|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
In this topic, I want to again bring up some basic questions regarding the difference between faith and science.
We know that science requires evidence.
Is It Science, pleaseChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
To be more specific, I want to hopefully come to a consensus regarding the necessity for evidence in each venue--namely Faith & Belief and also in any of our Science Forums.
Creationists are encouraged to respond to this thread as well as Evolutionists. Edited by Phat, : added Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Granted I believe that the Bible itself is evidence in regards to matters of belief and personal philosophy.
In regards to truth, such as the age of the universe or the distance to a star collective evidence is needed. As to the question, say, of whether a Bible was divinely inspired, I would argue that collective evidence is impossible or at the very least impractical due to the fact that unbelievers cannot use collective evidence to judge a philosophical belief system. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
The words themselves are evident though. They are evidently there. I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented. I suppose we can agree that the word "evidence" need not be used.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: It seems that the default human nature is to disagree rather than to agree. If we all agreed, there would be no EvC Forum. They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded. I am reminded of a quote from a book I once read, Thinking As A Science.
If a man were to know everything he could not think. Nothing would ever puzzle him, his purposes would never be thwarted, he would never experience perplexity or doubt, he would have no problems. Science and Faith share several things. Both arise from doubt. Both arise because certain things--situations in life if you will--puzzle us.If we are to conceive of God as an All-Knower, we cannot conceive of Him as a Thinking Being. Thinking is reserved for beings of finite intelligence. Were we to study the origin and evolution of thinking, we would doubtless find that thinking arose in just this wayfrom thwarted purposes. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
ringo writes: Like I said.... we rarely agree.
If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support. PaulK writes: I would agree that for many of us, our pride in ourselves...in our supposed wisdom, in our cherished identity can and do cause us to get angry.As for quote mining and misrepresentation, I can only say that I go into a mine to find valuable nuggets. In the process I am forced to sift through a lot of rock. The same holds true in any book. In order to support my argument, I look for the best words, phrases, passages or statements that accomplish this. In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules.Among those who believe in Biblical inerrancy a reference to the Bible may be all the evidence required - but even then quote mining or misrepresentation should not be tolerated, let alone appeals to a scripture that she thinks exists somewhere in the book. And what justifies Faiths anger ? It's far from always disagreement with the Bible. Very often it is disagreement with her opinions or defeating her arguments. Do you think that those are matters of deep religious significance to her ? Is her pride in herself her religion ? Is that what you mean by challenges to her faith ? What do you think Phat ? Thankfully, there are others who disagree with me. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Good point.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: I can see where purposely attempting to falsify a theory is a key component of the scientific method, right? But should the same discipline be used in regards to faith? Is that why you used to always tell me to "throw God away" and I never understood why? A scientist who sifts through the data and selects only the nuggets that support his theory should get fired immediately and all of his works subject to intense scrutiny. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
tangle writes: Interesting. I have a question, though. What should be the rule of thumb regarding sex,marriage and the family? Does the Pope mean to imply that we should be responsible for our own behaviors? I was amused to hear that the Pope has finally decreed that in matters of sex, marriage and the family believers should follow their conscience. Imagine giving a physicist that instruction - he could claim that pluto was created out of the centre of a donut in 1027 and is kept in orbit by strings of super-sticky candy floss. If that's what he believes, then it ok. That's called faith, believe any old crap and don't worry about the contradictions.
Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
PaulK writes:
I just enjoy sharing discussion, examining context,having a laugh or two, and getting to know other peoples thought processes.
Looking for quotes that honestly support your case is rather different from quote-mining - looking for quotes to misrepresent. If you are only concerned with winning an argument and don't care about the truth of the matter, or the ethics of honest discussion, it,s not really faith that is the issue, is it ? ringo,from another topic writes: Some can argue both sides of a debate; some have to believe what they debate; some can't argue either side effectively. I suppose that in order to be a better debater, one must study the contrary positions.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Tangle,referring to The Pope writes: And as a Christian who struggles with same sex attraction, I can accept and respect what Pope Francis eloquently expresses. Personally, I believe that the guy I need to be attracted to the most is Jesus Himself. I believe strongly that people cannot control nor switch off their basic inborn human characteristics but that we can and must control our behaviors.
He's talking about divorce, use of contraception and homosexuality.Tangle writes: I never understood British humor. Can you elaborate, O Tangled One? An enormous great fudge wouldn't you say? (Welcome though it is.)Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Topic Remix
In this topic, I want to again bring up some basic questions regarding the difference between faith and science.
We know that science requires evidence. ringo writes: Were we in Faith/Belief, I would argue that the universe is evident and so is God. Just because "believers" in general can't agree on everything is no reason to throw them out of the courtroom. Believers were born with the same brains as scientists, evolutionists, atheists, and secular humanists. Since our brain itself is evident, and since we all share this gray matter trait, I maintain that the word can be used provided it can also be challenged.
It would be better if the word "evidence" was not used at all in such matters. Since even Bible believers can't agree on what it says, it is far from "evident."I argue that in matters of faith & belief, the book or books of any given religion count as support for any arguments presented. jar writes: They can't even agree on what books should be included or excluded. I know a certain curmudgeon from deep south Texas who might be so inclined to include "Tom Sawyer" or "Mysterious Stranger" in the Canon... so you do have a point. Perhaps we can agree collectively to disagree. Thats what makes a Forum conversation long and readable.
ringo writes: Along this line of thought...is there a difference between non-living existence such as a rock or an idea and living existence such as an animal or vegetable or perhaps an idea such as "Jesus is alive" or that "scripture is alive" or even that it is God-breathed. Critics would argue that it can't even be proven or tested whether or not God is alive or that Jesus is alive...though I would call believers to the witness stand and ask for explanations as to how Jesus might be alive. Existence is a poor form of evidence. Fingerprints exist but they're not very useful as evidence unless you can figure out what they mean - e.g. that George was at the crime scene. If you can't agree on what the words mean, they're not very useful support. What constitutes valid evidence?
nwr writes:
Whatever you want it to be.There is no objective definition of "evidence", and I don't think there could be. Evidence is that which persuades you, and there is something unavoidably subjective about that. (...) Back when I was an active Christian, I did trust the Bible, but only to the extent that it was consistent with experience and with what I knew from science. By contrast, Faith(evc member) gives it the highest trustworthiness, even if it seems to contradict experience and science. PaulK writes: Do you mean Faith the EvC member or faith as a concept in general?
In the science forums here, Faith needs evidence. That's the rules. PaulK writes: If the basis of Creationist belief is religious SHOULD they try to argue the science ?Surely they should argue about what they understand best rather than trying to bully the better-informed into agreeing with ill-founded and often ignorant opinions. And if they do not understand their religious foundations then they should work hard on those. Really, if they could show that God wrote Genesis 1 as a literal account of the creation they would have made their case. So why don't they ? jar writes: Yes, but if you were the only witness called to the stand on behalf of the believers, the case itself would be incomplete.
Because the story in Genesis 2&3 refutes the story in Genesis 1; the method is different and the order of creation is different.That's why we get the folk claiming the Bible talks about two instances of creation or that gen 1 is the plan while gen 2&3 is the execution. jar writes: Whose goal? Remember that we all have gray matter. There is really no us and them....
The readers often do not like the words themselves and so find ways to get around the words themselves.The goal is to find an explanation that fits the conclusion wanted. Dr.Adequate writes: Some may argue that its whatever arguments make you feel confidant at the time. When a minority group attacks scripture the way that I was taught, it may make me feel uncomfortable but by no means less confidant. My confidence does not rest in evidence alone...in fact I think that many arguments regarding evidence or the lack thereof are themselves far from evident. Faith makes its own rules, it's not a set of epistemological principles, but rather is essentially opportunistic: it's whatever arguments make you feel good at the time. Tangle writes: So in other words, you have faith in evidence?
Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim.If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary. quote:We know that there is a clear difference between faith and science. Are we back to square one? dwise1 writes: I would argue that Faith offers hope through belief (and subjective confirmation) of a Living Hope aka Jesus Christ. Thats as far as I can go on that in a science forum, however.
I am not happy with your topic title: "Faith vs Science". Why would you think it is necessary for faith and science to be at odds with each other? They are two different realms of human thought, despite a small number of possible areas of minor overlap.Science works best when dealing with the physical universe, with the natural. That is where you are able to observe, hypothesize, and test, the essential scientific activities. Faith works best where you're dealing with things outside the physical universe, with the supernatural. It is impossible to observe the supernatural or to test it. Sure, you could form hypotheses about the supernatural, but based on what? And how could you ever possibly test any of it? And yet the most interesting questions for humanity lie outside the purview of of science, are too complex and nebulous for science. Faith is not as constrained as science, but what does it have to offer? DWise1 writes: I would argue that faith can be defended subjectively yet not objectively so as to qualify as evidence.
So, what evidence would faith require? None, actually.Coyote writes: So where are we now? Where were we then? Why limit the possible answers to evidence based human response? Why not embrace power greater than ourselves? Science: a method of learning about the world by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways; also refers to the organized body of knowledge that results from scientific study. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Keep in mind that our hypothetical courtroom includes believers and non-believers. You have reiterated that faith has no place in science. My question to you is why you, as a supposed scientist, care how the faith people think. You seem to imply that the gray matter in their heads is inferior to the gray matter in your head simply because they embrace faith over evidence. Am I wrong?
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Can we reserve the words 'faith' and 'belief' for the religious realm and totally exclude their usage when discussing science, fact and evidence please. Not when our topic is Faith vs Science and our focus is on any value in beliefs other than evidence.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
But, really, your faith is not something you should expect to convince others. Could a Muslim convince you of the truth of Islam through his faith ? No but they may convince me through their actions. They would stand out from the normal and the average.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024