• 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!

A Person Believes in Science by Faith if...

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
A mature person believes in science by faith, much like a believer in a god’s law does, anytime he cannot trust his own observations/experiences and logical reasoning more than of anyone else, period :)
We learn early that other people know more than we do.

Then later we learn that not all of them are right.

And when it comes to questions about the nature of nature, we find that science gets things right far far far more often than any alternative system of thought.

And better still, once you understand it, you find that scientific method properly applied is ruthlessly honest, acknowledges the problems of subjectivity, empiricism and induction, accordingly expresses its claims carefully, and in a falsifiable manner.

So it's true in theory, and if you have access to the necessary resources true in fact, that you can check for yourself anything you might have doubt about.

Whereas if I "trust [my] own observations and experiences and logical reasoning" as you suggest, then the world would still be flat and the sun moon stars and etceteras would still go round it ─ just as the bible says.
 

KerimF

Active Member
What do you mean by a mature person believes in science by faith?

For example, it is scientifically proven that the earth revolves around the sun. Why do we need faith (and be considered mature) to understand this? Even children are taught this scientific fact.

Sorry, it seems the word mature confused many readers. I meant by mature 'a serious adult person', not a newcomer as a kid.
Yes, our children are taught that Earth revolves around sun, but this is done while they have faith in their parents and teachers.
On the other hand, a mature person (not a kid) can verify personally this fact, if he wants to, in one way or another and by using his own logical reasoning. In other words, a mature person (unlike a kid) has the opportunity to accept a fact based on (his) reason not faith.

However, the christian idea that faith in god is not something one knows but what a person believes in faith (or accept something is true [whether it is or not, who knows] and hope and trust that it "is" true) but not knowledge. Also, maturity-I don't see how this relates.

By Whose criteria do we determine who is more mature than another?

A non-mature person, as a little kid, has no choice, in general, but having faith in some others (usually, his parents, relatives and teachers for a few).
But a mature person may believe certain ideas based on reason and some other ideas based on faith.
In my case, all ideas, scientific or else, in my actual set of knowledge are based solely on reason. I wish I have a blind faith about something, but I can't :(

That and observations and experiences are biased; science is not.

Is there a peer-review way we can test if your observations and experiences are true and not formed, confirmed, and interpreted by pre-existing beliefs and scripture?

I am very sorry but I have to say this analogy... If an intelligent born blind asks me to let him test and know how I perceive the colors of light, what could I do? :( I mean; no matter how good I let him perceive them indirectly by using his other sensors, he won't perceive them exactly as I do.
Your question is rather broad and assumes that the human nature that defines the existence of each of us has to be somehow the same. But although most people like believing in an absolute reality (defined as theirs), reality is actually seen differently by humans due to many factors that affect, positively or negatively, their personal perception.
 

KerimF

Active Member
I don’t currently have much faith in my country’s rulers, but yeah, point taken. I trust them not to be tyrants.

Till year 2011, I didn't imagine that big boys/girls, anywhere in the world, could believe, mainly in these days, in the existence of supermen as the ones who are seen in movies and play the role of dictators and tyrants for a few.
But I can't blame them, in any way, for believing in such great characters as being real while billions are invested every year to spread worldwide various fairy tales made for adults (to justify these or that happenings and present them as natural though they are artificial).

By the way, to me in the least, a liar on power (who exists in all times and in all regions) is much worse than a real tyrant (assuming an evil superman can exist). In worst case, a tyrant kills the flesh only. But a powerful liar (actually serving a powerful ruling group) can kill both the soul and the flesh while playing the innocent before his victims (local and/or foreigners).

Who has ears will hear.
 

KerimF

Active Member
But let's be honest and admit that no "logical reasoning" is ever going to be sufficient to learn "what God wants." In matters of what to eat or not, what clothes to wear and when, which parts of your body should be cut or marked or not. Not even how we should treat other people -- that is, which are the "neighbours" we should love, and who we should hate, disenfranchise and kill.

Your starting point (no "logical reasoning" is ever going to be sufficient...) is very important. I was waiting someone to raise it and you did :)

As you know, Jesus didn't say, as his best advice: "Worship God". He said instead "Love God".
If two friends love each other (not chemically ;) ) what does it mean, speaking practically? If they are honest, it means they have accepted to trust each other to almost no limit (I added 'almost'... due to possible weaknesses in human's nature).
So if a human decides to love his Creator really, this means that he becomes ready to trust his Will in whatever exists in life. Believe me, this is not easy at all. It is not like worshiping, praising or obeying/observing certain rules that almost everyone can do since they are, unlike trust, about one-way relation.

My Trust in the Will that created me starts from knowing that I am given a human brain which is capable of finding out, when real necessary, the logical answer of any question which I do need to know really (now, I wish there is still an important question not answered yet). Otherwise I would have to believe that I was brought into life to play a silly game in which there are doors to open and the programmer forgot to also add and hide their keys.
In other words, if one cannot, for some reasons, love/trust to no limit the Will of his Maker, he would act in life as a user of a computer which, he believes, was made by an anonymous non-trusted company. Anytime his computer crashes or doesn't function as he likes, he just blames its non-professional maker then keeps working on it till another crash/problem to happen and so on.

Obviously, this is not the end of the story. There are many doors opened and they may not exist all in other's game; other's life :D
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
No, the Baha'i Faith does not have a standard set of evidence it provides to justify belief, ..
Just a few posts ago you said you have evidence and now you say that 'No, the Baha'i Faith does not have a standard set of evidence it provides to justify belief,'. That is very funny.

Bahaollah said that he was a messenger of Allah and you believe that. Actually he said more than that. He said he was a mirror image of Allah. That is what Bahais mean by the word 'manifestation'.

Then Bahaollah says that one should look at the life of one who claims to be a messenger or manifestation of Allah (mirror image of God). What does another person know about the life of a person.

Yes, Bahaollah was not accused or convicted of any crime. It does not mean that he may not have indulged in bad deeds. For my acquaintances, I am a nice law-abiding person, but I have done a few bad things in my younger days. I do not go around boasting that I am an exemplary person. Then he says one should look at the message. All nice and loving (except for women and LGBTQ) - and superstitious - God created the world, he created Adam and Eve (from Adam's ribs), threw in a flood, and so on.

But there have been many other people who were also not accused or convicted of any crime and their message was similarly nice and loving. People like Gandhi or Martin Luther King. Why should they too not considered messengers or manifestations of Alla? Just because they did not makie this ludicrous claim?

By the way I find not just one but two or my ribs are broken. Therefore Allah might have created two women out of it. One he gave to Adam, the question is what did he do with the second woman, or otherwise why two of my ribs are not joined to the sternum?
 
Last edited:

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Sorry, it seems the word mature confused many readers. I meant by mature 'a serious adult person', not a newcomer as a kid.

Yes, our children are taught that Earth revolves around sun, but this is done while they have faith in their parents and teachers.

On the other hand, a mature person (not a kid) can verify personally this fact, if he wants to, in one way or another and by using his own logical reasoning. In other words, a mature person (unlike a kid) has the opportunity to accept a fact based on (his) reason not faith.

I thought you meant an adult believes in science by faith. A child, yes. They take their parents and instructors word for it. New information about science when they are older and confirm it for themselves with logical reasoning (as you say) one doesn't need faith.

A non-mature person, as a little kid, has no choice, in general, but having faith in some others (usually, his parents, relatives and teachers for a few).
But a mature person may believe certain ideas based on reason and some other ideas based on faith.
In my case, all ideas, scientific or else, in my actual set of knowledge are based solely on reason. I wish I have a blind faith about something, but I can't

I can't think of a science subject that would be based on faith. Usually, scientific subjects have been confirmed by multiple sources so it's no longer faith in the process, but facts (or theory) once what they study they determine is true.

Blind faith isn't a bad thing. Sometimes we have to trust without confirmation and study. It's a leap of faith. I think by definition faith is blind. You're taking a chance over doing or saying something that you don't know the benefits or consequences of and no confirmation that it would be likely to be a result in either way.

I am very sorry but I have to say this analogy... If an intelligent born blind asks me to let him test and know how I perceive the colors of light, what could I do? :( I mean; no matter how good I let him perceive them indirectly by using his other sensors, he won't perceive them exactly as I do.

Your question is rather broad and assumes that the human nature that defines the existence of each of us has to be somehow the same. But although most people like believing in an absolute reality (defined as theirs), reality is actually seen differently by humans due to many factors that affect, positively or negatively, their personal perception.

We do have unique ways to perceive things to ourselves (referring to reality?). Is this what you mean by faith-the blind person needs to put faith in what you say is true?

We make our own personal perception of reality?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
It is getting more complicated these days. Take SARS-CoV-2 crisis for example. The former President of the United States and other Republicans claim it was leaked from a Chinese lab. China retorts that it originated in the United States. Some news organizations parrot their governments party line. I think on some topics it is getting harder and harder for the average Joe to get news that isn't inflated or hyped in some way.
Not everyone has the background or time to keep up with all the different scientific journals.

And the fact is that there are some things we simply do not know. At this point, the Chinese government *might* know whether this was a lab release, but it is conceivable even they don't know (if it was and the directors of the lab are covering themselves). It may well be that we won't know for years (if ever).

But you are right, it is more and more difficult, especially in the USA, to get news that isn't hyped to some degree. It was always hard, by the way. Politicians take anything they don't like and spin it and the news outlets for that party (and there really are not independent ones today) repeat their spin.

ONE thing you can do is look at news from sources out of the country. At the very least, they will have *different* spin. Read more than one source of news to get different spins and know what the biases are for each (as well as your own). Know some of the history.

When it comes to science, was the scientist independent or hired to tow a particular line? be very wary about scientists that are under the employ of large companies with political axes to grind, especially when grinding that same axe. Are the *only* scientists saying a particular thing those that were hired by that industry or political party? That would be a HUGE clue that something is fishy and they aren't really doing science, but doing politics.

And again, for the science, look at more specialized outlets. There are many online journals devoted to reporting on science almost exclusively. The good ones will give references at the end of the articles for the original article in a scientific journal. If your source does not do that, be suspicious.

If you don't have time to really learn the background material, whether scientific, historical, political, or whatever, then you don't have time to be informed. In that case, admit you don't want to understand and move on.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Faith in science is when you don't know what's true, and when you don't know that form of knowledge to the depths of understanding required to accept something as fact but trust it anyway.

My faith in science is at 55%. And it goes up to 80% on well established theories.

I don't trust the metaphysical views of many scientists, but I understand that whatever happens in reality happens by natural processes. I differ with naturalism because I attribute more to the properties of nature then a naturalist.

Methodological naturalism is the surest way to real knowledge of reality. But science to me is only 50% of the knowledge humanity needs.

I would love to have more and better sources for lay people like myself that would explain the frontiers of science more profoundly, and with better understandings. Lay people desperately need to appreciate the depths of science much better. I often feel like I've missed the boat, and feel like my education wasn't strong or thorough enough. I never had a class on logic, nor critical thinking. Those are probably the best places to start.

I noticed that the word 'faith' has two different meaning in the least; [1] accepting an idea with the hope it is true and [2] accepting an idea by sure personal knowledge.

On my OP, I meant by faith its first meaning when, for example, a person believes that something, said scientific, has to be real and true because he is convinced that the great majority in the world also discovered it is so. He may not notice that everyone in this majority has convinced himself exactly as he did. Actually, they all used hearing of it almost daily on their monitors everywhere on the planet. How could this to happen.... is another big topic.
 

osgart

Nothing my eye, Something for sure
I noticed that the word 'faith' has two different meaning in the least; [1] accepting an idea with the hope it is true and [2] accepting an idea by sure personal knowledge.

On my OP, I meant by faith its first meaning when, for example, a person believes that something, said scientific, has to be real and true because he is convinced that the great majority in the world also discovered it is so. He may not notice that everyone in this majority has convinced himself exactly as he did. Actually, they all used hearing of it almost daily on their monitors everywhere on the planet. How could this to happen.... is another big topic.

The first definition is wishful thinking. The second definition is closer to the faith I mean.

Evidence of science is all around us. We can deduce from experience that the particular method works wonders in reality. Knowing this I put my faith or trust in science to the degree it is knowable for me.

I know I took the vaccine for covid-19 based on the fact that my nurse also was vaccinated. So I was trusting that she knew enough about it.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Didn't you allude that you were skilled in some kind of engineering and had made some sort of breakthrough that was denied by science or other engineers?

So you recognize that people can accept science based on observation, reasoning and validation.

Anytime a person is able accepting an idea, scientific or else, based on his own observation, reasoning and validation, he won't need having blind faith in it anymore though some others may still need having it (blind faith) for not being able to verify it personally.
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
science is about trying to control the Universe. Yes they want to understand nature, but ultimately the reason is to control it, and that's where you have to be careful about the science being good or bad

All learning is about trying to control outcomes. We try to facilitate the things we desire coming to pass, such as good health and leisure, and to minimize undesirable outcomes. We learn to recognize and exploit opportunity to make our world as close to what we desire it to be as we can, while learning to recognize and avoid pitfalls that would degrade our experience of life. This is also a partial definition of intelligence, and the survival benefit conferred by the ability to reason.

Learning is the accumulation of rational biases about what will be a better choice in given situation, biases based in experience - what kind of person is right for us (maybe that very attractive but vain person isn't such a good choice), which behaviors facilitate social harmony, which purchases are good values, which habits are conducive to health, and more, including mundane decisions such as which restaurant is likeliest to provide the dining experience one has in mind based on prior experience with local restaurants - information that if correct, will make happy outcomes more likely and unhappy ones less likely. That's really what life is, right? - managing experience, hopefully effectively.

I excluded the non-mature person because, in general, a kid has no choice but having faith in some elders (parents, relatives, teachers... etc.) concerning scientific matters and else.

Yes, before one is old enough to think critically, he can only learn by faith in trusted sources such as parents and teachers, and maybe clergy. Some, but not all people, learn to think critically, by which I mean learn how to evaluate evidence (and arguments if provided) dispassionately with the ability to properly interpret evidence and to recognize a valid argument, as well as the willingness to be convinced by it if the conclusion derived is sound.

Perhaps you can see the conflict between critical thought and belief by faith. There is no place for any faith-based belief in critical thinking, which is based in rational skepticism and empiricism. As soon as you introduce faith to an argument, whether in its premises or in the subsequent reasoning, you've committed a logical fallacy that will generate a non sequitur - a conclusion not supported by what preceded it.

And, of course, this is why many fundamentalists faiths disesteem higher education and advise parents against teaching their children science or sending them off to university. Their Sunday school teaching included creationism, which was inculcated with repetition, the teacher angry if too many questions were asked or belief wasn't strong. Then Johnny goes off to university and takes a class in evolution, where the evidence that Darwin and others since him had to consider, and the arguments that led to the conclusion that genetic variation subjected to natural selection could transform an ancient ancestral population into the present tree of life and all of the extinct forms found in the earth. His professor never asks him if he believes it, just if he learned it and can repeat it on an exam. Johnny is learning critical thinking - how to come to his own conclusions - and why nothing should be believed without a sound reason.

Have you ever wondered why the churches want access to all children before the age of seven, and what an imposition the secular state is to their mission to recruit new believers when it won't allow creationism or other religious beliefs to be taught in the public schools, many of the students not being taken to churches, either? Once they develop critical thinking skills, it becomes much more difficult to sell a religious worldview to young people.

First, you don't need having faith that your computer will deliver your message, because you know, based on your own observations (not of others), that this is likely to happen. But believing in moon landing for example (as it was presented on our TV monitors) has to be based on faith only

No. It is based in evidence. People that aren't accustomed to evaluating evidence also aren't very good at recognizing it in the first place. It's common for faith-based thinkers to assume that there is no other way to think, and the evidence they can't see doesn't exist. You see no evidence of a manned moon landing, so there is none, and the believers of the official account are believing by faith.

@Polymath257 already mentioned the lack of foreign governments claiming fraud, which they surely would have done had they not tracked a launched rocket to the moon and back. We have lunar orbiters that regularly photograph the remains of the the lunar landers and rovers still on the moon. We have a community of space scientists whose values we know and trust in consensus that this occurred, and we even have mirrors left behind on the moon to reflect earth-based lasers onto to measure exact distances.

So, no faith is needed to believe that man has been to the moon and back, unless you are unaware of all of that or reject it out of hand, in which case both belief and unbelief are only possible by faith. It's the alternative to sound reasoning.

a member of any scientific community in the world cannot act as a free independent person; he is much like a journalist working for an international news agency

Funny how we only hear about this human foible - groupthink - when discussing the community of scientists, every one of which would love to be the one to turn their area of science on its head with a groundbreaking discovery. That's hardly the kind of lockstep conformity you imply exists in the scientific community. Iconoclasts will be challenged and maybe even ridiculed, but if they are right, they know it, and eventually, so will everybody else.

In my case, all ideas, scientific or else, in my actual set of knowledge are based solely on reason. I wish I have a blind faith about something, but I can't

I know you believe that, but I don't. One simply cannot come to a god belief using reason alone. There must be a leap of faith, at which point, it is no longer valid reasoning. It's my opinion that nobody can't get past that barrier even if he thinks he has.

I recently saw a quote to the effect that hypocrisy is the homage that vice pays to virtue, which I think is an awkward way of pointing out that there are people that claim to have certain values or to engage in such processes that they really don't value or engage in, but know that others do. If you're speaking only to like-minded, faith-based believers, you don't need to mention reason or evidence. It's enough to say that scripture tells us this or God spoke told me that as a source of a belief and expect that to be sufficient.

But when dealing with skeptics that value reason over faith, one will argue in that language as you are doing here.

I just read this morning that, "A sociopath knows right from wrong, but just doesn't care." I don't agree. The sociopath knows what others consider right and wrong, and tries to play the game that he cares about such things, too, but he has no innate sense of anything being immoral for him. A sense of right and wrong is synonymous with a conscience, and if you have no conscience, you have no moral compass telling you that this or that is morally wrong.

He's also playing this game of pretending to have values that others have and esteem in order to be accepted by them, when, if he were honest about who he is, people would steer clear of him. In the language of the paraphrased saying above, he is a hypocrite whose vice is indifference to others, while giving homage (lip service) to the virtuous values others actually hold.

I don't know that it's fair to call what I believe you are doing here hypocrisy. You are probably sincere even though I don't believe your claim of reliance on reason alone to come to your set of core values and beliefs, because I don't believe that that is possible if one of your core beliefs is in a god.

If two friends love each other (not chemically ;) ) what does it mean, speaking practically? If they are honest, it means they have accepted to trust each other to almost no limit (I added 'almost'... due to possible weaknesses in human's nature).

That's not my definition of love. Love doesn't need to be mutual to be love. And though trust is generally present, one can love a child, for example, that is known to be untrustworthy.

Love is the psychological state of seeing the other as part of the self, and wanting to devote resources to the betterment of the other as one would oneself. It manifests in behavior that can be seen to be intended to benefit the object of love. Notice that this isn't an emotion.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
A mature person believes in science by faith, much like a believer in a god’s law does, anytime he cannot trust his own observations/experiences and logical reasoning more than of anyone else, period :)

Scientists are willing to change their minds when proven wrong. Theists won't. Evolution, Global Warming, and a host of other issues are disbelieved. None are so blind as those who will not see.

Belief in science is based on rigorous testing (and even that might be wrong in extreme cases). Newton defined how gravity and velocity work. Einstein said that changes in powerful gravitation fields (general relativity) and at high speeds (special relativity). Schroedinger showed that the tiny world depends on probabilities (quantum mechanics).

Science is a continual march to greater understanding, and does not assert that anything has been proven (just theorized and thoroughly tested).

Science made the vaccine for COVID. Without that, many would die. The Vatican closed its doors (sensibly) to prevent the spread of COVID, and it is clear that they didn't trust God to protect them. Science allows more crops to be grown to feed our ever-expanding population. Science fixes life in many ways (including the internet that we use to communicate and learn).

Science is not the enemy of religion. Theists should strive to understand science, and figure out how it assists the Lord's work.
 

KerimF

Active Member
How do you know that most others don't accept science under those same considerations?

I had observations of my teachers and could check what they told me against texts and other teachers and with the results of the work I was given. That is not a faith in the unseen.

I am afraid you missed the crucial words in:
And I had to have faith in my teachers at school then at the university; otherwise, I couldn't pass their exams.

But you are also right. I better say "And I had to have faith (or pretend having it) in my teachers..."

I mean; I never discussed a teacher, even at the university, of what is true and false as long a law gives him the right that his claim about my knowledge (being good or bad) should be considered only. So, in every exam, I used writing what my teacher liked hearing, then I forgot afterwards anything I wrote and I didn't believe it. Yes, I used having no interest in opposing other's knowledge mainly if they were giant windmills, privileged and protected by a law :)
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Funny how we only hear about this human foible - groupthink - when discussing the community of scientists, every one of which would love to be the one to turn their area of science on its head with a groundbreaking discovery. That's hardly the kind of lockstep conformity you imply exists in the scientific community. Iconoclasts will be challenged and maybe even ridiculed, but if they are right, they know it, and eventually, so will everybody else.

This is something that many people don''t seem to understand about how science is done: the one that challenges the current view *and can support that challenge with evidence* is the one that wins. That is how scientific revolutions happen and the leaders of such revolutions are esteemed, not berated.

For comparison, look at the 'groupthink' of any religion. What happens when a pastor steps out of line? What happens if someone disagrees with the accepted orthodoxy? They are expelled and condemned.

I think that those from a religious (or even business) background expect this is how it works in the scientific community. But it isn't. Those that can give new insights are admired. Those that can come up with new ideas and give evidence that they are right are exalted. Those that can overturn a common view *with evidence* are seen in a positive light.

Of course, they *will* be challenged. That is not only to be expected, but it is to be encouraged. The evidence needs to be evaluated, the arguments explored, the alternatives discussed. No idea gets by for free. But that is just as true of the orthodox ideas as it is of the challengers.
 

Clara Tea

Well-Known Member
Yes, before one is old enough to think critically, he can only learn by faith in trusted sources such as parents and teachers, and maybe clergy. Some, but not all people, learn to think critically, by which I mean learn how to evaluate evidence (and arguments if provided) dispassionately with the ability to properly interpret evidence and to recognize a valid argument, as well as the willingness to be convinced by it if the conclusion derived is sound.

Courts used critical thinking to convict rapists. DNA proved that some who were convicted by courts could not possibly be guilty. So, the attempt to think critically doesn't always work.

However, I agree that theists should use critical thinking.

If, thousands of years ago, theists thought about the predictions of Revelation, they would have tossed it out of the bible as nonsense.

THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO:

1. It was impossible to have high speed electronic communication to allow many nations for form a coalition in mere hours (as predicted by Revelation and as it actually happened after the 911 attack).

2. Tanks shooting flaming rockets were impossible (yet that happened in Iraq).

3. Defeating mighty Babylon (Iraq) was impossible, let alone in such a short time as predicted by Revelation. Yet that happened after 911.

4. Prediction hundreds of years before the event that the most powerful nation in the world (known for flaunting wealth and sexual misconduct, as described in Revelation) would attack Iraq twice (once by the Dragon, and once by his son, the Beast). Yet, this is exactly what happened.

5. Prediction that the Whore of Babylon, described in Revelation as the most powerful nation in the world, known for flaunting wealth (especial pearls, like the necklace of Barbara Bush), and sexual misconduct (like Clinton with Monica or Bush Sr. with Jennifer Fitzgerald) would defeat and occupy Iraq. Yet, that is exactly what happened.

So, when it comes to psychic predictions, critical thinking fails.

Dr. Jessica Utts, professor of statistics, UC Irvine, worked for SRI (Stanford Universe Research Institute) and CIA Project MKULTRA to prove the existence of ESP (Extrasensory Perception). She did prove it. She also said that the scientific community would easily accept such proof if it wasn't about such a weird science.

Perhaps science is biased to reject things that don't fit with critical thinking?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I am afraid you missed the crucial words in:
And I had to have faith in my teachers at school then at the university; otherwise, I couldn't pass their exams.

But you are also right. I better say "And I had to have faith (or pretend having it) in my teachers..."

I mean; I never discussed a teacher, even at the university, of what is true and false as long a law gives him the right that his claim about my knowledge (being good or bad) should be considered only. So, in every exam, I used writing what my teacher liked hearing, then I forgot afterwards anything I wrote and I didn't believe it. Yes, I used having no interest in opposing other's knowledge mainly if they were giant windmills, privileged and protected by a law :)

Nope, that is not faith. That is parroting.

The reason the teachers at the university have the right to give you the grade is that *they* have done the work, they have done the research, they have looked over the arguments. And they are distilling that for you so you can see the broad picture (I am assuming you only took lower level courses).

If you continue on to graduate school, you would also learn enough to understand the detailed experiments that lead to those viewpoints. But it is simply impossible to do that in a lower level course.

It would be like trying to prove the commutative law of addition to someone first learning arithmetic. get the basics down first, then look into the details.

It also seems to me that you missed opportunities to learn why those teachers believed as they did. if you had challenged them (preferably in office hours), you may have found out much more than simply what you got in the classroom. It is simply impossible to go over *everything* in a classroom.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Faith is unsupported or poorly supported belief. Science is pretty much the opposite, it's radical skepticism, it's belief is provisional, and based on extensive observation and testing.

How "maturity" fits in I have no idea. Reasonableness might be a better descriptor.

By the way, I wonder how the readers here are supposed to understand the expression "a mature person". In my humble English vocabulary, it means being a serious adult who had the chance to stay alive 30 years or more. It is somehow the opposite of being a newcomer into life, a kid for example.

On the other hand, my mature person (as I am ;) ) has the opportunity to believe/accept an idea, seen as scientific or else, as being true and /or real based on reason (if he can relate it to his own observations/experiments and/or his logical reasoning) or by faith (if he can't, but he likes it ;) ).
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
By the way, I wonder how the readers here are supposed to understand the expression "a mature person". In my humble English vocabulary, it means being a serious adult who had the chance to stay alive 30 years or more. It is somehow the opposite of being a newcomer into life, a kid for example.

On the other hand, my mature person (as I am ;) ) has the opportunity to believe/accept an idea, seen as scientific or else, as being true and /or real based on reason (if he can relate it to his own observations/experiments and/or his logical reasoning) or by faith (if he can't, but he likes it ;) ).
You have ignored the basic objections raised by many. People trust what scientists publish or write in textbooks because the work of the scientists have tangible effects that can be observed in terms of technology (computers, lasers, rockets, planes, cell phones, satellites, medicines etc.) So people trust what scientists say regarding the theoretical basis that made these technological developments possible. That appears to me an extremely logical and rational thing to do.
Apart from this, its always possible for a sufficiently motivated individual to actually go an look at the evidence oneself. Become a part of a science enthusiast group, take internships or summer courses in practical labs etc. and you can get to see the experiments and data yourself.
As a practicing scientist in an university, I obviously do not require much faith in any of this. If I am interested in a field, I can just invite myself in a colleague's lab meeting and see the data and the work as they are happening in real time. Most of the data today are usually reported in the supplementary files associated with a published paper. Not sure what else you want us to do in terms of public transparency??
 
Last edited:
Top