the science of faith.

[gseeker]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith? Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith. You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith. You simply beloved what other people have told you. Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study, so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

 

[1137]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith? Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith. You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith. You simply beloved what other people have told you. Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study, so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

No, we do not fideisticly believe in atoms, evolution, etc. These things are supported by evidence. God, also can be supported by evidence, but one can also obviously believe in certain ideas of God blindly, against reason and evidence. In a way I accept the mentioned on faith. I have never, personally observed an atom though a high powered microscope or anything. But many have, and have shown that they objectively and factually exist, so I accept that they do. Nobody has ever observed God, but certain things may hint at one's existence. So, there is a difference between believing atoms exists because we are told than believing God exists because we are told.

 

[outhouse]

so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

because all evidence to date states there is no god.


there is a track record through history of man creating deities, and the mythology that surrounds these beliefs.



of one looks at the evolution of the abrahamic deity, one witnesses a clear picture of mythology and evolution of human need's, want's and desires, all reflected into a legend molded around ancient cultures





as a matter of fact, what has been in the past, attributed to god, is now being pushed further back into the gap's of our knowledge, and these gap's have decreased dramatically in the last 200 years.

 

[gseeker]

No, we do not fideisticly believe in atoms, evolution, etc. These things are supported by evidence. God, also can be supported by evidence, but one can also obviously believe in certain ideas of God blindly, against reason and evidence. In a way I accept the mentioned on faith. I have never, personally observed an atom though a high powered microscope or anything. But many have, and have shown that they objectively and factually exist, so I accept that they do. Nobody has ever observed God, but certain things may hint at one's existence. So, there is a difference between believing atoms exists because we are told than believing God exists because we are told.

So wait, you do not see personally what science says exists but you believe it because multiple people say it exists? Wow, you have more faith in man kind than I've ever been able to develop. Id rather use what I can see and experience such as the beauty of a sunset, the intricately refined birds feather, or my course of study, the complex combination of elements in the creation of colorful micro crystalline structures creating minerals with multiple properties. U see that myself with no faith or trust in man and I see the face of God.

 

[1137]

So wait, you do not see personally what science says exists but you believe it because multiple people say it exists? Wow, you have more faith in man kind than I've ever been able to develop. Id rather use what I can see and experience such as the beauty of a sunset, the intricately refined birds feather, or my course of study, the complex combination of elements in the creation of colorful micro crystalline structures creating minerals with multiple properties. U see that myself with no faith or trust in man and I see the face of God.

That is a straw man of what I said. We know that it is factually true that atoms exist. They have been recorded, observerd, studied, etc. I do not need to to personally go into space to realize the earth isn't flat. However, nobody has ever observed God, tested it, interacted with it, recorded it, etc. The faith in God can only be supported by logical inference because no evidence directly shows one exists. And the only place God has to come in is the creation of the universe.

 

[outhouse]

So wait, you do not see personally what science says exists but you believe it because multiple people say it exists?

the problem with theism that turns many people away, is the refusal of knowledge and education.

your turning away common kowledge in favor of a percieved personal fantasy ???

 

[gseeker]

because all evidence to date states there is no god.


there is a track record through history of man creating deities, and the mythology that surrounds these beliefs.



of one looks at the evolution of the abrahamic deity, one witnesses a clear picture of mythology and evolution of human need's, want's and desires, all reflected into a legend molded around ancient cultures





there is no evidence for god and there never will be, as a matter of fact, what has been in the past, attributed to god, is now being pushed further back into the gap's of our knowledge, and these gap's have decreased dramatically in the last 200 years.

There is evidence for God the only difference is how you interperate the information available to you. That is why some scientists believe in God and others don't. You have two different groups who work in the same field and have the same information but come to two different conclusions.
valible. That is why you have some scientists who believe in God and others who don't. They might work in the same field and have the same information but reach two different conclusions.Either way in that instance you have faith that there is no God or faith that there is a God, it requires belief no matter what.

 

[Copernicus]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith? Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith. You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith. You simply beloved what other people have told you. Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study, so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

You are right that most of our beliefs are based in faith or trust in some source of information. But why isn't this an argument for having faith in the existence of Santa Claus?

My faith that things will fall down and the theory of gravity may be misplaced, but it is grounded in repeatable experience. I have not personally done the scientific experiments or worked out the math to prove that my computer works, but I have repeatable experience to strengthen that faith.

What strengthens faith in the existence of God? Most people go through an extended period of childhood indoctrination. They go to church, mosque, or temple regularly. They pray and perform acts of devotion. They urge each other to maintain their faith. We do none of those kinds of activities to strengthen our faith in gravity or computers. We don't need to, because we can easily verify gravity and computers. God is an undetectable supernatural superbeing who allegedly created our vast universe and is interested in every aspect of human life and intervenes in human affairs. So why don't I have faith in God? I simply don't have the stamina or desire to suppress all my doubts in such a being. I don't need to work that hard to believe in gravity or computers.

 

[waitasec]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith? Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith. You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith. You simply beloved what other people have told you. Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study, so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

because there are so many different faiths...

it's not that i don't believe in the possibility, it's just that i don't take claims about something that isn't verifiable seriously...

 

[gseeker]

the problem with theism that turns many people away, is the refusal of knowledge and education.

your turning away common kowledge in favor of a percieved personal fantasy ???

I have an I.q. of 144, I am not denying scientific evidence just arguing that your conclusions are based upon your interpretation of the evidence available and your own desire to live your own life with minimum interference or your desire to believe that there is more to life then just birth, life, and death. How you interpret the information availabile can be placed with selfish motivation. I am a Christian but I have a major issue with the church because I can see and study the evidence, scientific fact, yet come to a Bette understanding of God without listening to the same rehashed doctrine that spews from so called pastor's lips. I can base my beloved in God because of the perfection of science and the laws of the universe. Simply saying that something is just because it is completely ignores the law of cause and effect. The cause being God and the effect being the perfect cohesion of life and science.

 

[gseeker]

because there are so many different faiths...

it's not that i don't believe in the possibility, it's just that i don't take claims about something that isn't verifiable seriously...

There will always be information in life that you can't confirm yet to go through life you will accept it on faith based upon the hearsay of man. Im referring to both God and science. Again what it boils down to is evidence, interpretation, need, and motivation, and what that ultimately boils down to is faith.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith? Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith. You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith. You simply beloved what other people have told you. Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study, so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

There's a huge difference between accepting scientific evidence even though you personally haven't observed it and accepting something for which there is absolutely no evidence. Accepting the existence of unicorns is not the same thing as accepting that the Earth moves around the Sun.

 

[weirdfish0]

the problem with theism that turns many people away, is the refusal of knowledge and education.

your turning away common kowledge in favor of a percieved personal fantasy ???

OH COME ON, it's not true, don't generalize. There are many catholic priests who are also physycians and cosmologists. Check out Pierre Teilhard de Chardin or Michal Heller. What is more, a catechist told me about them.

 

[Iti oj]

I've seen enough and know enough about the rigorous critera to trust scidnce. Plus when pushed for evidence scientists provide and theist do not

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Many people say that they can't believe in a God based on faith alone but yet isn't 90% of life just accepted by faith?

Um... No?

Atoms, protons, neutrons, the operation of the human body, evolution, molecular and medical studies, you believe it on on faith.

No, we don't. We accept their existence because we can observe them and the effect they have in the real world, and because all of the evidence leads to the conclusion that they exist. If none of the research or evidence existed, nobody would believe in any of those things - therefore it cannot possibly be said to be believed "on faith".

You might see something operate or function in a way or see the end results of material interaction but it is accepted on faith.

How can you accept something on faith if you've directly observed it?

You simply beloved what other people have told you. Even studies and news media you believe on faith alone unless you witness the event or you were part of the study, so why is it so hard to believe in God based upon faith?

This analogy makes no sense. You make it sound as if everything any source says is immediately believed by anybody without any reason whatsoever. People are more discerning about their sources of information than that. If some kid came up to me in the street and said "did you hear the Russians bombed Cornwall?", I probably wouldn't believe him. But, on the other hand, if I then went home and saw the exact same story on the news I would most likely believe it. This is because televised news (or most news programs that I watch, at least) are reasonably reliable and have proven themselves a good source of facts. If there existed a news programme which was known to report things that we not true, we wouldn't value it's claims as highly or be as willing to take it's claims at face value.

In other words, when we are given information it is never simply accepted at face value - we always (even if it is subconsciously) assess the information and the informant to come to a conclusion as to whether we think the information they are presenting is true and accurate. This does not mean taking something on "faith".

 

[waitasec]

There will always be information in life that you can't confirm yet to go through life you will accept it on faith based upon the hearsay of man. Im referring to both God and science. Again what it boils down to is evidence, interpretation, need, and motivation, and what that ultimately boils down to is faith.

like what?

 

[gseeker]

Let me make this as simple as possible for you people. Have you yourself seen or experienced everything you believe in or do you just accept that somewhere some time and in some way some one has seen it or studied it? That is called faith, you believe in something you haven't seen or experienced yourself. Often times its something you can't observe or study due to lack of equipment, opportunity or education. If you read two conflicting studies, which do you believe in? There are plenty of conflicting scientific studies. You also have to understand that a person has a selfish motivation to prove their own theories so knowing that you must put faith and just trust that the study hasn't been made in a fraudulent way or written up in a slanted way to prove their point. If you think a scientists is going to be anymore honest or trust worthy than the next man then you are lying to yourself. Face it, you believe most of what you believe on faith because you haven't seen it and in a lot of cases can't see the evidence with your own eyes again due to education, time constraints, and lack of proper equipment. You believe in the religion of science because you believe by faith.

 

[waitasec]

Let me make this as simple as possible for you people. Have you yourself seen or experienced everything you believe in or do you just accept that somewhere some time and in some way some one has seen it or studied it? That is called faith, you believe in something you haven't seen or experienced yourself. Often times its something you can't observe or study due to lack of equipment, opportunity or education. If you read two conflicting studies, which do you believe in? There are plenty of conflicting scientific studies. You also have to understand that a person has a selfish motivation to prove their own theories so knowing that you must put faith and just trust that the study hasn't been made in a fraudulent way or written up in a slanted way to prove their point. If you think a scientists is going to be anymore honest or trust worthy than the next man then you are lying to yourself. Face it, you believe most of what you believe on faith because you haven't seen it and in a lot of cases can't see the evidence with your own eyes again due to education, time constraints, and lack of proper equipment. You believe in the religion of science because you believe by faith.

i believe in what i see, so you are going to have to really spell this out for me.
to make myself even more clear, if there are 2 conflicting studies i won't believe either one until the criteria i set up for myself has been satisfied for me to believe it...objective empirical evidence.

so please give me a real world example if you can...



walking across the street without looking; i wouldn't recommend it, why would you?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let me make this as simple as possible for you people. Have you yourself seen or experienced everything you believe in or do you just accept that somewhere some time and in some way some one has seen it or studied it? That is called faith, you believe in something you haven't seen or experienced yourself.

No, it's not. Faith is when you believe something despite having no concrete, factual or reliable basis to do so - or in spite of evidence to the contrary. Believing something without having personally experienced it describes a vast spectrum of possible things, but what we believe and what we do not believe cannot be so clean cut. No two claims are equal, and no claim can escape some kind of rational evaluation on some level.

For example, if my neighbour told me "I have a dog called Rover", I would most likely believe them even if I had never seen their dog or known it's name was Rover. Is this because I take their word "on faith"? No. It's because I know dogs exist and know that they are fairly common as pets and that Rover is a common name for a dog. I also know that my neighbour has very little reason to lie to me, especially about owning a dog - which is a claim that is entirely unextraordinary.

On the other hand, if my neighbour told me "I have a pet dragon", I would most likely not believe them. We assess every claim that is made to us on an individual basis, so to say "any claim that you believe without having personally experienced it is based on faith" is asinine, as it fails to take account of how and why we still accept some claims and reject others.

Often times its something you can't observe or study due to lack of equipment, opportunity or education. If you read two conflicting studies, which do you believe in?

Whichever one you find the most compelling. What does that have to do with faith? You're still basing your decision on logic and the individual cases and evidence presented.

There are plenty of conflicting scientific studies. You also have to understand that a person has a selfish motivation to prove their own theories so knowing that you must put faith and just trust that the study hasn't been made in a fraudulent way or written up in a slanted way to prove their point.

Which is exactly what we do. You've just provided another example of my above point about how we assess the truth value of a claim by many criteria, and that it therefore cannot be said to be based "on faith" whether or not we accept or deny a claim at face value.

If you think a scientists is going to be anymore honest or trust worthy than the next man then you are lying to yourself.

But science is based on facts and demonstration. If a scientist is lying, it's extremely easy to work it out, and a scientist who lies or shows signs of bias is quickly shunned by the scientific community at large.

Face it, you believe most of what you believe on faith because you haven't seen it and in a lot of cases can't see the evidence with your own eyes again due to education, time constraints, and lack of proper equipment. You believe in the religion of science because you believe by faith.

I don't think you understand what either faith or science are.

 

[fantome profane]

It is certainly true that we do take certain ideas on "faith". Very few of us have access to a particle accelerator. We do have to trust the information that comes from those few who do. The question then becomes is it reasonable to believe this information?

In this case we have consistent information comming from a wide variety of different experts. These are experts from all nationalities, ethnicities, religious and cultural backgrounds. These are scientists and technicians who have achieved a great deal of expertise in this area. I suggest it is reasonable to trust the information comming from these sources.

But just because I place a certain amount of trust in particle physics does not mean that I must have blind faith in any concept that comes along.

There is no equivalent of a particle accelerator for "God". The is no consistent information available to us on this subject. And I maintain there are no real experts on the existence or nature of "God". If I were to claim that "God" is a green monkey who enjoys eating purple bananas my claim would be just as valid as any theological claim.

If you have a case to make for "God" then make it. But don't tell us we must have faith is "God" just because we place a certain amount of trust in people who are experts in scientific fields.