Do Scientists Have "Faith" in the Same Sense some Christians do?

[sayak83]

Be sure you count the cost to yourself. Getting stuck in a position in which you may be paid pennies - (I checked what people get paid in China; perhaps India is not that high either?), may also hurt your resume and chances for employment in the West later on?! Suggest starting at the top of your choices and work your way down. Work experience for a good company looks good on your resume.

Getting off topic here. Hope the best for you.

Thanks, will keep that in mind.

 

[Faithofchristian]

A common enough criticism of various scientific explanations (especially the theory of evolution) is that it requires "as much or more faith" to accept them as it does to believe in a scriptural-based alternative to them (such as creationism).

This criticism is usually levied by Christians, and while "faith" in Christianity can mean more than one thing, it seems to me that the Christians who employ this particular criticism of the sciences generally tend to mean by "faith" "a staunchly held belief or trust in something in the absence of conclusive evidence for it". Hence, the notion that scientific explanations require as much or more faith to accept as religious explanations seems to boil down to a charge that scientific explanations require a staunchly held belief or trust in something in the absence of conclusive evidence for it.

As I see it, the problem with the criticism is at least three-fold. First, it utterly ignores the fact that most scientists do not "staunchly" believe in a scientific explanation (such as evolution), but rather only tentatively accept it as currently the best available explanation, and would be willing to discard it should a better explanation come about. Contrast this with the ideal of Christian faith as unshakeable. So, to equate the alleged "faith" of scientists with the faith of Christians would seem to be a mistake.

Second, the criticism again utterly ignores the fact that widely accepted scientific explanations tend to have an overwhelming weight of reasoning and evidence in favor of them. Contrast this with the generally underwhelming evidence for Christian scriptural-based explanations. To say that scientists have a Christian like faith in scientific explanations would be like saying that scientists blindly base their acceptance of such explanations on some kind of authoritative scripture -- which they do not, and which would actually contradict the very epistemic foundations of the sciences if they did.

Last, some people like to argue that the sciences are based on scientific axioms which are equivalent to "things taken on faith". Yet, scientists would most likely discard or modify axioms that conflicted with experimental observations, but people who take things on faith tend to value doing so steadfastly, even in the face of conflicting reasoning and evidence. Hence, there seems to be a distinction between how scientific axioms and things taken on faith are treated by their respective communities.

For those, and for other reasons, the criticism of some Christians that scientific explanations require as much or more faith as religious explanations seems to me shallow and simplistic.

Your thoughts?

When you speak about christians, Maybe you need to signify as to which Christians your speaking about.

You make the same mistake that alot of people do, is group all Christians into one group.

Let's take tree's for example, There is apple tree, a pear tree, a orange tree.

Therefore you can not group all tree's as all being the same tree's.

The same with Christians, you can not group them as all being the same Christians.

Look alot of Christians are taught in their churches by man's teachings. They have not a clue what the Bible actually does teach.

Let's take the Dinosaurs bones, Which not only does the paleontologist scientist, but also Christian scientist dates them to be Millions of years old.

Now comes these Christians which are taught by man's teachings, will come with every excuse to try defeat the dinosaurs bones.
Some Christians will go as far to say it's a trick of Satan's. But yet Satan does not have the power of creation.

The truth of the matter is, Which the other group of Christians can not handle, is that the bible supports the dinosaurs bones as being Millions of years old.

Which puts the Earth as being Millions if not Billions of years old.

The other group of Christians, will try to argue that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Which there is no where in the bible that supports this. That the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.

Look in the book of Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The verse does not say when the earth was created, only in the beginning. Whenever that was.

But these other Christians will take this verse and try to fit it into the 6 day creation week.
But this will not work, Only because the earth was already here, before anything was created on the 1st day.

God tells everything that was created on the 1st day, but nothing about the earth as being created on the 1st day.

But because of these other Christians that are taught by man's teachings, will do anything and everything to try and fit the earth as being created on the 1st day. To fit their agenda that the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.
By this these other Christians have not a clue what the Bible actually does teach.

 

[shunyadragon]

When you speak about christians, Maybe you need to signify as to which Christians your speaking about.

You make the same mistake that alot of people do, is group all Christians into one group.

Let's take tree's for example, There is apple tree, a pear tree, a orange tree.

Therefore you can not group all tree's as all being the same tree's.

The same with Christians, you can not group them as all being the same Christians.

Look alot of Christians are taught in their churches by man's teachings. They have not a clue what the Bible actually does teach.

Let's take the Dinosaurs bones, Which not only does the paleontologist scientist, but also Christian scientist dates them to be Millions of years old.

Now comes these Christians which are taught by man's teachings, will come with every excuse to try defeat the dinosaurs bones.
Some Christians will go as far to say it's a trick of Satan's. But yet Satan does not have the power of creation.

The truth of the matter is, Which the other group of Christians can not handle, is that the bible supports the dinosaurs bones as being Millions of years old.

Which puts the Earth as being Millions if not Billions of years old.

The other group of Christians, will try to argue that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Which there is no where in the bible that supports this. That the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.

Look in the book of Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The verse does not say when the earth was created, only in the beginning. Whenever that was.

But these other Christians will take this verse and try to fit it into the 6 day creation week.
But this will not work, Only because the earth was already here, before anything was created on the 1st day.

God tells everything that was created on the 1st day, but nothing about the earth as being created on the 1st day.

But because of these other Christians that are taught by man's teachings, will do anything and everything to try and fit the earth as being created on the 1st day. To fit their agenda that the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.
By this these other Christians have not a clue what the Bible actually does teach.

I consider what you are describing here is the problem of Christianity unable to provide consistent guidance for the contemporary. The facts is the authors? of the NT and by far most of the Church Fathers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis, with only a difference in interpretation of the time of Creation. The doctrine and dogma of traditional Christianity is dependent on a literal Genesis according to NT scripture.

This is compounded by the conflicts in scripture of the nature, author? and origin of the Pentateuch. The ancient authorship of Moses is not longer considered viable and the compilation and editing from different sources ~600 BCE is now the what the evidence indicates.

This represents very poor provenance for a scripture that is claimed to be the foundation of Christianity.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I consider what you are describing here is the problem of Christianity unable to provide consistent guidance for the contemporary. The facts is the authors? of the NT and by far most of the Church Fathers believed in a literal interpretation of Genesis, with only a difference in interpretation of the time of Creation. The doctrine and dogma of traditional Christianity is dependent on a literal Genesis according to NT scripture.

This is compounded by the conflicts in scripture of the nature, author? and origin of the Pentateuch. The ancient authorship of Moses is not longer considered viable and the compilation and editing from different sources ~600 BCE is now the what the evidence indicates.

This represents very poor provenance for a scripture that is claimed to be the foundation of Christianity.

No what I am implying is that there are two groups of Christians.

The one group which will say that the earth is only 6000 years old.

The 2nd group will say the earth is Millions if not Billions of years old. This group supports the paleontologist scientist finding of the Dinosaurs bones being Millions of yrs old. Thereby proving the earth is Millions of yrs old.

And not 6000 yrs old, As the other group of Christina's are taught by man's teachings.

So there are two groups of Christians.

One being taught by man's teachings.

And the other group being taught by the teachings of the bible, God's word.

 

[McBell]

When you speak about christians, Maybe you need to signify as to which Christians your speaking about.

You make the same mistake that alot of people do, is group all Christians into one group.

Let's take tree's for example, There is apple tree, a pear tree, a orange tree.

Therefore you can not group all tree's as all being the same tree's.

The same with Christians, you can not group them as all being the same Christians.

Look alot of Christians are taught in their churches by man's teachings. They have not a clue what the Bible actually does teach.

Let's take the Dinosaurs bones, Which not only does the paleontologist scientist, but also Christian scientist dates them to be Millions of years old.

Now comes these Christians which are taught by man's teachings, will come with every excuse to try defeat the dinosaurs bones.
Some Christians will go as far to say it's a trick of Satan's. But yet Satan does not have the power of creation.

The truth of the matter is, Which the other group of Christians can not handle, is that the bible supports the dinosaurs bones as being Millions of years old.

Which puts the Earth as being Millions if not Billions of years old.

The other group of Christians, will try to argue that the earth is only 6000 yrs old.

Which there is no where in the bible that supports this. That the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.

Look in the book of Genesis 1:1--"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

The verse does not say when the earth was created, only in the beginning. Whenever that was.

But these other Christians will take this verse and try to fit it into the 6 day creation week.
But this will not work, Only because the earth was already here, before anything was created on the 1st day.

God tells everything that was created on the 1st day, but nothing about the earth as being created on the 1st day.

But because of these other Christians that are taught by man's teachings, will do anything and everything to try and fit the earth as being created on the 1st day. To fit their agenda that the earth as being only 6000 yrs old.
By this these other Christians have not a clue what the Bible actually does teach.

That is a mighty long post.
Sadly it does not address the OP at all.

 

[DavidFirth]

The word 'correct' is a layman's term and misleading. I am not aware of any scientists using it in a technical journal. If you believe so please cite the source. You perpetually use misleading layman's terminology such as proof, proven, true, and correct to describe science.

By definition 'correct' is used to describe a fact 'free from error' that is true and not false, which science does not use.
From: correct definitions - Google Search
Correct - free from error; in accordance with fact or truth.

It is justified that scientists consider the science of evolution falsified beyond a reasonable doubt, and no other explanation has been falsified by scientific methods.



This belief lies at the root of your objections to science, unfortunately there are literally hundreds of interpretations, and different churches that interpret the Bible differently. What Divine mandate makes your interpretation 'right' and the other interpretations are wrong?

I require proof. You don't have proof. End of story. Have a good day.

 

[McBell]

No what I am implying is that there are two groups of Christians.

The one group which will say that the earth is only 6000 years old.

The 2nd group will say the earth is Millions if not Billions of years old. This group supports the paleontologist scientist finding of the Dinosaurs bones being Millions of yrs old. Thereby proving the earth is Millions of yrs old.

And not 6000 yrs old, As the other group of Christina's are taught by man's teachings.

So there are two groups of Christians.

One being taught by man's teachings.

And the other group being taught by the teachings of the bible, God's word.

Here you make the exact same mistake you whine about in your fist post....

 

[McBell]

I require proof. You don't have proof. End of story. Have a good day.

Actually.....
You want convinced.

That you do not understand the difference is your problem, not ours.

 

[DavidFirth]

David Firth said, "Remember that God is all powerful in the Bible and there are no limitations on what is possible for Him."
Are you saying God could stop all suffering if He wanted to? That God could have eliminated all of the thousands of years of human suffering if he had wanted to? Hmmm....

Man could have avoided it if he hadn't sinned. The suffering is the price we pay for turning our backs on God. We have free will to do all the evil we want but there is a price that must be paid. What you see in the news every day is the result of our sin. We chose this in spite of God's pleading with us to obey Him.

We got exactly what we asked for.

 

[DavidFirth]

David Firth said, 'The Bible is always right as far as I'm concerned.' Even John 12:23? "The hour has come for the Son of Man to be glorified. I tell you the truth, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds."

What's your problem with that verse? It is 100% correct.

 

[DavidFirth]

Actually.....
You want convinced.

That you do not understand the difference is your problem, not ours.

Have a good day, sir.

 

[DavidFirth]

What has been shown is that the evidence of intermediate nature of the fossils can be determined quantitatively without assuming evolutionary theory at all. Further evolutionary theory predicts the presence of fossils with such intermediate forms, and since the evidence validating this prediction comes independently, it is a true validation of the theory without any assumptions.

One can as well say that there is no such thing as gravity caused by attraction between masses and God is holding all the planets and stars on their courses bending light around the sun and pulling us towards the ground with his spiritual power. After all God can certainly do all of this making the match with predictions from theory of gravity merely coincidence. This holds true for all of science. For example one can say it's not oil that's running the car engine but rather God, who in His mysterious wisdom is only imbuing the car with the spirit of motion when it has oil in its tank.

Fortunately science does not work like that. It creates theories and makes predictions. When it's predictions are independently observed to be true, the theory is vindicated and otherwise falsified.

I will not believe anything that contradicts God's word without absolute, verifiable proof.

I require proof. You don't have proof. End of story. Have a good day.

 

[McBell]

I will not believe anything that contradicts God's word....

Which version?

 

[DavidFirth]

Which version?

I will not debate versions with you since you believe all of them to be invalid.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That is a mighty long post.
Sadly it does not address the OP at all.

Yeah it does, there are two groups of Christians, and depending on which one is being spoken of.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Here you make the exact same mistake you whine about in your fist post....

Can you tell which is which in those two groups of Christians. Who is who.

It's quite evident that you can not tell the difference.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

In Genesis, the Bible uses the word 'kind.' We have the word cat and use this to refer to many different animals, lions, tigers, leopards, and our small feline friends. In the Bible, if these animals all descend from on parent animal, they would be one kind.

If those animals all evolved from a single ancestral felid, then Darwin was correct.

Furthermore, by this vague definition of kind, all carnivores are of a kind, as are all vertebrates.

It is therefore an assumption that at times, a species is the same as a kind, an other times not.

That's a problem for creationism. No two creationists agree about what was created. How about if we define kind as any organism that replicates? You might object, but you have no basis if you do so since you seem to feel free to move the boundary of what constitutes a kind ad hoc. If you are free to drift between species, genus, and family (Felidae are a family), why not keep going up through higher taxa such as order, class, phylum, domain, and finally, all life?

faith is complete trust and confidence in something. nothing more nothing less.

Justified belief (or trust) and unjustified belief are radically different.

honest reasoning leads to true answers for religious people.

You might agree that most people aren't very interested in the private beliefs of others that cannot be demonstrated or put to good use. Most answers I get from the Christians posting don't contain much that I would call truth, whereby I mean the quality that facts possess, with facts being linguistic strings that accurately describe a piece of reality such that it can be predicted or at times controlled.

What makes the statement that I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier a fact is that it is a string of words that allows me to get to the pier without any other guide. If the desired outcome is to get to the pier, and the belief is that the pier is five blocks south and three blocks west of my present position at home, if those directions get me there, then the statement is a fact. It is true.

If that's not the kind of thing that others are talking about when they refer to religious truths, then whatever it is they are talking about isn't what I call truth. It's generally unsupported belief, or religious-type faith.

If evolutionist devoted the kind of effort and time to follow the biblical viewpoint, perhaps our true knowledge would be greater by a huge amount

Our knowledge would be less. If the people doing evolutionary research joined the intelligent design researchers, we would know less. The theory of evolution has generated ideas that can be used to improve the human condition. ID research has generated no useful ideas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

With the kind of DNA technology we have, shouldn't it be possible to determine with some probable accuracy if a house-cat and the larger felines came from one ancestor parent couple?! Of course, nobody does this to explain creation, only evolution gets a focus

Yes, it is, and has been done. But notice that you're describing evolution, not creation.

The same has been done with the family of great apes (Hominidae), and not only confirms that all living members of this family descended from a single, common, ancestral great ape, but we can tell in what order the four genuses arose. First, this line bifurcated into the line that would become the orangutans and the three other genera. Next, the gorillas separated from the line that would eventually generate the chimps and man, which eventually divided as well.

Every animal type changes in small but important ways that permit them better to survive. This is claimed by evolutionist to be proof of their faith; instead, it proves how great a designer God is, how great a programmer he is.

Proof is that which convinces. Who do you think you just convinced (proved something to)? You already believed it, anybody that agrees with already believed it, and I'll go out on a limb here and say that nobody who didn't believe you then believes you now.

The fact is that you can't prove anything that you believe about the Christian god to an experienced and skilled critical thinker.

The reverse is true as well. Such a thinker cannot prove anything to a person not willing and able to evaluate an argument and its supporting evidence with a willingness to be convinced by a compelling argument. If you came to your present position by faith, you didn't use reason and evidence, and they won't budge you now.

Fact: Fossils were found.
Assumption: They have intermediate features and are therefore intermediate forms.

Fact. The fossils can be seen to have intermediate features. Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis)is clearly a transitional form between a chimp-like ancestral form and modern man. She's still about the same height as modern chimps, but she stood upright (her spinal cord exits the bottom of her skull, not its back), her brain case was intermediate in size and volume between a quadrupedal ape and modern man and her dentition was intermediate between a strict vegetarian, and her arm / leg length ratio was intermediate between a quadrupedal ape and human norms.

Your conclusions are based on hypothetical assumptions and are therefore invalid conclusions.

The validity of of a conclusion is confirmed by its utility, not by who does and does not understand how the conclusion was reached. Remember this from an earlier post:

Empirical adequacy, or the ability to predict the outcomes associated with various choices made in various circumstances, is all that is required of any scientific idea for it to be considered useful and added to the growing collection of useful ideas, like the ones that make electric light at night and global communications possible. Talk of proof, objective truth, absolute truth, and ultimate truth is all irrelevant. The light goes on when you flick the switch, and the email gets sent to the other side of the planet almost instantly. That's "proof" enough.​

The theory works. Why would we replace it with the creationist hypothesis, which has no usefulness? It predicts nothing, explains nothing, has no supporting evidence, and cannot make life longer, healthier, safer, easier, or any other thing that correct scientific ideas can do.

 

[shunyadragon]

No what I am implying is that there are two groups of Christians.

. . . and many variations in between over the millennia.

The one group which will say that the earth is only 6000 years old. [/quote]

Based on mythology.

The 2nd group will say the earth is Millions if not Billions of years old. This group supports the paleontologist scientist finding of the Dinosaurs bones being Millions of yrs old. Thereby proving the earth is Millions of yrs old.

And not 6000 yrs old, As the other group of Christina's are taught by man's teachings.

Christians who reasonable acknowledge the objective verifiable evidence of science. Unfortunately many only conditional acknowledge science and accept only certain aspects of science.

So there are two groups of Christians.

One being taught by man's teachings.

The more reasonable rational Christians not stoically devoted to blind faith and mythology.

And the other group being taught by the teachings of the bible, God's word.

In a previous post some one proposed 'blind faith' that favors literal scripture from 2 to 3 thousand years old rife with more ancient mythology, and with weak provenance over the objective verifiable evidence of science.

 

[Faithofchristian]

There are Christina's who supports the finding of the Dinosaurs bones by the paleontologist scientist of being Millions of years old. Unto which proves the earth it's self as being Millions if not Billions of years old.