the science of faith.

[Sir Doom]

Of course, however satins that you can't just believe what you are told of science and existence because scientists might be lying has credibility for several reasons,

No it doesn't have credibility.

1. History has proven that mankind is fallible regardless of how intelligent said person might be

Fallibility and lying are not the same. Fallibility falls under the context of, "I don't care if there are atoms or not." If a scientist gets on TV tomorrow and says, "Hey folks, sorry to screw things all up, but we've discovered atoms are not really real in reality. Here's what we found..." Then I'll go, "Daaaaaayum." And then get on the internet and make fun of them. On my unchanged desk.

2. To expect that you have all the information needed to draw a conclusion is false since new things are discovered daily, you can only draw a conclusion based upon evidence available which isn't always all the evidence you need to draw a truly educated conclusion

Who ever said I had all the evidence? I don't care about ALL the evidence. I don't need ALL the evidence to believe something. The fact is I ONLY believe it because of evidence. I didn't make up atoms and then figure out how they exist. Someone just told me they did and it made sense so I believed it. If someone shows me new evidence that throws out atoms, then I'll say, "Huh, imagine that." And then I'll go on the internet and make fun of people who still believe in atoms. On my unchanged desk.

3. Scientists are human and therefore are likely to have selfish motivations, hence what conclusions they come to are questionable

I'm well aware of the selfish nature of human beings. I've talked at great length about it in many threads. Scientists found atoms. This maybe a selfish find for them, but it does nothing to harm me in the least. I have no other theory to replace atoms with. So it stands. Selfish or not. I don't care what they gain from this theory. It isn't coming from me whatever it is.

4. Scientists have been caught in lies before though often by the time they are found out their studies have been in text books for twenty or more years leading many to accept lies as fact.

Okay. Catch them in the lie about atoms and you've got a scientist that IS lying as opposed to a scientist that MIGHT be lying. All you have to do is explain everything that atoms explain without atoms. Then I'll make fun of them on the internet for you. On my unchanged desk.

 

[gseeker]

No it doesn't have credibility.



Fallibility and lying are not the same. Fallibility falls under the context of, "I don't care if there are atoms or not." If a scientist gets on TV tomorrow and says, "Hey folks, sorry to screw things all up, but we've discovered atoms are not really real in reality. Here's what we found..." Then I'll go, "Daaaaaayum." And then get on the internet and make fun of them. On my unchanged desk.



Who ever said I had all the evidence? I don't care about ALL the evidence. I don't need ALL the evidence to believe something. The fact is I ONLY believe it because of evidence. I didn't make up atoms and then figure out how they exist. Someone just told me they did and it made sense so I believed it. If someone shows me new evidence that throws out atoms, then I'll say, "Huh, imagine that." And then I'll go on the internet and make fun of people who still believe in atoms. On my unchanged desk.



I'm well aware of the selfish nature of human beings. I've talked at great length about it in many threads. Scientists found atoms. This maybe a selfish find for them, but it does nothing to harm me in the least. I have no other theory to replace atoms with. So it stands. Selfish or not. I don't care what they gain from this theory. It isn't coming from me whatever it is.



Okay. Catch them in the lie about atoms and you've got a scientist that IS lying as opposed to a scientist that MIGHT be lying. All you have to do is explain everything that atoms explain without atoms. Then I'll make fun of them on the internet for you. On my
unchanged desk.

Lmao, hey I never said it was an important argument because you are correct, ultimately it doesn't matter, nothing changes because of your belief or disbelief. That was just a facet of the original argument though that belief in what you are told scientificlly requires faith though again by your belief its not faith because religious faith is the things not seen but the things hoped for where as science just trust to explain how things function and have nothing to do with hope. So where does that leave us? Is it harder to believe in God because of the fear that what you hope for will in the end not pay off?

 

[Sir Doom]

Lmao, hey I never said it was an important argument because you are correct, ultimately it doesn't matter, nothing changes because of your belief or disbelief. That was just a facet of the original argument though that belief in what you are told scientificlly requires faith though again by your belief its not faith because religious faith is the things not seen but the things hoped for where as science just trust to explain how things function and have nothing to do with hope. So where does that leave us? Is it harder to believe in God because of the fear that what you hope for will in the end not pay off?

I don't find either one to be harder than the other. I've figured out they aren't mutually exclusive, so why leave anything out? Science isn't hard to believe because its everywhere and easy to find. Faith isn't hard to have because its what I want. I love them both. That's why I'm here

 

[gseeker]

Ah, but then comes the question of specific faith, what God do you believe is the correct and only God? And what is the proper way to seek that God, what does that God stand for once you get past the gibberish that man tells you about said God? Those questions are much harder to answer in my experience.

 

[gseeker]

You must agree though, belief in specific science unobserved personally and faith in an unobserved God is very similar yet people have no problem accepting unseen science but refuse to believe in an unseen God. Both people have experienced in general and both are recorded in text but belief in science comes so much easier for most people, even myself.but then again of course it would since I'm having a crisis of faith.

 

[mycorrhiza]

As I've said though, there is scientific evidence of God, the very essence of science and the laws of nature, the very fact it exists is evidence of an intelligent Creator. The only difference is our interpretation of the evidence available. I see a very well thought out creation with laws that govern and checks and balances, that is evidence of God, for others its evidence of the big bang and evolution, both are theories but in my opinion mine makes more sense to me due to the orderly way of existence.

It cannot be tested, so therefore it isn't scientific. If the orderly Universe is evidence of God, then it is also evidence of magic rabbits or that the reality is a computer simulation. If you want to, you can claim that God created the Universe, but there is no actual scientific evidence for it.

The difference is that one is a scientific theory and one is a theory in the common, non-scientific, usage of the word.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You must agree though, belief in specific science unobserved personally and faith in an unobserved God is very similar yet people have no problem accepting unseen science but refuse to believe in an unseen God. Both people have experienced in general and both are recorded in text but belief in science comes so much easier for most people, even myself.but then again of course it would since I'm having a crisis of faith.

If I wanted to, I could go look at the evidence for the scientific theories, but I cannot look at God. If I had questions about the validity of evolution, for example, I could look at the fossil records and the genetic evidence through the different genome projects. I could even get plants myself and allow them to hybridize, showing further evidence. However, I cannot go and look at God or the evidence for Him. God has never been scientifically tested, because it is not possible to do so.

Belief in science and belief in God are very different from eachother, but they're not clashing unless you have specific features of God that have already been disproven (such as the Biblical creation story). If you believe God created the Universe, then fine, that doesn't clash with any scientific theories.

I could give you a personal example of this. I believe in a cyclic Universe, because it makes sense to me, and as long as it isn't disproven I will continue to believe in it. If, however, there was enough evidence that the Universe was linear, I would abandon my belief. The belief in a cyclic Universe here is similar to the belief in God, because neither is proven by science. Atoms, evolution and the earth spinning around the sun however, are backed up by clear scientific evidence, so these are not similar to God or a cyclic Universe.

If you're having a crisis of faith, then just look for what you believe is true. Trying to force oneself to keep beliefs seldom leads to good.

 

[Storm]

It's not about what motivates beliefs.

No it isn't, it's about honest argument. Santa is a simple and easily debunked story, and God is not.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You must agree though, belief in specific science unobserved personally and faith in an unobserved God is very similar yet people have no problem accepting unseen science but refuse to believe in an unseen God.

They're not the same at all. The claims are entirely different. Science is a practical understanding of the natural world, whereas God is a supernatural, all-powerful agency. The burder of proof for the former is significantly smaller than the burden of proof for the latter.

 

[waitasec]

No it isn't, it's about honest argument. Santa is a simple and easily debunked story, and God is not.

and neither is the flying tea pot.

 

[Storm]

and neither is the flying tea pot.

No, which is why it's an effective parry against proselytization. It's still not equivalent, though as tea pots are man made and therefore subject to a great deal more logical inference.

 

[waitasec]

No, which is why it's an effective parry against proselytization. It's still not equivalent, though as tea pots are man made and therefore subject to a great deal more logical inference.

the argument of god being a man made idea can still be made...
lets not forget, mankind is full of crazy ideas...some stick, some don't. some ideas need disclaimers upon disclaimers, sort of like using spit to hold things together, but only for a little bit...until time passes and knowledge is gained...will any idea actually prove itself to be either true or not.

 

[Copernicus]

No it isn't, it's about honest argument. Santa is a simple and easily debunked story, and God is not.

First of all, I think that both of us can argue honestly and disagree with each other. So it is not about "honest argument". It is about different perspectives. Secondly, I agree that Santa is a simple, easily debunked story and God is not. However, we probably disagree on the reasons for why that is. I gave mine in the last post. It is because people are not motivated to defend Santa, but they are motivated to defend belief in God.

One can mount a very obtuse-sounding argument to defend Santa that will use the same kinds of arguments that are used to defend God in more serious arguments. I gave you a good idea of how that works. The minute you claim that Santa is a magical being, that opens the door to all kinds of explanations for why you cannot prove non-existence by simply going to the North Pole and discovering that he is not there. It is equivalent to an atheist saying that God does not exist because we find no evidence of his existence. Few people of faith find that a convincing argument, because, of course, God has even greater magical power than the mythical Santa.

 

[Sir Doom]

Ah, but then comes the question of specific faith, what God do you believe is the correct and only God?

I don't think any of them are the correct and only god. I'd have to meet more than one at a time and see how they reacted to each other. Until that happens, they are all equally 'godish' so far.

And what is the proper way to seek that God,

I don't know if there is a proper way, but my way is to discuss and debate it with my fellow humans. They seem to be the only ones interested in talking about it.

what does that God stand for once you get past the gibberish that man tells you about said God?

I never assume that people are talking gibberish about god. They are saying what they believe and I can agree or disagree. Until god actually shows up, then everything people say is equally valid on the subject until measured by my equally valid brain. I accept it or reject it based on my own personal preference. Just like everyone else.

Those questions are much harder to answer in my experience.

You should try harder to answer them, then. All of these questions are opinionated matters. Just form an opinion, express it honestly. Listen to the opinions of others (also HONESTLY) and then decide based on as much information as you have. Then do it all over again.

You must agree though, belief in specific science unobserved personally and faith in an unobserved God is very similar yet people have no problem accepting unseen science but refuse to believe in an unseen God.

They aren't similar. I explained why they weren't already. Science is not wishful thinking supported by evidence. It's just evidence. We observe phenomenon, question the phenomenon, and then try to answer the question. No one observes god and then questions it. They just assume its there. Completely different mode of thinking. Neither is wrong. But they aren't similar.

Both people have experienced in general and both are recorded in text but belief in science comes so much easier for most people, even myself.but then again of course it would since I'm having a crisis of faith.

Experiencing god never really happens. God is not an observed phenomenon to be questioned and tested. God is the hypothesis. You observe some great event in your life and you assume god must have been involved. You do not question this, you do not test this. You just believe it because its what you want to believe.

Lets look at it in context of the Higgs Boson since that's popular lately. Higgs did not cook up this idea because he likes the idea of miniature particles that give mass to things (he might, but that's not why he came up with it). He observed a phenomenon (things have mass) and attempted to explain it with the Boson. He told other scientists about it and they called him a nut. So, he showed them with math how it has to be there. Once he did that everyone else said, "Hey, you may be on to something there. based on your math if we build this machine we can test your math with real particles! Lets do it." So they built the machine and tested the math. Lo and behold the math bore out to be correct. Success!

Now, what would have happened if the Boson did not show up? They all would have looked at Higgs and said, "See? You're nuts." and he would have said, "Yep. I screwed up somewhere. Back to the drawing board." Because the idea is not to prove the Higgs Boson exists. It's to explain mass. They would have all continued to try and explain mass.

I'm obviously over-simplifying the process here, but that's essentially how it goes in science. If there is any faith in science then it's faith that all phenomenon can be explained given enough time and effort. Everything else is secondary to that.

 

[Storm]

the argument of god being a man made idea can still be made...

Made? Absolutely. Proven? Not even close.

 

[Storm]

First of all, I think that both of us can argue honestly and disagree with each other.

Can we? Can you admit that there's a difference between honest divergence of ideas (as in the case of God) and simply moving the goal posts to avoid concession (Santa)?

 

[Copernicus]

I'm obviously over-simplifying the process here, but that's essentially how it goes in science. If there is any faith in science then it's faith that all phenomenon can be explained given enough time and effort. Everything else is secondary to that.

That was all very well said, but the fact remains that I take the word of all these physicists on faith. It is true that I have good reason to trust scientists, especially when the most prominent scientists in a field converge on agreement, but I have no immediate means or intention of verifying their claims about particle physics.

OTOH, I do not take claims of religious experts to be true, even when they come from a respected body of theologians or church hierarchs. Lots of other people do treat religious personnel as trustworthy sources of information. So there is some equivalence between trust in scientific claims and trust in religious claims. (I do not consider "trust" and "faith" to be synonyms. In reality, "trust" is about belief based on a source of information, but "faith" is about a belief that is held regardless of source.)

Why am I so much more skeptical about religious claims than scientific ones? It is because I have some understanding of how the scientific method works. That gives me confidence in the claims of a body of scientific experts. I do not know of any coherent method of verification of religious claims, all of which seem to be based on hearsay or stuff that people just make up. So I lack an adequate reason to sustain a belief in gods. Beyond that, I have other, more positive reasons for believing that gods are implausible beings.

 

[Copernicus]

Can we? Can you admit that there's a difference between honest divergence of ideas (as in the case of God) and simply moving the goal posts to avoid concession (Santa)?

Yes, Storm. That is exactly what I have been doing. I am not moving the goal posts, although I can see you tugging on them.

 

[Storm]

Yes, Storm. That is exactly what I have been doing. I am not moving the goal posts, although I can see you tugging on them.

Then I misread you badly, and for that I apologize.

 

[Storm]

Just saw this on FB, thought it was appropriate: