Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion

[paarsurrey]

I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the one true God have blind faith in science.
None of the founders of revealed religions ever vouched for blind faith. Those who doubt they should quote from Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus etc. in this connection.
Kalama Sutta is one such example; does it advocate blind faith?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

There's no such thing as blind faith when it comes to science.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science is observation; it only holds something as true as long as it remains observed. Therefore blind faith cannot exist in science.

Now, when talking about scientists, that can be a different story.

 

[Yerda]

Science is observation; it only holds something as true as long as it remains observed.

What?

 

[Yerda]

I think those who claim that science can prove or disprove the one true God have blind faith in science.

What's the difference between faith and blind faith?

 

[paarsurrey]

Those who think that science can do or undo everything they have a blind faith in science; science is no deity; it has limitations of its own.

Science has brought nothing which is not already there; science discovers principles on which the Universe is already working; they just bring into light that which already existed.

Nature is the Master of Science; not the vice a versa.

Science is useful for humanity as is truthful revealed religion; they are complementary to one another not opposed to one another if correctly interpreted.

 

[cablescavenger]

What's the difference between faith and blind faith?

polemic

 

[Yerda]

Those who think that science can do or undo everything they have a blind faith in science; science is no deity; it has limitations of its own.

Science has brought nothing which is not already there; science discovers principles on which the Universe is already working; they just bring into light that which already existed.

Nature is the Master of Science; not the vice a versa.

Science is useful for humanity as is truthful revealed religion; they are complementary to one another not opposed to one another if correctly interpreted.

I agree. I think science's faithful are bogeymen, however. I've yet to meet or interact online with anyone who believes science has no limits.

 

[A-ManESL]

Given a scientific paper, based on my own experience, I think the percentage of the people in the world who have read and understood it would be miniscule as compared to the percentage of people who when told about it will accept it without reading it. That sort of qualifies as blind faith.

The argument may be made that even those who accept it without going through it line by line, can do so, if they wish. This is made on the assumption that everyone has the intellectual capacity (or the ability to develop it) to understand the paper. A similar argument can be made about spiritual/religious knowledge also. The knowledge of God/Divine Reality can also be obtained by treading the spiritual path (of which there are many kinds, eg in Sufism there are various tariqas) by those who have the capacity (or the ability to develop it) to acquire that knowledge.

 

[Pegg]

Science is observation; it only holds something as true as long as it remains observed. Therefore blind faith cannot exist in science.

Now, when talking about scientists, that can be a different story.

not all science is observable. No one observed how vegetation came into being. No one observed how life arose, no one observed one type of life form slowly change to become a completely different form of life.

So its not based on what has been observed.

 

[Riverwolf]

What?

Could you point out exactly what you don't understand so I can help you better?

 

[Riverwolf]

Those who think that science can do or undo everything they have a blind faith in science; science is no deity; it has limitations of its own.

Which good scientists are aware of.

Science has brought nothing which is not already there; science discovers principles on which the Universe is already working; they just bring into light that which already existed.

Again, good scientists already know this.

 

[Riverwolf]

not all science is observable. No one observed how vegetation came into being. No one observed how life arose, no one observed one type of life form slowly change to become a completely different form of life.

So its not based on what has been observed.

Not all observation is field observation; some of it is lab recreation. In terms of origins of life, most of what we have are hypotheses based on the fossil record, I believe.

 

[Pegg]

Not all observation is field observation; some of it is lab recreation. In terms of origins of life, most of what we have are hypotheses based on the fossil record, I believe.

that may be true, but the fossil is not the one who explains where it came from or how it got there...the person examining it does.

Its just like gravity, we can explain a little about it, but gravity itself does not show any evidence for where it came from and how it got to be there. So its existence only tells us that it exists...it doesnt tell us how or why or where from.

 

[Riverwolf]

that may be true, but the fossil is not the one who explains where it came from or how it got there...the person examining it does.

Its just like gravity, we can explain a little about it, but gravity itself does not show any evidence for where it came from and how it got to be there. So its existence only tells us that it exists...it doesnt tell us how or why or where from.

There are several hypotheses about the how and where life came from(actually, not just based on the fossil record, but knowledge of how life works), but you are correct in your assessment that science does not currently know which one, if any, are the actual story.

However, that's not really a problem.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Hmmn I disagree... blind faith in science is even MORE deplorable, for it goes against the very foundations of science, the scientific method... to suspend critical examination within science is akin to some sort of gross hybrid of apostasy and blasphemy within religion. On the other hand, blind faith within religion is less deplorable, because it is sometimes a necessity while often a virtue - at least to those internal, to those external it is something else entirely.

Faith used in lieu of reason is always potentially destructive, to advocate blind faith, be it in science or religion is to intentionally (at least subconsciously) forgo information where it contradicts your current beliefs... it is irrational at all times; for those who adhere to science this is inexcusable, for those who adhere to religion that is not always so.

 

[Riverwolf]

Hmmn I disagree... blind faith in science is even MORE deplorable, for it goes against the very foundations of science, the scientific method... to suspend critical examination within science is akin to some sort of gross hybrid of apostasy and blasphemy within religion. On the other hand, blind faith within religion is less deplorable, because it is sometimes a necessity while often a virtue - at least to those internal, to those external it is something else entirely.

Faith used in lieu of reason is always potentially destructive, to advocate blind faith, be it in science or religion is to intentionally (at least subconsciously) forgo information where it contradicts your current beliefs... it is irrational at all times; for those who adhere to science this is inexcusable, for those who adhere to religion that is not always so.

There are some religions that teach rationality can actually be a detriment to spiritual enlightenment, thought I think the idea is supposed to be to not spend so much time thinking about things and just experience, sort of like just sitting back and enjoying music.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

Advocating the suspension of rational thought is somewhat akin to advocating it's rejection; for that reason I consider that it engenders irrationality and is therefore negative. I do however support the concept of experiential appreciation rather than mere critical analysis, however believe (a personal thing) that to advocate one over the other is unhealthy to both adherents and society.

 

[Riverwolf]

Advocating the suspension of rational thought is somewhat akin to advocating it's rejection; for that reason I consider that it engenders irrationality and is therefore negative. I do however support the concept of experiential appreciation rather than mere critical analysis, however believe (a personal thing) that to advocate one over the other is unhealthy to both adherents and society.

Well, I don't think the Masters of these paths would advocate 100% suspension of rationality in all aspects of life, and they'd certainly never advocate doing this sort of thing for scientists.

However, a loud and noisy mind, so they teach (and my experience backs this up) will interfere with pure experience. I mean, imagine constantly examining all the intricacies of anatomy while making love.

 

[Copernicus]

I don't think that faith in science is ever blind. We can see its "miracles" everywhere. It delivers results that are tangible. Quite often, our faith in what scientists tell us is misplaced, but the scientific method tends to force corrections on false information.

Religious faith is something else. It quite often has to be blind to reality in order to make sense, because it produces no tangible "miracles", and it provides no clear method for correcting what it gets wrong.