Faith and Science

[HydrogenBond]

Faith is the belief in something that can not be seen or directly proven. Religion is usually equated with faith since it is difficult or impossible to prove God to the skeptical rational mind since direct data is lacking. This is not to say God does or does not exist, only that it is hard to prove in a scientific way.

 

Although one may exclusively equate religion with faith, science is often based on faith. For example, nobody has ever been able to prove the existance of the strings of the String Theory of physics. The strings are based on faith that they exist and will someday be demonstrated. Nobody has even been to the center of the earth or has collected direct data from the center of the earth. Yet, most scientists have faith that the center of the earth contains and iron core. The BB theory is based on faith since there is no way to collect direct data. Many scientists have lost faith in BB and have exchanged their faith for the newest theories, which also cannot be proven 100%.

 

One of the keys for a peaceful cooexistance between science and religion is to understand what is common to both. The faith within science is connected to its many theories of external reality, while the faith of religion is based on its many theories of the inner reality of human nature. The rivalry between the two is based on the fact that science is unconscious of its dependance on faith.. While religion is unconscious of its dependance on logic and reason when attempting to prove things using the bible. It is love/hate relationship where one is not able to see how they use the strengths that stems from their rival.

[Boerseun]

Good post.

 

I don't understand why there should be a competition between Science and Religion at all, though. Science isn't competing for souls, and doesn't care whether God exists, or not. The only people trying to force such a competition onto Religion and Science, are those who find a lack of proof to their deeply held views regarding Religion to be a bit unsettling.

 

String Theory is a hypothesis. It's not verified or proven, but competes with other hypotheses in order to explain the universe at a very minute level. String Theory competes with my theory about little green turtles swimming around sub-atomic particles. But my turtle-theory makes zero predictions. String theory has amazing mathematical implications, and predictions extrapolated from it seems to be right on the money. So, it raised a few flags that got scientists' attention. But - at the point where it is presented to the science community, it is no more nor less valid than my turtle-theory.

Science explains most of what has transpired since a few millionths of a second after the Big Bang. Actually explaining the Big Bang would be a leap forward in human understanding. And God might very well have something to do with that.

 

Religion is competing on a moral field. Science has absolutely nothing to say about moral issues. Morality is subjective. Science is empirical.

 

Evolution is a theory. But it explains so many different things seen on Earth that it's raised plenty of flags for the science community to ponder. This is not to say that it won't be toppled by a better, more comprehensive theory tomorrow.

 

Science is the asymptotic approach to physical truth about the universe, and a continuous process as more and more discoveries are made, and possible explanations put forth and tested, validated or disproved.

Religion is an attempt to supply human beings with some sort of Moral guidance, and an attempt at approaching some sort of spiritual truth. Religion can hardly progress, because no new discoveries can be made - only new interpretations of existing scripture can be made.

 

Science and Religion competes in such diverse fields that any competition between the two (or even comparison) would be meaningless. It would be like comparing horses with fruit flies.

[HydrogenBond]

I agree with you that science is often based on empiricsm, especially when we reach the frontiers of knowledge. But such theories are never presented with the footnote; "this is only an empirical theory that correlates the data and may or may not represent truth". Yet, it is often treated and taught as though it represents truth. This may be part of the sales pitch to give it more prestige in the quest for research funds.

 

I consider myself a conceptual modeler. I look at things in simple ways using logic and common sense. In my own experience, conceptual inconsistencies do not seem to matter to scientists that attached to their preferred theories. I wrongly assumed that science is looking for truth.

 

For example, if all scientists realized that all fontier theories do not necesarily reflect truth, there would be more freedom for others to look for other alternatives. If one creates the subjective feeling, these are truths in the making, anyone going in another direction will be viewed as out their minds. This is good for beaurocracy and the chain of command but it makes seeking the truth or pointing out flaws an offense against science.

[TheBigDog]

HB, I had begun trying to articulate a similar post, and fell well short of your elegantly phrased prose.

 

I would like to pose a couple of questions...

 

Faith is the belief in something that can not be seen or directly proven. Religion is usually equated with faith since it is difficult or impossible to prove God to the skeptical rational mind since direct data is lacking. This is not to say God does or does not exist, only that it is hard to prove in a scientific way.

 

If God were to be proved scientifically, and His role in the creation of the universe were found to be limited in scope (Creation of the Universe - Yes, Creation of man - NO), who would have the more difficult time in accepting His existence? Religious zealots who would need to scope down the role of God, or atheist scientists who seek for Him to have no role at all?

 

Science isn't competing for souls, and doesn't care whether God exists, or not. The only people trying to force such a competition onto Religion and Science, are those who find a lack of proof to their deeply held views regarding Religion to be a bit unsettling.

 

When scientists discount long held religious beliefs, and mock the believers as being uneducated dolts in every manner available, both subtle and overt in an intentional effort to diminish the acceptance of that faith, and that faith by its own definition is the only path to salvation, then science is indeed competing for souls. Because even if there is no afterlife, what right is it of science to deny people the comfort of such a belief in this lifetime?

 

Bill

[lindagarrette]

Because even if there is no afterlife, what right is it of science to deny people the comfort of such a belief in this lifetime?

 

Bill

Science is just a field of study. Education shows people that their beliefs are unfounded. If that's uncomfortable, to bad.

[Boerseun]

When scientists discount long held religious beliefs, and mock the believers as being uneducated dolts in every manner available, both subtle and overt in an intentional effort to diminish the acceptance of that faith, and that faith by its own definition is the only path to salvation, then science is indeed competing for souls. Because even if there is no afterlife, what right is it of science to deny people the comfort of such a belief in this lifetime?

Science don't go about mocking believers in any religion, to the best of my knowledge. What Science does, is to say "If you want religion credited by Science, bring a piece of God to the lab so that we can test it". Religion have failed to do so up till now. Therefore, Science has absolutely nothing to say on the matter of religion. Science doesn't say God exists or not, Science can't offer any opinion of any kind regarding the matter. But Science needs an answer as to where we come from. Biology, geology, anthropology etc. have brought forward credible evidence that was hypothesised and tested for in the lab. And Science had to come up with theories, not referring to God at all - after all, you cannot be consistent about the scientific method if you introduce elements that hasn't been tested for nor available for experimentation.

Therefore, the only reason Science cannot include God in any explanation, is the fault of Religion. They're not coming up with the evidence.

For all we know, God did indeed do it. Religion might come with the evidence tomorrow, so we can test it. But up until that point, Religion has no place in Science.

You can't demand recognition from any institution by ignoring and disregarding the laws and rules of that institution.

[TheBigDog]

Mullet, please note that I said "Scientists", not science. Science is only effective when practiced in an unbiased manner. When its practitioners begin to carry a bias toward or away from any particular answer, the results are tainted and biased. It begins with an attitude that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. The bias that disturbs me on this site is that of overt anti-religion. "If God exists then there is no science." The assumption is that science will never prove the existence of God. Yet, for all of our science, we have yet to absolutely disprove God. So scientists, instead of relying upon science, take it on FAITH that God does not exist, and then disallow any proof of God as erroneous by means of any convenient reason.

 

The same problem persists in all sciences where an agenda is being pursued instead of unbiased rational discovery. Look at the drum beaters for the whole in the ozone layer. We have never measured a time when there was not a hole in the ozone layer. Yet we assume that we caused it about the time we started to take the measurements. Is this good science, or use of bad science to promote an agenda? How about global warming? Does anyone doubt the evidence provided by ice core samples from the poles that our world temperature has taken wild swings in both directions for the past several hundred thousand years? Yet a swing in our current time is entirely the fault of man. Where was man for the cataclysmic weather events of the past? Yet with bad use of science and an agenda to pursue, suddenly mankind is the chief villain.

 

No one has ever proved life on other planets. Nobody has ever brought a piece of an alien into the lab so it could be studied. Yet the search for life on other planets is not a taboo notion. The notion that there is life on other planets is accepted at face value because statistically it must be true. No proof, just faith.

 

Hawking is considered one of the greatest minds of our time and has invested a great deal of in intellect in describing black holes. Yet black holes are not conclusively proved to exist to the satisfaction of all scientists (as I have been informed on another thread). Does that make him some kind of witch doctor for believing in the unproved? He himself asserts that some of what he has hypothesized could never be proved through experimentation. CRACKPOT! I guess you have to have some element of faith for the pursuit of science.

 

Bill

[stevencarrwork]

Mullet, please note that I said "Scientists", not science. Science is only effective when practiced in an unbiased manner. When its practitioners begin to carry a bias toward or away from any particular answer, the results are tainted and biased. It begins with an attitude that Science and Religion are mutually exclusive. The bias that disturbs me on this site is that of overt anti-religion. "If God exists then there is no science." The assumption is that science will never prove the existence of God. Yet, for all of our science, we have yet to absolutely disprove God. So scientists, instead of relying upon science, take it on FAITH that God does not exist, and then disallow any proof of God as erroneous by means of any convenient reason.

 

If there are supernatural beings that can affect the results of any measurements or change the results of any experiments at will, then there is no possibility of obtaining laws which apply.

 

There have been millions and millions of experiments. None has ever been affected by a god.

 

Every time you turn on a light switch, you must have faith that God has decided not to interfere with the electricity. He could easily do so, but you have to have faith that either there is no God or that he is never going to do anything.

 

Otherwise every time your car stopped , you would have to call in a priest to exorcise it, before considering whether or not you have run out of petrol.

[Tormod]

Every time you turn on a light switch, you must have faith that God has decided not to interfere with the electricity. He could easily do so, but you have to have faith that either there is no God or that he is never going to do anything.

 

This actually also implies that I must not believe (or choose to believe) in an *infinite* amount of gods, and that every action I take *might easily* be controlled by any or all of those gods.

[stevencarrwork]

This actually also implies that I must not believe (or choose to believe) in an *infinite* amount of gods, and that every action I take *might easily* be controlled by any or all of those gods.

 

That would be a belief that would be disconfirmed by every experiment that shows no trace of supernatural intervention.

 

Has there ever been a case where a natural explanation of a phenomenon has ever had to be replaced by a supernatural explanation?

[TheBigDog]

Why does the notion of God imply the "supernatural"? Couldn't God be subject to the same laws of physics as you and I?

 

Imagine that there was a being with such intelligence and sensory perception that Chaos theory was never an issue for them. In fact it would be a mysterious tool at their disposal. So they could let out a breath as gentle as a butterfly's wings and cause a hurricane on the other side of the world. No "supernatural power". Just perception, intelligence, and timing.

 

Bill

[Boerseun]

Why does the notion of God imply the "supernatural"? Couldn't God be subject to the same laws of physics as you and I?

Of course He/She can.

 

Just bring a slice so we can test it. Until then, the notion of an individual god/godess being responsible for it all will, infortunately, have to be dubbed 'supernatural'.

[hallenrm]

How about this. All that we know from personal experience is our knowledge. Our shared knowledge is Science and all that we do not know now is God in the realm of religion.

[coldcreation]

Religion is usually equated with faith since it is difficult or impossible to prove God to the skeptical rational mind since direct data is lacking. This is not to say God does or does not exist, only that it is hard to prove in a scientific way.

.

 

There does not exist two universes; one physical and the other metaphysical. There is no outside the universe. God is simple to prove scientifically. Man has the ability to imagine anything she wants. We create god (or an ID) with the imagination and think it is real. Yeti and Nessy too were invented by the imagination. Many think they are real. Just because we are capable of imagining something is not sufficient to make it real (in the sense that is could be found in nature, i.e., in the universe).

 

The concept (He) is just as easy to kill as it (He) is to create.

 

cc

[questor]

CC, we are all coming from the same space, limited knowledge and limited intellect. you will have to admit there are many things not known in the observable world. there are also many things not known in the universe beyond the reach of our telescopes. all events have not been reduced to mathematical certainty, even your cold creation thery. since this uncertainty exists, it may be foolish to declaim any one theory as true, while denigrating all others. since there are many people of some intelligence in the ID camp, i am sure if proper evidence was presented as to the truth of opposing theories

they would certainly adopt the theory of truth. one can't deny that which is self-evident.

[ArfCollins]

Hi Folks,

 

Just browsing around and I stumbled on this forum.

 

I had similar discussions in another group a few years ago and came up with this:

 

As the discussions have gone back and forth in the group about what is truth, what is science etc., I have been developing my plans for a weapon of mass destruction. It would surprise me if it was a new idea, but I haven't heard of it.

 

The weapon is the Knowledge Bomb.

 

The Knowledge Bomb destroys everything known by humans and all the evidence of that knowledge. The only exception is the basic know-how to survive, so the population doesn't die out in a few weeks.

Members of <groupname> are not affected.

 

I'm dropping the bomb Monday lunchtime. At this point everything that has been known becomes unknown. The means to gain knowledge remain in place, whether these are telescopes or the entrails of chickens. Unfortunately no-one knows how to use them. Their function must be worked out by trial and error and by intuition.

 

<Groupname> must imagine themselves as members of this suddenly ignorant community, and decide how long it will take the world to realise how the following have been of use in the past, and so be able to use them again in the original manner and in their correct context:

 

A zip fastener.

Dianetics.

A spear.

A monstrance.

Astral travelling.

Crystallography.

Crystal healing.

A pencil.

A voodoo doll.

A stethoscope.

A cricket bat.

Thumb screws.

Pessomancy.

Homeopathy.

 

Now I'm not anti-religion in any strict sense, I prefer the Boerseun attitude of bring me a slice if it and I'll check it out.

 

So what do you think of the bomb?

 

Cheers,

Arf.

[ArfCollins]

Duplicate post deleted