• 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...

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
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.
Sorry to jump in, but I must disagree. Blind faith is always a bad thing. Blind faith connotes belief in something without supporting evidence, or belief despite conflicting evidence and sticking with that belief, regardless of outcome.
Yes, we often have to make choices or decisions on things with limited or insufficient information. But when we choose, the choice always involves some calculation based on all our previous experiences. Yes, we sometimes have to guess, take a chance, or randomly choose, but it is never blind faith. Once the choice is made, we continue to evaluate as things unfold. And if things go awry, it is the fool who blindly holds course with faith that the correct decision was made.

We don't have faith in a particular outcome of an ill-informed choice, we have hope that the best choice was made.
 
Last edited:

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran 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.

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.

Yes, which is what I alluding to with the opening words - accusing the scientific community of what is more true of other communities such as the religious community. We also saw this with the Liz Cheney matter. Step outside of groupthink and have your head metaphorically removed.

But not in science, as long as you are doing good science. If you're Michael Behe, you're not just outside of the mainstream in biology, you're not even doing science any more. You've left empiricism and basic, undirected exploration of nature for faith-based beliefs and goal-directed research in search of a god. Challenging an accepted tenet of science is altogether different from challenging the scientific method itself.

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.

This is a common theme - dealing with people who are unaware that there are other ways of thinking than by faith, projecting the values of their religious communities onto scientific ones, and projecting their faith-based thinking onto the rational evaluation of evidence. They seem to simply be unaware that other people have other ways of thinking that are radically different from theirs. Hence, every world view becomes a religion, every belief is believed by faith, atheists actually believe in gods (they can't imagine how it's possible not to) but hate them and are rebelling against them, atheists are guessing that there is no god just as the theist is guessing that there is one when the atheist repeatedly explains that he has not guessed either way and remains agnostic about gods. They don't seem to believe that that is possible since they rarely write anything that would make one believe that they know what the atheist actually believes and claims.

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.

Juries that say that an innocent person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are not thinking critically, are not thinking well. They should be aware that there is reasonable doubt if there is, and vote accordingly. When biases creep into the mix, that's faith-based thinking again - unjustified belief - ideas like "He looks guilty" or "He wouldn't be on trial if he didn't break some law."

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

Yes, it is.

But that is considered a rational bias, a constructive one. It was the replacing of faith-based thinking with reason and evidence-based thinking that turned creationism into biological evolution, alchemy into chemistry, and astrology into astronomy, in each case transforming a useless belief system into one that can be used to accurately predict some of the behavior of nature. That seems like pretty compelling evidence to me that wrong can be converted to right by removing unjustified belief and replacing it with empirically justified belief only.

Bias isn't always a bad thing. If rational, biases are useful things. They help us choose one course of action over another, and if they are sound, they will help us to do that effectively. Learning is the accumulation of biases, and if we learn well, only rational, justified biases.
 

KerimF

Active Member
That's nice, but please answer the question. Are you defining faith as belief without evidence or are you simply defining it as trust?

Personally I do not have faith in any significant claim without evidence, but I do put trust in things/people who have provided me with evidence that they are trustworthy.

Oh, sorry. By the way I also noticed here that the word 'faith' could have many different meanings.

I meant by faith on my OP as believing an idea with the hope it is true. This happens when someone cannot verify to how far an idea, he heard of, could be true and/or real, based on his own observations/experiments and/or his logical reasoning. But, at the same time, he has somehow a solid impression that it is true (this applies on any idea, scientific or else).

But, to be realistic, a wise person doesn't expect that the source, he ended up seeing it trustworthy, could be so to many others who likely have found other sources as being trustworthy.

I am afraid that while an absolute knowledge/truth exists, only a subset of it is all what a human may need to know in his life. And this subset doesn't have to be the same to all humans. In fact, every human has his own unique subset (as his unique DNA :) ) This explains why arguing and debating will last till the end of time :D
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Sorry to jump in, but I must disagree. Blind faith is always a bad thing. Blind faith connotes belief in something without supporting evidence, or belief despite conflicting evidence and sticking with that belief, regardless of outcome.

Some things we can have faith in without evidence and others we don't need evidence for it to be beneficial. Outside of religion, it could be just acting on something at the last as a life or death decision instead of thinking about it before one reacts. Blind faith (or just faith-since faith, by definition, is blind) could be being vulnerable to be love and to love. Blind faith could be trusting (having faith) that your militant peer will "catch" you when you fall or protect you.

If in a religious sense, it could be that you're trusting when you wake up in the morning your day will be well meaning and positive. It means not taking something for granted.

It can be bad for, say, if you have faith X medicine works but don't study it to see if it does. Some things you need evidence and others its not necessary.

Yes, we often have to make choices or decisions on things with limited or insufficient information. But when we choose, the choice always involves some calculation based on all our previous experiences. Yes, we sometimes have to guess, take a chance, or randomly choose, but it is never blind faith. Once the choice is made, we continue to evaluate as things unfold. And if things go awry, it is the fool who blindly holds course with faith that the correct decision was made.

Most cases, I guess, we tend to calculate the risk and evidence but by definition faith is taking a wild jump without needing to know 100% that its going to work. It's doing or believing something that benefits you cause of evidential experience not (as life doesn't work this way) trying to figure out physical evidence (instead of experience) for every decision we make.

Blind faith isn't a good word. It's just faith.

We don't have faith in a particular outcome of an ill-informed choice, we have hope that the best choice was made.

We hope for it, yes... we try not to take it for granted by looking at the evidence and weighing benefits and consequences. Some things like love, safety, and living in an unknown world people have some sort of faith without needing to check every thing that comes to mind.

If we tried to check physical evidence for every single decision we make, we'd be wasting time with the little time we have on earth. Faith can be bad when one takes something for granted or it can be good when one has the courage to do/believe/say something he or she feels is is in his best interest even though he or she doesn't know the benefit or consequence of.
 

KerimF

Active Member
I get it. You've defined the word as you wish not as all the dictionaries define it

Definition of interfaith
: involving persons of different religious faiths

You are right. But it is not my fault :( that those who wrote the dictionaries have no idea yet that many ideas, said scientific, are also believed by most people around the world based on blind faith in their sources... exactly as believers in formal religions are supposed to do.
 

KerimF

Active Member
I can infer, based on my own observations, how likely the moon landing was. Further, I can infer its facticity from the numerous material and visual evidence that it left, as well as testimony from people who were physically there.

The facticity of the moon landing is no more an article of faith than my hypothesis on how my computer works.

After all, I have to admit that without the great efforts to convince people (mainly in USA, if not in its submitted free world as well) of what they were supposed to believe while they are allowed to see on their monitors the outstanding events of the moon landing(s), launching afterwards real outer-space missions would have been delayed a few decades due to lack of enough investments. Fortunately, their various well-prepared scenarios worked very well and things went on as planned. Now the entire world could be controlled for the good and the bad (as it is the case always in human history though it was to a lesser extent) :D
 

Kooky

Freedom from Sanity
After all, I have to admit that without the great efforts to convince people (mainly in USA, if not in its submitted free world as well) of what they were supposed to believe while they are allowed to see on their monitors the outstanding events of the moon landing(s), launching afterwards real outer-space missions would have been delayed a few decades due to lack of enough investments. Fortunately, their various well-prepared scenarios worked very well and things went on as planned. Now the entire world could be controlled for the good and the bad (as it is the case always in human history though it was to a lesser extent) :D
Ah, thanks for letting me know that continueing to talk to you is going to be a waste of my time.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Yikes! No, I would not use TV as a basis for figuring out the reliability of a supposed scientific result. At the very least, go past the TV news and look at some publication devoted to reporting on science. That way, you will at least get journalists who have some acquaintance with the science. There are a number of publications, both online and dead-tree that are devoted to this.

Next, find and read some basic science books at the beginning college level. That will already put you miles ahead of the TV journalists. In a similar way, I would recommend reading history books as a prerequisite to understanding world events. Again, don't do popular books (for the most part). For the background reading, use textbooks that are used at any accredited university. They won't cover everything, but they will cover the basics, which makes it easier to smell out garbage claims.

By the way, to be precise, I wasn't referring to scientific ideas of general use (like of Math, Physics, Chemistry... etc), but to the ones that can serve, when believed by the world, certain economical and/or political agenda of the world's Elite around the world. It happens that the world now, unlike in the past time, is much like a village which can be controlled and supervised, therefore, by one international powerful rich group who have the means to control all peoples around the world via their ruling systems, so-called independent, that have to play their given roles, before their people and the world, as allied or enemies to this or that camp. And by playing the good, the bad and the ugly towards each other, on the news, any global well-planned artificial event could be presented on our monitors as being natural. I think this is enough to say here... otherwise we will have to discuss the evolved Art of Politics by which millions, if not billions, could be driven and controlled now without serious complains :)
 

Bird123

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 :)

Every person believes in science by faith. Until one actually Discovers the Truth for themselves, it's a belief. On the other hand, science experiments can be copied. The information they speak of can be investigated and discovered.

Religion is not the same as science. Religion wants everyone to stop at beliefs because that is all they have. This is the reason science will Discover God before religion will. Yes, contrary to popular belief, science is walking toward God.

Truth is not always an agreeable thing. In addition, religion does not correct their mistakes because they think they do not make any. Further, religion never searches for new knowledge. This wanders one away from the Real Truth and God.

Science does correct the mistakes when they are found or when new knowledge is Discovered. This is a must for anyone who seeks or values Real Truth.

I think everyone should Discover what they really seek for themselves. If one really must follow, which is going to be the more reliable source? Science has it hands down.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!
 

KerimF

Active Member
Yes, be skeptical of 'scientists' that are hired by businesses, especially if their contract doesn't allow them to say things the business doesn't like.

Look to academic scientists. They tend to have more independence of the sort you are wanting here. And no, usually they would NOT be 'in control' by their bosses. That isn't how it works.

But, again, focus on the actual journal articles and not on TV or popular media. Maybe get something devoted to science articles.

After all, in case of an academic scientist whose job or research is of general use, there would be no reason to control him in any way. On the other hand, let us note that no one in the world is ready to listen to a free independent scientist other than those who live and/or work with him (and his students if he is also a teacher).
 

MikeF

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Some things we can have faith in without evidence and others we don't need evidence for it to be beneficial. Outside of religion, it could be just acting on something at the last as a life or death decision instead of thinking about it before one reacts. Blind faith (or just faith-since faith, by definition, is blind) could be being vulnerable to be love and to love. Blind faith could be trusting (having faith) that your militant peer will "catch" you when you fall or protect you.

If in a religious sense, it could be that you're trusting when you wake up in the morning your day will be well meaning and positive. It means not taking something for granted.

It can be bad for, say, if you have faith X medicine works but don't study it to see if it does. Some things you need evidence and others its not necessary.



Most cases, I guess, we tend to calculate the risk and evidence but by definition faith is taking a wild jump without needing to know 100% that its going to work. It's doing or believing something that benefits you cause of evidential experience not (as life doesn't work this way) trying to figure out physical evidence (instead of experience) for every decision we make.

Blind faith isn't a good word. It's just faith.



We hope for it, yes... we try not to take it for granted by looking at the evidence and weighing benefits and consequences. Some things like love, safety, and living in an unknown world people have some sort of faith without needing to check every thing that comes to mind.

If we tried to check physical evidence for every single decision we make, we'd be wasting time with the little time we have on earth. Faith can be bad when one takes something for granted or it can be good when one has the courage to do/believe/say something he or she feels is is in his best interest even though he or she doesn't know the benefit or consequence of.
Yes, these are all ways in which the word 'faith' is used, and people use it in those contexts, but I really do not like the word 'faith', especially the phrase "blind faith". :)

Edit: 'Faith' is often used as a synonym for 'hope', however, I think the term 'faith' conveys more of a sense of surety. It is a religious term/concept, the use of which has bled into non-religious use. In all your examples, I feel that the true sentiment or emotion being expressed is hope, not faith. When we make these guesses, or take our chance with love, we, deep down, acknowledge the true lack of surety in the choice, that it is really just hope that is being expressed.
Blind faith, a surety in a belief or conviction, without evidence or in spite of conflicting evidence, should never be embraced or valued. And if we have supported surety or confidence, then the word 'faith' does not apply, should not be used.
 
Last edited:

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
After all, in case of an academic scientist whose job or research is of general use, there would be no reason to control him in any way. On the other hand, let us note that no one in the world is ready to listen to a free independent scientist other than those who live and/or work with him (and his students if he is also a teacher).

Why not? Since they *are* free and independent, they are the most likely to be reliable.

And, just to note, academic scientists are *often* consulted by outside sources for their honest opinions. One of the ethical rules *should* be that they get to publish their results no matter what they discover.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
By the way, to be precise, I wasn't referring to scientific ideas of general use (like of Math, Physics, Chemistry... etc), but to the ones that can serve, when believed by the world, certain economical and/or political agenda of the world's Elite around the world. It happens that the world now, unlike in the past time, is much like a village which can be controlled and supervised, therefore, by one international powerful rich group who have the means to control all peoples around the world via their ruling systems, so-called independent, that have to play their given roles, before their people and the world, as allied or enemies to this or that camp. And by playing the good, the bad and the ugly towards each other, on the news, any global well-planned artificial event could be presented on our monitors as being natural. I think this is enough to say here... otherwise we will have to discuss the evolved Art of Politics by which millions, if not billions, could be driven and controlled now without serious complains :)

I think it is a huge mistake to believe that all of the 'elites' of the world have interests that align. And, if the interests differ, there will still be power struggles within the elites and disagreements about what to do and say. In that context, it would be impossible to keep anything like this going for the decades you seem to think has happened.

In other words, I call garbage on this viewpoint. Any real analysis of the forces that would have to be involved shows quickly that they are not possible, even with today's technology simply because people are not uniform (and that includes the elites).
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Even as a scientist, I cannot know all that is known in science or what all other scientists know. I have to place my confidence in the system and those scientists when they are writing about their areas of expertise. You could call that faith I suppose.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
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 :)
I am not sure why you think I missed that.

I don't recall taking exams that way. If it reflected the way that I was taught, that would be the only homage to the teacher that taught me. I am not exactly sure what you mean.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I think it is a huge mistake to believe that all of the 'elites' of the world have interests that align. And, if the interests differ, there will still be power struggles within the elites and disagreements about what to do and say. In that context, it would be impossible to keep anything like this going for the decades you seem to think has happened.

In other words, I call garbage on this viewpoint. Any real analysis of the forces that would have to be involved shows quickly that they are not possible, even with today's technology simply because people are not uniform (and that includes the elites).
That is an idea that seems to be crawling out of the discussion of this thread. Another depiction of a conspiracy of some global elite that runs things and everyone knows, but no one knows. All these divergent elites that can come together unanimously on global control sounds more like a bad sci-fi plot than anything else.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
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 ;) ).
I would imagine there are many people that have managed to stay alive for 30 or more years that don't even know how they did it or have any opinion on science.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I think that is an important point. New ideas are not just accepted on faith, but are run through the wringer. If they come out the other side in one piece, then they become the next great idea to be challenged, examined, supported where the evidence warrants or upended, again where the evidence warrants.

A lot of concepts that we accept today took a lot of time to reach that level of acceptance. And there are a lot of concepts that never made it too.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I learned a lot from my teachers and advisors in settings far from the classroom.

Sometimes setting around a table with pizza and beer, you learn a lot.
 

KerimF

Active Member
Sorry, this seems rather silly. A bit of common sense would show that a 'fake' new landing would *immediately* have been exposed by Russia (for example), China, and any number of other countries that would have LOVED to embarrass the US.

And it would have been *easy* to expose. Just see where the signals were coming from. If they weren't from the direction of the moon, you know it was a lie.

So, no, it isn't just what you can see on your monitors. It is also understanding the context and how easy it would have been for *anyone* with some basic technology to expose.

Thank you for raising this point.
Well, the missing part in the story is that, at the time of Apollo missions, no ruling system in the world dared opposing directly the new greatest power. This powerful system was able to get rid, very cleverly, of three world's powers in the 20th century. The first one was the Ottoman Empire which was made out of the power’s game by using the British and French hands. Then, it was the turn of Britain and France to be out by using the German hands (besides some other European ones). Please note, I don’t expect you to believe anything I said here for two reasons: it is safer for you not to know any truth which is supposed to be hidden from the multitudes and believing a hidden truth or not won’t change anything in the world other than talking more about it :)
 
Top