Is Faith in Science Identical to Faith in God?

[footprints]

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:

Mr Cheese, way too deep, that will go straight over their heads. Remember in many cases of those who will oppose you, you are dealing with people who don't think, they are given the answers to which they speak.

 

[DarkSun]

Mr Cheese, way too deep, that will go straight over their heads. Remember in many cases of those who will oppose you, you are dealing with people who don't think, they are given the answers to which they speak.

At least Mr. Cheese doesn't have an agenda.

 

[sonofskeptish]

At least Mr. Cheese doesn't have an agenda.

Not one that's obvious anyway

 

[footprints]

At least Mr. Cheese doesn't have an agenda.

I would say most of us who post here don't have an agenda. Just answer stuff as it comes.

 

[footprints]

Not one that's obvious anyway

To see an agenda, is to have an agenda.

 

[Mr Cheese]

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.

statistics are models....

I win
You LOSE

...

but seriously, cannot you see that all you have said above is a model?
case in point:
"we know where the answer is but can't be too sure"
"we take between 6 and 20 samples because we know that the probability"

 

[Mr Cheese]

Not one that's obvious anyway

my agenda is passing time at my crappy job

:sarcastic I work for women...average age: menopausal

not trying to be too sexist, but....:areyoucra

thank gawd for 2ft of snow...

 

[Mr Cheese]

Mr Cheese, way too deep, that will go straight over their heads. Remember in many cases of those who will oppose you, you are dealing with people who don't think, they are given the answers to which they speak.

ah thinking is not soemthing most people do, especially online, in a discussion forum discussing science...

now science is great, but it still deals fundamentally with approximations
the closest we can get

a model

...

But yeah I understand that people online take the idea that science is the truth, to heart...

dogma is dogma

and I dont really post at this part of the forum...for the same reason I never did at this part of yahoo chat..before the pedophiles killed it off

People tend to cling to their truth very tightly....even if their truth can be destroyed, with one thought, in less than a minute.... simply by saying
"Hold on, but, what about....."

That is all it takes...

:sarcastic I guess I could do some work today...

 

[Walkntune]

Both rest on the assumption that there exists a reality that is independent of our minds.

I believe science thinks reality is dependent on or logical and rational mind.I see science as a form of scepticism and not of faith.Faith is more from our intuition and awareness of reality than our logical understanding of reality.

 

[darkendless]

statistics are models....

I win
You LOSE

...

but seriously, cannot you see that all you have said above is a model?
case in point:
"we know where the answer is but can't be too sure"
"we take between 6 and 20 samples because we know that the probability"

The answers come based on experience in playing with soil all day, not from a book.

Basically we know, but we have to show that we know by testing it. How is using experience a model?

 

[logician]

Science deals with facts, faith deals with emotion combined with the carrying on of traditional myths or superstitions.

 

[Walkntune]

Science deals with facts, faith deals with emotion combined with the carrying on of traditional myths or superstitions.

Actually faith deals with our fight and flight responses and our ability to open our awareness to reality.Science deals with our rational understanding of reality and changes as our awareness changes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The answers come based on experience in playing with soil all day, not from a book.

Basically we know, but we have to show that we know by testing it. How is using experience a model?

It's a prediction that's subject to error.

I remember my "law for engineers" prof telling us about a project he was involved with: during the preliminary geotechnical investigation, they did four boreholes at the corners of the site; all four showed depth to bedrock of around 2 metres. The project owner shared the report with the bidders for the contract.

During construction, it was discovered that the bedrock under the site was shaped like a big, deep bowl: it was only near the property line that the bedrock was near the surface. Over the rest of the site (and more importantly, where most of the piles would be driven), it was 10 to 20 metres deep.

The law here is that the constructor is responsible for subsurface conditions, so the contractor wasn't going to get any more money from the project owner. However, the contractor still had to pay the pile driving subcontractor by the metre.

The contractor sued the project owner for more money (hence why we were talking about it in an engineering law class) and lost. The contractor was sad.

And that's why using experience is a model. Edit: when you take a borehole, the implicit assumption is that the borehole you're sampling is a representative model of the surrounding soil.

 

[Mr Cheese]

The answers come based on experience in playing with soil all day, not from a book.

Basically we know, but we have to show that we know by testing it. How is using experience a model?

the tests are within constraints
constraints such as:

• the scientific method
• samples used to provide data
• other accepted approximations

You see we test within a model, an approximation

For example, to determine the size of rocks on a beach we use a sample... we could use a small sample say the stones on one beach, or bigger, the entire beaches of a city or even bigger the beaches of a country.

No matter what we do though, we can never measure everyone and everything. Something will always be outside our sample. As you can imagine, how could we feasibly measure every rock? Especially if we went global.

So what do we have? acceptable shortcomings...approximations

a model.

The scientific method, well I would assume we all know about this. This of course allows for certain parameters and methods of investigating. Dogmatically many assume of course that this is the only valid and/or possible method of investigation. Of course it is not, there are many other valid ways of investing phenomenon, but of course these are poo pooed by those that cling to the scientific method (mainly becuase they so wrapped in dogma, the dogma that their way is the only way, that they refuse to even try somethign else). Once again though, the scientific methodology is subject to restraints and approximations. Science tells us that whatever we observe we effect; in other words, there is no seperation between observed and observer.

So what do we have? acceptable shortcomings...approximations

a model.

etc.

Is religion any better than science in this regard? Of course not.

What we do find however is that both science and religion do admit to these short comings, both do at a fundamental level admit that.....its all garbage. That a model is a model...the map is not the territory.

Of course in an online discussion forum this is incredibly problematic as we find people that are stuck clinging to dogma,; science is truth, religion is truth

God did it
in a lab it has been proven that
My mathematical equation proves that
The bible says that

"We see things as we are
Not as they are"

--Kahlil Gibran

Every word or concept, clear as it may seem to be, has only a limited range of applicability.

--Werner Heisenberg

Natural science, does not simply describe and explain nature; it is part of the interplay between nature and ourselves.

--Werner Heisenberg

The problems of language here are really serious. We wish to speak in some way about the structure of the atoms. But we cannot speak about atoms in ordinary language.

--Werner Heisenberg


“Then,” Buddha asked, “does the fully enlightened one, ever think, ‘full enlightenment is mine’?”

“Indeed not,” Subhuti answered, “for nothing ultimately real is called fully enlightened, and that is why one who is fully enlightened is called fully enlightened. If one who is fully enlightened ever thought ‘the fruit of being fully enlightened is mine’, he would grasp a self, a personality, a soul or a concept of being.”

–The Diamond cutter sutra

 

[Mr Cheese]

And that's why using experience is a model. Edit: when you take a borehole, the implicit assumption is that the borehole you're sampling is a representative model of the surrounding soil.

well said

 

[footprints]

ah thinking is not soemthing most people do, especially online, in a discussion forum discussing science...

now science is great, but it still deals fundamentally with approximations
the closest we can get

a model

...

But yeah I understand that people online take the idea that science is the truth, to heart...

dogma is dogma

and I dont really post at this part of the forum...for the same reason I never did at this part of yahoo chat..before the pedophiles killed it off

People tend to cling to their truth very tightly....even if their truth can be destroyed, with one thought, in less than a minute.... simply by saying
"Hold on, but, what about....."

That is all it takes...

:sarcastic I guess I could do some work today...

There is a truism which goes like this, "Only the truth will set you free," Unfortunately people never look outside their own comfort zone, so the truth will always escape them.

May you continue to walk in beauty, love and light.

 

[Forkie]

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?

No. Science does not require faith it requires observation. I don't have faith in the fact that there is a computer in front of me. It is observable; a tangible; touchable; infallible truth.

God is not observable, nor is it touchable, tangible or any other "ible" or "able". Therefore it requires a belief, which can be rationalised in the mind, but if it cannot be physically observed, means essentially nothing.
When people say they "feel" God, it is not through the five senses that he is felt - it is an emotional response to a seemingly awesome, overwhelming concept.

I get the same feeling I suspect a theist would feel when they think about God and "feel" him if I stare at Saturn through my telescope, when I contemplate the vastness of a deep ocean, the size of a galaxy. It is the overwhelmingness* that produces this feeling. But the difference, is that the things I get this feeling from are real things that I know are there, which I think, gives the feeling credibility and a "realness", because faith has not been required, they are observable, tangible, touchable**, infallible truths.



*possibly not a real word.
**OK, I can't touch a galaxy, but it is there for the touching.

 

[tarasan]

Personally, I feel that they all go with the same base assumptions, we bleieve that the enviroment we see can be trusted, and remains constant, therefor allowing trents, I mean we assume that this whole world isnt an illusion, we cant prove it. Ultimately if its possilbe that reality is an illusion, then science cannot be trust as much as belief in God.

So at the base we both hold onto a tool we cannot completely prove, yet i think that is were the similarity ends and science faith and religious faith part ways.

What do you guys think?

 

[Forkie]

Personally, I feel that they all go with the same base assumptions, we bleieve that the enviroment we see can be trusted, and remains constant, therefor allowing trents, I mean we assume that this whole world isnt an illusion, we cant prove it. Ultimately if its possilbe that reality is an illusion, then science cannot be trust as much as belief in God.

So at the base we both hold onto a tool we cannot completely prove, yet i think that is were the similarity ends and science faith and religious faith part ways.

What do you guys think?

This is very philosophical!

We must believe that the world isn't an illusion. We must study the world as we see it. If the way we see the world is just a cognitive interpretation or if the world is a Matrix-like trick, that world doesn't matter. The point of science is to understand the world as we see it and as we experience it. If the world really is something else entirely that cannot be perceived or experienced by it's inhabitants, then that "real" world is inconsequential and unimportant and the attempt to study it must be pointless, mustn't it?

 

[Forkie]

As an afterthought:

If the world is an illusion or a super-computer program, then one of two things will happen eventually:

1. Science will eventually, inevitably, lead to that conclusion, then the natural progression will be to study that computer program/illusion or whatever.

2. Science will never discover the illusion, therefore never conceive it which renders it useless and inconsequential.

Similarly, if the world was created by an all powerful omnipresent, omnipotent God which is too great for us to conceive, either science will find it; or its inconceivability renders it pointless, useless and as having no effect on our perception of the world.