Creation, Evolution, and faith

People use reason and logic in all subjects and fields of endeavor. The difference is that a scientists faith in the reason and logic behind established theory is underpinned by evidence from the real world, while someone's faith in the reason and logic behind their religious beliefs is not.--Percy

Another way of looking at it is that it *does* increase the tentativity we must attach to scientific theory, a viewpoint creationists might find attractive, but it affects all scientific theory equally, which creationists might not like so much. They can't decide that science's tentativity applies to whether there's evolution but not to whether there's gravity.--Percy

Hi Flyer75,This one has been addressed already, but this is just so far out there: One of the important qualities of science is replicability. Anyone who doubts the scientifically established speed of light is free to follow any of the many measurement experiments described in the literature.The replicable nature of science is a key quality that differentiates it from the revealed beliefs of religion. If you're skeptical then you can measure for yourself the speed of light or the acceleration of gravity or the period of rotation of the Earth or anything scientific. This contrasts sharply with religion whose tenets and beliefs cannot be replicated.There may be some things you wish to prove scientifically true for yourself, but measuring the speed of light would be a big waste of time. Beyond that it's been measured out the kazoo experimentally, there are many things you come in contact with or hear about in your daily life that tell you about the speed of light. Someone already mentioned GPS, but any global voice communication using satellites in stationary orbit 26,000 miles above the Earth's surface experiences a latency of about .28 seconds due to the speed of light (there's additional latency from other sources, some is additional electrical propagation and some is digital processing). Communication with the Martian rovers takes about 12 minutes in each direction because of the speed of light (the precise delay depends on where Earth and Mars are in their respective orbits).But even more important than the experimental and practical ways the speed of light has been established is the theoretical. The speed of light is a fundamental constant of the universe. The speed of light falls naturally out of the Maxwell equations (electric field theory). It is fundamental to relativity. It is the maximum speed at which influence can travel. If the speed of light did not have the value it did the universe as we know it could not exist.Still boggled anyone could say something like this...--Percy

Hi Flyer75,Yes, we know there are people who accept things they can't explain or understand, but I think you've lost the direction you've been arguing if you think that's relevant.In science there are people who understand it, can explain it, and can show you how to replicate its findings so you can demonstrate things to your own satisfaction.In religion there are also people who understand it and can explain it, but they cannot show you how to replicate its findings. They cannot provide a factual basis for the virgin birth, the resurrection, the ascension, or Catholics not eating meat on Fridays for centuries. They use reason and logic, yes, but hanging from the clouds.--Percy

This is a excellent illustration of the subjective nature of religious beliefs. Can you imagine anything in science depending upon whether, for example, Galileo ever met Newton? That if Galileo had at some point met Newton then we could trust that there are four moons around Jupiter, otherwise we could not?There are real world facts standing behind the theories of science. Anyone with the interest can verify scientific theories for himself. But with religion there's no factual basis that anyone can check for himself regarding, for example, the virgin birth, the resurrection or the ascension and so on. All you can do is argue about who was an eye witness and who wasn't, or who made things up and who didn't, or what is literally true and what isn't. There's no objective real-world basis for these things. If your sole claim to some knowledge is what some people wrote then your certainty in its ties to the real world ends at those people. You can never go to the real world, the universal arbiter of last resort, and verify it for yourself.The factual real world basis of science is why there is an ever expanding volume of widely accepted theory, while the subjective nature of religion is why it will be forever fragmented into many religions and hundreds of sects that evolve continually through time.This doesn't necessarily mean religious beliefs are bogus. Different people can draw different conclusions. But it does mean that in regard to the real world religion is a very different beast than science.--Percy

Hi Slevesque!I think most of the attention in this thread is comparing science that is based upon facts gathered from the real world to religion that is based upon what someone wrote a long time ago. I don't think there would be much objection to comparisons with religions that were actually based upon real history.In a way science is completely historical in nature because it can only study things that have already happened, events from the past. Some things happened just femtoseconds ago, others billions of years ago, but science can only examine evidence from past events. I think many scientists have a very healthy respect for scholarly approaches to history. If religion were to take this approach I think it would get a lot more respect.--Percy

Hi Slevesque!I think what people are really focused on is that your criteria for considering something to be a reasonable possibility seems to be "not proven impossible yet."--Percy

Also available is the kbertsche Posts Only link that appears in the left column next to his messages. He can use this one, which will center on his Message 280.--Percy