|
|
|
|
|
| "It takes faith to believe in science" - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/5/2009 9:41:26 PM | I've been told this before, and have heard numerous other explain they've been told the same thing before.
Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"?
 | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/5/2009 9:51:56 PM | | Faith and science both entail belief, but there is a BIG difference in the justification. Science is rational belief based on the evidence of observation. Faith is belief with little or no evidence to justify it. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/5/2009 10:24:43 PM |
Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"?
Creationists believe in something for which there is compelling, contrary evidence. Their beliefs are provably incorrect but they hold on doggedly because of their faith. So, eventually, faith itself becomes a side-bar argument. In their own defense, creationists argue that science, too, is a baseless belief.
It's a silly argument because science is knowledge, not faith, but it's a balm for these people. It allows them to tell others, especially their children, that their belief system is as credible as anyone elses'.
That's my version of it, anyway. Your mieage may vary. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/5/2009 10:31:37 PM |
Creationists believe in something for which there is compelling, contrary evidence.
There are two reasons for this being wrong.
1. Lack of evidence in the scientific sense is not "compelling, contrary evidence."
2. When one lives by faith the evidence shows itself.
In the past reason and faith were not a a dichotomy. It's distinctions have been so grossly separated due to the hubris of modern thought. I think deep down people don't want to believe simply because then they are held responsible for there convictions.
That's my version of it anyway. Your mieage may vary. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/5/2009 11:03:12 PM | Is Too Hot pretty much voices my thoughts on it.
There are two reasons for this being wrong.
That depends largely on which "flavor" of creationism is involved. In these fora, and in general in the western English speaking world, it normally refers to Christian literalists, young Earth creationists, and proponents of "intelligent design".
On this basis, all of these beliefs are demonstrably refuted by facts to the contrary of one or more aspects of the beliefs, notwithstanding those who take very basic beliefs on the matter which differ in no appreciable way from any other faith. That is, I would submit that belief in an intelligent force setting the universe in motion, is not "creationism". Creationism entails instantaneous intelligent creation of life, without significant subsequent evolution.
1. Lack of evidence in the scientific sense is not "compelling, contrary evidence."
True, but "creationism" incorporates demonstrably false claims. Your point is irrelevant, and creationism is demonstrably false.
2. When one lives by faith the evidence shows itself.
Subjective "evidence" is not valid as objective evidence. This point also does nothing to substantiate your claim.
In the past reason and faith were not a a dichotomy
That's a naked claim, not a fact. Where reason and faith diverged, reason was repeatedly silenced. House arrest, imprisonment, execution, were all obvious ways of dealing with reason when it disagreed with doctrine. The rest of the time, the doctrine simply doesn't deal enough with the empirical world for reason to come into play, much less diverge.
It's distinctions have been so grossly separated due to the hubris of modern thought
What - you mean the "hubris" of siding with evidence rather than faith in absence of evidence? Speaking of "hubris"! Is it more arrogant to believe in conclusions based on evidence, or to believe in conclusions which lack any evidence?
I think deep down people don't want to believe simply because then they are held responsible for there convictions.
Perhaps for some, this is true. However, it's a frankly ludicrous statement otherwise.
1) if one is so "convicted", then what's to fear of accountability?
2) why should one NOT be accountable for one's beliefs, at least in terms of how one acts on them?
3) why would one be "convicted" in the first place, if there was no objective support for those convictions?
4) why should one harbor ANY belief in absence of evidence?
5) many of us do not "believe" because there is nothing to believe IN
6) many of us have no problem with being accountable. If anything, it is far more compelling to be accountable for beliefs which are actually supported by evidence. This last statement of yours flies in the face of logic. We believe DIFFERENTLY, precisely because our views are better supported. Really, religious beliefs are highly based on fear. Fear of being accountable and going to hell. Fear of being accountable and being reincarnated as a roach. Follow the rules because otherwise you'll be accountable and punished with invisible consequences. Thanks, but I have no problem being accountable, and I need no recited doctrine to threaten me to ignore facts. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/5/2009 11:25:52 PM | It takes faith 'miles and miles and miles of faith' to believe that scientific procedures like a refreshing shower , clean knickers and a hairdressers appointment will get you through the day . But basically this is the secret to happyish living ... plodding scientifically from one task to another . | |
|
| |
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 1:24:55 AM | | The bible thumpers believe that science is just one person's word against somebody else's word. If that were true they'd probably be right. Of course , it's not true but there's no way to explain it to these guys. They simply don't want to hear it. The minute you back them into a corner with logic is the minute they forget everything you just explained to them. They have a book and for some reason they insist that it says things it actually doesn't. There's no logic or reason to their beliefs...we only have a problem because they insist that their 'faith' belongs in the scientific realm. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 2:53:21 AM | | I find people of faith vary in what they believe greater than people of science. My brother-in-law is catholic, his wife is jewish. When asked what they plan to tell the kids the wife says she will tell them that she is one of the chosen people and that daddy believes Jesus was magic. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 6:44:09 AM |
Why do you think a large amount of creationists believe that to accept science and reasoning as the truth is to be something also considered based on "faith"?
Probably for the same reasons that some people insist that not believing is a belief, or that atheism is a religion, or that non believers are delusional (or blind, closed minded, etc.).
And probably for the same reasons that some people will argue and twist the definition of certain words until they lose their meaning just so it can fit their agenda ie: say that you believe, instead of saying that you think, assume, reasonably expect, etc. that your car will start tomorrow as it has every morning for the last five years and that makes you a believer.
And (dare) say that you value or believe in love, empathy and kindness or that you believe or have faith in humanity or in yourself and suddenly you are both a believer and a worshipper.
| |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 7:39:25 AM | I wonder how long it will take for this forum to degenerate into a "there is a God" vs. "there is no God" argument like so many similar forums do. I predict by the end of the second page (or maybe it already has). That's a shame really.
In my opinion science does have an aspect of faith to it, or perhaps a better word would be belief. But it is different than the religious faith needed to believe in a creator. In a religious sense faith is reason plus revelation, and the revelation part requires one to think with the spirit as well as with the mind. You have to hear the music, not just read the notes. In a scientific sense belief is needed to fill in some of the gaps of evidence and observations contained within theories. It's a petty argument that i will not indulge in.
But it's important to recognize the wide range of viewpoints that fall under the generic banner, "creationism". It's not quite fair to equate old-earth creationists, or even "Intelligent Design" with young-earth creationists. That is why i do not agree with this statement from Frogo, and suggest it is a bit to simplistic a stance.
True, but "creationism" incorporates demonstrably false claims. Your point is irrelevant, and creationism is demonstrably false.
Let's consider the big bang is indeed how the universe was formed. There is no evidence obtained on what caused this, or why it went bang at all. So let's say for arguments sake that a universal intelligence was the one that caused the big bang to go bang. How is this definition of "creation" demonstrably false? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 8:01:10 AM | By accepting science to some ppl is saying that all the suffereing threw out the world and all the wrongs against you are not going to be justified ... For some ppl what takes a lot of faith that life is really really unfair BUT still worth it ...
Just a guess
AnglFlyn | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:20:29 AM | Let's consider the big bang is indeed how the universe was formed. There is no evidence obtained on what caused this, or why it went bang at all. So let's say for arguments sake that a universal intelligence was the one that caused the big bang to go bang. How is this definition of "creation" demonstrably false?
I addressed that. That's not creationism. The term "creationism" was coined and is primarily used in reference to young Earth creationism. Intelligent design was coined in order to make "creationism" seem more pallatable and scientific and distance some of the more moderate views from YEC, though it doesn't actually differ in major ways. ID simply omits mentioning some of the YEC views of many of its proponents.
The use of "creationism" in reference to more moderate ID views, including such very basic and non-Abrahamic views as an entity which kick-started the universe and then sat back and watched, is yet another example of "re-branding". Change the definition, validate the new definition, and use the validation to shore up the OLD definition. It's a fallacy, not a valid argument, and a very popular approach for those who would supplant reason with ideology. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:30:41 AM |
The use of "creationism" in reference to more moderate ID views, including such very basic and non-Abrahamic views as an entity which kick-started the universe and then sat back and watched, is yet another example of "re-branding". Change the definition, validate the new definition, and use the validation to shore up the OLD definition. It's a fallacy, not a valid argument, and a very popular approach for those who would supplant reason with ideology.
I'd argue that the use of the "creationist" as the only example of someone who believes a belief in science requires faith is a logical fallacy, and not a valid argument. For example, I am not a creationist, and I do believe that evolution is true, but I also think that any belief requires a measure of faith.
For example, in order to believe any scientific study, one would have to either
a) Trust (a form of faith) that the study accurately reports what was studied and what was done OR
b) Replicate the study (which doesn't require faith,but which few people do) OR
c) Trust (again, a form of faith) that the scientific community will replicate the study and report any fraud or inaccuracy in the report.
Most people believe in gravity. Few understand it.
They believe because they have faith | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:45:44 AM |
Most people believe in gravity. Few understand it.
They believe because they have faith
No, they believe because they ate sh!t off a skateboard a time or two in their lives and they have never once just flown off into space because gravity stopped working.
Absolutely no faith in gravity is required or observed. It can be and is tested constantly every day. It works even when you're not observing it. Even when you're dead.
Trust is not "faith." If you're just going to force narrow overlaps in definitions to define things, why not say a dog is a cat? They're both kinds of mammals, right? Or lets just go back to the alchemical/magical laws, contagion (once in contact, always in contact), similarity (like controls like), attraction (like attracts like, OR like attracts unlike), etc... | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:22:13 AM | anything you can't see, or FULLY understand, takes some degree of faith to believe as fact.
and even then, along with mind, vision can be very easily fooled.
going with the flow, without indepth thought and research, is a big culprit of believing untruths.
ego is another one.
you might believe in the process of science, but to believe in each scientific result as truth is a little presumptuous. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:26:30 AM | To say that all science is provable, and therefore needs no faith, isn't really true either. While religion is based on faith and belief, science does have aspects of it that can only be taken on belief, as they can't be proved and there are only explanations for these particular occurences, albeit backed up by evidence, but not enough to make positive conclusions. During the process of getting enough facts to prove a particular aspect of life, you have to believe in what are looking for. Then there are some aspects of science where there is no proof, only conjecture. For example, the origin of all matter/energy.
Paul K | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 11:56:06 AM | When you believe a pile of lies after they are proven wrong, one tool to maintain your delusion is to try to bring down the system that proves you wrong. Naturally creationists will always have a smear campaign against science and the claim that it takes faith to believe in science is a feeble attempt to bring science down to their level.
If a person truly believed they wouldn't hate science, they would embrace it. Those who fuel the anti-science propaganda we see so often are displaying their insecurity about their belief system. Deep down I think they know their beliefs are wrong and these anti-science fallacies are their last gasp at clutching onto beliefs that should have been left behind in the middle ages. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 1:03:08 PM |
The use of "creationism" in reference to more moderate ID views, including such very basic and non-Abrahamic views as an entity which kick-started the universe and then sat back and watched, is yet another example of "re-branding". Change the definition, validate the new definition, and use the validation to shore up the OLD definition. It's a fallacy, not a valid argument, and a very popular approach for those who would supplant reason with ideology
I understand your argument, but your logic "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" does not add up in all cases. Sometimes a new idea is just that ..."new", as in unique. I wonder how you would classify Darwins views on creation. Would you equate this to YEC as well?
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved". -Charles Darwin | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 4:23:17 PM | Whilst the discussion of science maybe faith based and not entirely removed from the discussion of religion, the practise of science is about gathering the demonstrable evidence yourself, whilst acceptable modes of practising religion require no genuine authority or qualification, merely celebrated adherence.
So you couldn't say science has any element of faith whatsoever as none is required, but discussion of science is a different matter.
This is the distinction and an important point I think often overlooked with this type of argument. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 6:39:06 PM |
1. Lack of evidence in the scientific sense is not "compelling, contrary evidence."
Thanks for admitting that creationism lacks evidence. That's a start. However, you misread my statement. I said that there existed compelling, contrary evidence. That is, there is evidence that does exist that cotradicts creationism. The fossil record is one and genetics is another. Heck, you can find contravening evidence against creationism in the subject of history. That's what I meant. It's not that there is no evidence for creationsims. It's that there's plenty of evidence against it. Got it?
2. When one lives by faith the evidence shows itself.
Nope. There's lots of faithful who understand the universe they live in. They don't fall for that nonsense.
Your mieage may vary.
What the "l"? | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 6:42:56 PM |
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved". -Charles Darwin
Appeal to authority here? So what. Darwin mentioned a "Creator" in Origin of Species. He was surrounded by Creationists. I guess it might have been better PR to at least give grudging nod to popular belief.
Doesn't make it any more legitimate. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 9:53:48 PM | As an atheist, a person of a questioning mind, I think the problem is caught up in different understandings of the term "faith" and its pretensions. I have been reading Foucault lately and I think he may offer insight in segregating the questions, answers, and issues in this debate.
For many of a secular bent in outlook, faith is rooted in belief in spite of and so understood in an irrational frame. Due to science disavowing this in spite of, the modern scientific understanding of reality must be rational. However, those that are of a religious faith understand faith as a supplement to their knowledge. Once a threshold of surety is reached, and so becomes limited, faith supplements and finishes the project so to speak. This idea of faith can be found in the medieval understanding of faith and reason as compliments to each other.
In some sense, then the two offer points that do not meet; that fail to find the root separation of their mutual digressions. With this in mind we can see that the debate on both sides defines faith in a relationship of what is deemed rational or on the contrary irrational. Thus the 'scientist' has never completely left the domains of the role of faith in science for science is understood as the rational approach and so lacks faith. Those that are religious or creationist in this sense has only approached the issue through a lack of knowledge and so understands faith as the conclusion to reason.
The issue so far defined and that lies hidden beneath the shades is what is the relationship of faith with both the declared rational and the irrational. Since there is a relationship to both it must be neither. With that in mind I will simply ask, "what are we talking about?" Continuing to use different understandings of the term 'faith' as has been commonly done, then we might as well have two blind men argue what is the color red for us to agree what the color red is. I see no difference in the outcome. | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:01:37 PM | "are nevaagin and monalee having a contest to see who is the most crazy? lol"
I teach my teen that it is only funny when everyone is having a good time
manmade science is open to all the mistakes that men make, just look back one hundred yrs ago ... science that agrees with what Creator God says is intelligent science because man has tapped into the Wisdom of God... how any man can think himself greater than their Creator is beyond reason or fact.. that takes faith, faith based on everything but Truth... my faith in God is based on fact and Truth.. I am told by the bible that I am not to worry about anything as long as I let God lead me in my life... so as I live my life on the Promises of God I can see first hand just how God Works His Love and Power in my life... it is silly for me to believe in God and then limit Gods Power and Promises... you see I have lived on faith a lot, even when tempted to go the ~typical tradition human way~, and much to my delight and humility, God Has Revealed His Power to me and my faith has strengthened... unless a person exercises faith it is just a term to throw around or to mock... I mean really listen to what I am about to say... some 20 yrs ago the bible taught me to be aware of things in mankinds future... well these things have been playing out exactly to the letter .. my family and friends know full well the things that the bible has been saying for over 20 yrs now and they too are seeing them being played out ...and, I have no doubt that the few remaining things will play out to the letter as well.. how can they not, God is Informing us...<<< talk about facts or as the bible says ~ the peace that passes All understanding, even man made understanding about science... if your science deems me crazy so be it but it is just another matter that your science is way off on... blessings for the humility to see things in another way | |
|
| It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/6/2009 10:19:58 PM | Mona,
It's not science that makes us think you're crazy but apart from that , what "fact and truth" do you have that even provides a basis for a belief in a god ? You have none really. What you have is a book written in bits and pieces over thousands years. It has been edited , crucial components excised , dogmatic and self-serving portions have been incorporated , and overall it's basically a book of fables. That , incidentally , would be fine if not for the fact that people who believe in books such as the one that you do insist that it's right despite a mountain of proof it's not. I mean really , why do YOU believe ? The answer is that you were taught to. A few simple questions that you could put to yourself would clear this up in an instant but let's face it , you will do anything including mental backflips to keep your worldview intact.
That's the whole point to this thread's question : Do you need faith to believe in science ? The answer is no. Whether you have faith or not changes nothing. The evidence is expected to change and modify the conclusions. If it doesn't then the conclusions stay the same. That's the whole point of it...it's a neverending test. Before knocking the system , use it. Put your book to the test...the scientific test. It fails over and over (you wouldn't be the first one to do this) but go ahead. If it was "true" or "factual" in any verifiable way , science would support that. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 20
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 |
|
Home
login 
