|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,890 Year: 4,147/9,624 Month: 1,018/974 Week: 345/286 Day: 1/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9512 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: What constitutes valid evidence? Evidence is something that supports or refutes a claim. If there is evidence, faith is therefore unnecessary. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 865 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined:
|
Phat writes: Faith is often personal. Ringo writes: And science is not. It's collective. Nailed the whole difference in 6 words. Succinct, effective, and flat out beautiful. {ABE - I would nominate you for POTM, but unfortunately that avenue appears closed for the moment.} Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined:
|
Phat's playing with the format but in the meantime, try 2016-2021 Best Posts Of The Month.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 377 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined:
|
What constitutes valid evidence? Here is some valid evidence.
Brought to you by folks using the same methods that tell us that the world is 4.5 billion yrs old and that we are related to the apes. You can know that your sums are correct when they lead you to this. (and by the way, how fucking cool is that?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
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? The most interesting questions for humanity are outside the ability for science to address and outside the ability for faith to properly handle. So, when you're just running of faith, what suffices? I keep remembering a line in a George C. Scott movie where he was a Calvinist trying to find his daughter lost in the Orange County sex trade (at least she was recruited at Knott's Berry Farm, though that's close to the LA border). When he described his religious beliefs to a sex-trade comrade, she described a questionable sex act some guy once wanted her to perform and commented somebody could get you to believe just about anything. Please do not refer Faith to this movie because she will absolutely hate it. It was even too sketchy for a non-Calvinist. So, what evidence would faith require? None, actually. Whatever unsupported nonsense would suffice just so long as it seemed to agree with the believer's beliefs or else used the sources the believer trusts and with an interpretation that's not too different from what the believer cleaves to. Not really of much use if you are seeking the truth and not mere agreement with preconceived notions. What would science require? Actual evidence, as we both know full well. What about claims that those of faith make about the real world? Well, there's this philosopher of science, Larry Lauden, who criticized Judge Overton's ruling in the famous 1981 Arkansas "balanced treatment" law in McLean v. Arkansas for making faulty definitions of what is scientific which will come back to haunt us. I learned of it from a radio show in which the ICR's Dr. Duane Gish used it to support creationism. He even sent me a xerox copy of that article when I wrote to him about it. Which is amazing to me because that article actually hammers several nails in "creation science's" coffin:
quote: So then, faith has to operate by a double standard, albeit a fair one. Where faith makes an assertion on matters of faith, which are inherently untestable, then faith gets a free pass. But when faith makes an assertion or claim that deals with the real world, then that real-world assertion/claim must be tested against real-world evidence. Similarly, Faith (the EvC member) can make whatever b*t-s**t c***y claim or assertion that she wants to make about matters of faith, but the moment she makes any kind of real-world prediction of real-world events, then she must provide actual real-world scientific evidence of it. So basically this is what it boils down to. If you are making assertions that can only be supported by faith, then whatever b*t-s**t c***y "evidence" you want to offer must suffice. But if you are talking about real-world predictions that can indeed be observed and tested, then you absolutely need to provide some actual evidence. B*t-s**t c***y ramblings simply will not suffice.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Network glitch resulted in a duplicate posting. Sorry.
Edited by dwise1, : duplicate posting
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2134 days) Posts: 6117 Joined:
|
Two definitions from a long list I put together quite some years back:
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. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge. Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein In the name of diversity, college student demands to be kept in ignorance of the culture that made diversity a value--StultisTheFool It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1 "Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Here's an account that I save several years back. It's ostensibly from an essay by Carl Sagan, but I have not read the origina ("Candle in the Dark"?):
quote: Edited by dwise1, : added possible source for the quote
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I don't think that Phat is saying that faith has to contradict science, instead addressing the cases where it does.
To the rest, I would offer one point of disagreement. Even faith should be constrained by logic. The "free pass" doesn't get past absolute impossibilities. Also, the "free pass" does not extend beyond personal belief. It should be obvious that arguments based on faith can only convince those who share that faith. Beyond that, there are those who claim that faith is based in evidence. Those people are simply throwing their free pass away.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Sorry, Paul.
Many years ago on a Yahoo forum far, far away, a creationist presented the totally bogus "oceans' sea salt" claim. I pointed out his glaring errors and he retreated from that claim immediately. I asked him why the only creationist claims he could present were ones that were so unconvincing. He replied that the only reason I found his arguments so unconvincing was because I was not convinced to begin with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
In other words creationists are *expected* to believe lies.
Creationists are really bad about seeing the tmolications of their excuses.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 5952 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Paul, I just threw the rest of my Trader Joe's Chicken Fried Rice into the microwave.
So just what is the rest supposed to be?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
I really don't see what you are trying to say.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024