A Person Believes in Science by Faith if...

[Dan From Smithville]

All I'm saying is seeking knowledge is congruent to trying to be like God.
If you are seeking knowledge for it's own sake, that's fine with me.

I am uncertain that recognizing a list of physical characters that differentiate Coleoptera from Diptera is displaying my god-like power. I will have to think about that a bit.

 

[MikeF]

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

Why the adjective 'mature'? Does, then, a non-mature person trust scientific conclusions through reason, by contrast?

Since we human beings are fallible creatures, we should never solely trust our own observations, experiences and logical reasoning. That is the beauty of science. We compare the observations, experiences and logical reasoning of many, many observers from which to draw reasoned and rational conclusions. The more observers that draw the same conclusion, the greater our degree of confidence in that conclusion.

Trust in the conclusions of the scientific community, and the knowledge gained there, is not equivalent to religious faith. Faith in religion is an acceptance or belief without evidence or in spite of contradicting evidence.

Trust in scientific conclusions is based on experience through schooling, learning the scientific process and practicing it, first-hand in lab experiments. Trust in scientific conclusions is based on our observation and experience with the observed outcomes of our scientific knowledge, such as technology, healthcare industry, weather forecasting, etc.

It is not blind faith that we have in science, it is trust or degrees of confidence based on our shared experiences.

 

[Kooky]

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

If my faith that my computer keeps working to deliver you this message is the same faith that you have in God, does that mean God and my computer are similar?

 

[robocop (actually)]

I am uncertain that recognizing a list of physical characters that differentiate Coleoptera from Diptera is displaying my god-like power. I will have to think about that a bit.

Just like science tends to support the right things, in trying to be like God you can try to seek out the right God.

 

[MikeF]

I am afraid you missed the crucial point
You said:
"In the case of scientists, they can: they have testable theories and repeatable results judged by other educated experts in the field."

I wonder how a mature human can be sure/certain that someone, presented as being a scientist or an educated expert, is indeed a real scientist/expert... and, most of all, how he can be sure that what this scientist says is true and not just serving a sort of propaganda.

Could they not verify their credentials? Does the scientist work for a reputable organization or institution? Also, time. If someone in the scientific community makes a claim, others in the field will evaluate it and work to replicate the results.

I'm not sure what you mean by propaganda. Are you suggesting that all scientist in a particular field collude to support conclusions that they know are false? I would say that type of global collusion is impossible. There extremely high incentive to being right or accurate.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

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

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.

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?

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?

 

[KerimF]

Depends on how you are defining faith. Are you equating faith with belief without evidence. Or are you equating faith with simple trust?

A person [ A ] has faith in someone else [ B ], if [ A ] trusts [ B ] more than himself [ A ].

This could happen when [ A ] cannot verify in anyway (by a test or logic) what [ B ] says but, at the same time [ A ] doesn't mind accepting as true what he heard from [ B ].

For example, in general, a kid has faith in his parents.

 

[KerimF]

It's called sarcasm, I'm sure you've heard if it

Oh, I see... Thank you.
You know... I am from Mars and I am still in the learning stage on Earth.

 

[ChristineM]

Oh, I see... Thank you.
You know... I am from Mars and I am still in the learning stage on Earth.

There ya go, you are getting the hang of it.

 

[KerimF]

That's the point. We trust a theory because we have read, in a source we trust, that more than one person we trust, in more than one location or using more than one technique, agree on observations that confirm the predictions of the theory. That involves faith. But it is faith based on tests the theory has passed - so long as we are right to trust our sources and the people making the observations. There is a particular, rigorous process followed in science, to make sure that theories are solidly founded on what nature tells us.

This does not apply to the theories of religion.

Yes, as long the scientific ideas that one knows are related to and/or useful in, directly or indirectly, HIS own life, there is no reason for him to have faith in their origins anymore because he can trust them as he trusts himself.

But as you know, the origin of all ideas, said scientific, is not the same

So if someone doesn't mind believing automatically every idea, he may hear and said scientific, I am not sure how he could be different from a religious person who also doesn't mind believing any idea if said it is inspired by God.

 

[KerimF]

I do not fully understand the latter part of your post here, but every once in a while I find what I think of as a gem of a thread and this looks like the start of one.

I guess you are referring to my relation to Jesus which is based on reason (as between a teacher and his student), not on faith (as between a deity and his believer). I am afraid it is a big topic as the one titled: "What did you learn in electronics?"

 

[KerimF]

Faith in God and faith in science are not the only shows in town are they?

Howabout faith in the essential decency of one’s fellow man or woman? Faith that everything will work out okay in the end? Faith that the universe is not, when all is said and done, a hostile place?

Sometimes quite a lot of faith is required, just to live.

Exactly!
May I add that, to also be on the safe side, most people around the world don't mind having faith in their powerful rich rulers

 

[KerimF]

It seems like you are saying that, for you personally, you do not accept science on faith.

Exactly; every idea in my set of knowledge now is based on reason, not faith.
But, naturally, I had faith in my parents when I was a kid.
And I had to have faith in my teachers at school then at the university; otherwise, I couldn't pass their exams

 

[KerimF]

You're committing the classic equivocation fallacy of religious apologetics here. It occurs whenever one uses two homonyms interchangeably as if they were the same word. Faith means many things besides those two - religious faith and faith based in experience. Other meanings include a religion (the Jewish faith), an attitude or manner of behaving (in good faith), and a girl's name (Faith Hill).

Religious faith is insufficiently supported or evidenced belief. Justified belief is radically different - the difference between creationism and evolution science, astrology and astronomy, and alchemy and chemistry. To say that faith in astronomers is much like faith in astrologers is incorrect. Period.

Why does anyone need to repeat the experiments or learn the mathematics necessary to really understand that science behind say a moon landing is correct? Did the Apollo missions make it to the moon and back? If yes, then the math and science underlying the engineering is correct. Period. You need no more evidence than that to believe that the NASA team's understanding of rocketry, navigation, communications, etc. is correct if it worked as predicted. No faith is needed to trust the science. It's stunning success it the evidence that its basic assumptions and methods are a valid (and the only valid) means of discovering what is true about the world.

Incidentally, I've taken to calling any activity that tests and confirms hypotheses by collecting empirical data science, including looking both ways before crossing the street. This is informal science, to contrast it with laboratory or observatory formal science. Which restaurant will give me the better experience? We try both a couple of times and conclude that the Chinese restaurant is preferable to the Italian one. We had a hypothesis, tested it by going to them and eating there (collected evidence about ambiance, service, parking, proximity, price, selection, etc..), assembled to results in memory, and came to a conclusion about which we preferred that ought to be reproducible until one of the restaurants changes for the better or worse. It's really the same process done for the same purpose.

Your remark on the different meaning of the word 'faith' is interesting. I wish there are words as many as the different meanings of faith. But this is one of the imperfections which could be found in every language

I wished you didn't give the Apollo missions as an example. Should I trust what I saw on TV concerning the moon landing or what I read on the British magazine 'Wireless World.. 1985." that the insurance campaniles of space projects complained that 4 out of 5 missions to put just a satellite on its orbit fail?
Obviously, I can't believe both claims. And if I choose one of them as being true, I have to do it based on a blind faith.

But the analogy of the restaurants is very good as long 'you' are one of the observers.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Exactly!
May I add that, to also be on the safe side, most people around the world don't mind having faith in their powerful rich rulers

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

 

[KerimF]

As a practitioner of an applied science, am I to understand that you accept scientific findings and explanations on faith alone?

I didn't know that my English is that bad
Actually, all useful ideas, said material (scientific) or spiritual (religious), in my set of knowledge are based now on reason (on my personal observations/experiments and/or my logical reasoning) only.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I didn't know that my English is that bad
Actually, all useful ideas, said material (scientific) or spiritual (religious), in my set of knowledge are based now on reason (on my personal observations/experiments and/or my logical reasoning) only.

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.

 

[osgart]

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.

 

[KerimF]

Trying to be like God is the key to all science. If you don't believe in God, use the definition of God. Of course just like there are good ways and bad ways to try to be like God, there are good and bad ways to do science.

Your point is great but applying it by someone depends on his assumed image of God (The Will behind the creation of the time/space realm; we call universe).

 

[KerimF]

Does trusting that you have found a novel topology that is denied by science mean you do not exist?

Just the opposite I mean; I do exist because I used believing in 'my' science, not of others. But this doesn't prevent there are many common ideas in mine and what someone else knows as science.