Science vs Faith

[Thief]

He is obviously hiding away, he hasn't been seen since he was invented 2000 years ago. Perhaps he is shy?

he was 'noticed'.....long before your claim

 

[Rick O'Shez]

he was 'noticed'.....long before your claim

Your monotheism is relatively recent historically speaking, before that polytheism was the norm.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science V Faith

Neither the truthful science nor the truthful faith are against one another,rather they support one another. It is a wrong notion that "Science V Faith"?! Right? Please
Regards

 

[`mud]

Ahhhhhhh.....Science....the endless pit of discovery.
Ahhhhhhh.....Religion....the endless pit of discovery.
~
One is a mirror of the other, with evidence,
the other.......invisibility ??
~
'mud

 

[paarsurrey]

religion leads the way, science figures out some details. both ok, in theory

Also in practice. Right? Please
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Sometimes, /in my opinion

And on what occasion it was not? Please give an example.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

The Spanish inquisition, the invasion of Europe/islam, there are many others

Please elaborate.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

...seriously?

Yes, first the first mentioned by one. Please
Regards

 

[Thief]

Your monotheism is relatively recent historically speaking, before that polytheism was the norm.

so people thought was more than one God.....

and people still have a lot to learn
and some people refuse to go along with the idea.....

Someone had to be First

 

[paarsurrey]

The Spanish inquisition?
Outdated religious or political religious zealotry, what more of an explanation do you want?

Please give concise details of what happened in "Spanish Inquisition". Will one? Please
Regards

 

[SkepticX]

The idea of "believing" or "believing in" science as compared to religion is just imposing a religious mindset on both paradigms even though it's completely pointless in the former. Science is about; "We subjected X data using Y methods and got Z results, and now we can look at new questions A, B and C that were raised by this process." It's entirely empirical. It's not about believing anything. It's about rejecting any conclusions that don't make the cut--anything beyond tentatively and conditionally accepting what's demonstrated. It's all necessarily subject to scrutiny and has to survive repetition and further testing before getting Z from X and Y is confirmed or refuted as a reliable result. No one is asked to just "believe" anything. It just makes sense to tentatively accept that given results of given experiments are reliable when they're useful and they've withstood repetition and rigor, and they're only accepted as reliable results until they fail to be. When someone finds a way to test something about Z results and finds something other than Z or some new aspect of Z, we see how those results work out going through the same process. This thinking is completely incompatible with religious belief.

A huge part of the problem/the confusion is the term "believe". It's what I call a fudge word--means contradictory things and is frequently used for equivocation. In religion "We/I believe" tends to mean "We/I [claim to] know in the absence of credible epistemology" or strangely "We/I have decided X is true in the absence of credible epistemology". In science "believe" is a useless term. There's nowhere in the above description to appropriately insert it. It isn't integral or necessary in science. It only becomes relevant, really, when we apply scientific results, but even then it's tentative, so the "belief" that's relevant to science is a tentative by-product of the process, which is fundamentally different from the "belief" that's the basis and "substance" of religion.

The confusion about "belief" in terms of the science vs. religion question also has a lot to do with the fact that it's difficult not to conflate the paradigms where the term belief is concerned (to superimpose a little religion onto science), and it's also difficult to avoid equivocating between different uses of "believe". Science is about rejecting conclusions about anything and everything empirical that's not demonstrated (rejecting beliefs in the religious sense entirely--i.e. they're just not relevant to science). Religion is dependent upon forming conclusions about what we don't know--rather, religion simply is conclusions that have been formed (presumed) about the unknown.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

So how does that work with the social sciences...say psychology?

 

[SkepticX]

Mostly greater margins of error, but social sciences are less strictly empirical too, relying largely on survey data and personal perceptions of affect and such.

The basic principles are still the same, but there's admittedly some discrepancy between practice and theory here. The theory is the ideal to strive for, but I'd say it's highly unlikely that anyone can ever fully realize the ideal at any point in the process much less consistently--that has to be systemically imposed to a large extent, and there's definitely some debate as to how that's working in actual application. None of that changes the completely disparate relationship between each paradigm and belief though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

so people thought was more than one God.....
and people still have a lot to learn
and some people refuse to go along with the idea.....
Someone had to be First

The first was probably a weather god. Perhaps they introduced the idea of "one true god" to stop people fighting over which god was the best.....though that doesn't seem to have worked out to well when you look at the history of monotheism.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Mostly greater margins of error, but social sciences are less strictly empirical too, relying largely on survey data and personal perceptions of affect and such.

The basic principles are still the same, but there's admittedly some discrepancy between practice and theory here. The theory is the ideal to strive for, but I'd say it's highly unlikely that anyone can ever fully realize the ideal at any point in the process much less consistently--that has to be systemically imposed to a large extent, and there's definitely some debate as to how that's working in actual application. None of that changes the completely disparate relationship between each paradigm and belief though.

Thank you. Science like religion though has followers, that is, the greater mass of mankind who believe in the relevant theories or dogmas as appropriate, but do not fully understand it.

 

[gnostic]

Neither the truthful science nor the truthful faith are against one another,rather they support one another.

Science, or more precisely scientists, attempts to explain natural or artificial phenomena, and then test if the explanation holds true, through observation, eg evidences, test results or data that:

(A) can be verified, or measured,
or (B) the evidences will refute the explanation.​

Science don't rely on one test or one evidence. Multiple tests need to be performed or multiple evidences must be discovered, this is to ensure that there are no error or fluke, and the multiple results will help the scientists to determine and reach a conclusion and consensus if the explanation have been verified as true, or refuted because it is fault. A lack of evidence should also be considered as evidence that the explanation is false.

Also it required more than one scientist to test the explanation or find evidence; other scientists must independently test the explanation, to ensure that there are no bias or mitigate bias. Hence, the reason for peer review.

So if there are evidences to support the explanation (hypothesis or theory), then the explanation is no longer just speculation or guesses. It is evidence that make science different from religion, and when you have evidence, you are not relying on mere belief or personal faith.

Religion relies on faith. Faith is acceptance of belief, without the need for evidences.

For instance, it require faith to believe that King Solomon can understand the language of ants (Qur'an 27), where they can talk to each others. Fact is noone can understand ants, let alone communicate with them in their language, that if ants have language at all.

The Qur'an relies on the naivety and superstition of the believers, to believe in such fable about the Solomon and the ants.

You are relying on faith in accepting the story being true; the story rely not on evidence, not in fact and certainly not in science.

In the Greek myth, it was believe that seer could understand the languages of animals to foretell or divine events that will happen. For instance, the seer Melampus was put in prison cell, when he heard some termites talking to one another, saying that have nearly gnaw their way through the wooden rafter of the roof. Melampus asked the guard to be move him to another cell, which the guard did. At that point, the roof collapsed, and would have killed Melampus, had not being gifted with foresight and the ability to understand the language of any animal.

Now would you believe in such tale about Melampus to be true? Or would you dismiss it as a myth or fable?

If so, then why should any non-Muslim believe in and accept Muhammad's version about the Solomon and the ants (Qur'an 27)?

That's the different between science and faith, paarsurrey.

 

[SkepticX]

Thank you. Science like religion though has followers, that is, the greater mass of mankind who believe in the relevant theories or dogmas as appropriate, but do not fully understand it.

I agree in that what's referred to as scientism is a description of a real thing--a real mindset that some actually operate under. But the idea that people have faith in science in the same way they have faith in religion is plainly nonsense, and insulting to both science and religion. It's trying to discredit science by making it to seem as flawed as religion based upon a pedantic sense of them that ignores what both are really about. Religion isn't flawed because it's not about facts and evidence and rigor (it's really about community, but that's another matter), and science is antithetical to believing anything that nature doesn't force us to believe after a very long, hard, drawn out fight. So trying to equate them like this seems pointless, problematic, and kind of bizarre really, and it does a disservice to both.

 

[idav]

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

I don't know, if you have some gripe about what a PHD says hopefully its well founded. I think the faith part your talking about in science comes from the sheer complexity that a layman can't quite grasp it fully. Your not describing faith though, your describing ignorance. I would still be ignorant if I'm just taking someones word for it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I agree in that what's referred to as scientism is a description of a real thing--a real mindset that some actually operate under. But the idea that people have faith in science in the same way they have faith in religion is plainly nonsense, and insulting to both science and religion. It's trying to discredit science by making it to seem as flawed as religion based upon a pedantic sense of them that ignores what both are really about. Religion isn't flawed because it's not about facts and evidence and rigor (it's really about community, but that's another matter), and science is antithetical to believing anything that nature doesn't force us to believe after a very long, hard, drawn out fight. So trying to equate them like this seems pointless, problematic, and kind of bizarre really, and it does a disservice to both.

I'm not saying that faith is the same as belief....I just made the observation that that there are many people who believe in scientific theories, flawed or not flawed, but don't have a clue...as there are also who believe in religious dogma, flawed or not flawed, but don't have a clue. Noting this is not an attempt to discredit science, nor is it an attempt to discredit religion. Religion practiced properly is a good thing. as is science practiced properly...but it is the human institutions built around both that are subject to corruption...politics, greed, power plays, vanity. Now I am not suggesting that religion and science are on the same playing field...they are not...one is meant to deal with the physical reality and the other the spiritual...but what is common to both are people...and they are the same people...flawed and corruptible.....the principles underlying science and religion however are sound..

 

[idav]

So how does that work with the social sciences...say psychology?

You take the data from live populations and try not to simulate the ramifications of crime, disease and death in a laboratory.