Originally Posted by MiddleAgedAl
Having blind faith in something is completely logical, if you know that someone else who isnt as blind as you (in that area), also shares that faith. That key distinction is where the comparison becomes flawed.
When I step on the elevator on the 35th floor of an office building, I have faith that it was properly designed, installed & maintained.
That is a type of ignorance-fueled faith; frankly, I really know nothing about elevators, beyond the fact they have some sort of safety system.
However, despite the fact I know nothing, I can easily find others who do know a lot about it, and can explain the physics in an irrefutable manner. My "faith" is ignorant yes, but it's still logically sound, because someone who isnt as ignorant as I am, shares that faith.
If it was like religion, then no person on the planet alive today could have that knowledge. The best you could get is: "well, since I dont possess any special power, I cant say with certainty any more than you can, but this book (written back when people couldnt even explain where the sun went at night) says the mechanism is safe". How very comforting....
Unless you can find someone who has died, gone to heaven, taken notes, and then came back, there's nobody on this planet who can muster the same authority on religion that the elevator engineer can muster on his topic, if you know what I mean.
Suffice it to say, if riding elevators required that level of blind faith that religion does, I'd be taking the stairs !
Originally Posted by AndreyT
That would be non-scientific. Believing directly in the technology is indeed an example of non-scientific faith.
Scientific "faith" does not work that way. A scientific person does not perceive technology as self-sufficient dogma. A scientific person believes in a significantly different thing: they believe that if the need arises, they will be able to gain access to objective evidence that substantiates the technology in question. A scientific person believes in nanotechnology specifically because they know that they can gain access to the instruments that will allow them to see it with their own eyes (a microscope, if you will), hear it with their own ears and touch it with their own hands.
In other words, this "faith in technology" is critically founded on the understanding that it is not blind and does not have to be blind. This "faith" is critically supported by the fact that converting it from faith into objective knowledge is a matter of believer's free will.
None of this applies to religious faith, of course.
You guys act as if everyone walking the planet who isn't religious is full of logic and is scientifically minded.
the faith in science and or technology does or does not have to be blind makes no difference. Because people DO blindly believe what the media, magazines, articles, Wikipedia, internet and even forums tells them about science and technology.
What is the difference between believing in something that was written and recorded in standard fashion 2000 years ago and believing in something that was written and recorded in standard fashion 20 years ago?
Forget about the content of these books the person is reading and believing in, because they are not going to do anything other than read the books and decide whether
or not to believe in their contents. They are not going to do any studying of the subject outside of the original books they learned from. They are not going to research anything to see it for themselves. They are only going to read the contents and believe both to be true.
What's the difference?