1. 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!

Featured Is faith the backbone of Science?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by paarsurrey, Apr 1, 2017.

  1. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    13,063
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    Is faith the backbone of Science?
    Please

    Regards
     
  2. A Greased Scotsman

    A Greased Scotsman THIS is a sword. And it's bigger than yours!

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    5,071
    Ratings:
    +5,251
    Religion:
    Pagan - Greek polytheism with hints of Daoist & Zoroastrian philosophies
    Nope.

    /thread
     
    • Winner Winner x 11
    • Like Like x 2
  3. leibowde84

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    14,917
    Ratings:
    +4,667
    Religion:
    Agnostic Christian
    No. Science uses the scientific method of repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith. When a "scientific theory" is presented, scientists scramble to do their best to disprove it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 4
  4. von bek

    von bek Following the Wayfinder

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,334
    Ratings:
    +792
    Religion:
    Hellenic Polytheism
    Doubtful. I'm guessing you think so, though. What is your argument it is?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Libertarian Gearhead
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    108,029
    Ratings:
    +23,186
    Religion:
    Vantology
    Of course, faith (as differentiated from inductive reasoning) is not the backbone of science.
    But scientists employ it at times (often to their detriment).
     
  6. Nowhere Man

    Nowhere Man Bompu Zen Man.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    12,371
    Ratings:
    +3,336
    Religion:
    Zen Buddhism
    Like heading into space without a spacesuit?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  7. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    4,491
    Ratings:
    +2,223
    Religion:
    Gnostic
    No. Repeatable results, correct predictions based on observations are the backbone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. bobhikes

    bobhikes Liveinthenowist
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    6,549
    Ratings:
    +1,154
    I believe faith is the foundation for our emotional knowledge, Love, Friendship, family, God
    I believe truth is the foundation for logical knowledge, Science, Math, rational thought
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. Jeremiahcp

    Jeremiahcp Well-Known Jerk

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2016
    Messages:
    3,793
    Ratings:
    +2,120
    If anything can be said to be the "backbone" of science it would be reason.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. Politesse

    Politesse Amor Vincit Omnia

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,394
    Ratings:
    +996
    Religion:
    Startlingly Ecclectic
    The backbone of science is inference from empirical observations, within the context of justified uniformitarian assumptions. Faith is required at a certain level, as science is only valid if and when the above logical conclusion is also valid, and it cannot test itself very easily in this sense. But it is not the backbone of science, as faith could take one in any direction, and science describes a very particular set of ideas that seem to cohere with the observed universe very consistently. It imposes rules on its own conclusions, rather than on the minds of its adherents, and for this I will always love it.

    Any working scientist will observe that science does not tell you what is "true", because a declaration of truth is always a declaration of faith; to say that something is certainly true is to say that it will continue to be true even if contradictory evidence later surfaces to prove otherwise. But science can certainly tell you when something is false, or when your assumptions have led you into a corner where empirical evidence could not have led you. And this is an irreplaceable boon in the always-shifting and uncertain sands of human ideas.
     
    #10 Politesse, Apr 1, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2017
  11. columbus

    columbus Conservative Catholic from Hell

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    12,620
    Ratings:
    +7,120
    Religion:
    None
    No.
    Skepticism is the backbone of science.
    Don't expect anyone to accept your opinions unless you have evidence that you can share.
    Tom
     
    • Like Like x 3
  12. Politesse

    Politesse Amor Vincit Omnia

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2010
    Messages:
    1,394
    Ratings:
    +996
    Religion:
    Startlingly Ecclectic
    Not sure I agree with that, Columbus. Like faith, skepticism is a weapon that can be wielded with or without any scientific validity whatsoever. I think the method itself must be considered science's backbone (an objective matter), not any particular attitude toward the world (a subjective matter).
     
  13. Sunstone

    Sunstone De Diablo Del Fora
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    63,018
    Ratings:
    +17,519
    Religion:
    Erotic Dancing Girls
    The word faith has different meanings. The faith of scientists is different than the faith of believers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. icehorse

    icehorse Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    5,974
    Ratings:
    +2,631
    Religion:
    spiritual anti-theist : )
    At a philosophical level I might agree that faith is the backbone of science...

    For example, scientists value: logic and reason and evidence and discovery. The moral relativist would say that there is no reason why we should value those things. For scientists it just "feels right" to value those things. But ultimately, those values are subjective. (They're my values too, fwiw, I simply acknowledge that it's a bit arbitrary for me to have them.)
     
  15. Evangelicalhumanist

    Evangelicalhumanist "Truth" isn't a thing...

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    1,499
    Ratings:
    +1,335
    Religion:
    None, a humanist who doesn't even worship humans
    A question that could only be asked by someone who has little idea of what science is, and how it works.

    I've often been truly shocked, since I started visiting religious (and other "philosophical") web sites, at how very little science seems to have been taught to people in the world's schools systems. Nearly everything important in our world today is the result of science, and amazingly few people have any real understanding.

    Hard to understand why we're failing so badly, really///
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Sartre

    Sartre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2015
    Messages:
    3,476
    Ratings:
    +2,611
    I guess it is based in faith in the sense that we have to have faith that that which we observe is true and not a delusion.

    But I think what the Scotsman says stands.
     
  17. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    18,778
    Ratings:
    +5,109
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    In this particular case I'd call it trolling.

    .
     
  18. Deidre

    Deidre Follow thy heart

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2014
    Messages:
    5,816
    Ratings:
    +4,314
    Religion:
    Eclecticism
    Are you asking if you need faith in order to ''believe'' in science?
     
  19. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    3,496
    Ratings:
    +2,544
    Hmm. I think some of that might have to do with the rise of the internet. Of course there are always going to be religious people against learning science (and even non religious people.) But there does seem to be this idea that because one can Google something, an expertise opinion is not more valid than that one Google search. I see it often with my peers, even though they're not dumb. They just tend to be more skeptical of expertise, which is fine to an extent. But when they just assume that because the information is so readily available they can become just as much an expert, well, yeah it becomes kind of a concern.

    With regards to the OP, uhh, no. You fail science. Try again.
     
  20. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    13,063
    Ratings:
    +1,013
    "repeated experimentation and observation to battle any use of faith."

    1. Does repeated "experimentation and observation" make it immune from the errors or blunders?
    2. After how many experimentation the result understood/interpreted will be considered 100% correct?
    3. Has it ever happened that the result understood to be correct was later found to be erroneous?
    4. The word "repeated" shows that doubt was there in the very first place, and it was only out of faith that the exercise was continued. Science is, therefore, the fruit of faith.
    5. It is not a "battle" with faith, rather it is battle with doubt. Human conscience reject doubt, faith generates peace and progress .
    So, it is faith and faith alone in the "experimentation and observation" that science, the scientists and the people dealing in science that science "works" and continues its endeavors. Please
    Right? Please

    Regards
     
    #20 paarsurrey, Apr 2, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017
Loading...