". They are by definition NOT persuaded. And it would not be a question of 'evidence against', but rather the lack of convincing evidence. It is of course true that 'faith' is sometimes categorized as a source of knowledge in religious schools. Maybe more common is the notion that faith IS a form of knowledge in itself. This goes back to early Christian theologians, and is still the basis for many apologist arguments. However, this view is not shared by most religious people globally and is not how the word is commonly used in everyday language today. Many religious people find comfort in the fact that they are not dependent on evidence to legitimize their beliefs. There is a HUGE discrepancy between centralized/established theology and modern religiosity: www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/golden-rule-christianity-lived-religion-american-mainstream www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv143m academic.oup.com/book/3374 www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344087.2016.1124015 (The list goes on and on) In eastern religions, they don't have concepts that directly translate to our western 'faith'. Usually, the separation between material/immaterial makes the notion of [western] faith irrelevant. In muslim schools/seminars, the word 'faith' would be intrinsically linked to Allah. It could also refer to the Shahada, or when translated from _Imam_, it takes on a different meaning altogether. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_(Islam) . Interestingly, Aquinas' view of faith was in many ways similar what you'll often see in modern-day Islam: blog.emergingscholars.org/2018/09/faith-and-reason-part-3-aquinas/ There is also the problem of semantics between theologians, scientists and philosophers: The words 'knowledge' and 'faith' have widely different meanings between these domains. Some definitions of 'faith' within modern Christian theology are still directly tied to the Christian God, and would therefore make its relation to fact irrelevant. But again, this is not how the term is used colloquially by modern Christians. Psychologists use the term in a highly pragmatic way: dictionary.apa.org/religious-faith . Philosophers use the word "faith" as a meta-category of many concepts, each with their own subcategories: plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/ . In relation to reason in modern philosophy, religious faith is not accepted as knowledge as its presupposition is unknowable. You could always construct a definition of 'knowledge' that would include faith as a potential source, but that doesn't change the relationship between the two outside of your own language. I don't think me or anyone else are saying that faith is _opposed_ to fact. If you believe that your faith is based on facts, or that faith is a source of knowledge, thats okay - but it's important to specify that you are not talking about "knowledge" in a modern epistemological sense, but a specific type of "religious/theological knowledge" since it presupposes the existence of a specific God. As you point out: These kinds of definitions only convey meaning within insider-insider-communication. From an outside perspective, any argument would be intrinsically circular. So my point is: Why not co-opt more universal and objective semantics? Wouldn't that be less antagonistic and make communication easier? This is me using colloquial "faith": I have faith that what you represent in your video is your genuine beliefs. "Faith" works in this scenario, as I don't have any evidence or credence either way. I can choose what to proclaim faith in, but I cannot choose what I believe is true.
Fine by me on both counts! Do bear in mind, though, that my statements were in response to the Young Sheldon clip, where he said "religion is faith, science is facts." Faith and facts are pitted as foils to each other. He said this to Pastor Jeff, a Christian. That's the context of my analysis: in such a context, it's probably better to debunk faith as a valid source of knowledge rather than straight up say that faith as the opposite of fact. I'm generally with you on finding a more universal way to talk about faith. In my day-to-day dialogue about religion and philosophy, I almost never use the word "faith." I don't find it to be a helpful way to talk about religion; as you say, it's good for insider-to-insider conversations but less so for everything else. I appreciate the comments! It gives the channel a boost in the algorithm and helps me improve as a (new!) content creator.
@@ponderphil "science is committed to methodological naturalism" - saying "committed" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. Science doesn't get to appeal to anything supernatural / non-natural until such phenomena are observed or seriously hypothesised. But perhaps you're confusing it with philosophical naturalism.
You read a definition of science, then goes on to creating your own definition? Why did you have to do that? Hmm.
"What science DOESN'T do, is talk about the metaphysical world: questions regarding gods existance for example." Wait, what? Cosmology? Biology? Theoretical physics? All these branches of science have had enormous impact on religious questions and religious claims - including shaping religious ideas about ethics/morality, the nature of reality, creation, gods nature/characteristics/attributes. Why do you think most christians today no longer believe in the christian creation myth?
And then, 3 minutes later, you argue against yourself, saying that William Lane Craig is "using the cutting edge of cosmology and biology to demonstrate that god does in fact exist". Make up your mind!
Again, regarding "faith", you dismiss the definitions you read because you dont ...like them? Then create your own definition that fits your own narrative. "A source of knowledge alongside science and other things"? This is not a common position for theologians or religious people. You know, we have data on this. What you are regurgitating here is an outdated talkingpoint used by some western apologists - usually within conservative christianities or islam. This view is not being taken seriously within modern discourse.
"I think its in bad faith to say that faith is against facts somehow". Almost every religious thinker/philosopher/theologian since early 1800s would disagree with you here.
I wonder: what are you basing this on? From where do you get your information?
Religious people tend to want their misunderstanding of science and logic to take the forefront over learning what science actually says (newsflash: there is zero scientific evidence for god/s)
Hey, thanks for stopping by!
Valid points. I think I didn't do an amazing job at stating what I meant by the bit about science. There's general consensus in the philosophy of science that science is committed to methodological naturalism (ie. to understand the world by assuming that no supernatural forces act upon it.) I think methodological naturalism is absolutely necessary for the advancement of scientific knowledge, because it stops us from simply saying "God did it!" to anything we don't understand.
However, by definition, methodological naturalism is not concerned about answer metaphysical questions. Strictly speaking, science doesn't say one way or another whether God does or doesn't exist. HOWEVER! We are well within our rights to make interpretations of scientific findings to answer metaphysical questions. As you rightly point out, cosmology, biology, and theoretical physics (and even evolutionary psychology or history!) have loads to contribute to the metaphysical questions. I presume that you are a non-theist, and you are one because you are persuaded that the scientific evidence points against the existence of God. I think that is perfectly valid. I am, in fact, working on a video on evolution and atheism, and believe that many of the arguments against theism from evolution is quite good (although some are not!)
On faith, though, I'm afraid I do have to disagree with you. My definition of faith is still routinely taught in religious seminaries, especially in Christian and Muslim ones. As a non-theist, faith is, of course, an invalid source of knowledge. All I'm pointing out is that it's at least a little misleading to say that the very definition of "faith" is opposite to "fact;" no practicing theist would agree with that.
In any case, I'm happy to agree to disagree. I appreciate your comment!
@@ponderphil Thanks for replying!
"I presume that you are a non-theist, and you are one because you are persuaded that the scientific evidence points against the existence of God"
My beliefs are irrelevant, but logic/science doesn't work in that direction! The atheist would not be "persuaded by evidence against". They are by definition NOT persuaded. And it would not be a question of 'evidence against', but rather the lack of convincing evidence.
It is of course true that 'faith' is sometimes categorized as a source of knowledge in religious schools. Maybe more common is the notion that faith IS a form of knowledge in itself. This goes back to early Christian theologians, and is still the basis for many apologist arguments. However, this view is not shared by most religious people globally and is not how the word is commonly used in everyday language today. Many religious people find comfort in the fact that they are not dependent on evidence to legitimize their beliefs. There is a HUGE discrepancy between centralized/established theology and modern religiosity:
www.wcfia.harvard.edu/publications/golden-rule-christianity-lived-religion-american-mainstream
www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv143m
academic.oup.com/book/3374
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00344087.2016.1124015
(The list goes on and on)
In eastern religions, they don't have concepts that directly translate to our western 'faith'. Usually, the separation between material/immaterial makes the notion of [western] faith irrelevant. In muslim schools/seminars, the word 'faith' would be intrinsically linked to Allah. It could also refer to the Shahada, or when translated from _Imam_, it takes on a different meaning altogether. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iman_(Islam) . Interestingly, Aquinas' view of faith was in many ways similar what you'll often see in modern-day Islam: blog.emergingscholars.org/2018/09/faith-and-reason-part-3-aquinas/
There is also the problem of semantics between theologians, scientists and philosophers: The words 'knowledge' and 'faith' have widely different meanings between these domains. Some definitions of 'faith' within modern Christian theology are still directly tied to the Christian God, and would therefore make its relation to fact irrelevant. But again, this is not how the term is used colloquially by modern Christians. Psychologists use the term in a highly pragmatic way: dictionary.apa.org/religious-faith . Philosophers use the word "faith" as a meta-category of many concepts, each with their own subcategories: plato.stanford.edu/entries/faith/ . In relation to reason in modern philosophy, religious faith is not accepted as knowledge as its presupposition is unknowable.
You could always construct a definition of 'knowledge' that would include faith as a potential source, but that doesn't change the relationship between the two outside of your own language. I don't think me or anyone else are saying that faith is _opposed_ to fact. If you believe that your faith is based on facts, or that faith is a source of knowledge, thats okay - but it's important to specify that you are not talking about "knowledge" in a modern epistemological sense, but a specific type of "religious/theological knowledge" since it presupposes the existence of a specific God. As you point out: These kinds of definitions only convey meaning within insider-insider-communication. From an outside perspective, any argument would be intrinsically circular. So my point is: Why not co-opt more universal and objective semantics? Wouldn't that be less antagonistic and make communication easier?
This is me using colloquial "faith": I have faith that what you represent in your video is your genuine beliefs. "Faith" works in this scenario, as I don't have any evidence or credence either way. I can choose what to proclaim faith in, but I cannot choose what I believe is true.
Fine by me on both counts!
Do bear in mind, though, that my statements were in response to the Young Sheldon clip, where he said "religion is faith, science is facts." Faith and facts are pitted as foils to each other. He said this to Pastor Jeff, a Christian. That's the context of my analysis: in such a context, it's probably better to debunk faith as a valid source of knowledge rather than straight up say that faith as the opposite of fact.
I'm generally with you on finding a more universal way to talk about faith. In my day-to-day dialogue about religion and philosophy, I almost never use the word "faith." I don't find it to be a helpful way to talk about religion; as you say, it's good for insider-to-insider conversations but less so for everything else.
I appreciate the comments! It gives the channel a boost in the algorithm and helps me improve as a (new!) content creator.
@@ponderphil "science is committed to methodological naturalism" - saying "committed" reveals a fundamental misunderstanding. Science doesn't get to appeal to anything supernatural / non-natural until such phenomena are observed or seriously hypothesised. But perhaps you're confusing it with philosophical naturalism.