Faith is necessary for Science to function

[mnemonicTonic]

The basis for science is objectivity, yet the foundational premise for science is based on an assumption (existence of objects).

How do we even know objects exist in the first place if we don't perceive them. We might perceive them with our senses, but we are not aware of them until we conceive them in our minds. Reality is being conceived not perceived. Science might prove everything else to be true, but the original premise supporting everything else is an assumption. Science does not use science to prove the existence of objects. Science just assumes it (faith).

[youtube]uUlDdh06zd0[/youtube]

 

[Sunstone]

The basis for science is objectivity...

No it is not. The basis for science is intersubjective verifiability. Please do your homework.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Religion simply isn't on par with science in terms of accurate statements, please don't play semantics to try and pretend it is. Thank you.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

No it is not. The basis for science is intersubjective verifiability. Please do your homework.

Intersubjective verifiability is a subjective interpretation. How would one seek objectivity if all truth states are subjective to a standard? Would this not make Science a contradiction? Please enlighten me.

Religion simply isn't on par with science in terms of accurate statements, please don't play semantics to try and pretend it is. Thank you.

Elaborate what you mean by not being on par. I'm not having a word play with any of you. I'm just trying to understand the logic.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

Elaborate what you mean by not being on par. I'm not having a word play with any of you. I'm trying to understand the logic that is all.

The attempt to insist that science requires faith is merely a reverse attempt to place science on par with faith itself as being equally valid. the inference being that if something as reliable and important as 'science' is actually a matter based simply on faith, then whatever religion the person positing this, has, it MUST be valid, because it possesses faith!

That's the 'logic', and I use the term loosely, used in such an exercise.

 

[Breathe]

No it is not. The basis for science is intersubjective verifiability. Please do your homework.

This.

 

[Heathen Hammer]

This is much akin to someone of faith saying 'atheism is a religion too!'

 

[mnemonicTonic]

The attempt to insist that science requires faith is merely a reverse attempt to place science on par with faith itself as being equally valid. the inference being that if something as reliable and important as 'science' is actually a matter based simply on faith, then whatever religion the person positing this, has, it MUST be valid, because it possesses faith!

That's the 'logic', and I use the term loosely, used in such an exercise.

Science is inherently driven by a good faith belief, is it not?
Let's argue one thing at a time before this becomes a semantic dispute.

This.

Appreciate if you input your thoughts. I posted a reply to it above. Thanks.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Scientific people can use faith as a tool to fuel the process, but it isn't necessary and is actually quite dangerous to do, as people of faith tend to only focus on evidence that confirms their beliefs (a major no-no in science).

 

[mnemonicTonic]

This is much akin to someone of faith saying 'atheism is a religion too!'

Atheism is a religion. A religion that voids an absolutely necessary entity with limited plausible knowledge.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Atheism is a religion. A religion that voids an absolutely necessary entity with limited plausible knowledge.

Atheism is as much a religion as theism is, which is to say neither are a religion because religion is a system of beliefs, and not a single belief.

But that is a discussion for another thread.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Scientific people can use faith as a tool to fuel the process, but it isn't necessary and is actually quite dangerous to do, as people of faith tend to only focus on evidence that confirms their beliefs (a major no-no in science).

How do we even know objects exist if we don't perceive them but conceive them with our own minds?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

How do we even know objects exist if we don't perceive them but conceive them with our own minds?

...Since when is science about objects? Science is about building the most realistic model of the world, one that matches as best as possible to observations and experimental data.

 

[Thief]

Science is only a method of discovery.

If you 'believe' sufficiently...you will seek a means to prove it.

If you succeed...you get to raise your finger and proclaim...'Science!"

Otherwise it's all faith...believing without proof.

 

[mnemonicTonic]

...Since when is science about objects? Science is about building the most realistic model of the world, one that matches as best as possible to observations and experimental data.

The basis for science is objectivity, yet the foundational predicate is based on an assumption (objects exist). Do you not see the inconsistency here?


That was the original argument. Science can't even prove science is true, because science is inherently driven by a faith-based belief that objects exist.

How is it possible to know objects exist or not, if we're not perceiving reality but rather conceiving it in our minds?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

The basis for science is objectivity, yet the foundational predicate is based on an assumption (objects exist). Do you not see the inconsistency here?


That was the original argument. Science can't even prove science is true, because science is inherently driven by a faith-based belief that objects exist.

How is it possible to know objects exist or not, if we're not perceiving reality but rather conceiving it in our minds?

Your premise is flawed then, as science is not about "objects".

 

[mnemonicTonic]

Your premise is flawed then, as science is not about "objects".

Science starts with objects and spans onward.

 

[Firestorm77]

I agree, science is based on the assumption that the external world exists. Science never proves or justifies that the external world exists.

 

[Photonic]

Atheism is a religion. A religion that voids an absolutely necessary entity with limited plausible knowledge.

And with that you've made it clear that communicating with you on why your holding a vast misconception would be a futile endevor. Don't expect sympathy for your ideas if you cant question them yourself.

 

[Photonic]

This thread is a sad degredation of human endevors.