ATTENTION: The Boards will be closed permanently on May 28th, 2014. Posting will be disabled on April 28th, 2014. More Info

Is science faith?

GrandLunar2007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1092

Report this Feb. 18 2008, 7:03 pm

Dr. Phil Plait provides an excellent article on his blog concerning a subject that was touched upon once. I believe it was addressed in the debate on "intelligent design".

Anyway, the subject was about science, and how it is just as much faith as is religon.

For those that believe this, sorry to burst your warp bubble.

Here's the article.

Dr. Plait has often hit the nail on the head when it comes to the issue of anti-science that plagues society today.

Remember folks, real science is more than just having a good education for the next generation. It is the assurence of our future. It is by science that we shall find ways to improve our planet, and live on new ones.

Solesius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 19 2008, 4:30 am

As long as science relies on emperical evidence unlike intelligent design it can't be faith.

Next to that scientist set up a hypothesis and work out experiments to see if their hypothesis is correct or needs to be adjusted.

Intelligent designers assume by DEFINITION there is a intelligent designer (aka. God) and try to find evidence that supports this. Thats not science or faith even...its called Dogma.

Greetings,

Solesius.

dryson

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 749

Report this Feb. 22 2008, 6:26 pm

Solesius.

Here is an equation to ponder facing this challenge of correctness or dogmatic shadow hiding.

When religion professes that a god created all the question should be asked. If god did create all this leads to the notion of that in order to create one must first be created. In order for god to have created us then god would have to have been created. So who created god? One cannot create without first being created.

Tannagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15354

Report this Feb. 23 2008, 4:36 am

Quote (dryson @ Feb. 22 2008, 6:26 pm)
Solesius.

Here is an equation to ponder facing this challenge of correctness or dogmatic shadow hiding.

When religion professes that a god created all the question should be asked. If god did create all this leads to the notion of that in order to create one must first be created. In order for god to have created us then god would have to have been created. So who created god? One cannot create without first being created.

I think thats what you call an 'infinite regress'? And as Carl Sagan once said, 'why not just miss out one step' ie. miss out God.

Anyway i'm sure the people who think Science is faith don't think of such when they use their computers, or make phone calls with their mobiles/cell phones, or turn on their microwave ovens etc etc and so on.

And here's something, even for lasers, the small ones, in your cd player a decent understanding of quantum physics is required by the designer of the device.

;)

Solesius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 9:15 am

Quote (dryson @ Feb. 22 2008, 6:26 pm)
Solesius.

Here is an equation to ponder facing this challenge of correctness or dogmatic shadow hiding.

When religion professes that a god created all the question should be asked. If god did create all this leads to the notion of that in order to create one must first be created. In order for god to have created us then god would have to have been created. So who created god? One cannot create without first being created.

Ofcourse a obvious (one of countless many) illogical statements of religion.

I was just answering the question of the original poster.

Science has however hypothesized that the universe could have its origin out of nothing. As is indicated by quantummechanics.

I prefer such a explenation over that of a fairytale personally.

On the other hand, everything started with a Big Bang is what is most commenly believed and what scientific evidence is indicating at the moment. But that would mean there was NO time and space before the Big Bang. Thus a question what was there before the Big Bang is irrelivent. Time and space didnt exist yet.

Greetings,

Solesius

RCSlyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 333

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 11:37 am

Quote (Solesius @ Feb. 18 2008, 5:30 am)
As long as science relies on emperical evidence unlike intelligent design it can't be faith.

Remember, emperical evidence ages ago places our world at the center of the universe, with everything revolving around it.  Everyone accepted that on faith in the sciences of the time.

We believe we have a full understanding of the universal laws and what we "know to be true".  That doesn't necessarily make us correct.  We just have faith that we are.

Tannagra

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 15354

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 12:11 pm

Quote (RCSlyman @ Feb. 25 2008, 11:37 am)
Quote (Solesius @ Feb. 18 2008, 5:30 am)
As long as science relies on emperical evidence unlike intelligent design it can't be faith.

Remember, emperical evidence ages ago places our world at the center of the universe, with everything revolving around it. ?Everyone accepted that on faith in the sciences of the time.

We believe we have a full understanding of the universal laws and what we "know to be true". ?That doesn't necessarily make us correct. ?We just have faith that we are.

No we dont have faith that we are, our present understandings, which science tell us, ARE correct upto a point.

And we don't believe we have a full understanding of the universe's laws, we know we have a full understanding of certain aspects of it, actually alot of aspects of it; maybe we don't know why some things happen but we can predict them happening because we have laws to go by.

Finally, there's a huge difference between believing in, or having faith for, fairies ie. GOD and updating your scientific knowledge as you progress. Any scientist who has faith in his presumptions, without firm evidence which is independently verifiable, ¿is one seriously poor scientist who shouldn't call himself as such in my opinion.

And i've just done a quick search on who was the first to figure out the Earth revolved around the Sun and it was a gentlemen called Aristarchus of Samos who lived in the 3rd Century BC.

RCSlyman

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 333

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 7:35 pm

And yet, even when presented with new empirical data that changes a fundamental science... or even updates it... people reject that data because they believe what they have been told, what they have known, is correct.

You gotta remember, faith in science isn't just talking about the scientists.  It's talking about the masses of sheep than believe whatever dribble they are spoon-fed.

Constable_Odo_1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4601

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 7:38 pm

Who is the designer behind the design?

HisRoyalHighnessTheKing

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 34248

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 7:52 pm

Quote (Constable_Odo_1 @ Feb. 25 2008, 3:38 pm)
Who is the designer behind the design?

Another designer.

:D

Constable_Odo_1

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 4601

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 7:53 pm

Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Feb. 25 2008, 7:52 pm)
Quote (Constable_Odo_1 @ Feb. 25 2008, 3:38 pm)
Who is the designer behind the design?

Another designer.

:D

A designer none the less, King. Thank you.

GrandLunar2007

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 1092

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 8:04 pm

Quote (RCSlyman @ Feb. 25 2008, 11:37 am)
Remember, emperical evidence ages ago places our world at the center of the universe, with everything revolving around it. ?Everyone accepted that on faith in the sciences of the time.

Wrong.

Ancient Greeks had figured out that the Earth wasn't the center of everything. A heliocentric system was accepted by them, and a few other civilizations.

It was the Church that skewed the belief to a geocentric one, to fit the view of their faith. And they supressed ideas that went against this belief. It was faith that upheld this belief, not emperical evidence.
Not until new emperical evidence was provided did such faith based assumptions begin to not hold merit.

Quote
We believe we have a full understanding of the universal laws and what we "know to be true". ?


No, we do not.
No scientist is foolish enough to believe this.
We know there is so much more to learn. That's why science continues to advance and grow.

It has nothing to do with "spoon feeding sheep", as you comment.
It has to do with what the evidence shows us.

Remember that many sciences investigated over the past 100 years allow you to post comments such as what you made for other people to read.
That is what seperates science from faith; science gives tangible results.

kirkkid7

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 10164

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 8:17 pm

unless your me, science ain't faith. :logical:

HisRoyalHighnessTheKing

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 34248

Report this Feb. 25 2008, 8:51 pm

Quote (Constable_Odo_1 @ Feb. 25 2008, 3:53 pm)
Quote (HisRoyalHighnessTheKing @ Feb. 25 2008, 7:52 pm)
Quote (Constable_Odo_1 @ Feb. 25 2008, 3:38 pm)
Who is the designer behind the design?

Another designer.

:D

A designer none the less, King. Thank you.

And that's the problem with "intelligent design creationism"

It either uses infinite regression or at some point one of the designers becomes divine.

It's a religious theory disguised behind pseudo-scientific language.

Eugenie Scott's presentation (which you can see on YouTube) is just hilarious and makes ID look ridiculous.

Solesius

GROUP: Members

POSTS: 46

Report this Feb. 26 2008, 4:14 am

Quote (RCSlyman @ Feb. 25 2008, 11:37 am)
Quote (Solesius @ Feb. 18 2008, 5:30 am)
As long as science relies on emperical evidence unlike intelligent design it can't be faith.

Remember, emperical evidence ages ago places our world at the center of the universe, with everything revolving around it. ¿Everyone accepted that on faith in the sciences of the time.

We believe we have a full understanding of the universal laws and what we "know to be true". ¿That doesn't necessarily make us correct. ¿We just have faith that we are.

The concept that the earth was the center of the universe was based on religion. And had very little to do with science.

And we dont believe we have a full understanding of the universe. Not nearly, however 400 years of science resulted in radio's, microwaves, vaccines etc. etc. etc.

2000 years of religion resulted in famine, ingnorance and oppression. I think there is a big difference.

Greetings,

Solesius

Recently logged in

Users browsing this forum: Dryson3

Forum Permissions

You cannot post new topics in this forum

You cannot reply to topics in this forum

You cannot delete posts in this forum