Is Faith in Science Identical to Faith in God?

[footprints]

Yeh sure buddy.

Your arguements are all the same.

LOL do you not subjective like yours?

 

[footprints]

At least science can admit when its wrong. These days more and more time is spent testing and retesting.
.

Now all we have to do is get everybody who clings to scientific dogma to admit when they are wrong and the world as a whole will be a better place.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Now all we have to do is get everybody who clings to scientific dogma to admit when they are wrong and the world as a whole will be a better place.

Scientific dogma is like a four-sided triangle.

TC

 

[footprints]

Scientific dogma is like a four-sided triangle.

TC

Yes it is, but then again many people use it.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Yes it is, but then again many people use it.

You can't use what's cannot exist. Science is incompatible with dogma.

TC

 

[footprints]

You can't use what's cannot exist. Science is incompatible with dogma.

TC

Science is incompatible with dogma, simply because science isn't human. However all the people who are attached to science are human, as are all the people who cling to science for their subjective reasoning. It is generally the latter group of people who cling to and use dogma, albeit people like Richard Dawkins near make a living out of it.

 

[Thought Criminal]

Science is incompatible with dogma, simply because science isn't human. However all the people who are attached to science are human, as are all the people who cling to science for their subjective reasoning. It is generally the latter group of people who cling to and use dogma, albeit people like Richard Dawkins near make a living out of it.

The scientific method is incompatible with dogma. To the extent that someone is dogmatic, they are not being scientific. Science is the method, not the lab coat.

TC

 

[footprints]

The scientific method is incompatible with dogma. To the extent that someone is dogmatic, they are not being scientific. Science is the method, not the lab coat.

TC

Now you are getting it, scientific method isn't human, it is a process which humans use.

It is humans who are dogmatic.

 

[Skeptisch]

I never tap dance skeptisch, a persons laziness to follow up on knowledge doesn't equate to my not giving people the evidence of which to follow up on.

You may not tap-dance but you seem to be a pretty good dancer in general. We are looking for established scientific facts (truths) that were later found false. Feel free to post them. As mentioned before, try not to go near the speed of light.

• A scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.
• Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.
• Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.
• A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

 

[jtartar]

It seems popular these days to argue that faith in science is identical to faith in god. But is that true? Why or why not?

Sunstone,
Faith in God and faith in science are completely different. The Almighty God, whose proper name is Jehovah, is the creator of everything in heaven and earth. It is not possible for any other person to know all about creation as God does. God has given us His word, an open letter to all humankind, The Holy Bible. The Bible is not a science book, but when it mentions something scientific it is 100% accurrate, because God is the ultimate scientist, while even the most intelligent man is very limited in his knowledge.
Contrary to what many people believe there is no such thing as, Twofold Truth. What is true in religion is also true in science.
Faith in God can be developed by a study of God's word, because is is accurrate, and because it is a book of prophecy that has unerringly come true exactly as prophesied, or is currently in the process of being fulfilled. No man can prophecy anything even for a few days, with 100% accurracy,but God is accurrate even over thousands of years. A serious study of God's word will build up your faith that God will always do exactly what He says He is going to do.
Faith is called EXTRASCIENTIFIC, because science cannot answer why people have such strong faith in something they have never seen, but nothing on earth is more important to humans than faith in God an obedience to His commands.
Consider what the Bible says about faith in the whole 11 chapter of Hebrews, especially verses 1, 6, also 2Thes 3:2.

 

[Mr Cheese]

You can't use what's cannot exist. Science is incompatible with dogma.

TC

ah...but science doesnt deal with the truth, it deals with models of the truth

essentially science is ALL about dogma




:sarcastic the model is not that which is being modelled

...

which means that yes, faith in God is exactly the same as faith in science
as both deal in models of the truth
the fact that both models are "diametrically opposed" so to speak, is neither here nor there

models are models

although some models are better than others:

 

[darkendless]

Now all we have to do is get everybody who clings to scientific dogma to admit when they are wrong and the world as a whole will be a better place.

Useless

Its not about admitting that science is wrong. Its about using what we know to the best of our ability until something better comes along.

Geotechnics in its infancy was a suitable method for construction foundations but the better we get at producing methods for stabilizing moisture in soils the more efficient we get. Its not "wrong" its simply not entirely true, over-simplified if you will.

I do not understand where you're comming from with the whole "wrong" thing. It seems to me you do not work in a field of science?

 

[darkendless]

ah...but science doesnt deal with the truth, it deals with models of the truth

essentially science is ALL about dogma




:sarcastic the model is not that which is being modelled

...

which means that yes, faith in God is exactly the same as faith in science
as both deal in models of the truth
the fact that both models are "diametrically opposed" so to speak, is neither here nor there

Science is not dogmatic. Above high school science only deals with probabilities and efficiency, why do you think most science and engineering courses these days involve statistics?

Models used in the geo world are calibrated to a tolerance. Tolerance meaning we're pretty sure we know where the answer is but can't be too sure. In geotechnics specifically, we take between 6 and 20 samples because we know that the probability of being able to analyse the properties of a site from a single sample is very low and would be considered poor practice.

As i said in an above post, its not the correct answer its about the best answer based on eliminating as much uncertainty as possible.

 

[Thought Criminal]

You may not tap-dance but you seem to be a pretty good dancer in general. We are looking for established scientific facts (truths) that were later found false. Feel free to post them. As mentioned before, try not to go near the speed of light.

• A scientific theory must be testable. It must be possible in principle to prove it wrong.
• Experiments are the sole judge of scientific truth.
• Scientific method: observations, hypothesis/theory, experiment (test), revision of theory.
• A "good" or useful scientific theory will make testable predictions of what should happen under new circumstances that are independent of the original problem or observation for which the theory was developed.

It's just fine that science has been wrong. After all, science isn't like religion: it doesn't claim to have had the truth all along. Rather, it seeks truth and is willing to throw away beliefs that, while once supported, no longer are.

Putting aside the speed of light, I seem to remember someone mentioned various atomic models that had their moment in the sun, only to be replaced. We call this scientific progress.

TC

 

[Thought Criminal]

ah...but science doesnt deal with the truth, it deals with models of the truth

Science seeks truth, but doesn't claim to already have it.

essentially science is ALL about dogma

I believe I just explained why this is not the case.

:sarcastic the model is not that which is being modelled

And yet some models are quite accurate.

which means that yes, faith in God is exactly the same as faith in science
as both deal in models of the truth
the fact that both models are "diametrically opposed" so to speak, is neither here nor there

In religion, faith is belief regardless of the evidence. In science, there is no faith. Instead, there is belief in the evidence. These are opposites.

TC

 

[Fatihah]

It seems popular these days to argue that faith in science is identical to faith in god. But is that true? Why or why not?

Response: It would depend on what type of science. I do see though that the faith one has in the science that there is no God but there is a theory of evolution is the same as many people who have faith in God.

 

[Sunstone]

If scientists had a religious like faith in their models, why would they be motivated to improve the accuracy of their models?

 

[footprints]

Useless

Its not about admitting that science is wrong. Its about using what we know to the best of our ability until something better comes along.

Geotechnics in its infancy was a suitable method for construction foundations but the better we get at producing methods for stabilizing moisture in soils the more efficient we get. Its not "wrong" its simply not entirely true, over-simplified if you will.

I do not understand where you're comming from with the whole "wrong" thing. It seems to me you do not work in a field of science?

Using what we have until something better comes along, doesn't in any way equate to the knowledge we have now is completely accurate.

The majority of people who work in scientific fields will tell you straight out, this is what we believe is the explanation given our current knowledge. No dogma there, but then again they are not really saying anything except it may be true or it may be false. A rational and reasonable position to take.

This is not so for the common person, who will use scientific models as gospel, completely ignoring what the scientist is telling them, that it is only based on our knowledge to date. The common person turns reasoned logic into blind faith dogma. Albeit, some scientists like Dawkins do the same thing.

It seems to me you wouldn't know a person who works in a scientific field if you fell over them. If a person isn't in the field of geology, they just couldn't possibly be a scientist.:angel2:

 

[darkendless]

Using what we have until something better comes along, doesn't in any way equate to the knowledge we have now is completely accurate.

Nothing changes. Science is about probability of positive outcomes. Even in medicine, biology, whatever.

Your quest for what is "true" has blinded you of the limitations of science.

The majority of people who work in scientific fields will tell you straight out, this is what we believe is the explanation given our current knowledge. No dogma there, but then again they are not really saying anything except it may be true or it may be false. A rational and reasonable position to take.

Why would they say anything different? Tell me what they stand to gain by making more assumptions then necessary?

This is not so for the common person, who will use scientific models as gospel, completely ignoring what the scientist is telling them, that it is only based on our knowledge to date. The common person turns reasoned logic into blind faith dogma. Albeit, some scientists like Dawkins do the same thing.

You don't know many people then. Go to a university or a school. Many children of 16 years old are able to tell you that science doesn't have all the answers, they have answers that are good for now. I was shocked myself when my friends little sister said something similar to me. The public school i attended teaches this so theres 400 exceptions to your concieved rule.

It seems to me you wouldn't know a person who works in a scientific field if you fell over them. If a person isn't in the field of geology, they just couldn't possibly be a scientist.:angel2:

Funny that, you have no idea who i am or who i know Your choking on your own arrogance and have been for some time on this forum.

I use geology because i know too much for you to play your little games with. Unlike you, i do not speak outside my area of knowledge.

 

[footprints]

Nothing changes. Science is about probability of positive outcomes. Even in medicine, biology, whatever.

I already know that and use it often in this forum.

Your quest for what is "true" has blinded you of the limitations of science.

I am blinded by nothing, I know the scope and potential of science.

Why would they say anything different? Tell me what they stand to gain by making more assumptions then necessary?

They shouldn't, it is only unreasoned people who do. However I am biased toward reasoned people.

You don't know many people then. Go to a university or a school. Many children of 16 years old are able to tell you that science doesn't have all the answers, they have answers that are good for now. I was shocked myself when my friends little sister said something similar to me. The public school i attended teaches this so theres 400 exceptions to your concieved rule.

I do not need to go anywhere, I can just look through posts in this forum, so can you. That is evidence we can both see and attest to.

Funny that, you have no idea who i am or who i know Your choking on your own arrogance and have been for some time on this forum.

That is your own arrogance talking. I only know of you what you have told me, you are a student of geology at a Uni which I am assuming is in Australia. You believe you have all the answers to Noahs Ark, yet you have only ever dealt with one perspective of this, then denied knowledge of every other scientific discipline around because it didn't suit your analogy.

I use geology because i know too much for you to play your little games with. Unlike you, i do not speak outside my area of knowledge.

I would suggest you gain more knowledge, for the subjects you enter pertain to much more than geology, even in what we are discussing now, so that just proves your above statement wrong. You really shouldn't say you do not do something, when at the moment you are saying you don't do it, you are actually doing it. It really does make you look kind of silly.