Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 jesser83
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 40
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.Page 2 of 25    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25)
Heres my take.

There are theologians, scientists, and the rest of us. While theologians and scientists work almost exclusively in those fields, and deal with 'objective' observations of their respective subject matter, the rest of humanity just reads about it in the paper. The guy that works at walmart isn't going into any deep analysis of the information that lands in his brain every day, he collects an emotional 'gist' of the information's validity, and then makes a decision whether or not to trust a source.

It really isnt too much different for the academics who distil the information either. There is a basis of source material, that is taken as a given, and they build on that. Its faith in the credibility of your predecessors. If everyone scrutinized everything down to the lowest level, there would be no knowledge to be had. We would all be too busy with the process to enjoy the product. The theological source is biblical text, the scientific source are scientific texts. The 'big picture' has the same general structure in each heirarchy.

Ironically, the nature of research and derivation of the sciences are directly modeled from the theological scholarship that came before modern academia. To think that they are somehow orthagonal disciplines is just ignorant. If you remove the conclusions and subject matter, what is left... is the same stuff.
 jesser83
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 41
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 8:12:27 AM
And I do not think anyone, in ernest, thinks they have everything exactly right. Be they theologians, or scientists. The church, for instance, adapts to science. For the most part, when irrefutable proof of something is presented to the church, they back pedal, and reasess their 'axioms of faith'. It is really not those who have an honest interest in the deep meaning in either that abuse the concept of reliable source material. Its the idiots who have a world view, and not much understanding of it, trying to fight off shadows threatening to obscure the light of the fly trap they have been staring at their entire life. Those are the ones who rail against opposition blindly.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 42
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 9:46:43 AM
chickon,

or the magic of information coming out of thin air to make all of the various species that we see on earth today. [which is not even 1% of what has been on earth]

I believe over 99.9% of species has become extinct.

haven't done the math.

why did people not marry family before we knew about mutation? [bad ones have been there for a while]

absolutely acceptable to marry family if there are no mutations.
what would be wrong with it?
Its a bible rule to not do it anymore, why are we listening to that one?
certainly not because its in the bible, are we?
these days its not a good idea to marry family because the damaging mutations that all of us have to some degree will show up when people with the same mutations have kids.

the earth can sustain more than it has if resources wouldn't be squandered as they are.
if the climate was more moderate, the earth could sustain many more people.

interesting fact, there are more people on earth at this time than have died.

hey, I don't think we are 100% mutant, not yet anyway.
we seem to be going in that direction.

later.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 44
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 10:43:21 AM
I don't have a problem with there existing a higher power, the evidence is everywhere, [to me!]

so, no, I don't believe in magic at all, ever!
its beyond our puney brains, but not magic.

evolution is, us and all the rest coming from "nothing", AND with no guidance, thats magic.

don't know whats so magic about a higher power, we are here, aren't we?
whats so impossible about a higher power being around?
I don't see it


bye
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 45
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 12:29:38 PM
creator now out of the picture, now we are getting somewhere.
WHY is he out of the picture, for now?.......................this all being hypothetical, of course!
watching creation [man] screwing up, he obviously IS out of the picture at this moment in time.
and, what the heck do you want him to do?
one thing?
and if he did that one one thing, would he then get ANY credit for it?......I doubt it.
he's staying out of our lives for now, isn't that what we want?
us humans can do it all on our own, right?
he can't be a dumb azz, or he wouldn't have been able to do the whole creation thing in the first place.

my 2 cents



science's evolution?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 46
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:00:32 PM
RE Msg: 55 by jesser83:
Ironically, the nature of research and derivation of the sciences are directly modeled from the theological scholarship that came before modern academia. To think that they are somehow orthagonal disciplines is just ignorant. If you remove the conclusions and subject matter, what is left... is the same stuff.
I noticed that too. I went to a theological seminary for 4.5 years, and then went to university, and discovered that the academics much the same approach as those in the theological seminaries, except that theologians have now been forced by society to temper their views, and accept that they do not have absolute knowledge.

What's even more freaky, I once compared the status of monasteries, monks, churches, and priests, in the medieval times, to the status of universities, academic scholars, schools, and teachers in our time, and their roles, social standing, sources of power, sources of financial funding, and use by powerful individuals and groups are almost identical to their comparative roles and sources in medieval times. It's almost like society has replaced religion with science, and theologians with academics, but left everything else the same.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 47
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 4:02:23 PM
Question...

Why is it considered foolish when someone proposes that people were made by aliens, but the proposal that we were made by God is acceptable?
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 55
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 8:16:15 PM
RE Msg: 63 by RocketMan_Len:
Why is it considered foolish when someone proposes that people were made by aliens, but the proposal that we were made by God is acceptable
I don't knoat that it is. I've watched enough Sci-Fi about the possibilities of humans being made by aliens, and know of enough books that go into the possibility very deeply, that I hardly think it's any less worthy of consideration than G-d is. But many people aren't "Perceiving" in the MBTI types first developed by Jung, and many are "Judging" types. "Judging" types tend to be those who like making decisions, but don't like thinking about the possibilities all that much. Some Js decide that man was made by G-d. Some decide that man was made by aliens. Some decide that man was made by evolution.

Ps tend to like to think about the possibilities. So although Ps might make a personal choice, they still like to consider the other possibilities, and are not closed to other possibilities.

In case you haven't figured out by now, I'm a P. I still think the world needs Js, because someone has to make decisions, and follow orders. But the world needs open-minded thinkers as well, and I think that's what Ps are for.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 57
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/9/2009 10:24:48 PM

but the bible says that God will remove His Presence when the USA passes a law forcing man to worship on sunday instead of Gods Holy 7th Day

I'm quite certain the USA is not mentioned ONCE in the text of the Bible.

Don't think I really need to go any further, since that pretty much summarizes the entire argument. Unsupported fantasy. Fact or fantasy...fact or fantasy...hm, decisions, decisions...
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 59
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 12:07:29 AM
lets make the world a better place.

think humans can do it?......................I don't.

need proof?
 jesser83
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 61
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:30:32 AM
Not even that would be sufficient. Cross breeding, and anything to do with microorganisms has well established creationist counterpoint. You would need new, aboslutely beneficial characteristics showing up in animalia to convince a creationist that evolution is getting even a foothold. Microorganisms are not in the orthodoxed creationist food pyramid, and would be considered abiotic complex chemical reactions. Unfortunately, or 'conveniently' for evolutionists, that sort of thing takes more time, in both a creationist, and evolutionist timeline, than we have even been capable of having the argument.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 62
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 11:28:04 AM

characteristics showing up in animalia to convince a creationist that evolution is getting even a foothold.

Would LPR5 work? There is a mutation which increases the effectiveness of LPR5 which greatly increases bone density to equal that of Bruce Willis in Unbreakable.
 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 63
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:24:06 PM
Faith is belief without evidence. Science is the process of making sure the only things you say have evidence. Faith is belief without evidence.

Scientists once said that, given current information, the Earth is only millions of years old. They were wrong. They then got more information, like telescopes and the understanding of quantum physics which allowed them to understand red-shift and the necessary times that distant objects would have needed to be where they are.

Then scientists said "given our updated info, the universe is 15 billion years old." They were still wrong. The thing is they never said they have proof. They never said they were indisputably right. They kept saying "as far as we know" X. As soon as one says one knows something that one can't prove, one ceases to be a scientist. Science is the proclamation of what one really knows. If one doesn't know, but has a reasonable hypothesis, and declares this reasonable hypothesis as such, one is a scientist. When scientists can't prove that humans evolved but say that all indicators point to that hypothesis, that is science.

Science can't be wrong, by definition. Science can't involve faith. Involving faith is removing one's argument from science.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 64
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 6:31:01 PM
I disagree dear vichy. Faith is belief with evidence presented yet unseen; it requires trust. Science is a practice that's restricted to the material realm; it too requires trust in theoretical or actual application. This is why I do not believe that there is a conflict between religion and science; until religion notices that science is causing harm. Then, the Houston of Science and Religion gots a problem.

Religion and Science have no inherent conflict--only those engaging in strictly literal interpretations of scripture, the newer breed of believers who apply Sola Scriptura, struggle most with science. Not all religious with strongly developed/evolved theology do that. Faith can be a great inspiration for any school, even science. After all, Einstein had faith, and apparently he mixed science and faith too, quite well it seems.

“When the solution is simple, God is answering.”

Albert Einstein


 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 65
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 7:21:59 PM

Faith is belief with evidence presented yet unseen


Evidence presented yet unseen is not evidence, n'est-ce pas, you gorgeous debater?

Evidence presented yet unseen could promulgate belief in the FSM, no? Nobody has seen the FSM but there exists quite a bit of faith for it.


"Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing." - Bobby Henderson, http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

The OP's question is whether faith ever exists as a recognizable source of knowledge. Without faith there is no FSM. Without faith there is no spiritual guide of the universe. Without faith one can not dispute science, n'est-ce pas?

Believe in gods or spirits all you want. Science is incapable of promulgating untruths.
 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 66
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 7:44:05 PM
Don't give up. I have actually seen people come to the side of empirical evidence. It is hard to invest one's emotions in science, but the payoff is great. Consider aremeself: it's only a matter of time. Aremeself is too capable of thought to lose this idea.

Keep posting.

Edit: It takes a nation of millions to hold us back.

Public Enemy
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 67
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 9:46:57 PM
^^^ Ok Don Quixotevichy.
 vichycycl
Joined: 5/5/2007
Msg: 68
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/10/2009 10:27:30 PM
I'll get those darned windmills, I tell you. They spew so much wind, yet so little force.
 jesser83
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 71
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:11:15 AM

Would LPR5 work?


Possibly.

But, no. It would have to be something like a direct-tv dish growing out of the back of a tree sloth. Something more akin to a miracle, than a natural process. Something not at all like science.
 jesser83
Joined: 9/26/2009
Msg: 72
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:04:36 AM
This is part of the problem with the argument. Science and non-science belief systems are ill defined. When one person is talking about the scientific method, someone else is talking about historical scientific events and theories. When people talk about non-science belief systems in general, someone comes back with an argument target at evangelical creationism. The field of play has no lines, no goals, and no set boundaries.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 73
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:30:57 AM
The "Big Bang" is an explanation based on evidence. As a theory, it does not go so far as to explain how or why it occured - only that it DID, and that led to the formation of all that we can observe. The Big Bang does not involve faith. Causes for the Big Bang are subjects of additional hypotheses. The non-science ones are "Goddidit". The scientific ones use mathematical and physical models. There are additional hypotheses which are arguably scientific, but problematic in that they lack means of confirmation. Definitions, yes. Means of action, yes. Means of confirming, not so far. Deities lack all three.

Ascribing "faith" to big bang theory necessitates including aspects which are not actually part of the theory, while at the same time ignoring that the theory is purely fact-based.


"The odds against the Big Bang are enormous. I think there are clearly religious implications." Elsewhere he says, "It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Post hoc fallacy and argumentum ad numerum. Hawking's supernatural beliefs are irrelevant, and he's apparently as capable of fallacious arguments as anyone else. Either that, or he's attempting to appease those who feel threatened by science.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 74
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:08:08 AM
FALLEN BACK INTO WHAT WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT

No, I get what you are talking about.


It cannot be defined or explained by science alone

If it cannot, then it does not. That does not open the floor to *insert any nonsense here*. Science seeks consistent empirical explanations and does not resort to simply filling in the blanks in lieu of an answer. Individuals can do that, but science does not. The fallacy here is, in part, the false dilemma - just because science lacks an explanation, does not render any arbitrary explanation adequate, valid, or correct. As a scientist, my choice is to accept that there is no adequate explanation, not to grasp at straws.


"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe would have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

In addition to my previous comments, I would suggest that this might simply be an observation by Hawking of how people commonly react. It does not necessarily indicate his own belief, nor does it ascribe any value to the belief, positive or negative. To reiterate the previous though, it's unimportant. Grasping at straws is fallacy and faith, not science, no matter who states it.


You look to shallow into the statement, you see a word and you're off on a total tangent

Agreed. Take a breath; read through, get the basics, not the examples. Isdime, you're too quick to bite.
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 75
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:51:38 AM

it tells you that gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s/s but don't ask why or how gravity came about.


That's odd... I thought that the why and how gravity came about were being aggressively studied - the particle accelerators at CERN (particularly the LHC) were built to help determine the hows and whys that make matter behave the way it does.

(Although... I'm starting to suspect that, even if someone were to come along and say "Gravity behaves the way it does because of Factor X" the devout will respond with "But you don't know why Factor X is the way it is, right? AHA! GOD!")


I don't believe in worshiping any extra dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'.


But if you believe that God made the universe, then it would *have* to be an extra-dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'... right?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 77
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 7:53:12 AM

You are just arguing apples and pears. We are talking about the whole of science...see post 90.



I, like you, do not chose faith to be cured of cancer, what we do do is use faith that the chemical reactions that will cure the cancer were created in a way (when the universe began) that we can only have faith in.


Just because science postulates the universe began in a certain way, doesn't mean that the book is closed on it. In fact, there continues to be quite a bit of effort to try and figure out the whats and wherefores of the beginning of the universe and before. The only thing we know for sure is that the universe is, that it began in a certain way and that it operates under a specific set of rules at two separate scales (which, in itself, is a problem under investigation).

The key here is the idea of investigation. Scientists investigate. Creationists stop at "god did it." If we relied on the latter, we'd still be stuuck at "demons cause disease."
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 78
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 7:57:12 AM

Science today is the modern day Catholic church, it tells you that gravity on Earth is 9.8m/s/s but don't ask why or how gravity came about. You'll be burnt at the forum stake if you do.


Nonsense! The modern day Catholic church does it's own good job of being the modern day Catholic church. It doesn't need usurpers.

Additionally, asking "why" and "how" of gravity or anything else is the essence of science. Organized religion discourages discovery.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >