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
 x_file_
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 425
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.Page 24 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)

I posted the definition of faith at least once in this forum ... its fully discussed around posts 496-504 and on and on ad nauseum[add nasuia]


I read those particular posts. You only made two posts between 496 and 504, and neither one has a clear definition of faith.


I reposted the fist line of the definition in quotations on this page ...
after you posted...


Post number? Where is YOUR full definition?



The original quote and post about intellectual dishonesty was not directed at you ... but you seemed to jump into it .


May be not, but I wasn't responding the original quote, I was responding to YOUR accusation here:



And in that case, to understand why science does not require faith, one simply needs to see how a person gets "belief" and how a person discovers an "axiom".


... stop trying to bully them with your beliefs ... which in their eyes is your faith .... and then come back with an actual intellectual answer instead of a dishones intellectual answer.



You not only accused me of intellectual dishonesty, you also accused me of trying to bully people with my beliefs.



There is no such a thing as "trustworthiness in someone else's idea". People are trustworthy, not ideas.


which is ... an intellectually dishonest statment.



How? How is my statement intellectual dishonesty? Because what I said doesn't match what Wikipedia or some other dictionary says?



The discovery is mostly logical/mathematical, not empirical.


I'd say that too is a bit dishonest



How so? You haven't explained why any of my statements are intellectually dishonest. You simply label my statements as dishonest... with no explanation. How would like it if I did the same?



Claim such as "God created the world in 6 days", are believed to be absolutely true by creationists. There is NO doubt in their mind of the absolute truth of this, and many other claims.


this is a misleading generalized assumption that all or most creationists believe that stupidity.
it is intellectually dishonest to make that misleading reamark in your arguments.



Creationisms is a certain set of beliefs. The main one is "the religious belief, that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.".

That stupidity you are referring to is right in the definition. To be a creationists is to belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural agency.

If someone doesn't believe that stupidity, then that person is technically NOT a creationist - for they fail to satisfy the definition.



Of course, you now might ask, "Well, don't you require faith in your evaluation?"


twisting ideal questions into being the words of others for sake of your argument is ... strawman and intellectually dishonest.



You can't recognize a hypothetical question. If you think a hypothetical question puts words in your mouth, then I'm wasting my time.
 x_file_
Joined: 9/30/2009
Msg: 427
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/18/2010 10:53:48 PM


I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to say with this comment. Please do, offer examples and or proofs. Thanks.


If you think about the question, "How do I acquire a true belief?", you might come to notice that at least some of our beliefs start off as "mere memory".

For example, when a parrot repeats a sentence the parrot doesn't know if the sentence is true or false. The parrot simply remembers the sentence, be it short term or long term, and repeats it back.

I chose a parrot, rather than a human baby as an example because I think a parrot more clearly illustrates what I mean by "mere memory". More specifically if a memory has no associations or judgments "attached" to it, then it is a "mere memory".

I think my original claim should now make a bit more sense.

Suppose I define "belief" as a "mere memory", then some interesting questions can be asked, like, "How do I go from belief, to a true belief?" Or more generally "How do I acquire a true belief?".
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 428
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/19/2010 6:26:31 AM

Science is a wondering thing, but look at how it has been used to destroy more than to replenish or repair.


This statement alone betrays a staggering, willful ignorance. Look around you. Do you see a few tens of millions of humans? Or a few BILLION? Do you think that change in the lifespan and reproductive capacity is due to God or scientific endeavors? You're typing on a modern computer, connected to the Internet, because science has been used to destroy?

What.ev.er.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 429
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/19/2010 6:54:42 AM

Science is a wondering thing, but look at how it has been used to destroy more than to replenish or repair.


Wow! I'm with rhino on this one!

So, then, I guess rather than go to a doctor when you're ill, you're going to go to your local priest? Rabbi? You know what they're going to tell you? "Go see your doctor!"

You know what the problem with many religions is? The believers. If your "God" accepts them as His "ambassadors," then that's really a club I don't want to belong in.
 late™
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 430
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/19/2010 10:44:42 PM

I'll say it again to be sure to be clear, there is nothing wrong with science itself, just those controlling and manipulating it for the benefit of only a few.

Science doesn't kill people, ...people kill people.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 432
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/20/2010 10:28:32 AM

I don't find anything wrong with good science, it is necessary to a degree of-course , but unfortunately science has become overthrown and ruled by capitalism and in the process has become embattled in the continuing war against Christianity by certain and many atheists looking for the tools to denounce Christianity in any way they can.

These ludicrous ideas of there being no time before a big bang etc, the universe exploding into existence from a central point etc, things coming into existence from nothing,

So, you think that capitalism created the big bang theory?


a rather idiotic statement when one is accepting the facts of the laws of thermodynamics at the time.

No, the rather idiotic statement here is that the big bang contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. In order to believe that, you would also have to believe life is impossible, since life on earth has gone from simple to more complex. Oh wait. I forgot to include the sun.


When and while science is being abused by politics, payoffs and corruption, we will never get to see real cutting edge medicine and technology used for the benefit of the public or the world.

Science is a wondering thing, but look at how it has been used to destroy more than to replenish or repair.

That would seem to be mainly the fault of religion, since religion has used scientific discoveries to commit greater and greater atrocities with scientific discoveries. Science is nothing more than the study of nature. If you have a problem with the way nature is, talk to nature. If you don't like the way science gets abused, talk to the people who abuse it, not the scientists who study nature.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 434
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/20/2010 11:52:00 AM

While I can see the point you are making and can agree, in general, with your point I wish to inject that capitalism and religion sleep in the same bed. They all have a specific political agenda. We could spend hours and hours quibbling over minute differences between capitalism and religion, but in the end they all derive from a human bias, based upon an agenda, a political agenda.

Well, I would have agreed with what he said had he used examples of, say, pharmaceutical companies. But, he didn't. He used the big band as an example. Then again, medicine isn't really a ``hard'' science. I happen to be a physicist and lnow a little about physics, what physicists get paid, etc. . I haven't seen how greed, capitalism, whatever, are related to the big bang.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 435
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/20/2010 4:24:03 PM
Scientific explanations have been used to attack the beliefs of cultures around the world. That will never change; it's seems to be the agenda of science since the great evolution debate. We choose what is correct for us to believe and not to believe; it is a personal choice just like anything else. Big bang or not.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 436
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/20/2010 7:01:53 PM

I guess you lot have never seen the smog, or drank the contaminated water, or eaten food with unnatural chemicals or excessive quanties of chemicals, never seen the deforestation of the planet, never heard of chemicals that cause cancer and birth defects, or seen the millions suffering from the abuse of science and the wealth it brings to the capitalists who don't give a shit about anything but their dirty money and corrupt system.


Are you shyttin' me? I guess you have no idea how much money organized religion makes. How many private jets, limos and opulent homes the priests and ministers of today's "Christianity" live in while many of the people they lord their righteousness over struggle to meet even basic needs.

And the irony? It's actually science that's given them them medium to spread their self-righteous drivel!


I'll say it again to be sure to be clear, there is nothing wrong with science itself, just those controlling and manipulating it for the benefit of only a few.


Yeah, while we're at it, let's throw a few of those self-righteous "religious" crooks in jail for good measure.
 desertrhino
Joined: 11/30/2007
Msg: 437
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/20/2010 7:10:09 PM

Scientific explanations have been used to attack the beliefs of cultures around the world. That will never change; it's seems to be the agenda of science since the great evolution debate. We choose what is correct for us to believe and not to believe; it is a personal choice just like anything else. Big bang or not.


Let me offer two slight variants of your comment. You tell us which is less correct than the others.


"Religious explanations have been used to attack the beliefs of (other) cultures around the world. That will never change; it's seems to be the agenda of Religion since the beginning of Religion. We choose what is correct for us to believe and not to believe; it is a personal choice just like anything else, and often questioned at the point of a sword, gun or torture implements. Jesus, Allah, or not."

"Every imaginable explanation has been used to attack the beliefs of (other) cultures around the world. That will never change; it's seems to be the agenda of everyone of a different culture since the dawn of time. We choose what is correct for us to believe and not to believe; it is a personal choice just like anything else, as long as it doesn't interfere with Culture A taking Culture B's land, food, valuables, and women. Rose-colored glasses or not."


That said, I have to interject that "science" has no agenda other than understanding the world around us. That some small subset of people use it as a hammer for various purposes unrelated to nails or "science" is a trend noted for pretty much EVERYTHING (money, power, religion, propaganda, lies, ignorance, food, sex, truth, etc...) since the dawn of Man, and probably before. If YOUR (if anyone feels the shoe fits, please, try it on) faith feels threatened by understanding the world around you at a deep, complex level, I'd propose the problem lies in the depth of your faith, not some fictional agenda of "science."
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 438
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/20/2010 7:17:50 PM
I dont agree with either statement. I am simply giving my opinion from what I have been reading. I am neither pro or con. I like the middle myself~ oh boy I like the middle.......
Take a look at yourself and what you have posted in reference to faith.
I have an opinion just like everyone else.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 440
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/21/2010 8:17:49 AM

Very quick to blame religion for all the problems.

What can I say - I've read history.

Is this the typical scientific view, a new scientific theory, or perhaps just the thoughts of one more atheist

It's the view of anyone who read any history that involved wars, torture, killing, etc. Maybe religious people don't read - I can't answer that question.

Yes of course corrupt religious leaders inspired atrocities against the people, but no different to what any corrupted organisation has done.

Oh really? Have you noticed that George W. Bush said something about having god on ``our'' suie when he invaded Iraq in order to fight terrorism (based on false premises) by so-called terrorists who claimed to have god on their side, killing a few hundred-thousand civilians as collateral damage? That's only the most recent example where large numbers of people on the sidelines have been killed.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 442
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/21/2010 10:54:27 AM
So humans have faith and science is dependent on humans.

Are we seeing a connection here?


However, the difference here and the one that the OP I think was trying to make is that there is a difference in "believing" in the fidelity of certain scientific concepts and theories such as gravity, evolution, etc., and the "faith" creationists accuse evolutionists, for instance, of having in what they say is "unproven" science.

In this instance, the creationist is attempting to undermine the science by undermining the proponent.

"Faith" in science is not the same as faith in God. Faith in the religious context is a belief in the unseen and in something that has no physical evidence for existence. Versus evolution, for instance, which has a shyte-load of evidence. I don't say I "believe" in evolution. I say I accept it. It is the best theory that explains the development of life. The same goes for big bang theory and the theory of Earth's geological development.

Keep in mind the difference. Any theory can be overturned. If a mammal fossil were to be found in pre-cambrian rock, for instance. Or "Made by God" in big bold letters through the universe. Scientists recognize this possibility.

Try and get a die-hard creationist to make the same acknowledgement that they might be wrong. Good luck with that!
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 443
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/21/2010 11:35:43 AM

With science - How many scientific philosophies are there? Do they all agree?

As far as the ``hard'' sciences go, for the most part everyone does agree - by definition. A physical theory becomes ``accepted'' once there is a consensus that the theory actually explains what is supposed to explain in the regime that it is supposed to be valid. For that reason, there are specific guidelines that determines what is considered a scientific theory. (1) Since it is not possible to prove a theory is true, the premises of a theory have to be falsifiable (see Karl Popper). A theory which makes an incorrect prediction is obviously wrong, but a theory that predicts something correctly is only consistent with the evidence. That is why ID is not a scientific theory. No one promoting ID is going to make a prediction that would falsify the existence of a creator if the prediction was incorrect. By contrast, although Netwonian physics is strictly not correct, it does give the correct answers in a limited regime. It qualifies as a scientific theory when restricted to that regime.

When reading scientific journals are we aware who funds the experiments?

In physics journals, authors do include the source of funding. Most basic physics research is government funded.

Is that relevant?

Of course. You only need to look at the scandals involving medical journals who accept advertising and the potential for bias when an author accepts funding from a pharmaceutical company. There was a big scandal at Berkeley when the biology department agreed to let Novartis fund most of the research in exchange for intellectual property rights. In the end, Berkeley discontinued that relationship.


It requires human observation and human interpretation.

That's why science is slow. It takes a long time and many experiments for scientists to agree on what the facts are and reduce a theory to the minimal assumptions that are essential.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 444
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/23/2010 6:05:38 AM

So correct me if I’m wrong here, but if I am to believe these theories are true I must have “faith” that the assumptions are correct to uphold my beliefs.


Semantics are fun, but no. "Faith" and "belief" have nothing to do with it. The proof of the pudding is in the eating. If your first experiment to test the theory fails to produce the expected result, then its back to the drawing board. Scientists are aware of this fact. They are, by nature, skeptical even of their own assumptions. ("Challenge your assumptions or they will challenge you.")

If you had "faith" that your theory was right and believed it with all your heart, you might not do the experiment at all. At that point, you don't have to, at least, as far as you're concerned. It's "self evident" so why run the risk of finding out it's not true.
 Island home
Joined: 7/5/2009
Msg: 445
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/23/2010 6:24:05 AM
"It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no."

I believe -Yes it does

It requires faith/belief in having sufficient PERSPECTIVE
Rather than or more than faith/belief in science

Edit
If your belief in science is absolute
I would bet its faith based even if you cant see it

Although even if your belief is not absolute
As long as you believe you have faith!
(in your judgment of facts if nothing else)
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 446
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/23/2010 7:02:07 AM

Not meaning to quibble too much, but what exactly do you mean by, "by definition"?
Is 'by definition" the several sentences after the above quote?

By definition, a theory isn't accepted unless practically everyone in the field agrees that it isn't controversial. For example, Newtonian physics isn't controversial. It's a limiting case of relativity. As long as you don't go beyond the regime in which Newtonian mechanics can be applied, it works just fine.


I do not know that as a fact, but I can believe it, but I also believe that governments have political agenda’s, backed by special interests groups.

There are no special interest groups for basic physics research because physicists doing fundamental research in physics aren't doing anything that will obviously lead to any practical use. For example, the actual physics that is used for MRI or PET scanners is more than 75 years old. By the time computers were invented and the obstacles to practical application were removed, that physics was old news. Special interests never have any interest in anything that doesn't promise immediate payoff. The potential for fraud is only as prevalent as there is money to pay for it and in basic physics research, that sort of money isn't there.


Now mind you abelian, when it’s all said and done I still hang my hat on science far and beyond religion, but I must ask; what are minimal assumptions with regard to science?

As far as physics goes, the only fundamental principle that physicists generally believe ought to be true is that no point of view in the universe is priviliged. From that one can derive all of the physics known. Physicists would abandon even that assumption if anyone could devise a theory that didn't require it.

Not meaning to quibble too much, but what exactly do you mean by, "by definition"?
Is 'by definition" the several sentences after the above quote?


Well I suppose that in order for me to believe the Big Bang theory I must assume some things that are not backed by fact.

No, you only have to accept the fact that if the universe is expanding now, then at some earlier time it must have been smaller. How much smaller? Particle physics agrees with the extrapolation back to a time when the universe was smaller than an atom. (If you aren't aware, of the six quarks (u,d,c,s,t,b), the ONLY place in the universe that the last four exist at this time, is in particles produced in accelerator labs. Those particles aren't even produced in super novas.)

So if I assume these theories are true, I must be willing to accept certain beliefs are true, even though they are not based in actual facts.

No, you only need to believe what the evidence supports and although that may not be a big bang when all is said and done, right now there is nothing known that would avoid a big bang. On the other hand, a refusal to grasp the idea that time and space don't exist prior to the big bang or an insistence on using completely incorrect arguments to denonstrate why you think it's wrong, is not a valid reason to object to it. If you think the big bang is wrong, come up with a reason that thousands of physicists haven't already thought of and had shot down by experiments and cosmological data. No one has a vested interest in salvaging an incorrect theory in fundamental physics because there's a Nobel prize waiting for anyone who can come up with a better theory.

On the other hand, anyone who wants to create a theory which doesn't include a big bang, needs to create a theory which explains the same things the big bang explains and which makes (correct) predictions that the big bang doesn't. That has proven very difficult to do. Like most physicists, I take the big bang to be valid up until the point we have no theory to explain the universe prior to the time we can explain it. Beyond that point, there are only opinions, but the only valid opinions are those which aren't based on the naive objections posed in public forums.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 447
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/23/2010 9:33:28 AM
In other words many of these educated and well planned theories are nothing more that scientific opinion.
 whitegold765
Joined: 12/26/2007
Msg: 448
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/23/2010 4:36:12 PM
Like many others the OP comes down to one of definition, defining Faith. If you define it as "accepting something as fact" then yes, science requires Faith. Scientists don't have to study and re-do the experiments done before them, nor do all experiments in related fields to prove microwave background radiation, nuclear decay, relativity, etc. They can accept them on faith.

But if you apply a more reasonable definition of "accepting a statement without evidence" then it is NOT faith. The evidence is required, and abundant.

"Message: In other words many of these educated and well planned theories are nothing more that scientific opinion."

Well, no. A scientist looks at what is known, and makes a "hypothesis" based on it. If all the facts fit it's a good hypothesis, with good science. If relevant it can be used further to make other predictions.

A similar experience would be your knowledge that the sun will rise in the morning. It has previously, and you have every reason to believe it will. You base your plans for tomorrow on that expectation. In the end you are correct. Was that an opinion?

Dismissing these as "opinions" is foolish. Opinions are purely subjective, and science is not. Look around you at the technology and medicine available - science did that. Not opinion.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 449
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/27/2010 7:02:03 AM

In other words many of these educated and well planned theories are nothing more that scientific opinion.

Do you really think that modern technology like gps or your computer only work because someone had the opinion that it should? That would seem very silly, since most people would probably like modern technology to not be constrained by an opinion if another opinion makes life simpler. Are you really asking that question seriously?
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 450
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/27/2010 7:08:13 AM

I'm tired of banging my head against that wall of .... "faith is religious [christian, muslim, jewish, etc. and has something to do with god]"
and give up on those who think that way.


However, in the context of the OP, he correctly points out that creationists use the word "faith" an a pejorative sense, to signify that people who accept evolution 'believe' because they are told to the same way creationists are told and accept that 'God did it.'
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 451
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/27/2010 7:35:31 AM

So we can see the assumptions made with the Big Bang theory and accept them with the caveat;

Uh, there's always a caveat. That's why theories can never be proven true. Theories can only be falsified.

As it is seen now we believe A happened because of what we think we know of B, but still we must have faith that what we believe is actually fact.

There is no real belief involved, beyond what each individual scientist believes to be the most fruitful line of research into what isn't yet known. History is full of scientists who were mostly right but who were also spectacularly wrong, including very famous ones like Einstein. The difference between Einstein being wrong and some random opinion is that Einstein didn't just sit back and pontificate about something he didn't understand. He proposed theories until he reached a dead end or predicted something that could be tested. A non-scientist doesn't have to believe anything so long as he/she doesn't want to argue from ignorance about what is well-known. I have yet to see an argument against the big bang based on anything but a refusal to think beyond everyday experience.



everything becomes an opinion of a perception.


Existentially speaking of course.

That is also irrelevant. We define things like an electron to be an event that gives measurements consistent with what a theory tells us about electrons. That is no different than the way we define a rock, although most people think that what we call a rock is somehow self-evident enough to not require interpretation of what we see. You can imagine some reality that is supposed to be ``deeper'' than what can be measured, but by definition, a measurement is any interaction that can affect anything. If something can't be measured, in principle, then by definition, it also can't have any influence on anything.
 xlr8ingmargo
Joined: 7/28/2009
Msg: 452
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/27/2010 7:55:09 AM
Abelian I said Theory. I did not say anything that has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am begining to believe to just like to argue with people. I have my own opinions, and they are mine to have just like yours are. I might not be the brightest person but I am still a light.
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 453
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/28/2010 11:49:18 AM
If any of the following scientists had believed as you do then where would science be now?

The exact same place it is now. What part of ``in principle'' do you find confusing?

So what does the caveat warn you of?

It tells me the extent to which a scientific theory has experimental support.
I’ve shown you that the Big Bang Theory has far too many assumptions to be accepted as fact.

That is actually a non-sequitur.
Science is subject to change.

That does not mean what you would like it to mean. New theories in science do not replace old theories. That would be impossible since the old theories actually worked or those theories wouldn't have ever been theories. The prerequisite for a new theory is that it include the old theory as a limiting case. That is why special relativity includes all of Newtonian physics as a low velocity limit and general relativity includes special relativity as a limiting case when gravity is not important.

A friend of mine on this site is fond of this quote: The problem with mankind isn't that we are ignorant, rather that we are arrogant to what we think we know, and apathetic to our own greatness.

That fits you quite well. You know nothing about science, yet you keep making misstatements about science due to willful ignorance.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 454
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 4/28/2010 12:08:24 PM

If any of the following scientists had believed as you do then where would science be now?

Marie Curie (Radiation),
James Chadwick (Discovery of Neutron),
Nikola Tesla (Alternating Current),
Jocelyn Bell Burnell (Discovered radio pulsars),
Neils Bohr (Theory of nuclear reactions and nuclear fission)


Nonsensical. All of these things were detectable either immediately through their effects (Marie Curie died of aplastic anemia, likely the result of radiation exposure) or eventually through the development of technology (i.e. radio pulsars through the development of radio telescopes). If you propose something that has no effect and cannot be measured, it is much the same as saying it doesn't exist.


What is this thread about abelian? “It takes faith to believe in science” , and yet you keep using your straw man (Big Bang Theory) to prove a point, but what exactly is that point? I’ve shown you that the Big Bang Theory has far too many assumptions to be accepted as fact.


Non-sequitur. Big bang theory developed from observational evidence and that evidence has only grown stronger with the development of technology culminating in the Hubble Space Telescope, COBE and WMAP and Kecks I and II, to name a few. But please enlighten us to the "assumptions" that were made for it.


Faith is part of human experience, you cannot take that out of the equation. Faith resides in both the Philosophies of Science and Creationists


Any scientist worth his or her salt recognizes that a theory can be superseded by an even more inclusive and successful theory based on new evidence or experimentation. So science is ultimately skeptical, even of itself. Where's the "faith" in that?

Watch any scientist in any discipline confronted by a question for which the answer isn't known. Chances are, he/she will say "We don't know." Watch a creationist confronted by a question of evolution that he/she doesn't know the answer. Chances are, you'll get "Well, you have to have faith in God's word."
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >