Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Always amusing to see people who know very little about science or how it's conducted, nevertheless deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on it.
-
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!
Is Faith in Science Identical to Faith in God?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Always amusing to see people who know very little about science or how it's conducted, nevertheless deem themselves qualified to pass judgement on it.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
Of course not. The two aren't even close to being similar. Don't believe me? Compare a sermon to published scientific paper. Compare a church service to a scientific conference. If you come away thinking they both involve the exact same sort of "faith", then there's something wrong with you.
The only "faith" involved in science is the same sort of "faith" you have that when you hit the "Submit Reply" button, your post will show up on this board.
Zadok
Zadok
I will admit that in 30 years of work as a scientist and engineer (automation and robotics) I have had only one article published about my work (only two patents – one held by Boeing and one by Eaton Corp). I would be interested in knowing how you think things get published?
Zadok
gnomon
Well-Known Member
Wow.
That post displayed absolutely zero knowledge in regards to the history of science and religion.
Now you are asking someone how they think things get published?
That's even worse.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
I've been both an author and a reviewer. In my field (biology), papers get published on the quality of their content. Funding has zero influence. When I get a manuscript to review, I never have any idea who funded the work.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
I too have been an author and reviewer. In mitigation of Zadok he (I assume he) has a point in that the direction in which research is pursued may be heavily influenced by funding; whether the outcome is similarly influenced is what is moot.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
That's too vague of a statement to really respond to one way or another. In the world of grants and such, of course funding determines which research gets pursued. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.
If scientist A proposes to research the psychic abilities of fruit flies and their influence on the leaders at the U.N., and scientist B proposes to research the role of ERV's in some disease, guess which one gets done? In that case, is the fact that "funding determined which research is pursued" a bad thing? The only alternative is to fund everything, no matter what.
The whole problem here is that simply saying "funding dictates research" makes it sound like something sinister and sneaky is going on in science as a whole.
johnhanks
Well-Known Member
Then why have you responded to it?
Not necessarily, certainly; but potentially it could be. Look, I don't think we have any substantial disagreement here. I for one am not saying "funding dictates research" - only giving some slack to Zadok by admitting that funding influences research.
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
My response was an explanation of why the argument is too vague to really be of much use. I'm also just being an arse.
Sure. But again, that's not a bad thing. As I said, what else do we do, fund absolutely everything?
Zadok
Zadok
Okay let’s look at something specific. Some years ago NOVA received funding for research surrounding global warming in Antarctica. Antarctica recorded temperatures on average of a 3% increase. The research uncovered the world’s second largest volcano. The program was aired according to contract but in the last 10 years what has been published about the warming in Antarctica and tied it specifically to volcanic activity?
Zadok
PS. Do not tell me that volcanologist can just write up finding and get it published outside volcanologist circles. Information is available but not to the public in general. Perhaps someone could provide some links?
Zadok
PS. Do not tell me that volcanologist can just write up finding and get it published outside volcanologist circles. Information is available but not to the public in general. Perhaps someone could provide some links?
Last edited:
Jose Fly
Fisker of men
What evidence do you have that the increase in average atmospheric temperatures in Antarctica over X years is specifically tied to volcanic activity?
Otherwise, it simply looks like you're saying, "They got funding to study Antarctica's warming, and they found a volcano. I think the warming must therefore be due to this volcano, but I'm not aware of any papers on it. See? Funding dictates results!!!"
Not exactly a compelling argument.....
Zadok
Zadok
What evidence do you have that the increase in average atmospheric temperatures in Antarctica over X years is specifically tied to volcanic activity?
Otherwise, it simply looks like you're saying, "They got funding to study Antarctica's warming, and they found a volcano. I think the warming must therefore be due to this volcano, but I'm not aware of any papers on it. See? Funding dictates results!!!"
Not exactly a compelling argument.....
The original NOVA documentary - which interestingly has been pulled and is not be shown. However, if you want to take the time to find a volcanologist that is aware of any of the studies you will find that I am correct. But my point is that there are things that have been established by science and because of politics and control of funding is simply not available unless you know how to dig very deep for the information.
If you want everything that you are going to believe to be a mouse click away on your computer you just go on believing and trusting. But is that not the criticism often stated about the overly religious and their scripture canon that cannot or will not look outside their little box?
Zadok
At least some scientists have always been political -- had one eye on politics, or funding, or something else that might bias their work. If humans (i.e. scientists) were dispassionate pursuers of truth and never biased, there would be no need to have developed the various scientific methods.
Cobblestones
Devoid of Ettiquette
A characteristic of the religion of science is that it works.
sonofskeptish
It is what it is
Science puts facts, evidence and truth before one's desired or taught beliefs.
Religion puts one's desired or taught beliefs before facts, evidence and truth.
Is faith in one's desired or taught beliefs the same as faith in facts, evidence and truth?
No.
Religion puts one's desired or taught beliefs before facts, evidence and truth.
Is faith in one's desired or taught beliefs the same as faith in facts, evidence and truth?
No.
logicalthought123
Faithless-- Rush
I don't think that science and faith are in the same ballpark. Faith is the belief in something without any physical proof. Webster defines faith as- 1. confidence or trust in another person. 2. Belief that is not based on proof. It defines science as- 1. a branch of knowledge of study dealing with facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the opperation of general laws. 2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation or experimentation.
They aren't even close in meaning. People don't have faith in science, you can't because you can test and confirm things that science postulates, you can't test god so you need to have faith in god. So I don't think that it is right to lump faith in science and faith in god anywhere near each other.
They aren't even close in meaning. People don't have faith in science, you can't because you can test and confirm things that science postulates, you can't test god so you need to have faith in god. So I don't think that it is right to lump faith in science and faith in god anywhere near each other.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
Science and religion are both vehicles via which people construct understanding and meaning.By extension they are both instruments of power, influence and control.
Scientific understandings are no more independent of people than religious ones. All knowledge is situated culturally and historically. In science and religion there is the question of power - who gets to interpret results? Indeed who gets to ask the questions and the methods used? There seems little doubt that questions asked impact on answers found and that knowledge produced depends on methods employed.
I think that science approached un-skeptically is no more useful than religion approached un-skeptically.
Scientific understandings are no more independent of people than religious ones. All knowledge is situated culturally and historically. In science and religion there is the question of power - who gets to interpret results? Indeed who gets to ask the questions and the methods used? There seems little doubt that questions asked impact on answers found and that knowledge produced depends on methods employed.
I think that science approached un-skeptically is no more useful than religion approached un-skeptically.
sonofskeptish
It is what it is
Science approached un-skeptically is not science.
sonofskeptish
It is what it is
Religious beliefs require an un-skeptical mind. Check your brain on the way in.
sandandfoam
Veteran Member
I agree.
But it is often passed off as such. E.g.
A 'scientific' report by UN initiative The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (2007, cited Williams 2009 p.266) "shrimp on the dinner plates of Europeans may well have started life in a South Asian pond built in place of mangrove swamps -weakening a natural barrier to the sea and making coastal communities more vulnerable". The obvious conclusion is to save the mangroves Europeans should give up shrimp but the evidence, even if it shows a relationship between rising seas and food doesn't make it imperative or legitimate to eat fewer shrimp.
Maybe if South Asians sold more shrimp they'd have more money for conservation of mangrove swamps and coastal defenses. Maybe mangroves are not good enough for modern coastal defenses anyway. maybe maybe maybe, what is presented as science isn't always science.