The Religion Discussion

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Science does NOT require faith.

You CAN have faith in a hypothesis or in a scientist, but faith is not required for science.

I can have faith that my car will start in the morning, however it's up to the science behind the sealed, maintenance free battery. No amount of my faith in the battery will help if the battery is dead.

I can have faith that a scientist will find aliens on Mars, but no amount of faith in that scientist will make that a reality if there aren't any life forms there.

Aliens on Mars is not entirely impossible though.

I beg to differ since scientists, namely Charles Darwin have put forth unprovable theories about the origin of the universe, he believes it, and so do a lot of other people, that is faith in the scientist and in the yet to be proved science.

While your particular example fits in with your theory, it is much too narrow for the discussion at hand

My point being that we all exercise faith, even when we don't know we do, there are a great many things that we take for granted with regards to faith/science/religion.

I think you are confusing the word Theory with the scientific meaning of Theory.

In science a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Don't confuse that with the unscientific theory which means a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking, example in the arts and philosophy.

In science Theory of Evolution is based on well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is not guesswork that scientists put faith into. Evolutionary biology has helped to progress modern medicine extensively.

Your appendix, the thing that gives you appendicitis and doctors have to cut it out, is a vestigial organ. Humans used to need it to store food when we were hunter/gatherers, however evolution has made it vestigial because modern humans have been eating every day (since we invented agriculture thousands of years ago) and so it just got smaller and almost non-functional. Just like the vestigial back legs on a whale.

I had posted all this up earlier in the thread but no problem in posting it again.

[achillies]

Science does NOT require faith.

You CAN have faith in a hypothesis or in a scientist, but faith is not required for science.

I can have faith that my car will start in the morning, however it's up to the science behind the sealed, maintenance free battery. No amount of my faith in the battery will help if the battery is dead.

I can have faith that a scientist will find aliens on Mars, but no amount of faith in that scientist will make that a reality if there aren't any life forms there.

Aliens on Mars is not entirely impossible though.

I beg to differ since scientists, namely Charles Darwin have put forth unprovable theories about the origin of the universe, he believes it, and so do a lot of other people, that is faith in the scientist and in the yet to be proved science.

While your particular example fits in with your theory, it is much too narrow for the discussion at hand

My point being that we all exercise faith, even when we don't know we do, there are a great many things that we take for granted with regards to faith/science/religion.

I think you are confusing the word Theory with the scientific meaning of Theory.

In science a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

Don't confuse that with the unscientific theory which means a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking, example in the arts and philosophy.

In science Theory of Evolution is based on well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. It is not guesswork that scientists put faith into. Evolutionary biology has helped to progress modern medicine extensively.

Your appendix, the thing that gives you appendicitis and doctors have to cut it out, is a vestigial organ. Humans used to need it to store food when we were hunter/gatherers, however evolution has made it vestigial because modern humans have been eating every day (since we invented agriculture thousands of years ago) and so it just got smaller and almost non-functional. Just like the vestigial back legs on a whale.

I had posted all this up earlier in the thread but no problem in posting it again.

Then explain why the theory that quantum physics is responsible for nothing, becoming something, which then lead to us is accepted?

Explain what is needed for that theory to be accepted by many.

Just the mere fact that you can state all these facts about the use of the appendix in humans in a time where you obviously did not exist means you have exercised faith in the science, not so?

Going to the doctor and asking for his help to heal an ailment, is exercising faith in the science of medicine and in the ability of that particular man to practice medicine.

If its not faith, then what is it?

My point is only to say that we all exercise faith, but over time it has become synonymous with believing in the unseen and unproven

[Habit7]

Your appendix, the thing that gives you appendicitis and doctors have to cut it out, is a vestigial organ.

No Duane it isn't http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shorts ... r-all.html
This one of the many anecdotes secondary school students are taught to bolster evolutionary theory claims which with little research crumbles apart very quickly.

Hear what, I seem to be very versed in your worldview but you dont seem to be versed in mine. Check out www.answersingenesis.org and read up some articles if you want to hear a counterpoint.

[DFC]

Then explain why the theory that quantum physics is responsible for nothing, becoming something, which then lead to us is accepted?

Explain what is needed for that theory to be accepted by many.

Just the mere fact that you can state all these facts about the use of the appendix in humans in a time where you obviously did not exist means you have exercised faith in the science, not so?

Going to the doctor and asking for his help to heal an ailment, is exercising faith in the science of medicine and in the ability of that particular man to practice medicine.

If its not faith, then what is it?

My point is only to say that we all exercise faith, but over time it has become synonymous with believing in the unseen and unproven

Oh Science !

I leaving for work now, i have some questions about this..
Can you explain further please?

[Chimera]

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Your appendix, the thing that gives you appendicitis and doctors have to cut it out, is a vestigial organ.

No Duane it isn't http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shorts ... r-all.html
This one of the many anecdotes secondary school students are taught to bolster evolutionary theory claims which with little research crumbles apart very quickly.

Hear what, I seem to be very versed in your worldview but you dont seem to be versed in mine. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org and read up some articles if you want to hear a counterpoint.

you quote from creationist and intelligent design websites to support your cause

might as well quote from the bible.

both those explanations are skewed.

[Habit7]

Well if you quote from www.notjustatheory.com a site to promote evolution is that wrong? I won't say it is. What is more important is who they cite in their articles.

But since you believe http://www.newscientist.com is an ID site (which it isn't), then I guess Scientific American have secretly become "bible thumpers" and are disagreeing with you that the appendix is a vestigial organ. http://www.scientificamerican.com/podca ... a-09-08-24

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ there are many varying papers on the purpose of the appendix. That is the great thing about science, it does not lay a claim and stick to it, instead it continuously tries to prove itself wrong by testing and re-testing.

the point I was making was not solely on the appendix, but on vestigials on the whole. Just like the vestigial back legs on a whale. What you believe does not change what it is.

The overall point is that faith is NOT needed for science as you claimed.

If we stop having faith in gravity, gravity will not stop functioning. Evolution will not stop happening and science will not change for us. Similarly in science, no amount of faith in the false will make it true.

You can have faith if you want, but it will not change the outcome for you or I or anyone else.

[achillies]

^ there are many varying papers on the purpose of the appendix. That is the great thing about science, it does not lay a claim and stick to it, instead it continuously tries to prove itself wrong by testing and re-testing.

the point I was making was not solely on the appendix, but on vestigials on the whole. Just like the vestigial back legs on a whale. What you believe does not change what it is.

The overall point is that faith is NOT needed for science as you claimed.

If we stop having faith in gravity, gravity will not stop functioning. Evolution will not stop happening and science will not change for us. Similarly in science, no amount of faith in the false will make it true.

You can have faith if you want, but it will not change the outcome for you or I or anyone else.

You are continuously avoiding the direct questions

If you fall ill, you visit the doctor, are you not exercising faith in both the science of medicine and in the ability of that doctor to use that science of medicine to help you regain full health?

A direct answer to this particular question would be much appreciated

Believing in something that is a proven scientific fact requires faith, for as you just stated, science has been wrong before and has the luxury of correcting itself over time, there are things that we believe today that may be proven wrong tomorrow, but there is that "thing" that allows you to continue believing anyway, why are you afraid to admit that "thing"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

You are continuously avoiding the direct questions

no I'm not, sorry if you can't see my answer in my post.

If you fall ill, you visit the doctor, are you not exercising faith in both the science of medicine and in the ability of that doctor to use that science of medicine to help you regain full health?

No. I am exercising practice not faith.

having faith in a panadol does nothing for the effectiveness of it to stop a headache.

A direct answer to this particular question would be much appreciated

my direct answer is above.

The real question is "is faith required for the medicine to work?" and the answer is astoundingly NO.
Faith IS required however to carry out religious practice.

Believing in something that is a proven scientific fact requires faith, for as you just stated, science has been wrong before and has the luxury of correcting itself over time, there are things that we believe today that may be proven wrong tomorrow, but there is that "thing" that allows you to continue believing anyway, why are you afraid to admit that "thing"

I am NOT denying that people have faith that science or medicine will work!

a scientist can have HUGE amount of faith in his upcoming results of his experiment. What I am saying is that faith is NOT required and more faith or less faith or no faith at all will not change the outcome of the same experiment.

Faith is NOT needed for science!

[Habit7]

The overall point is that faith is NOT needed for science as you claimed.

If we stop having faith in gravity, gravity will not stop functioning. Evolution will not stop happening and science will not change for us. Similarly in science, no amount of faith in the false will make it true.

You can have faith if you want, but it will not change the outcome for you or I or anyone else.

Mixing matters again are we:

You are right, gravity is not dependant on faith because it is a law. It is a statement that describes invariable relationships among phenomena under a specified set of conditions.

However evolution does require faith because it is a set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Theories are the result of the scientific method which allows for scientists to make informed predictions on natural phenomena. These theories can be altered or even disregarded if better predictions can be made. That is why, when scientists....STORY TIME!

Up until the 1950's the reigning theory for geologists on the arrangement of land masses on the earth was the theory of Continental Drift. Due to the "fit" of continents, the similarity of plant and animal fossils across continental boundaries, the similarity of rock types across continental boundaries, etc. all gave geologists the understanding that there was once one great supercontinent that suffered a break up. This break up however, was believed to be due to the process of continents drifting along a stationary sea floor to is current position today. This and other subsequent phenomena were proven to be false, and the theory of Plate Tectonics was proposed and was met with widespread approval through peer review consistent with the scientific method.

Now I cant remember, nor do I see where I claimed science (in general) requires faith. I did differentiate that historical science is empirical science seen through a worldview, so I guess that faith in your worldview would make you interpret empirical science a certain way. That being said, the theory of evolution does require faith because it is at this time the best naturalist explanation for the variance of species.







And if you still dont believe science requires faith, try to convince Richard Dawkins because he does not seem to think so http://bigthink.com/ideas/17052

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

good grief - one can have faith in anything, but it is not REQUIRED for science.
this is a matter of simple logic

Will you reach heaven if you do not have faith in Jesus?
a yes or no answer will suffice

BTW I never shared my worldview in this topic. I am barely stating points based on logic.

[maj. tom]

Isn't This Where We Came In?

[Habit7]

good grief - one can have faith in anything, but it is not REQUIRED for science.
this is a matter of simple logic

Well you might consider it simple logic, but Richard Dawkins and I still remain unconvinced.

Will you reach heaven if you do not have faith in Jesus?

Well, without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. (Hebrews 11:6)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

so your answer is no.
with religion the outcome is affected by faith.

in science the outcome is NOT affected by faith.

We can have all the faith (better word is confidence) in the world that doctors will find a cure for cancer and yet they probably won't, similarly we can have zero faith that doctors will find a cure for cancer and yet they probably will find a cure. The amount of faith does not affect the result. Therefore faith is NOT required for science.

I'm not sure how many different ways I can make the same point!

[Habit7]

No, in Christianity the outcome is affected by truth. If Jesus' claims are true then there will those the go to heaven and those that go to hell, Jesus requires faith in Him to impute righteousness and save one from hell. In this case, one outcome is not determine by how much faith they have in Jesus, it is determine by if Jesus is right or not.

The amount of faith does not affect the result. Therefore faith is NOT required for science.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc that is the logical fallacy you are making here.
While faith does not affect the result, science is not only based on results but on inferences and theories based on the results. And these are what we must trust (have faith based on the evidence) that our theories are true. In the case of Continental Drift we were wrong.



If you are making the point to me too many times then refute what Dawkins has said, he seems to be a guru in your worldview http://bigthink.com/ideas/17052

[achillies]

.

The amount of faith does not affect the result. Therefore faith is NOT required for science.

cum hoc ergo propter hoc that is the logical fallacy you are making here.
While faith does not affect the result, science is not only based on results but on inferences and theories based on the results. And these are what we must trust (have faith based on the evidence) that our theories are true. In the case of Continental Drift we were wrong.

Beautifully said

Faith is required for life Duane, even if you may want to deny it, or cloud it under the veil of "confidence"

You should know of the amount of mishaps that have been committed in the name of science because the scientist had "confidence" that his experiment would work, he had confidence that his calculations were correct. Do you know of anyone that put their confidence in a doctor, in that "practice" as you said, only to die on the operating table or soon after, did confidence change the result there?

Stop trying to muddy the waters between faith and confidence, I'm pretty "confident" those semantics won't work

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ i have faith everyday.
Humans have faith. I never said faith doesn't exist. I am saying faith is not required for science.

Dawkins has his opinion as do you yours but it does not change the fact that faith is not required for science!

Re-read my posts cause I'm not going to post the same thing again.

I will make one point though with regards to your plate tectonics. Scientists change their entire thinking when met with new facts such as your example and when billion year old rocks and dinosaur bones were found. Clearly you can't claim they lose faith in what they believed, cause then it was a hypotheses and not real faith they had all along.

[metalgear2095]

^ i have faith everyday.
Humans have faith. I never said faith doesn't exist. I am saying faith is not required for science.

Dawkins has his opinion as do you yours but it does not change the fact that faith is not required for science!

Re-read my posts cause I'm not going to post the same thing again.

I will make one point though with regards to your plate tectonics. Scientists change their entire thinking when met with new facts such as your example and when billion year old rocks and dinosaur bones were found. Clearly you can't claim they lose faith in what they believed, cause then it was a hypotheses and not real faith they had all along.

A hypothesis should require some level of faith

[Habit7]

You see folks, whether you are Christian, Muslim, Hindu, creationist, theistic evolutionist, naturalistic evolutionist, atheist, etc. we must all be able to poke holes in our worldview to verify whether it can stand on the basis of truth. If it is fails to stand on basis of being non-factual, inconsistent, implausible etc. then you have a major problem. Even my fellow Christians, do research and ask pointed questions to your leaders, read good books and be informed about your faith. However if after this you realise that you no longer want to be a Christian, then ok, but don't going saying you were a Christian because the Bible says God supernaturally keeps Christians. (possible launching point to next discussion)


P.S. Duane the main reason why CD was ditch for PT was more because geologists saw a consistency of earthquake foci in specific areas that lead them recognise plate boundaries along with seafloor spreading. They knew about the similarities of rock types and fossils before that.

[marlener]

I have been doing some research on dating methods and the results were disturbing,carbon dating etc.I support the creationist viewpoint. I did realise that evolution requires even more faith than believing in the bible.Now I was thinking if one decides to live a christian life and there happens to be no God,what would they have lost?If however they live the life of an atheist and there happens to be a God what would one have lost? Would it have been worth the risk.I know for a fact that there is a God,if you don't then decide if you are willing to risk it given all the evidence.

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I have been doing some research on dating methods and the results were disturbing,carbon dating etc.I support the creationist viewpoint. I did realise that evolution requires even more faith than believing in the bible.Now I was thinking if one decides to live a christian life and there happens to be no God,what would they have lost?If however they live the life of an atheist and there happens to be a God what would one have lost? Would it have been worth the risk.I know for a fact that there is a God,if you don't then decide if you are willing to risk it given all the evidence.

and what happens if Allah is the one true God?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ i have faith everyday.
Humans have faith. I never said faith doesn't exist. I am saying faith is not required for science.

Dawkins has his opinion as do you yours but it does not change the fact that faith is not required for science!

Re-read my posts cause I'm not going to post the same thing again.

I will make one point though with regards to your plate tectonics. Scientists change their entire thinking when met with new facts such as your example and when billion year old rocks and dinosaur bones were found. Clearly you can't claim they lose faith in what they believed, cause then it was a hypotheses and not real faith they had all along.

A hypothesis should require some level of faith

I'm not saying no, of course it does

however having faith in it does not change the eventual outcome.

NASA scientists have alot of hope of finding water on Mars, however if there is none then there is none. Having more faith does not help being a positive result.

Having 100% faith in God and his way apparently changes the end result.

Faith is not required in Science. it might be very present as a human trait but it is not a requirement.


Habit7 I am not arguing about plate tectonics - I agree with you there, I fail to see how that point has anything to do with proving faith changed the outcome.

[marlener]

Well if that is the case and Allah is the one true God then being an atheist or a christian wouldn't make a difference.So which would you consider the most sensible choice?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ to be a good person.

BTW is that how you chose Christianity? based on odds?

[marlener]

No it is not but a lot of people do,they weigh the effect living a christian lifestyle would have,some are unwilling to give up certain things,some are not sure if there is a God and some are genuinely convince.Unfortunately too many gamble with their salvation.
I made a concious choice to be a Christian,neither parent was a Christian while I was growing up.

[Chimera]

I have been doing some research on dating methods and the results were disturbing,carbon dating etc.I support the creationist viewpoint. I did realise that evolution requires even more faith than believing in the bible.Now I was thinking if one decides to live a christian life and there happens to be no God,what would they have lost?If however they live the life of an atheist and there happens to be a God what would one have lost? Would it have been worth the risk.I know for a fact that there is a God,if you don't then decide if you are willing to risk it given all the evidence.

so fear inspired your decision to be a christian?

[marlener]

Fear had nothing to with my decision,I lived as a non christian before and made a choice.Neither was ignorance.Despite my decision,I still contine to educate myself with the latest research on issues that tend to enter religious discussions and the logic used by some.Mind sharing your reason for your choice?

[maj. tom]

[Habit7]