the science of faith.

[Reverend Richard]

My first impression was that this is an oxymoron.

But I think it is possible to distinguish between "faith", and "blind faith".

 

[waitasec]

My first impression was that this is an oxymoron.

But I think it is possible to distinguish between "faith", and "blind faith".

sure "blind" is the distinguisher

i have faith/hope in my ability to see a car coming when looking both ways to cross the street.

blind faith would have one just walk without looking

 

[Storm]

because all evidence to date states there is no god.

Really? Kindly present scientific evidence against a God - EVIDENCE, not speculative interpretation.

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

Prime example of interpretation.

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

And another.

 

[1137]

Really? Kindly present scientific evidence against a God - EVIDENCE, not speculative interpretation.

I have a question, Storm. Do you count reason, such as logical inference, as evidence? It's not scientific obviously, but anyone who claims we have actual physical evidence directly opposed to God is lying.

 

[Storm]

I have a question, Storm. Do you count reason, such as logical inference, as evidence? It's not scientific obviously, but anyone who claims we have actual physical evidence directly opposed to God is lying.

Well, it depends on who I'm talking to. So long as they're consistent, I don't care one way or the other.

However, if YOUR reasoning, inference, and interpretations are evidence, so are mine. If mine don't count, neither does yours.

Either way you go, both sides are equal. Either there's nothing either way, or an abundance for both.

 

[1137]

Well, it depends on who I'm talking to. So long as they're consistent, I don't care one way or the other.

However, if YOUR reasoning, inference, and interpretations are evidence, so are mine. If mine don't count, neither does yours.

Either way you go, both sides are equal. Either there's nothing either way, or an abundance for both.

That's a good point. However, if one's reasoning is based on scientific fact and evidence and the other's relies on things that are not true, it is no longer equal. It's definitely not black and white.

 

[Storm]

That's a good point. However, if one's reasoning is based on scientific fact and evidence and the other's relies on things that are not true, it is no longer equal. It's definitely not black and white.

True, but neither of those can be generalized for either camp.

Which is why debate is fun!

 

[Copernicus]

I think gseeker is right to point out that most of our beliefs are based on faith, although we can quibble all day long on how to define "faith". The reality is that we trust certain sources of information, and scientists have come to be taken as reliable sources of information by most people when talking about most things. I make an exception for politically controversial scientific opinions such as evolution or climatology, but most people believe scientists who make politically non-controversial claims. Scientists, for a great many people, are considered the "high priests" of our modern era, so traditional religionists quite often like to endorse their doctrines by relating scriptural references to what they perceive as modern scientific claims--quantum theory or the expansion of the universe. Scientists who endorse religious beliefs are particularly prized, because their status as scientists can be seen to "rub off" onto their philosophical and religious claims, even though they don't actually do any science to support those claims. (Let's hear it for those Einstein references to God. )

To say that there is no scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of God is no stronger a claim than to say that there is no scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus. Both beings have powers that let them know whether you have been good or bad, so be good for goodness' sake! While it is not necessary to mount an evidential argument against the existence of Santa Claus, most of us can do a pretty good job of that, but the kinds of arguments we would use are precisely the kinds of arguments we would use for rejecting belief in God.

 

[Rocky S]

because all evidence to date states there is no god.

 

[Storm]

To say that there is no scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of God is no stronger a claim than to say that there is no scientific evidence to prove the non-existence of Santa Claus. Both beings have powers that let them know whether you have been good or bad, so be good for goodness' sake! While it is not necessary to mount an evidential argument against the existence of Santa Claus, most of us can do a pretty good job of that, but the kinds of arguments we would use are precisely the kinds of arguments we would use for rejecting belief in God.

Oh, honey! Tell me you didn't really go there... it's SO far beneath you!

Santa Claus and God are not equivalent. Santa is a fat, magical human who lives at the North Pole. We can go to the North Pole and prove he's not there.

God is not so easily found. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist, only that they shouldn't be conflated.

 

[Copernicus]

Oh, honey! Tell me you didn't really go there... it's SO far beneath you!

But I did go there, and it isn't at all beneath me or you to compare the credibility of Christmas and holy spirits. I stand by my point--the arguments against the existence of Santa Claus are precisely the same type of arguments that an atheist would mount against the existence of God.

Santa Claus and God are not equivalent. Santa is a fat, magical human who lives at the North Pole. We can go to the North Pole and prove he's not there.

Well, now, let's be fair. We don't all have the same definition of Santa Claus. Should you bother to visit the North Pole (and I advise you to take swim suit on some summer days), you will not find Santa Claus. Why? Because of what you just said--he's a MAGICAL being. I don't think of him as human, although I admit to some resemblances. God shaped us in Santa's image, you know. Anyway, Santa is fully capable of rendering himself invisible and undetectable, just as God is. So merely going there and not finding him doesn't mean that he isn't there. It could just mean that his magic works.

And you can see that I am supporting maintenance of a belief in Santa that is the SAME type of argument to support maintenance of belief in God. The argument is incredibly flimsy, but not to people who have formed a prejudgment that Santa really exists and want to maintain that belief.

God is not so easily found. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but that doesn't mean that the latter doesn't exist, only that they shouldn't be conflated.

I believe that you are wrong about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. When a belief causes you to expect certain things, and your expectations turn out to be false, that tends to be seen as evidence that the belief is false. Scientists use this kind of reasoning all the time to prefer one possible explanation of a phenomenon over another.

 

[Storm]

But I did go there, and it isn't at all beneath me or you to compare the credibility of Christmas and holy spirits.

Well, I may be wrong about it being beneath YOU, but I'll thank you not to include me.

Well, now, let's be fair. We don't all have the same definition of Santa Claus. Should you bother to visit the North Pole (and I advise you to take swim suit on some summer days), you will not find Santa Claus. Why? Because of what you just said--he's a MAGICAL being. I don't think of him as human, although I admit to some resemblances. God shaped us in Santa's image, you know. Anyway, Santa is fully capable of rendering himself invisible and undetectable, just as God is. So merely going there and not finding him doesn't mean that he isn't there. It could just mean that his magic works.

Let's be fair indeed. There is no such diversity in the Santa story. The diversity in God-concepts is genuine, not evasive.

And you can see that I am supporting maintenance of a belief in Santa that is the SAME type of argument to support maintenance of belief in God. The argument is incredibly flimsy, but not to people who have formed a prejudgment that Santa really exists and want to maintain that belief.

But it's not the same. There's a world of difference between legitimate differences in understanding, and changing the story to play defense.

I believe that you are wrong about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

So the Higgs Boson didn't exist until a week ago?

When a belief causes you to expect certain things, and your expectations turn out to be false, that tends to be seen as evidence that the belief is false. Scientists use this kind of reasoning all the time to prefer one possible explanation of a phenomenon over another.

Falsity is evidence of absence. Falsity is also evidenced. Santa is a falsehood. God is unverified. BIG difference.

 

[mycorrhiza]

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.

And that's why all serious scientific works are peer-reviewed. Even if the single scientist is dishonest, his/her dishonesty will be revealed. We can, most of the time, trust the mainstream scientific views. There's a difference between trust and faith. I could talk to a scientist and he/she could show me the evidence, but I can't talk to a priest and ask to see the evidence for God.

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.

Science has no dogma, science doesn't deal with the supernatural, science doesn't promote believing in things that could never be proven and it doesn't deal with the afterlife. In what way is science a religion?

 

[gseeker]

But I did go there, and it isn't at all beneath me or you to compare the credibility of Christmas and holy spirits. I stand by my point--the arguments against the existence of Santa Claus are precisely the same type of arguments that an atheist would mount against the existence of God.

Well, now, let's be fair. We don't all have the same definition of Santa Claus. Should you bother to visit the North Pole (and I advise you to take swim suit on some summer days), you will not find Santa Claus. Why? Because of what you just said--he's a MAGICAL being. I don't think of him as human, although I admit to some resemblances. God shaped us in Santa's image, you know. Anyway, Santa is fully capable of rendering himself invisible and undetectable, just as God is. So merely going there and not finding him doesn't mean that he isn't there. It could just mean that his magic works.

And you can see that I am supporting maintenance of a belief in Santa that is the SAME type of argument to support maintenance of belief in God. The argument is incredibly flimsy, but not to people who have formed a prejudgment that Santa really exists and want to maintain that belief.

I believe that you are wrong about the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence. When a belief causes you to expect certain things, and your expectations turn out to be false, that tends to be seen as evidence that the belief is false. Scientists use this kind of reasoning all the time to prefer one possible explanation of a phenomenon over another.

Actually I can prove that God exists as at least a Creator and I can use the evidence of existence to prove it, the complexity of life and the laws of science and the perfection of existence are my proof. You can't have science without God. But I'm not going to try and prove that God exists because as I've said before, fact and fiction are simply realized through the interpretation of available evidence but not defined by evidence itself. I can tell you to poor out a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle on the table over and over again until all the pieces land in just the right way to create a perfect picture but we both know that isn't going to happen. Existence is billions of times more complex than that but yet people who don't beloved in God think that it just simply happens completely ignoring the laws of science, the perfect balance of ecology, and every perfect function in life. Simply saying that science just happened requires way more faith than belief that a Creator made it happen.

 

[gseeker]

Trust is faith when trust in things you haven't seen or experienced.scientific claims have been accepted , refuted, and disproved many times, studies that were accepted as fact and ended up in text books but were found to have hidden agendas and political motivations propaganda if you will, placed under the name of science.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Actually I can prove that God exists as at least a Creator and I can use the evidence of existence to prove it, the complexity of life and the laws of science and the perfection of existence are my proof. You can't have science without God. But I'm not going to try and prove that God exists because as I've said before, fact and fiction are simply realized through the interpretation of available evidence but not defined by evidence itself. I can tell you to poor out a 5000 piece jigsaw puzzle on the table over and over again until all the pieces land in just the right way to create a perfect picture but we both know that isn't going to happen. Existence is billions of times more complex than that but yet people who don't beloved in God think that it just simply happens completely ignoring the laws of science, the perfect balance of ecology, and every perfect function in life. Simply saying that science just happened requires way more faith than belief that a Creator made it happen.

You are assuming that your world view is correct, and then you're drawing the conclusions from that. Evolution, for example, is not like throwing a jigsaw puzzle on the table and every piece lands in the right place. Evolution has no goal, so thus it doesn't matter how the jigsaw pieces are combined. The odds for this exact version of all animals is low, but it was just one out of billions of possibilities, and as there was no goal, it doesn't matter what the probability of this exact version occuring is.

The complexity of life and the Universe doesn't prove God, they only prove that life and the Universe is complex.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Trust is faith when trust in things you haven't seen or experienced.scientific claims have been accepted , refuted, and disproved many times, studies that were accepted as fact and ended up in text books but were found to have hidden agendas and political motivations propaganda if you will, placed under the name of science.

When it comes to science, I can just look up the evidence, but religion doesn't work that way.

When scientific claims are disproven, they stop being used. Scientists haven't always been right, but in science, being proved wrong is making progress. Just because some fraudulent examples have ended up in text books in earlier history doesn't mean that all or even a significant portion of modern science is fraudulent. The internet and peer review has really helped science move forward.

 

[gseeker]

Wait so you believe that evolution is not a law and doesn't have to work through nature constraints? You believe it in evolution but you don't believe and laws govern its actions?

 

[Storm]

Wait so you believe that evolution is not a law and doesn't have to work through nature constraints? You believe it in evolution but you don't believe and laws govern its actions?

Huh??

 

[mycorrhiza]

Wait so you believe that evolution is not a law and doesn't have to work through nature constraints? You believe it in evolution but you don't believe and laws govern its actions?

When did I say that?

Evolution requires many "laws", such as heredity of genes. It doesn't have a goal, but that doesn't mean that it lacks set mechanics.