• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

what is the difference tween science and faith?

W

weirdpuckett

Member
I believe that the difference is this: that faith is hope placed on things not seen and science is placing faith in things having been seen.

The common ground may be that the result of either brings much revelation.

thoughts?
 
M

Meow Mix

Chatte Féministe
weirdpuckett said:
I believe that the difference is this: that faith is hope placed on things not seen and science is placing faith in things having been seen.

The common ground may be that the result of either brings much revelation.

thoughts?
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're equivocating two contexts of the word "faith" here.

"Hope in things not seen" is essentially "belief without evidence."

"Trust in things seen" is essentially "confidence that we're interpreting this data correctly."

These are two monumentally different things. Belief without evidence is irrational, but it's entirely rational to have confidence in reasonable interpretations of phenomena.

I'd also dispute that both contexts "bring much revelation." It's hard to dispute the efficacy of science (considering we're typing on computers for this discussion), but religious faith (belief without evidence) hasn't really accomplished a whole lot at all besides leading many people to believe a lot of very irrational things.
 
C

connerb

Member
Just the opposite. Science is faith in things unseen. No one has seen proof of evolution. But religion is faith in things seen. We can see the glory of God's creation.
 
PolyHedral

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Science built the computer you are using, a data link capable of sending 100 pages of text per second, and the computer on the other end, which is capable of responding to several thousand conversations at once. :D

Religion just brought certainty. That's easy.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
weirdpuckett said:
I believe that the difference is this: that faith is hope placed on things not seen and science is placing faith in things having been seen.

The common ground may be that the result of either brings much revelation.

thoughts?
Click to expand...

You seem to be using the (correct definition) of faith at least in the first part. "Hope placed on things not seen" would seem to be equivalent to "belief without evidence". I'll agree to that. However, then you use faith to mean something different. In the second part, you're using it to mean "trust" or "confidence", which is different from "belief without evidence".

I'd rephrase it this way:

Faith is belief without evidence, and science is confidence in the conclusions we come to through the analysis of evidence.
 
Magic Man

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
connerb said:
Just the opposite. Science is faith in things unseen. No one has seen proof of evolution.
Click to expand...

Only if by "no one" you mean "I". There are a whole lot of people out there who have seen the massive amounts of evidence for evolution. I'm sorry you've closed your eyes to it.

But religion is faith in things seen. We can see the glory of God's creation.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you can, just as you've closed your eyes to scientific evidence for something that goes against the indoctrination you've been given, it seems unsurprising you'd see things that aren't actually there.
 
yourhopeboundheart

yourhopeboundheart

Mig
connerb said:
Just the opposite. Science is faith in things unseen. No one has seen proof of evolution. But religion is faith in things seen. We can see the glory of God's creation.
Click to expand...

first of all, if you're talking about the christian god then why are you denying the biblical definition of faith?
"faith is the confidence of thing's hoped for and the assurance of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1)

and your second mistake is that you're not being fair with your comparisons. it's just as easy to interpret the things in our environment as the glory of natural selection, as it is to put the name of a god on the author line. and there's no reason whatsoever to assume any choice of a particular god to attribute this glory to would be more authentic. you're allowed to have your own vernacular to describe the world, but dont pretend that it's more valid than someone else's. (you're also using a the words 'proof' and 'glory' interchangeably, which i'm sure you can see isn't fair at all.)
 
gnomon

gnomon

Well-Known Member
weirdpuckett said:
I believe that the difference is this: that faith is hope placed on things not seen and science is placing faith in things having been seen.

The common ground may be that the result of either brings much revelation.

thoughts?
Click to expand...

Not even close.

I strongly suggest reading through Coming of Age in the Milky Way as a decent introduction into the history of science, primarily cosmology, and the distinctions between faith and science.

Of course, the basic definitions of both terms would serve a useful starting point as well.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Science is what can be measured, predicted and tested. None of this can be done with faith.

I can't see an electron, but I can measure it, I can predict it's properties and I can test those predictions. I can use them to post on this forum.

I can't measure God.

wa:do
 
Valjean

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hope? How is faith hope? Faith is belief without evidence.

Science means 'knowledge'. In current usage it refers to knowledge obtained through scientific method.
 
W

weirdpuckett

Member
Seyorni said:
Hope? How is faith hope? Faith is belief without evidence.

Science means 'knowledge'. In current usage it refers to knowledge obtained through scientific method.
Click to expand...

would the scientific method include, say . . a field observation? A witness of something? and if something new or unordinary is witnessed, would it be fair to say that some analysis would follow before one dismisses or condemns the thing seen?

would it be reasonable to look for past documentation that might relate to the current event that you have witnessed? . . ..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top