|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Science | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: quote: So in other words, you have faith in evidence?quote 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?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: My question to you is why you, as a supposed scientist, care how the faith people think. 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 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? 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?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Phat writes: Not when our topic is Faith vs Science and our focus is on any value in beliefs other than evidence. 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.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
The rules apply to everyone, although I meant "Faith" as an abstract.
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 ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: What constitutes valid evidence? (In regards to both Faith & Belief and Science Forums) Is valid evidence the same for both science and faith?Must Faith have evidence? We know that science requires evidence. Faith is often personal. Should people of faith be allowed to get angry when their beliefs are challenged? How should creationists defend their faith and still represent science? Faith should not have evidence. Once there is evidence we move from the realm of Faith into the area of conclusions. Of course people can get angry when their beliefs are challenged but they cannot then act based on that anger. Creationists cannot claim Faith and then claim it is supported by evidence or Science. If they do make such claims then their beliefs MUST be challenged.
Phat writes: 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. I'm sorry but that makes no sense. That is not a matter of witness but rather one of fact. What does the story say? It really is that simple. Now apologists can market what the story really means all they want, but that is irrelevant to what the story actually says. It is this significant difference that so often really is the issue. If someone says "I believe the stories mean the same thing" then that is fine but if they say "I believe the stories are the same" it moves out of the realm of Faith and into the realm of Evidence and the evidence must always override belief.
Phat writes: 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. There is what is supported by evidence and what is unsupported by evidence. The goal is owned by the Apologist who wishes to market a belief and those who wish to adopt that belief without critical examination. And in that instance there really is them and us; those who examine critically and those who refuse to examine critically.My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Faith should not have evidence. Once there is evidence we move from the realm of Faith into the area of conclusions. Of course people can get angry when their beliefs are challenged but they cannot then act based on that anger. Creationists cannot claim Faith and then claim it is supported by evidence or Science. If they do make such claims then their beliefs MUST be challenged. That is such a bunch of garbage. Faith in the right things, true things, real things although unseen things, faith in the true God and His revelation in the Bible, can certainly lead to knowledge of things in the real world. Nobody is claiming faith "is supported by evidence or science," what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2105 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Why limit the possible answers to evidence based human response? Why not embrace power greater than ourselves? Because there is no evidence for it? If there was evidence that could be applied there would not 4,300 different world religions, with some 40,000 denominations of Christianity. Every time there is a disagreement within a religion or denomination there is a schism. If they relied on evidence they could determine which side was correct and there would be far fewer such splits. With beliefs, each group goes its own way.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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I'm sure that there have been exceptional Muslims - and Hindus and Buddhists, and many other religions can claim the same. I would say that that undermines any exclusivist religion - at least if you take it as having any great significance.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9489 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Faith writes: what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific. Examples?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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9
|
Phat writes: So in other words, you have faith in evidence?Tangle writes: 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. Well, I wasn't going to say anything in this thread but seeing as how my name has been gently besmirched I'll add something. I am not saying that you have "faith in evidence". I am saying that we look at the same evidence and form our own different conclusions. The point I make is that science tells us that there was a point at which T=0. As I understand the entire universe quickly became a mass of mindless and likely dimensionless particles, or something like that. (Cut me some slack as I'm no scientist. ) Fast forward to today and we have sentient, emotional beings, with an understanding of morality, who are able to discern physical and mathematical patterns in the universe. I look at that and conclude and have faith in the idea that there is something more that is the reason that things are the way they are, and that the "something more" is intelligent and rational. You disagree and conclude and have faith in the idea that there is nothing more, and that we are simply the result of the processes that made us what we are. I frankly don't understand why atheists have a problem with that. Actually many of us do also take science on faith. I have read some things about the evolutionary process. However, in the end I am highly ignorant about biology and it's processes but I believe in the evolutionary process on faith as the vast majority of scientists who are experts on the subject believe it to be the how things are the way they are. Again though, whether there is an intelligent designer, (not to be confused with the political movement who have corrupted another good term for their own purposes), or not is a matter of belief.He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God. Micah 6:8
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Faith writes:
Examples? what we are claiming is that faith LEADS to knowledge that can be scientific. Pork is an unclean meat and you shouldn't eat that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024