Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
How is faith different when applied to science then when it is applied to religion?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Degrees of Faith
- Thread starter Jeremiahcp
- Start date
I don't usually see faith referred to as something that is applied. I confess I'm not sure how that works. Then again, faith as often spoken of is something that is absent from my life, so... maybe that's my problem. 
Science is based upon Philosophy but is a discipline for how to make decisions. Religion is a discipline that is based not upon philosophy but upon making decisions about ideas and actions, and then it includes Philosophy.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well for me personally faith in science is far more reliable than faith in religion, to me there is no argument with that.
Religion and Science are like two great pillars of knowledge but approach Reality from a different perspective. Both are necessary and need to be in harmony.
"Religion without science is superstition. Science without religion is materialism." Baha'u'llah
If you have both together then the result is light upon light.
There are multiple definitions of the word 'faith'. If I go to a dentist who tells me I have cavity, I have faith that the dentist is correct. If I learn that E=mc2 but don't derive the solution myself, I have faith that the math is accurate because it's been reviewed by many and tested in multiple high-quality experiments.
Religions are "faiths" by definition which is a different meaning of the word.
Do you think that every tenet of religion could be explained and religion could survive without blind faith?
The religions I am most familiar with are Abrahamic, so Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and the Baha'i Faith. I am a Baha'i and most tenets of these Faith make sense when viewed in the correct context and using reason. Having knowledge of Gods message for humanity for today rather than 2,000 or 3,500 years ago helps a lot. Reason and knowledge reinforce Faith. If most of it is not sensible then like the house on inadequate foundatiosn it will not withstand tests and difficulties. Just as important Faith needs to be put into action.
"Let deeds not words be your adorning" Baha'u'llah
What's your experience of Faith and reason?
Very true .Reason , knowledge and experiences strengthen ones faith in any belief system.
Why did you use those numbers ?
No ,we are not holding on to a waned Moon , but gleaming under the first rays of sunlight.
Baha'ism is a great faith , pretty much unadulterated , enthusiastic ,zealous and much closer like the youngest child is to the mother.That's fantastic, so are the Baha'is
Skwim
Veteran Member
OTTOMHAIW: Off the top of my head as I write.
Faith is trust in belief. So any difference between religious faith and secular faith (no need to even go so far as faith applied to science) is their bases. Secular faiths have a basis in beliefs grounded in life experience or facts that typically address future actions, e.g. "I have faith that such and such will happen because in the past it has always (usually) been the case. "
Religious faiths have a basis in beliefs grounded in the acceptance of the unique framework of a religion, and commonly comes from second party assertions. "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so." They may also also come from metaphysical experiences such as personal revelations, or perceptions that X happened because an object of their faith (god, Jesus, angels, etc), intervened, usually on one's behalf. However, unlike the bases of secular belief, which are external to the person, these are internally unique. "I have faith that the Spaghetti God is in Meatball Nirvana because of a vision I had" is a singularly personal experience.
.
Faith is trust in belief. So any difference between religious faith and secular faith (no need to even go so far as faith applied to science) is their bases. Secular faiths have a basis in beliefs grounded in life experience or facts that typically address future actions, e.g. "I have faith that such and such will happen because in the past it has always (usually) been the case. "
Religious faiths have a basis in beliefs grounded in the acceptance of the unique framework of a religion, and commonly comes from second party assertions. "Jesus loves me this I know for the Bible tells me so." They may also also come from metaphysical experiences such as personal revelations, or perceptions that X happened because an object of their faith (god, Jesus, angels, etc), intervened, usually on one's behalf. However, unlike the bases of secular belief, which are external to the person, these are internally unique. "I have faith that the Spaghetti God is in Meatball Nirvana because of a vision I had" is a singularly personal experience.
.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
It isn't. word semantics
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
What's an example of faith applied to science?
Faith doesn't apply to science. Faith is unsubstantiated belief; belief without sufficient evidence.
Faith is a priori. Science; a posteriori.
Science is falsifiable. Faith, being largely non-evidence based, has no foundation of facts or empirical evidence to falsify.
Religion is a code of propriety based on unsubstantiated facts. Science is a research modality with no behavioral code, and it demands all facts/assertions be substantiated.
Religion is dedicated to preserving the status quo. Science is dedicated to revising the status quo.
Religious books remain unchanged even when known mistranslations, copy errors and revisions are present.
Science texts usually begin with a request in the preface that readers report any errors to the author. Second editions are generally revised editions.
Science tries to limit itself to description but for science to be possible it relies on assumptions. It relies on non-evidence based assertions, for example science relies on induction or the uniformity of nature. But as Hume conceded that was built on custom not evidence. He had no non-circular foundation for the most basic requirement in science.
Science is hardly unbiased and neutral, you bring your view of the world to the table before you examine the facts. Are those chance controlled facts, fate controlled, God controlled, are they created, are they real. There is a philosophy of fact which scientific inquiry is built upon. The real problem comes in when you try and do Science without God. To try and built a scientific structure from an unstructured world is absurd.
Valjean on a Reformed Christian view it would be the opposite. God is the foundation for rationality and for science. Only if you have him is it possible to do science. You are aiming your guns at the weakest position.
Moreover there is ongoing scholarship to better understand the original contexts and the examination of original texts. Although science does admit their fallibility and constant need of revision, that is hardly a good place to build a foundation for reality if it is always changing and can uncover something new that changes everything you thought you knew before. That is just ultimate irrationalism garbed in rationalism.
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
"Both are necessary and need to be in harmony."
Why? Are you saying non-religious people can never find harmony?
"If you have both together then the result is light upon light"
Can you explain how that works?
Jeremiahcp
Well-Known Jerk
So if I said, "I have faith the Sun will rise tomorrow" you would view that equivalent to, "I have faith in God"? Even though I have seen the Sun, and I have experienced it rising many, many times, but have never seen God?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
We don't assume ''equivalents'', we just take the word contextually. You are using that word in that manner, /which is fine/, and it has the definition that you are sure the sun will rise, /that's all