Is Faith in Science Identical to Faith in God?

[Erebus]

What would you do if every scientist on Earth had a different version of how the Earth orbits the sun?

Most likely go with the theory that made the most sense to me. This is why I believe in the big bang rather than creation as described in the Bible. Even though I personally can't prove or disprove either theory, the big bang makes much more sense to me.

 

[DarkSun]

Most likely go with the theory that made the most sense to me. This is why I believe in the big bang rather than creation as described in the Bible. Even though I personally can't prove or disprove either theory, the big bang makes much more sense to me.

Pick the theory that makes most sense to you? Fair enough. I think most people do that with religion too.

But objectively speaking, given multiple competing theories, and assuming there can only be one right answer, how would you know for certain which version of the Earth's orbit is correct?

I think that's the difference between science and most religious beliefs. Science doesn't claim to know anything, but we do claim that we might have a fairly accurate idea. Most religion claims to know. Even if the evidence disproves this knowledge, there are some who will believe despite it. It takes faith to do this.

However, there are some religions that are an exception.

 

[Erebus]

Pick the theory that makes most sense to you? Fair enough. I think most people do that with religion too.

But objectively speaking, given multiple competing theories, and assuming there can only be one right answer, how would you know for certain which version of the Earth's orbit is correct?

I think that's the difference between science and most religious beliefs. Science doesn't claim to know anything, but we do claim that we might have a fairly accurate idea. Most religion claims to know. Even if the evidence disproves this knowledge, there are some who will believe despite it. It takes faith to do this.

However, there are some religions that are an exception.

Yes, some people will cling onto a belief regardless of evidence against it. That's what I call "blind faith".
I don't quite agree with you that science doesn't claim to know anything though. Science is centered around facts, this trait alone seems to indicate that science (or rather, scientists) claims to know certain things.

Personally I don't believe that humans can know anything for certain. We can make educated guesses based on experience, perception and opinion, but ultimately it remains a guess.

 

[DarkSun]

Yes, some people will cling onto a belief regardless of evidence against it. That's what I call "blind faith".
I don't quite agree with you that science doesn't claim to know anything though. Science is centered around facts, this trait alone seems to indicate that science (or rather, scientists) claims to know certain things.

Personally I don't believe that humans can know anything for certain. We can make educated guesses based on experience, perception and opinion, but ultimately it remains a guess.

Science is guesswork too, though. It's just extremely well educated and informed guesswork, that's all. Scientists apply an objective method to observe and explain natural phenomena. However, since it is so hard to observe many processes in life, in order to explain reality, science uses "models" to help fit the available evidence.

These models may not actually be what's ACTUALLY going on, but they're the best explanation we have to explain reality. For example, light is said to behave like both a particle and a wave. Perhaps it is actually neither, but the particle and wave models tend to describe the behaviour of light fairly well for separate circumstances.

In 100 years time, scientists world-wide could find that everything we hold true isn't completely correct. It's happened before.

 

[Sunstone]

LOL you should learn to read all posts.

You should have the courtesy to point me to any post you feel satisfies my question. But you're coyness in not doing so speaks volumes about your lack of confidence in your ability to address my question.

 

[DarkSun]

...

over time, any sentence uttered long and loud enough becomes fixed. Becomes a truth. Provided, of course, you can outlast the dissent and silence your opponents. But should you succeed - and remove all challengers - then what remains is, by default, now true.

Is it truth in some objective sense? No. But how does one ever achieve an objective point of view? The answer is you don't. It is literally, physically impossible. There are too many variables. Too many fields and formulae to consider. We can try, of course. We can inch closer and closer to a revelation. But we'll never reach it. Not ever...

(assassin's creed)

"in order to survive, we cling to all we know and understand... And we label it 'reality'. But knowledge and understanding are ambiguous. That reality could be an illusion. All humans live with the wrong assumptions. Isn't that another way of looking at it?"

(uchiha, itachi)

...

 

[Erebus]

Science is guesswork too, though. It's just extremely well educated and informed guesswork, that's all. Scientists apply an objective method to observe and explain natural phenomena. However, since it is so hard to observe many processes in life, in order to explain reality, science uses "models" to help fit the available evidence.

These models may not actually be what's ACTUALLY going on, but they're the best explanation we have to explain reality. For example, light is said to behave like both a particle and a wave. Perhaps it is actually neither, but the particle and wave models tend to describe the behaviour of light fairly well for separate circumstances.

In 100 years time, scientists world-wide could find that everything we hold true isn't completely correct. It's happened before.

I agree with all of that, especially the last part, but my point was that science still establishes "facts" (they may in fact be untrue, but are presented as truth anyway. Planetary orbits are a good example of this, anybody studying the planets will be taught on a basis of fact, not theory) . Many of these facts that are easily proven by scientists themselves are unprovable to everyday folk. In this way, scientific facts are taken on faith (at least, they are by the majority of people).

 

[DarkSun]

I agree with all of that, especially the last part, but my point was that science still establishes "facts" (they may in fact be untrue, but are presented as truth anyway. Planetary orbits are a good example of this, anybody studying the planets will be taught on a basis of fact, not theory) . Many of these facts that are easily proven by scientists themselves are unprovable to everyday folk. In this way, scientific facts are taken on faith (at least, they are by the majority of people).

I know what you mean about things being taught as facts. That's especially true for physics and chemistry, but not so much for biology and psychology.

It's true that a lot of the public will blindly swallow information fed through the media, not just science. But just because people are blindly accepting the science, that doesn't necessarily mean that the science itself is based on blind faith.

 

[Erebus]

I know what you mean about things being taught as facts. That's especially true for physics and chemistry, but not so much for biology and psychology.

It's true that a lot of the public will blindly swallow information fed through the media, not just science. But just because people are blindly accepting the science, that doesn't necessarily mean that the science itself is based on blind faith.

Very true, I probably should have said can be taken on faith.

 

[footprints]

You should have the courtesy to point me to any post you feel satisfies my question. But you're coyness in not doing so speaks volumes about your lack of confidence in your ability to address my question.

Sunstone, It is not surprising, that a person who joins a debate, and doesn't have the courtesy to actually follow the debate, should speak to another person pertaining to courtesy.

If you are interested in anything, other than your own personal bigotry and prejudice, you would have done the respectful and decent thing, and kept up with the debate.

And just so you are aware, so there can be absolutely no mistake about it, I did point you to a specific post, which I personally feel would satisfy your question.

What! You do not see a specific post number there? Perhaps Sunstone, this is because I already know, nothing I could say, nothing science could reveal, would ever penetrate your brain belief barrier (BBB). And, as the evidence provided in the quote I am now answering clearly suggests, you neither have the want or the need (intelligence) to seek this knowledge for yourself. The truth of this matter would clearly take you out of your comfort zone and the faith in your belief will just not let that happen.

 

[johnhanks]

Path of Enlightenment, Meditation. Emprical evaluation.

Footie, I am sorely disappointed in you. None of these is a hypothesis. What predictions emanate from them? How will these predictions be tested? The time must come when you realise smoke and insults do not constitute a reply.

 

[xkatz]

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?

Religion and science are essentially the same thing. They try to explain if (variable) exists and if so how and why. The way they explain these things though are completely different.

 

[Sunstone]

Sunstone, It is not surprising, that a person who joins a debate, and doesn't have the courtesy to actually follow the debate, should speak to another person pertaining to courtesy.

If you are interested in anything, other than your own personal bigotry and prejudice, you would have done the respectful and decent thing, and kept up with the debate.

And just so you are aware, so there can be absolutely no mistake about it, I did point you to a specific post, which I personally feel would satisfy your question.

What! You do not see a specific post number there? Perhaps Sunstone, this is because I already know, nothing I could say, nothing science could reveal, would ever penetrate your brain belief barrier (BBB). And, as the evidence provided in the quote I am now answering clearly suggests, you neither have the want or the need (intelligence) to seek this knowledge for yourself. The truth of this matter would clearly take you out of your comfort zone and the faith in your belief will just not let that happen.

Looks like I've hit a sore spot, Foot. Of course, if your point could actually be proved --- if it were indeed true that religious faith is the same as scientific faith --- then you would get off your backside and set about proving it, now wouldn't you? I can't help but notice that the more I ask for evidence from you, the less reasonable you get -- and the more insulting. Let's see how much further you can fall apart -- where's the evidence, Footprint? Or are you just talking out of your backside, again?

 

[footprints]

Footie, I am sorely disappointed in you. None of these is a hypothesis. What predictions emanate from them? How will these predictions be tested? The time must come when you realise smoke and insults do not constitute a reply.

Sorry to burst your bubble again John, but I suppose that is what happens when you choose to position your personal belief patterns in ignorance. All those fields are currently under investigation by science as we speak.

A scientist doesn't just pull a hypothesis out of the air. First and foremost, something must exist in order for them to gain an understanding of it. Only after a scientist has a general to good understanding of the event (even if it is only a personal perception of the event) can they draw a hypothesis from it. From the base hypothesis, which is drawn from the analysis of the data gained in the learning process of understanding it, predictions can be made.

Whether it is clear to you or not, at this present time in science, down the fields who are evaluating the real, life events as previously listed, a debate rages. What this debate pertains to is; what is genetic and what is evironmental and each proponent will align behind their own emperical evidence which suggests their hypothesis right. This is the learning cycle behind us gaining a base knowledge pertaining to what we are experiencing and the evidence which supports the experience.

To this extent, down the study of those life events previously listed there are two schools of thought, each with their own hypothesis drawn from it. This notwithstanding, within each division there are literally hundreds, if not thousands, of subgroups investigating specific individual items as they pertain to these events and any association gained thereof. When all aforesaid investigations are combined, it creates a whole, or the whole of our (mankinds) knowledge base to date.

1: Hypothesis 1: Schizophrenia. Predictions; down this specific field of investigation there is suggested evidence, that a prolonged exposure may move a person away from base humanity, thereby seperating them from reality. Both genetic and environmental research support this premise.

2: Hypothesis 2: Tolerance and Understanding. Predictions; down this specific field of investigation there is suggest evidence, that proponents of these techniques, gain more in personal understanding as it pertains to their environment, thereby causing them to be more tolerant of environmental issues and opens their mind to greater learning potential. Both genetic and environmental research support this premise.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I will take umbrage - throughout most of history both science and religion has proven to follow funding before truth. It is unlikely scientific research will move forward without funding and it would also appear that if there is money to be made someone from the religious community will preach it.

Zadok

Funding may prompt a scientist to pursue one field of inquiry instead of another, but (except for cases of outright fraud) it won't make a scientist declare that a false thing is true... and mechanisms like peer review and replication of experiments quickly uncover the fraudsters.

 

[johnhanks]

Sorry to burst your bubble again John, but I suppose that is what happens when you choose to position your personal belief patterns in ignorance. All those fields are currently under investigation by science as we speak.

So they may be; but their names are not hypotheses.

[Lengthy flim-flam snipped.]
1: Hypothesis 1: Schizophrenia.

Footie, the word 'schizophrenia' is not a hypothesis. The fact that you think it is speaks volumes.

Predictions; down this specific field of investigation there is suggested evidence, that a prolonged exposure may move a person away from base humanity, thereby seperating them from reality. Both genetic and environmental research support this premise.

I see. And these 'predictions' are testable how, precisely?

2: Hypothesis 2: Tolerance and Understanding.

As before.

Predictions; down this specific field of investigation there is suggest evidence, that proponents of these techniques, gain more in personal understanding as it pertains to their environment, thereby causing them to be more tolerant of environmental issues and opens their mind to greater learning potential. Both genetic and environmental research support this premise.

As before.

 

[footprints]

Looks like I've hit a sore spot, Foot. Of course, if your point could actually be proved --- if it were indeed true that religious faith is the same as scientific faith --- then you would get off your backside and set about proving it, now wouldn't you? I can't help but notice that the more I ask for evidence from you, the less reasonable you get -- and the more insulting. Let's see how much further you can fall apart -- where's the evidence, Footprint? Or are you just talking out of your backside, again?

You do have a very deluded perception. Still all in all, the environment has created this illusion in you for a reason (your own mental protection), and your own faith will maintain it and support it.

 

[footprints]

So they may be; but their names are not hypotheses.
Footie, the word 'schizophrenia' is not a hypothesis. The fact that you think it is speaks volumes.
I see. And these 'predictions' are testable how, precisely?
As before.
As before.

John, I used the term schizophrenia, simply because it encapsulates a whole lot of different individual hypotheses.

Your own intelligence will figure the rest out for you, in the best way your own intelligence can.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You do have a very deluded perception. Still all in all, the environment has created this illusion in you for a reason (your own mental protection), and your own faith will maintain it and support it.

Project much?

 

[johnhanks]

John, I used the term schizophrenia, simply because it encapsulates a whole lot of different individual hypotheses.

Oh, footie, this is pure desperation. You might just as well have used the term 'cheese' - that encapsulates a whole lot of different individual hypotheses too, but unless you specify which ones you mean no-one is going to take you seriously.

Your own intelligence will figure the rest out for you, in the best way your own intelligence can.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. G'night, footie.