paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"Faith is the fundamental way for humans to get to a truth of any kind, including scientific truths"
Just change of words. Backbone has a synonym of fundamental. Please
So, one agrees with the OP.
Regards
-
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!
Is faith the backbone of Science?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Just change of words. Backbone has a synonym of fundamental. Please
So, one agrees with the OP.
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
All the steps of the scientific method are based on faith, without faith the scientific method would crumble down like a molehill of dry sand, nothing would be left of it.
Please
Regards
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
What is 'poor' about science's track record? Is it science's poor track record that enabled us to figure out how to manipulate electrons so we can communicate on the Internet? Has polio been vitally wiped out because of science's poor track record in figuring out immunizations? Was it science's poor track record that enabled us to land human beings on the moon?
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
The above is evidence that the scientific method is NOT based on faith. If it was then scientists would have accepted the conclusions and made no effort to challenge them. Fortunately they DID question them and discovered new evidence that enabled us to change the models we'd had in place so that they reflected reality. For more than 150 years scientists have been searching for evidence that the theory of evolution is faulty, yet after a century and a half no such evidence has been found. In fact, the amount of evidence supporting the theory just continues to grow. .
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
The poor record, to me, is that they know their findings are never to be 100 correct, yet they are happy with the results to be correct "as it works", just for faith in science. Please
Regards
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Very interesting. YOU consider the fact that science adjusts it's conclusions based upon the discovery of new evidence to be what give's 'science' a bad track record. Whereas I consider science's insistence upon changing its conclusions based upon the discovery of new evidence to be it's greatest strength.
Yet the results ARE correct enough for us to wipe out polio, communicate over the Internet and land people on the moon. If you can point out a methodology that can somehow 'more correctly' accomplish such feats, I'd be very eager to hear about it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is out of faith in science, they should admit it. It is not doing of the science, science does not do anything. It is what people do out of faith, yet they don't admit it. Faith proves to be fruitful and science is the fruit of faith. They should admit that God made faith fruitful for the humans, and they should also thank God for that. Right? Please
Regards
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but that's simply not true. I can believe that science is a complete crock and have absolutely no faith in it whatsoever. Yet my lack of faith doesn't stop me from typing on this computer. Not even the slightest bit of faith is required on my part for the electrons inside my computer to act and react in the way that science has predicted they will so that my messages appear on the Internet. My lack of faith in computer science DOES NOT cause the scientific method that enabled scientists to build computers to come crumbling down. Even in a society where every single individual was ignorant of the scientific method and thus could have no faith in it, computers would STILL work
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Sorry, but your response makes no sense. WHAT is out of faith in science that they should admit?
And you're right, science doesn't DO anything, because science isn't a someone. Science is a methodology that people employ in an attempt to figure out how the physical world functions. Thus far in human history it is a methodology that has proven itself to be more effective in figuring out how the physical world functions than any other method humans have come up with. The realities that the scientific method have uncovered for us, such as what viruses are and how to create vaccines against them... the laws that govern electrons so that we have computers... landing a person on the moon... require NO FAITH WHATSOEVER. The light bulb will switch on for the person who believes the scientific method enabled us to harness electricity just as effectively as it will switch on for the person who's never even heard of the scientific method, let alone has faith in it.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"it is a methodology that has proven itself to be more effective in figuring out how the physical world functions"
That is my point that scientific method a useful tool in the physical and material realms, it should not interfere with the ethical. moral and spiritual aspects of man, belief in religion and God.
Regards
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
The scientific method doesn't interfere with the ethical, moral, and spiritual aspects of man or belief in religion or God. It simply is a method for helping us understand how the physical world functions. If our understanding of how the physical world functions in some way conflicts with or interferes with a person's religious belief in God, that's not the fault of the scientific method. And just because our understanding of how the physical world works might conflict with someone's religious faith does NOT make faith a component of the scientific method in any way shape or form.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"that's not the fault of the scientific method"
God, religion, ethics, morals, spiritual uplift etc, are not the subjects of science or scientific method. Right? Please
Regards
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
You're absolutely right, science is the study of how the physical world works and doesn't deal with metaphysical concepts. So if science discovers something about physical reality that conflicts with some person's religious beliefs, are you saying scientists shouldn't report the findings because it 'interferes' with these people's religious beliefs? If my religion tells me that the sun orbits around the Earth, should science not report that the Earth actually orbits around the sun because it challenges my religious belief?
And what does any of this have to do with your original unfounded claim that FAITH is the backbone of science?
Ponder This
Well-Known Member
Faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something".
If you have complete trust and confidence in Science, then that is faith.
Many people have faith in Science. It is not a Blind Faith. It is a Faith based on empirical observations.
Make the same post and instead of using the word "faith" ask if people have complete trust or confidence in the conclusions reached by Science.
For example, do you actually believe that you need to wear a Spacesuit to go into Space? Why do believe that?
On the other hand, there is another group of people who do not have "complete trust or confidence" in Science and who are scientists themselves. They are in the minority of people who use Science. But essentially they hold that you can never be 100% confident in any of the conclusions reached by Science. It is a sort of statistician's dilemma.
To get a sense of this dilemma, try to measure an inch precisely... you can't. You will always be off by some amount of unforeseen error. Scientists get around this by creating bars that represent a true length. They degreed these bars to be a certain length and all measurements are relative to those bars. Sound familiar?
Or for example, if you see someone walk out of his house every morning at precisely 9am, then you might assume that he will always walk out of his house every morning at 9am. And you might believe that because of all the data collected day after day after day which points to the fact of him walking out of his house every morning at 9am that he will walk out of his house tomorrow morning at 9am. It wouldn't be a Blind Faith to believe that. But some scientists can remain skeptical of the conclusions.
It's hard to put this understanding into words: how you can be a scientist and not have "complete trust or confidence" in it, but it is possible.
If you have complete trust and confidence in Science, then that is faith.
Many people have faith in Science. It is not a Blind Faith. It is a Faith based on empirical observations.
Make the same post and instead of using the word "faith" ask if people have complete trust or confidence in the conclusions reached by Science.
For example, do you actually believe that you need to wear a Spacesuit to go into Space? Why do believe that?
On the other hand, there is another group of people who do not have "complete trust or confidence" in Science and who are scientists themselves. They are in the minority of people who use Science. But essentially they hold that you can never be 100% confident in any of the conclusions reached by Science. It is a sort of statistician's dilemma.
To get a sense of this dilemma, try to measure an inch precisely... you can't. You will always be off by some amount of unforeseen error. Scientists get around this by creating bars that represent a true length. They degreed these bars to be a certain length and all measurements are relative to those bars. Sound familiar?
Or for example, if you see someone walk out of his house every morning at precisely 9am, then you might assume that he will always walk out of his house every morning at 9am. And you might believe that because of all the data collected day after day after day which points to the fact of him walking out of his house every morning at 9am that he will walk out of his house tomorrow morning at 9am. It wouldn't be a Blind Faith to believe that. But some scientists can remain skeptical of the conclusions.
It's hard to put this understanding into words: how you can be a scientist and not have "complete trust or confidence" in it, but it is possible.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"If you have complete trust and confidence in Science, then that is faith.
Many people have faith in Science. It is not a Blind Faith."
When one had not yet done one's first experiment of science, was it faith or blind faith?
Please
Regards
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
Just to add:
“Anyone who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.' It is a quality which scientists cannot dispense with. ... The pure rationalist has no place here.”
Full text of "Where is science going?"BY MAX PLANCK,PROFESSOR OF THEORETICAL PHYSICS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN
PROLOGUE BY ALBERT EINSTEIN TRANSLATION AND BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE BY JAMES MURPHY
Regards
______
"temple of science"
JustWondering
Jerk
Ok, prove it, design a better computer or jet engine or vaccine using prayer and faith. Let me know how it turns out.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
Piltdown man wasn't science. It was a hoax. Scientific theories are hypotheses that have been repeatedly confirmed with experimentation and observation. While they are not absolute, they are about as close as human beings can get. But, the good news is that scientists are constantly questioning theories of the past to improve them or, sometimes, rule them out. That is why science is the best method we have for getting closer to truth.
Scripture, dogma, faith, etc., on the other hand, is based on not questioning or withholding belief due to a lack of evidence. That seems to be a counterintuitive method of arriving at truth.