Faith vs Science

Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim.If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Science is universal. Chemists in China practice it in exactly the same way as those in Sweden. If you add an acid to sodium bi-carbonate you get CO2 no matter what you'd prefer to believe. You can tell the guy in China that it's O2, but it ain't; one will put out a lighted flame and the other will singe your eyebrows. That's called evidence, repeatable and universally true (given the same circumstances.)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 contrdictions.

He's talking about divorce, use of contraception and homosexuality.Each country or region, moreover, can seek solutions better suited to its culture and sensitive to its traditions and local needs,Pope Francis urges compassion for all in landmark statement on family values | Pope Francis | The GuardianAn enormous great fudge wouldn't you say? (Welcome though it is.)Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.

You'll need to clarify that.

quote:

---

Personally, I believe that the guy I need to be attracted to the most is Jesus Himself.

---

You understand that the attraction we mean when referring to gender is sexual right?

quote:

---

I believe strongly that people cannot control nor switch off their basic inborn human characteristics but that we can and must control our behaviors.

---

Well people can try to control their sexual insincts, but they rarely seem capable of it. But the real question is 'why the fuck should they?'

quote:

---

I never understood British humor. Can you elaborate, O Tangled One?

---

Don't try. In this case there's no humour. The pope knows when he's lost - he's allowing people to follow their own conscience. Big of him (sarcasm). The Vatican did a similar thing in Western democracies with contraception - if you follow your conscience you won't go to hell. That was a pragmatic response to the simple fact that grown ups had already 'followed their conscience' and weren't going to listen to a virgin in a frock telling them they must have a kid every 12 months until the mother died or they couldn't feed any more.But in less developed nations they still stick by the 'no condom' rule. Catholic doctrine bends and flexes - if it didn't it would break. They can't have that.

Tired, so very tired.....Why, why, why do believers always need make this damned silly equivalence? It's seems so deeply embedded in their make-up - I'm continually having to correct GDR who brings it up every 6 months or so as if for the first time.Can we reserve the words 'faith' and 'belief' for the religious realm and totally exclude their useage when discussing science, fact and evidence please.Faith - in the way religious people use the word - has no place at all in science. Sure we have 'faith' in science because it produces knowledge about reality that can be tested and confirmed to be correct, or modified if not. But we don't need 'faith' at all - we could hate the entire edifice of science, think it abhorent, loath its instituations and distrust its scientists; it wouldn't make the slighest diference to the science. V=IxR no matter now you feel about science.Can you get that?

Because the thinking is in error. If you reserved it for conversations amongst yourselves it wouldn't bug me, but as you do it in a public arena, I'm forced to correct you. It would be a lot less frustrating if you guys didn't continually keep making the same mistake over and over. You're drawing the wrong conclusions from what is being said.If you addressed the actual point you might ultimately get it. 'Faith' as you apply it to your belief system is not required in science - the laws and methodologies of science work whether you believe in them or not - argue that point, not what I think or don't think.On a separate point, it does seem likely that the brains of fundamentalist believers are different from those of average scientists - what else could explain the delusions that Faith is suffering?

Then you're going to have to do the boring work of defining your terms and explaining why your belief in a fantasy is the same as my 'belief' that V=IxR.Good luck with that.

Examples?

That made me laugh. You missed this lot tho'

quote:

---

Unclean Land Animals

​

Armadillo - Ass - Badger - Bear - Beaver - Boar - Camel - Cat - Cheetah - Coyote - Dog - Donkey - Elephant - Fox - Gorilla - Groundhog - Hare - Hippopotamus - Horse - Hyena - Jackal - Kangaroo - Leopard - Lion - Llama (alpaca, vicua) - Mole - Monkey - Mouse - Mule - Muskrat - Onager - Opossum - Panther - Peccary - Pig (hog, bacon, ham, lard, pork) - Porcupine - Rabbit - Raccoon - Rat - Rhinoceros - Skunk - Slug - Snail (escargot) - Squirrel - Tiger - Wallaby - Weasel - Wolf - Wolverine - Worm - Zebra

​

Unclean Birds

​

Albatross - Bat - Bittern - Buzzard - Condor - Coot - Cormorant - Crane - Crow - Cuckoo - Eagle - Flamingo - Grebe - Grosbeak - Gull - Hawk - Heron - Kite - Lapwing - Loon - Magpie - Osprey - Ostrich - Owl - Parrot - Pelican - Penguin - Plover - Rail - Raven - Roadrunner- Sandpiper - Seagull - Stork - Swallow - Swift - Vulture - Water Hen - Woodpecker

​

Insects

​

All insects except some in the locust family should not be consumed.
Reptiles and Amphibians

​

Alligator - Blindworm - Caiman - Crocodile - Frogs - Lizard - Newts - Salamanders - Snakes - Toads - Turtles

​

Unclean Fish and Marine Animals

​

Abalone - Bullhead - Catfish - Clam - Crab - Crayfish - Cuttlefish - Dolphin - Eel - European Turbot - Jellyfish - Limpet - Lobsters - Marlin - Mussels - Octopus - Otter - Oysters - Paddlefish - Porpoise - Prawn - Scallop - Seal - Shark - Shrimp - Squid (calamari) - Stickleback - Sturgeon - Swordfish - Walrus - Whale

---

Here's a bit of science

quote:

---

Provided that the temperature remains constant, the ratio of potential difference (p.d.) across the ends of a conductor (R) to the current (I) flowing in that conductor will also be constant.

---

Do I need to have faith that that is true?Of course I don't and neither do you. But just suppose I did, I could do some simple tests of my own to prove it. I don't know about you, but I actually did that at school.Here's another one I did in school - making Carbon Dioxide

quote:

---

When hydrochloric acid reacts with any carbonates/hydrogen carbonates the products formed are metal chloride , water and carbon dioxide.

​

So the equation of the reaction between calcium carbonate and HCl is:
CaCO3+2HCl =CaCl2+2H2O+CO2

---

I did that acid/carbonate reaction at home too - many times with vinegar and baking soda.At school I understood the chemical compositions of things enough to know without doing the actual experiments what the reactions would be. But if I doubted it, I could do the tests and prove it. Is that faith or knowledge?There are literally millions of example of this and they extend from scientific theory into its practical outcomes - technology. Do we have faith in cars and TVs, antibiotics and iPhones?It's rediculous for Phat and yourself to draw an equivalence between your faith in an interventionist Christian God that cares for us and my 'faith' in science and evidence. One is independently testable and evidenced, the other is a pure belief with not a shred of supporting evidence.

This is not under discussion.The discussion is about science vs religious faith.I say that you must not equate faith in religion - eg your belief in a Christian God - with 'faith' in science - eg my 'belief' that adding vinegar to sodium bicarbonate will always produce carbon dioxide.One is irrational and concerns untestable claims, the other is rational knowledge confirmed by evidence.They are poles apart.Btw, I'm no more interested in a random scientist converting to theism than a priest becoming an atheist. It's utterly irrelevant what individuals decide on the basis of ignorance or untestable beliefs.Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

Then it's rather odd that he sent his only son to earth to deliver his WORD and be sacrificed to save us. Odd too that he may perform miracles and respond to prayer. Then there's the small difficulty in annihilating all life on earth with a global flood whilst saving a select few to provide witness evidence.Honestly Phat, do you not ever join the dots?

Nonsense, Jesus (born of a virgin) walked around raising the dead, feeding the masses with couple of loaves and fishes, turning water into wine, walking on water and rose from the dead. His dad parted water, burnt bushes without burning them, turned water into blood, created all our languages instantly, flooded the word, sent manna from heaven, made laws on tablets of stone etc etc etc.Every one of those things interfere with the natural world in ways intended to impress and convince. Utter crap of course. It's interesting that the more sceptical and rational our society becomes the less of these kind of 'miracles' happen. The magician, it seems, can't do close-up work. These days he only impresses the ignorant off-camera.

Well that much is true, they change from being average blokes into irrational, delusional, smug tossers that can't have a conversation about football without introducing a metaphor from the bible.

My young nephew just showed me a brand new, shiny 1 coin.
His tooth fell out, so he put it under his pillow and the next morning the tooth was gone and a 1 coin was there instead. His mother told him that it was the tooth fairy. It was his third tooth.So what are we to make of this?We have stacks of physical evidence - teeth, coins and a repeated test generating the same outcome.We have a strong hypothesis in the story his mother gave him. What's more, if he compares notes with his friends and any other adult, he gets told the same thing. It's very "highly suggestive" of a correct conclusion. And yet it's 100% wrong.The thing that's missing is the total absence of any evidence at all for the tooth fairy herself.Got it?