Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion

[paarsurrey]

You do not think natural phenomena should be studied using natural means?

I am, rather, all in favour of it; in physical or secular realm which base their observations on experiments, it is OK but beyond it in moral and spiritual realm it has to fail as it has not been designed for it and cannot be designed for it.It is beyond the jurisdiction of science.

Not a single founder of any revealed religion has opposed its validity in the physical realm; in moral and or spiritual or arts realms strictly speaking there are no experiments; instead there are experiences of the soul , mind and heart.

What physical experiments did Buddha make under the Banyan tree? None to be quoted; all he had were the spiritual experiences. Same is true of Moses and Jesus.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, if we can't verify that the scriptures are true (testable claims), what reason is there to believe? Earlier you claimed that god is undetectable by science, and science is the only process we have for determining the nature of reality, and if a thing cannot be detected in the reality we experience, it is indistinguishable from it's non existence.

It is not the that nature came into existence by means of science; science is a new born baby yet; nature existed and man experiences it.

 

[tumbleweed41]

I disagree that morality does not fall under science, as it can be studied through anthropological research as well as psychology.

As for the spiritual, that falls in the realm of the untestable supernatural and is therefore beyond the scope of science, unless of course, the supernatural belief makes a claim on the natural.

 

[paarsurrey]

I am told that when Wright brothers proposed flying machines, some laughed "Even pins do not remain afloat; what of a big machine?" The thinking that is tied to three states of existence cannot think and see the awareness that sees the three states.

People mock new things of both in religion and science; it is because of bias for the routine..

 

[gnostic]

It really depends on what "science" you are talking about, paarsurrey. Science is very wide terminology for knowledge gathering, with different branches and subbranches

There are branches:

• FORMAL SCIENCE,
• PHYSICAL SCIENCE,
• LIFE SCIENCE,
• APPLIED SCIENCE,
• SOCIAL SCIENCE,
• etc.

And some of these branches may cross over to other branches (hence INTERDISCIPLINARITY).

And every branches have different fields of specializations, and each field would have their own sub-fields.

Can you be more specific in what area or field or branch in science, where scientists rely on blind faith?

If you specify which science you think people (scientists) use blind faith as an example or two, then we can discuss or argue if blind faith is the factor.

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?

This is a silly comment (I'm referring to your 1st line).

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural, which is what god is, and the miracles supposed occurred in what scriptures.

Science doesn't set out to prove or disprove god, because there are no physical evidences to be found. Evidences that can be observed or tested.

Science deal with the natural world, the natural phenomenon - something that can be observed, detected, discovered, investigated and tested. Scientific method is an important process in science.

So of course, there are limits in science, and of course, there can be errors. Science make allowance for errors, but it can also be used to correct errors. Any scientist should know this, or else they are not really scientist.

It may be true that sometimes, scientists may sometimes stubbornly hold to hypothesis despite. But that out of pride or some other personal motives.

You are taking on BLIND FAITH, if you seriously believe that Moses parted the Red Sea, something that have no evidences to support this miracle. Equally, without evidence is the Jesus' supposed resurrection after death, hence you are taking on BLIND FAITH that it happened as the gospels say it did. And you are taking on BLIND FAITH if you believe that Muhammad was visited by the archangel Gabriel, or him getting on magical steed, flew to Jerusalem, before ascending to heavens, all in a single night. Your belief is BLIND FAITH if you believe that serpent (@ Eden, Genesis 3), donkey (Balaam, in Numbers 22), or ants (in the Qur'an about Solomon) can speak or be spoken to or even commanded to do one's bidding. According to the Qur'an, Solomon was said to be able to control the weather and winds.

I don't know much about Hinduism, Buddhism or Zoroastrianism that I could comment on it, to know if blind faith is involved or not, but if their belief require people to believe in something that they can't prove, particularly with supernatural elements that defy the law of nature, then yes, faith is involved.

 

[InformedIgnorance]

People mock new things of both in religion and science; it is because of bias for the routine..

Most people don't mock modern fighter jets... lol

Science is a lot harder to mock, because it often produces verifiable results; on the other hand Religion is a lot more dangerous to mock, because it sometimes produces people who take it seriously.

 

[Jared Jammer]

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.

Science can't exist beyond the thoughts and actions of the scientist; the two are insperable. Thus, if scientists are flawed (they are), then science, too, will suffer from those same flaws (it does).

 

[Copernicus]

There is still the inconvenient fact that the Bible is full of descriptions of physical events that supposedly had supernatural causes, and God is described in terms that are perfectly reasonable and understandable to human beings. Why do people put so much stock in miracles? It is because they instinctively need some tangible evidence to believe in such a being, even if they themselves were not witness to the miraculous events. To the extent that God interacts with physical reality, he must be physically detectable. God has empirical consequences, and that is the sort of thing that scientists study.

The Catholic Church carefully kept the Shroud of Turin away from scientific investigators for a long time. When it finally allowed the Shroud to be tested, three separate labs independently confirmed that it was a fraud. Of course, the Shroud is back to being carefully managed, and there are all sorts of attempts to dismiss the original findings. The point is that the Church basically admitted that science had a role to play in validating (or invalidating) religious faith.

 

[paarsurrey]

Those who don’t repeat scientific experiments themselves have blind faith in science and scientists, strictly speaking.

I am not against science; I am against those who eulogize science beyond its limit. Science is sought by experiments in the lab; yet how many people among the eulogizers who are not themselves the real scientists repeat those experiments? They don’t repeat them; so their faith in science or the scientists is a blind faith.

I think it is not difficult to understand.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science can't exist beyond the thoughts and actions of the scientist; the two are insperable. Thus, if scientists are flawed (they are), then science, too, will suffer from those same flaws (it does).

Good thing scientific inquiry and the scientific method does not rely the speculations of a single person then.

 

[paarsurrey]

There is still the inconvenient fact that the Bible is full of descriptions of physical events that supposedly had supernatural causes

That could be a mistake of the scribes as Moses did not write Bible.

 

[Looncall]

Those who don’t repeat scientific experiments themselves have blind faith in science and scientists, strictly speaking.

I am not against science; I am against those who eulogize science beyond its limit. Science is sought by experiments in the lab; yet how many people among the eulogizers who are not themselves the real scientists repeat those experiments? They don’t repeat them; so their faith in science or the scientists is a blind faith.

I think it is not difficult to understand.

This is nonsense.

The means used to obtain results are displayed publicly, and those who are able and wish to can inspect the data and reasoning and can indeed repeat the tests. This is very different from religious dogma.

Even if people do not bother to check the results they know that it is possible and they know the process that must be followed to achieve publication. Their acceptance of the results is not at all blind. That's different from having to believe anything some guy in a pointy hat says.

 

[Riverwolf]

Science can't exist beyond the thoughts and actions of the scientist; the two are insperable. Thus, if scientists are flawed (they are), then science, too, will suffer from those same flaws (it does).

Science exists beyond individuals, because of the peer-review system. Obviously, individuals are very flawed, but peer-reviews are designed to weed out bias. Any accepted scientific theory is constantly under the test, and such theories are only supported so long as they pass.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science exists beyond individuals, because of the peer-review system. Obviously, individuals are very flawed, but peer-reviews are designed to weed out bias. Any accepted scientific theory is constantly under the test, and such theories are only supported so long as they pass.

Peer-review

“Some critics believe that peer review has a built-in bias against highly original works and results because reviewers (as do people in general) tend to be more tolerant of works and results that are consistent with their own views and more critical of those that contradict them. It should be kept in mind that history is replete with examples of innovations that were originally ridiculed by their peers because they contradicted the common wisdom of the day. The bias by academics against highly innovative work may be in part a result of the fact that they have vested interests in maintaining the status quo after having spent many years or decades supporting it.”

Peer Review Definition

 

[Riverwolf]

Peer-review

“Some critics believe that peer review has a built-in bias against highly original works and results because reviewers (as do people in general) tend to be more tolerant of works and results that are consistent with their own views and more critical of those that contradict them. It should be kept in mind that history is replete with examples of innovations that were originally ridiculed by their peers because they contradicted the common wisdom of the day. The bias by academics against highly innovative work may be in part a result of the fact that they have vested interests in maintaining the status quo after having spent many years or decades supporting it.”

Peer Review Definition

And it should be noted that such work was generally accepted in time, or replaced either by something better, or something that better served social and political needs. (Steam-power actually originated in Classical Greece; it didn't amount to much of anything at the time because there wasn't a real need for it.) Slightly stilted technological growth is better than accepting anyone's ideas just because they know how to speak convincingly.

This quote uses technological science as its example because it best illustrates the one, minor flaw of the peer-review system. However, I don't think anyone claimed that such systems are 100% flawless and foolproof. Science is just the best that we've got in terms of learning about the world.

Besides, in response to "peer review has a built-in bias against highly original works" (which, by the way, is based on the words of "some critics", which could mean anything and may actually only refer to a single, Creationist critic), there have most likely been more "highly original works" that are completely useless in light of currently-existing technology, than ones that turned out to be useful.

 

[Copernicus]

That could be a mistake of the scribes as Moses did not write Bible.

I didn't say that Moses wrote anything or even existed historically. All I said was that the Bible is full of alleged physcial events with supernatural causes. That tells us what those who authored and edited biblical accounts believed about their religion.

 

[paarsurrey]

As I get from the posts of the friends here; everybody does not need to make scientific experiments themselves; they accept blindly the result of the experiments others have made, yet they could make the experiments any time they need to do so, such is their blind faith in those who are said to have performed the experiments themselves; from their experiments they develop a kind of trust they dare not deny.

Did I get correctly?

 

[mycorrhiza]

As I get from the posts of the friends here; everybody does not need to make scientific experiments themselves; they accept blindly the result of the experiments others have made, yet they could make the experiments any time they need to do so, such is their blind faith in those who are said to have performed the experiments themselves; from their experiments they develop a kind of trust they dare not deny.

Did I get correctly?

It has nothing to do with blindly accepting things. Studies give evidence, and from evidence conclusions are drawn. Then these conclusions are reviewed and reworked. Believing in science has nothing to do with blind faith. If a hypothesis is proven wrong, then it is discarded or reworked.

Performing scientific experiments is expensive, and I really doubt that the would give me access to the LHC, for example.

 

[Tristesse]

As I get from the posts of the friends here; everybody does not need to make scientific experiments themselves; they accept blindly the result of the experiments others have made, yet they could make the experiments any time they need to do so, such is their blind faith in those who are said to have performed the experiments themselves; from their experiments they develop a kind of trust they dare not deny.

Did I get correctly?

No, you didn't. As people we can't be experts in every field of science, thats why there are experts in different fields. They do the experiments and have their work peer reviewed by numerous scientists to check if their data is correct. You don't need to be an expert to rely on their expertise. It's sort of like going to the doctor, if he diagnosis me with an illness and I go to another doctor for a second opinion and he confirms the diagnosis, am I taking it on blind faith that I have the illness they've diagnosed? Or do I need to be an expert in medicine before I accept their diagnosis? Of course not, they are the experts in their respected field, it would be absurd to start saying, "well, I can't trust what they're saying about this illness because I'm not an expert yet, give me a few years and let me do my own research before I can confirm that I do have this illness." It's not blind faith, it's a reliance on the evidence, and when you have a vast majority of the scientific community confirming the evidence, then those are statistics that are trustworthy.

 

[paarsurrey]

The LHC: or how the world's largest experiment can investigate matter's smallest constituents

The Royal Society, London

The LHC: or how the world's largest experiment can investigate matter's smallest constituents | Royal Society


I am much fascinated by the experiments being made by the scientists of the world to understand the Work of the one true God; as I am fascinated by the Word of Him revealed on the hearts of perfect human beings like Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad and Mirza Ghulam Ahmad.

I laud the efforts of the scientists be they atheists or theists.

Thanks scientists!