Blind faith equally deplorable both in science and religion

[paarsurrey]

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.

You mean there are different levels of certainty; the one who has himself performed the experiment with the needed scientific equipment has another level of certainty gained from the experiment and its results and those who have not done it themselves their level of certainty is different based on one's experience of the scientists in the past.

Is it OK now.

 

[Riverwolf]

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?

Nope. We can deny them all we want if we so choose, and there are experiments that can be done at home. Not to mention, some scientific findings are badly or inaccurately reported.

 

[Tristesse]

You mean there are different levels of certainty; the one who has himself performed the experiment with the needed scientific equipment has another level of certainty gained from the experiment and its results and those who have not done it themselves their level of certainty is different based on one's experience of the scientists in the past.

Is it OK now.

Well, of course they would have better knowledge of their experiments, they were the ones who performed them and they're the ones who are experts in their field. To expect the lay person to be just as informed as the scientist who is imersed in that field is assinine.

 

[paarsurrey]

Well, of course they would have better knowledge of their experiments, they were the ones who performed them and they're the ones who are experts in their field. To expect the lay person to be just as informed as the scientist who is imersed in that field is assinine.

Exactly; I agree with you.

I have a simple example:

A person sees a lot of smoke arising from a building; he is not very near to it. He says from this knowledge that the house is on fire; he has not yet seen the flames of the fire but he is certain that the house is on fire.

He rushes near the house and now sees the flames of fire from the window of a room. Now his certainty is better than before when he had not seen the flames; as he has himself seen it.

He hears some people crying from a room to rescue them; he rushes inside and helps them come out; he himself has had some burns of fire. Now there is no doubt left to him of the fire as he himself has experienced the burn injuries from the fire.

This is the last stage of certainty one could of fire.

We have thus three types of knowledge:

1. Knowledge by certainty of reason
2. Knowledge by certainty of sight
3. Knowledge by certainty of experience

I think my friends will agree with me.

 

[Copernicus]

We have thus three types of knowledge:

1. Knowledge by certainty of reason
2. Knowledge by certainty of sight
3. Knowledge by certainty of experience

I think my friends will agree with me.

Those reduce to just two. Sight is just one type of experience.

Most of our beliefs are based on faith or trust in sources of information. We attach degrees of confidence on the basis of how trustworthy we consider the source. Faith in scientific claims can be based on a variety of experiences, which include repeating scientific experiments or just seeing repeatedly that events usually turn out as scientists predict. Knowing how scientists arrive at their conclusions--the scientific method--increases our confidence that reported findings and predictions are correct. We readily abandon our beliefs about specific scientific claims when they turn out to be false without actually abandoning faith in what most scientists tell us. Again, that is because we know how they arrive at their claims and we observe that they are correct more often than not. The faith is readily subject to revision on the basis of counterevidence.

Blind faith is something else. That is maintaining trust in a source of information--e.g. a religious or political doctrine--without any willingness to revise our beliefs in the face of counterevidence or the repeated failure of predictions made by the source. It is fanaticism--stubborn unwillingness to reject belief. Sometimes faith in science is blind faith. Then it becomes more like a religious belief, in my opinion. Sometimes faith in religion is not blind faith. That is, the believer is willing to downgrade the sources of information that prop up the faith as new evidence comes in.

What makes religious faith truly different from ordinary, everyday faith is the amount of time and effort that people need to devote to it in order to maintain faith. People of faith often attend religious services regularly and go through all sorts of activities designed to strengthen faith. Sometimes, those activities can be risky and extreme (e.g. handling snakes, faith healing, acts of violence). They constantly exhort each other to "keep the faith." They constantly attribute bad consequences to abandoning faith and good consequences to maintaining it. To non-believers, they appear to be engaged in self-induced brainwashing.

 

[paarsurrey]

With the experiment of some individuals; others who have not performed them themselves; share sort of experience, which is the essence or sum total of that experiment for the humanity at large.
So experience is the bases for the human endeavours in science as well as religion.

 

[beerisit]

Science has brought nothing which is not already there

You may want to pray to whatever deity you believe in that you don't contract bird flu, you see others can use the cures developed by science, you on the other hand are on your own.

 

[Riverwolf]

You may want to pray to whatever deity you believe in that you don't contract bird flu, you see others can use the cures developed by science, you on the other hand are on your own.

What does that have to do with what he said?

 

[Heathen Hammer]

What does that have to do with what he said?

I would imagine it's the fact that a vaccine for Bird Flu did not previously exist 'in the wild' to be plucked from trees.

 

[beerisit]

What does that have to do with what he said?

From whence came the bird flu vaccine?

 

[A Troubled Man]

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!

Your fascination and gratitude are misplaced considering those scientists are not working on anything to do with gods, nor are the results of their experiments showing gods in any way, shape or form. In fact, the more they understand from their experiments, the more they show gods were not required at all.

 

[rusra02]

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

But there's plenty of blind faith masquerading as "science". The ToE is a good example.

 

[beerisit]

But there's plenty of blind faith masquerading as "science". The ToE is a good example.

Am I allowed to laugh at this? Oh what the heck :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

 

[Riverwolf]

I would imagine it's the fact that a vaccine for Bird Flu did not previously exist 'in the wild' to be plucked from trees.

From whence came the bird flu vaccine?

Scientists didn't just magically conjure it up out of nowhere. The components necessary for it have always been there.

 

[Riverwolf]

But there's plenty of blind faith masquerading as "science". The ToE is a good example.

I can observe evolution in everyday life. I don't need scientists for that.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

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

Who claims this?

None of the founders of revealed religions ever vouched for blind faith.

Having "faith" is to accept without evidence.

Those who doubt they should quote from Buddha, Krishna, Zoroaster, Moses, Jesus etc. in this connection.

What does this even mean?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Those who think that science can do or undo everything they have a blind faith in science

The fact of the matter is Science can do and undo many things.

science is no deity; it has limitations of its own.

Deities, even yours, has limits.

Science has brought nothing which is not already there;

What "science" are you referring to?

science discovers principles on which the Universe is already working; they just bring into light that which already existed.

Ok....but not long ago the religious thought the principals of the universe were acted upon by "a god"......(doesn't matter which one including yours) take your pick.

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

Yet we're perfectly capable of using science to manipulate nature....

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

No they're not......:slap:

 

[beerisit]

Scientists didn't just magically conjure it up out of nowhere. The components necessary for it have always been there.

And how lucky would we be if they all magically came together as a vaccine? Then god would really be showing his stuff, like he did during the bubonic plague. Oops sorry, different god, I think. Or maybe different scientists? What do you think?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

not all science is observable.

True.

No one observed how vegetation came into being.

True. We may not have observed it but we have some good ideas as to how it happened.

No one observed how life arose

True but we have more than enough information to show all life in related and can trace diversification backward enough to give a evolutionary timeline.

no one observed one type of life form slowly change to become a completely different form of life.

Wrong. If you are referring to speciation then it has been observed.

So its not based on what has been observed.

Depending on the field of science we're talking about.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yet we're perfectly capable of using science to manipulate nature....

Well......................................................... sort of.

We can use scientific knowledge to theoretically cause any action possible in the known universe, but predicting the results of some actions can be, well, tricky.