I have no issue with those who choose to have faith per se. My arguments are with those who assert that their faith based beliefs are evidenced or as valid as scientific conclusions in some way.
Numbers writes:
My statement in regards to matters of faith simply meant that scientific knowlege is evidence based. In the case of faith in something that requires no evidence there is no way to apply science. Because by definition Science requires evidence.
You continue to be bamboozled by your own terminology. You seem to think that if you define faith as belief based on no evidence and science as evidenced based investigation that the latter can say nothing about the former as if this logically follows from the definitions alone. It doesn’t. And it turns out that science has a great deal to say about both faith based conclusions and the nature of faith itself.
Numbers writes:
I again think I have adequately explained my position.
You have yet to cite a matter of faith that science must stay silent upon.
Numbers writes:
If one believes that frog gods bring the rains. That is there business. I can not show them through applying science one does not exist.
We can show through science that a frog god is very unlikely to be the cause of rain. We can fill that gap in human knowledge. Whether those confronted with the facts choose to relinquish their faith based beliefs in the face of evidence is, as you say, up to them.
But if, as is so often the case, those who take the faith based option insist that their belief is evidenced or that the evidence based conclusion is no more or less valid than their own — I will argue with them.
Numbers writes:
But faith in something does not require one seek out these facts. All it requires is one believe. Why would they?
Perhaps they are delusional? What ever it is it flies in the face of science. It is hardly worth getting your panties in a wad over.
My panties are wad free I am glad to say. But as above — I have no issue with those who choose to have faith per se. My arguments are with those who assert that their faith based beliefs are evidenced or as valid as scientific conclusions in some way.
Numbers writes:
And if by chance those religious beliefs are in someway harmful of course scientist must educate.
How do we decide what is harmful? Is teaching creationism in schools harmful?
Numbers writes:
Face it you look for arguments and when you find a thread you pull it to see where it leads.
Guilty as charged.
Numbers writes:
You have no argument sir.
I have lots of them.
Numbers writes:
And I appreciate your queries because they do cause me to further examine my own statements.
That is the idea. Aside from my own entertainment that is.