Science vs Faith

[Thief]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life. I just love science [and] now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses what has been observed is known only by the effect somethings are left to your willingness to believe seems to me science has a touch of believing without proof or do you 'believe' all of science? just cause someone of learning told you so

Science such as math, gravity, and geology, for example, can be examined, experienced, and seen. There is no need to believe it exists. It does because we know it does without numbers and charts.

Religion isn't like that. Some religions, belief is neccessary to claim whatever information given by said person as a fact. Is it a fact? We have testimony, but unlike numbers, can we really count on peoples' experiences to judge accuracy or should we count on our own experiences and see religion as personal. It has its own criteria to determine whatever it claims as fact to the believer.

However, science is universal. It doesn't need personal testimony. It's fact outside our existence. Religion is based on people's experiences. Totally different from each other if trying to compare the two. They are related. Religion and science coincide with each other. However, one is based on knowledge and the other, for some religions, belief.

It depends on the belief as well.

 

[Skwim]

First of all I don't understand your science versus faith. Science is an orderly investigation of the workings of the nature (in its broadest sense), whereas faith is trust in belief.

In any case, whereas I often employ faith in my daily life, particularly when driving, I put a lot of stock in the findings of science, always keeping in mind that its conclusions are always open to revision. Stephen Jay Gould put it well when he said:

"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." ​

.

 

[psychoslice]

Well science may not be perfect and they will tell you that, but religion with its stories of how it all happen, well they come no where near what science have discovered, and in vain they try to make their stories fit science as if they knew all along, ha.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I too am interested in science.....and the practical application of such to benefit humanity, however I also devote myself to religious practice and have found evidence for the existence of a reality beyond that which is studied by science.. It's a win win for me....practical applications exists for both...

 

[Skwim]

I too am interested in science.....and the practical application of such to benefit humanity, however I also devote myself to religious practice and have found evidence for the existence of a reality beyond that which is studied by science.. It's a win win for me....practical applications exists for both...

Good for you, and others like yourself who have such a need. Obviously religion serves you well. Some of us are bit luckier and don't need to split our time and energies with religious devotion, leaving us with better ability to pursue whatever avocations strike our fancy.


.

 

[George-ananda]

Science is a good thing. But I am seeing more and more that its reach into reality is short.

 

[Skwim]

Science is a good thing. But I am seeing more and more that its reach into reality is short.

Yeah. After the basics get pinned down more and more, only the details are left, which ain't as easy to decipher and resolve. And this typically takes far more specialized education and often much more complex and expensive equipment.

.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Good for you, and others like yourself who have such a need. Obviously religion serves you well. Some of us are bit luckier and don't need to split our time and energies with religious devotion, leaving us with better ability to pursue whatever avocations strike our fancy..

Good for you, young souls happy in early stages of cosmic evolution are not yet ready for the path proper...being prepared for you by the leaders

 

[buddhist]

Science is a process of investigating reality.
Faith is blind belief.

Two different things altogether, unless you were meaning to compare science vs religion.

Even those who embrace science embrace a measure of faith. For example, I do not personally know about the qualities of panda bears, nor have I even seen one myself. I have faith in those scientists who have allegedly witnessed and studied that reality, that they are speaking truth and not falsehood.

In the same way, for most religions, their disciples do not personally know about the qualities of their god, metaphysical reality, etc, nor have they seen these things themselves. The disciples possess faith in those prophets who have allegedly witnessed that reality, that they are speaking truth and not falsehood.

Now with that said, early Buddhism is a separate beast altogether. The Buddha taught both 1) things we can obviously see and measure for ourselves (e.g. suffering, etc.), and 2) things that are not apparently obvious to most of us (e.g. the realms of heavens, etc.). He also taught a science through which he claims we can appropriate #2 for ourselves, turning faith into personal knowledge.

 

[Augustus]

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

It would be just as wrong to trust all of "science" as it would be to trust none of it.

There is an aphorism I read once (although I forget where): "science is what we think is true until we discover we were wrong" (and this wasn't intended as a criticism of the sciences)

On certain topics the sciences are highly accurate, at least from a functional perspective. In other areas they are not. The highly inaccurate areas gain prestige they often little deserve by hanging onto the coat tails of the more trustworthy ones. Once something is branded 'science' then people often become a little too credulous, and get amnesia about all the other things considered "science" that later turned out to be false (and often harmful).

Generally science is a philosophical endeavour rather than a mechanistic and 'objective' process of establishing 'truth'. Many people also tend to treat "science" as a normative concept, rather than the totality of positive real world actions with all the flaws of any human activity.

Many people do have a little too much faith in "science", just as many have too little trust in it. A healthy scepticism is always a good thing, but a closed minded rejection certainly isn't.

 

[wizanda]

just cause someone of learning told you so

We don't have faith in science; yet we trust that the person who informed us, did correct research on the subject matter (often without question, so many of us have blind faith in much of science)...

Which is then the same faith (trust) we have in some religious teachers, that they've deducted the information correctly based on experience.

Name a religion, that doesn't have the author saying their speaking from experience?

 

[Thief]

I for one have little 'blind faith'
I've been blind seven days....learned a lot real quick
(but this much is just me ......)

I have noted in scripture....trust no one, question everything

I see the same in science.

I perceive an overlap

 

[jonathan180iq]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

There are assumptions that have to be made about all knowledge, yes.

You can call it faith, or an educated guess, whichever fits your lexicon better.

Factually, there is not a more logically consistent way of explaining and understanding the nature of existence than the scientific method. I challenge you to contradict that statement. It cannot be done.

As such, I have no problem putting my "faith" in the process that has gotten us this far as a species.
I fully recognize that there are assumptions and conclusions that will be proven wrong. It happens everyday. That's the beauty of the process, as it has self-correction built in.

Religiosity is the opposite, in my opinion, because it assumes that the first assumption is perfect and flawless. It assumes objectivity when there is none. That's dangerous, and it purposefully counters self-correction. While religious ideas do change and meld, they do so begrudgingly and with great internal strife because of it's natural inclination towards bias.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I've been listening to science documentaries all of my life
I just love science

but now and then the discussions runs with only numbers and guesses
what has been observed is known only by the effect

somethings are left to your willingness to believe

seems to me....science has a touch of believing
without proof

or do you 'believe' all of science?
just cause someone of learning told you so

Science can't prove anything if you allow that everything is figment of your imagination. Certain theories can be considered virtually proven if there is massive evidence for a proposition, with more coming in regularly, vs no evidence at all. Evolution, Relativity, quantum theory and the Big Bang are such virtually proven "theories".

Religion goes wrong when it uses the verified history in its texts as validation for divine revelation or other examples there of the supernatural--for which there has never been any "evidence" beyond ancient hearsay. Belief in such hearsay can only be based on blind faith, which sells one's soul very cheap, all for the sake of avoiding doubt in favor of false knowledge.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

There are assumptions that have to be made about all knowledge, yes.

You can call it faith, or an educated guess, whichever fits your lexicon better.

Factually, there is not a more logically consistent way of explaining and understanding the nature of existence than the scientific method. I challenge you to contradict that statement. It cannot be done.

As such, I have no problem putting my "faith" in the process that has gotten us this far as a species.
I fully recognize that there are assumptions and conclusions that will be proven wrong. It happens everyday. That's the beauty of the process, as it has self-correction built in.

Religiosity is the opposite, in my opinion, because it assumes that the first assumption is perfect and flawless. It assumes objectivity when there is none. That's dangerous, and it purposefully counters self-correction. While religious ideas do change and meld, they do so begrudgingly and with great internal strife because of it's natural inclination towards bias.

Well said!

I blame ignorance and a sort of strange equivocation from the religiously minded.

Ignorance of what science is and does, and from that an equivocation to what they do understand, which is religion.

Thus, we have these strange ideas about having faith in science, or that science is wrong about this or that, or of a scientific agenda.

Once one understands that science means knowledge, and that applied science encompasses all methods of accumulating data about..everything, one might begin to understand why religion is not knowledge, but that which lay outside of knowledge. As knowledge grows, religion and superstition shrink.

Science has been pushing all the gods further and further back since forever, and eventually they will have nowhere left to hide.

 

[jonathan180iq]

As knowledge grows, religion and superstition shrink.

This is the crux of it, right here.

To the theist, this is an affront to their entire understanding of reality. It's seen mostly as a threat, and thus not appreciated for what it is, but loathed for what it isn't.

 

[Thief]

There are assumptions that have to be made about all knowledge, yes.

You can call it faith, or an educated guess, whichever fits your lexicon better.

Factually, there is not a more logically consistent way of explaining and understanding the nature of existence than the scientific method. I challenge you to contradict that statement. It cannot be done.

As such, I have no problem putting my "faith" in the process that has gotten us this far as a species.
I fully recognize that there are assumptions and conclusions that will be proven wrong. It happens everyday. That's the beauty of the process, as it has self-correction built in.

Religiosity is the opposite, in my opinion, because it assumes that the first assumption is perfect and flawless. It assumes objectivity when there is none. That's dangerous, and it purposefully counters self-correction. While religious ideas do change and meld, they do so begrudgingly and with great internal strife because of it's natural inclination towards bias.

I am willing to ....assume.....
science is correct.....for every effect there is a cause
For every cause there is an effect

I am also willing to accept a single location as a starting point of this known universe

I then .......assume........Spirit first
as substance is not 'self' starting
an object at rest will remain at rest until "Something" moves it

God did it

and then explained to Moses as he was asking for a name......
.....tell the people, I AM!

and they with understanding will know Whose law this is

I consider the above to be one fair assumption leading to another
and a little science thrown in for mortar

 

[Thief]

I assume an afterlife.
7billion+ people and no one survives the last breath?
the odds are billions to zero?
not a chance?.....not one in billions?

I am not my own handiwork
I assume Someone Greater in the background

and I do anticipate.....heaven will ask what I believe....

they will then ask
who told you that ? .....and why did you believe it?

if deception was dealt and I was fool enough to nod my head without question
I will be dealt with immediately that I do not spread the falsehood further

heaven will then seek the one who deceived me
and deal with him

you may call this my belief....yeah

and you are now free to make your own assumptions

 

[Native]

Some days ago I heard a philosopher say that modern science is about to dig so deep into the materia that the observations and theories are on the brink of becoming meta-physical (If so one can easily understand that cosmological scientist are confused on a higher level, making all kinds of theories about the same topics)

To me "Science v. Faith" is not quite the relevant question. To me "faith" largely is the religious result of forgetting the ancient language of symbols and myths, especially those, which belongs to the Myths of Creation in the numerous cultural tellings from all over the world. (Note: I´m NOT into personal deities at all)

"Science v. forgotten myths of creation" is a more appropriate question to me. And if having the knowledge of the ancient myths, symbols and the attached texts, one can decipher the ancient Myths of Creation and have an explanation of the creation which in many ways are more logical than the ones of modern science.

That is: Throughout thousands of years, humans from all over the world have perceived the Story of Creation via their meta-physical senses, i.e. via their spiritual skills. This is why the cultural stories of creation are very similar and this is logical since:

We all live on the same planet Earth, in the same Solar System, in the same Milky Way galaxy and in the same local part of the Universe. THIS is the creation in which all humans lives and this mytho-cosmological story is very specifically told in more or less details in the numerous stories of creation.

To me, there is NO difference between modern cosmological science and mytho-cosmology - exept from the latter is somewhat more logical and natural

Regards
Ivar