Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT Strips 3406-3410 (28 January - 3 February 2017)
Method of Madness:
That's fascinating. I guess just because it's not a choice for me doesn't mean it's not a choice for others. I envy those people.
Case:
--- Quote from: Gyrre on 03 Feb 2017, 06:42 ---
--- Quote from: Tova on 03 Feb 2017, 00:12 ---Belief without proof" is a common definition of "faith." But when one is exhorted to "have faith," that isn't an exhortation to believe. It's an exhortation to trust.
And one can choose to trust.
--- End quote ---
In this case, yes very much so.
However, for those made uncomfortable by the word faith, vid.
--- End quote ---
I think there's a much better Einstein-quote that is sadly less famous, despite being far more fundamental to faith and science both:
"Raffiniert ist der Herrgott, aber boshaft ist er nicht"
"Subtle is the Lord, but not malicious" is the most common translation. Einstein clarified to Princton's Prof. Veblen that he meant that "Nature conceals herself by sublimity, not trickery" (*), so a more accurate translation might by:
"Subtle is the Lord, but not (maliciously) deceptive" (my translation)
It means that 'God' doesn't flit around the Universe pretending to us that order exists, while the Universe is really chaotic and unordered - which would make the scientific Endeavour futile - this order that science tries to understand (ever more accurately) really does exist.
It's every scientists faith - really in the sense of 'faith' that you mean. The faith that the Universe is ordered, and ordered in a fashion accessible to rational study/enquiry, or 'the scientific method'. You cannot do science without either having that faith ... or engaging in some weird, Orwellian double-think. (More on Gödel (one 'l') and the uncertainty principle later ... there's some stuff that needs having done science to it)
EDIT: Found a beautiful little lecture titled 'Does God play Dice?' by none other than Stephen Hawking himself. No equations, 'just' philosophy.
(*) Einstein could be described as pantheist, so it's probably accurate to say that for him, there was little difference between "God", "Universe", "Nature" and "Nature's Laws"
Morituri:
I have occasionally found it worthwhile to place faith in people whom I do not trust.
That is, someone whom I know is end-of-the-rope broke offers me a promise like, "I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today."
Do I really expect to be paid tuesday? I figure, maybe, it's about 40% likely. At best.
Do I really want this guy to go hungry? Nope. Will he accept the burger as charity without the self-respect and dignity of intending to pay? Nope. So I accept his promise. I hand him the burger on faith, thinking of it as just plain altruism or being nice to people.
But then on Tuesday he actually comes around and pays, and he remembers a good turn, and when he's employed again and back on his feet, we go out for a pizza together. A little bit of faith, and suddenly I've made a friend who'll turn around and do the same for me if and when I need help.
sitnspin:
In those instances, I don't have any faith that I'll be paid back, but I'll give the money anyway. If it makes them feel better to say they will, fine, but I have no expectation of being reimbursed.
Morituri:
I think you're saying 'faith' when you mean something like 'expectation' or 'belief.' They're not the same.
Faith means trusting something, being willing to act as though it were true even if it's merely possible. Belief means thinking it's true.
As my (Unitarian) minister says, 'you can have belief, when you're a child or if you don't think about it very much; but as an adult with knowledge and critical thought, one can only have faith.'
To put it another way, choosing what to believe is a gray area, reserved for those of us who are willing to re-evaluate a question about whether our belief *about* our belief is correct. I do this sometimes. I think I believe something but then I notice that I'm feeling or reacting in ways contrary to that belief and seriously evaluate based on this new evidence whether or not I actually believe something else. This is something that my older brother, and lots of other people, just profoundly doesn't get. The idea that someone could actually be mistaken *about* their own beliefs rather than just *in* their own beliefs seems impossible to them.
But choosing what to have faith in is much simpler. That's a question of what principles you want guiding your actions. If one of your principles is that other people are worthwhile, you'll have faith in them a bit more often than you believe them.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version