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:
    20,443
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    Is faith the backbone of Science?
    Please

    Regards
     
  2. The Emperor of Mankind

    The Emperor of Mankind Currently the galaxy's spookiest paraplegic

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    6,401
    Ratings:
    +6,479
    Religion:
    Greek Paganism
    Nope.

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

    leibowde84 Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2014
    Messages:
    16,129
    Ratings:
    +5,456
    Religion:
    Agnostic Atheist
    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 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2014
    Messages:
    1,463
    Ratings:
    +921
    Doubtful. I'm guessing you think so, though. What is your argument it is?
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Revoltingest

    Revoltingest Abnormal before it was fashionable
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    222,869
    Ratings:
    +87,551
    Religion:
    Atheist
    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. Twilight Hue

    Twilight Hue Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2009
    Messages:
    48,486
    Ratings:
    +21,853
    Religion:
    Philosophical Buddhism
    Like heading into space without a spacesuit?
     
    • Funny Funny x 3
  7. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,863
    Ratings:
    +5,453
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    No. Repeatable results, correct predictions based on observations are the backbone.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. bobhikes

    bobhikes AntiRepublican
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    8,802
    Ratings:
    +2,542
    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:
    4,290
    Ratings:
    +2,388
    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:
    1,615
    Ratings:
    +1,165
    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 yawn <ignore> yawn

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2014
    Messages:
    25,076
    Ratings:
    +16,287
    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:
    1,615
    Ratings:
    +1,165
    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
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Messages:
    76,126
    Ratings:
    +37,789
    Religion:
    Non-Theistic Mysticism
    The word faith has different meanings. The faith of scientists is different than the faith of believers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. icehorse

    icehorse Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2014
    Messages:
    12,200
    Ratings:
    +7,473
    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...
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2013
    Messages:
    14,840
    Ratings:
    +18,410
    Religion:
    None.
    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. Skwim

    Skwim Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    Messages:
    28,026
    Ratings:
    +11,918
    Religion:
    Atheist
    In this particular case I'd call it trolling.

    .
     
  17. Deidre

    Deidre Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2014
    Messages:
    7,101
    Ratings:
    +5,708
    Are you asking if you need faith in order to ''believe'' in science?
     
  18. SomeRandom

    SomeRandom Still learning to be wise
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2014
    Messages:
    13,854
    Ratings:
    +12,586
    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.
     
  19. paarsurrey

    paarsurrey Veteran Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2012
    Messages:
    20,443
    Ratings:
    +2,730
    "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
     
    #19 paarsurrey, Apr 2, 2017
    Last edited: Apr 2, 2017
  20. Jumi

    Jumi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    9,863
    Ratings:
    +5,453
    Religion:
    Secular theist (none)
    Doubt is strength. How else are you going to verify if something works as predicted if you have no doubt? That's the only way to improve knowledge and that's how we have all this improvement in quality of life and technology. At no time have there been more people alive and as well fed with options to their lives as now.
     
Loading...