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
 RocketMan_Len
Joined: 7/5/2006
Msg: 79
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.Page 3 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)

Science is quite prepared to believe in something they have no evidence for.


This is where you're mistaken - scientists DO NOT 'believe' in these things. They have ideas that, based on what we can observe and measure, SUGGEST that these other universes exist... and are trying to come up with ways to test the accuracy of those ideas.

There's a difference between saying "Here's what I think, now how can I show that it's right?" and saying "Here's what I think, I KNOW it's right, and you're going to be punished for saying that I'm wrong". Science is about the former, religion the latter.



But if you believe that God made the universe, then it would *have* to be an extra-dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'... right?


Correct...not sure of the point here though.


Your prior message stated that you could not worship an extra dimensional/meta-universe 'thing'... yet in order to have ANY kind of validity, God would *by necessity* have to be such an entity. Hence, you have a rather interesting dilemma to reconcile.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 80
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 10:02:33 AM

Organized religion discourages discovery.

FALSE! Walk the halls of the Pontifical Counsel of Science and stop bludgeoning the Church with blatant ignorance. You can't hold the rough times during a transition between new ways of exploring the world against the Church forever, can you?

“Berti’s point is that the problem of the relation between science and faith cannot be resolved by analyzing exclusively the two terms in question. The problem must be considered from a perspective that is neither that of faith nor of science, but rather that of philosophy. ….For Galileo and the theologians of his time, this problem did not exist because there was no distinction between science and philosophy." --Fr. Mario Vigano S.J., “Galileo ieri e oggi,” La Civilta Cattolica, September 1984, p. 388.

Take a look at what was actually happening in the 17th century. Its now the 21st. Stop playing four centuries worth of telephone about religion and science and see the transition for what it was and be part of the solution and not the problem.

 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 81
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 10:53:54 AM

Organized religion discourages discovery.


FALSE!


TRUE! Even though I wasn't referring specifically to the Catholic church, let's look at the fact that, in the PBS series Stephan Hawking's Universe, Hawking relates a story of a meeting between the Pope and a conference of theoretical physicists. In that meeting, the pope declare it alright for the physicists to look into the period following the Big Bang, but not the moment of creation since "that's the domain of God."


stop bludgeoning the Church with blatant ignorance. You can't hold the rough times during a transition between new ways of exploring the world against the Church forever, can you?


Again, yes. Ignorance? How about knowledge of history. And knowledge of how the Church continues to benefit from the riches plundered during that "transition" and even before.


Stop playing four centuries worth of telephone about religion and science and see the transition for what it was and be part of the solution and not the problem.


Well, how about the church's adherents stop accepting the "status quo" from a church that clearly remains resistant to the change that is demanded from it, including the ability to hold itself accountable to the atrocities that have been and continue to be commited under its nose. Or were you not aware of Residential Schools and continued abuse by its priests? Why doesn't it liquidate the billions in assets it has acquired and direct the money to actual, measurable efforts to improvement in the world, rather than demanding those who can't afford it to continue to pay towards its continued existence in money, blood and heritage?

Now let's talk about organized religion in general and the role it's taking in encouraging ignorance, going so far as to expect religion and it's fairy tales of a magic man waving his wand to create everything to be taught over science. Let's talk about religion's use of confusion and obfuscation for the purpose of an agenda that is clearly against the better interests of society in general but works to their political advantage.

Seriously, when is enough going to be enough?

One thing science does is say "here's the evidence and come to your own decision." It isn't a perfect system, but its practitioners at least have to be intellectually honest enough to recognize that fact, or they risk irrelevancy. Religion says "here's the 'Truth' and believe it or else. Don't you dare question" and the risks are ostrascization or worse.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 82
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 10:58:36 AM
False. It makes no sense to start from today without examining what happened between religion and science, what actually happened, yesterday. Sorry. I totally disagree with your extremely militant point of view. Some scientific things can't be embraced as good lest we lose our humanity. This is no reason to continue to bludgeon a Church who reserves your human heart, as it moves through a society, in its best interests. You can't hate on them for sticking to their opinions--nobody in the Church is actively hating on you.



Now, if you can't stand correction, or if you despise being challenged by a living body of strong intellectuals believing in Truth as being that God is love and that Jesus Christ came and will come once again, that's a different issue. I'm sorry you resent the Church's exposition and expectation of solidarity. Try not to take it personally. Its not untypical for friends and spouses to demand and/or foster loyalty and respect as needed.

Science alone is hardly a perfect system--if it was then there would be no one to stand up and oppose on occasion, so no need to insist on shoving it down everyone's throats as if it tastes better than apple pie. All human systems have flaws, including the Church because its made up of people, just like science.

For so long as resentments are randomly cultivated and used as justification for turning your back on the Church, this type of discussion can go nowhere. Many in the Church strive to embrace Faith and Reason; its inappropriate to stereotype others with unique and diverse identities who had no part of the wicked acts performed by bad men inside and outside of the Church. That's all I'm ultimately saying.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 83
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:22:50 AM
^^^^In my opinion, science involves trust and faith that the guys who made some conclusions before you were right. Science is like housebuilding. As you go, you must have faith that the foundation was laid properly or you would not continue to build. Right? Religious Faith has its own very unique foundation--its not a scientific foundation, but its still very powerful and real (for many).
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 84
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:26:54 AM
Check my elaboration. (Are you up to your old tricks again? ) It still takes a "version of faith" to decide IF a concept is reasonable. A scientist must have faith in the reasoning process of the men who came before him. How else would he trust that even forming a hypothesis is a correct action? So long as such scientists don't turn those who came before them into their gods to the point that they stop listing to the concerns and opinions of others, we are strait.

The goals of science should be moving us forward, not upside down, in my humble opinion. And I see we are going upside down, I will mention it. But there is no need for science to resent this to the point of drudging up all the bad things the Church has done! That's just pain silly and perhaps even a subconscious collective confession of wrong doing in progress.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 85
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:35:31 AM
My opinion could never be a strawman. Its the opinion of a fleshed out curvy woman. My life and point of view is not a debate.



Yes, we should discuss this concept of "version of faith" more.

Again, my logical conclusion, based on my own epistemology, is that so long as scientists don't turn those who came before them into their gods to the point that they stop listing to the concerns and opinions of others, we are strait. If one has no readily identifiable God to reference, one might be challenged in realizing who or who is not being deified in their lives. These are abstract concepts for a non-believer in God, but I don't think my premise is unreachable with the application of some commons sense.

 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 86
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 11:43:14 AM
Its impossible to reach a deeper sense of understanding without having knowledge of the perspective which some ideas are flowing from, and this is one of those situations where some are blind to the reality of the actual peoples behind the faith who have these opinions. So, like a lamb to the slaughter, I offer you my first hand opinions to call fallacy. XO
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 89
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:19:16 PM
QJ, you shared, "Rightly or wrongly, the same church is against (embryonic) stem cell research, thereby still discouraging discovery." You are darn strait that a situation where aborted babies can be manufactured, bought and sold in the name of science should be discouraged. Our humanity deserves no less! What do you mean rightly or wrongly? Where are your priorities good man?

One can't loose sight of all that is humane in favor of discovery. The Church is around as a reminder (as imperfect as the people can sometimes be). Sorry if this cramps anyone's style. The past is simply used as an excuse to hold a grudge and harbor resentments--and now as a way to justify reasons to discard care for appropriate conduct within a society--like pirates.

To this day there is much that the Catholic Church forbids its instructors to teach. Perhaps the attitude of "why teach immoral junk" is how they see it...? I'd have to do more research and get back to you. But don't be surprised that the Catholic Church to this day continues to make great effort to discern between what's good and true and what's false and dangerous for mankind. Keep your ears closed to what they say and you might miss something important.

This world is where your children must grow up. Don't lose sight of the bigger picture in the name of blindly following assorted science gods.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 90
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 1:19:31 PM
except for the whole universe, and everything in it, YOUR RIGHT, we have no evidence.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 91
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:23:19 PM
You.. Are.. You're! Say it with me! You're!!
Your is a sign of ownership.
Your rig. Your fridge. Your dog.
If a phrase makes sense by typing, "You are" without voiding the English language, than chances are, the phrase is meant for you're and not 'your.'

Sorry.. pet peve of mine.
 Roccocogirl
Joined: 9/24/2009
Msg: 92
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:47:25 PM
My pet peeve is watching a person misspell peve and then seeing someone tell another how to spell it properly. :) Just teasing fellows.
 Verzen
Joined: 12/9/2007
Msg: 93
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:51:40 PM
Sorry, was typing quickly and thought I hit the e twice. =)
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 94
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 2:58:50 PM
I can't use Vs reason, i just spell bad!
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 95
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:00:10 PM

than chances are


Don't forget substituting "than" for "then". Guilty of that one myself fairly often, mainly from my typing being out of sync with my thoughts.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 96
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:10:16 PM

Why do Americans pronounce route like rout when they mean different things…

Why pronounce it like "root", when they mean different things?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 97
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:20:39 PM
I'm taking a bad, hopfully I'll spell bedder.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 98
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:56:34 PM

Does it take faith to believe in science?


Briefly, no. Faith in the religious sense is belief in the absence of evidence.

Science is evidence.


I have read quite a few posts now and no one has offered any evidence for the mechanism which created the laws of this universe which science and religion rely so heavily on.


And again, though it's been explained many, many times in these threads, "pre-existing conditions" for the initial formation of the universe are essentially unobservable and so cannot be stated with any assurance to have been a particular thing.

However...

That doesn't mean we can't theorize about how the beginning of the universe might have occurred.

It also does not mean that we can't come to a conclusion about that beginning based on the observable data. Specifically the CMB; abundances of lighter elements i.e. hydrogen, helium, deuterium and lithium; the obvious evolution of galactic structure going back 13.7 billion years, etc.
 scorpiomover
Joined: 4/19/2007
Msg: 99
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 4:14:30 PM
RE Msg: 155 by lsdime:
here's the thing. Most religious people will freely admit that their belief is based on faith. I'm sure even you will admit this.
Here's the thing. I've talked to a hell of a lot of religious people about their beliefs, in a free and open-minded manner, and nearly all never said "faith".

But those very same people will come into debate forums and try to back up their beliefs using evidence, reason, and logic. Thats the ironic part. If your belief had evidence, reason, and logic, you wouldnt need faith. The fact that you need faith, is precisely because you have no evidence. Even the pope will admit this. So why do you try to use evidence to back up your faith?? That is where the logical fallacy lies. You can't back up faith with evidence, otherwise by doing so you are denying that it is faith in the first place.

If you would just admit your belief is faith, we would have no argument. Its when you try to change it into something else that it becomes a fallacy. The purist kind
Here's the other thing. You've just admitted that when people freely say they have religious beliefs NOT based on faith, you openly attack their views, again and again, until they say that their religious beleifs are based on faith. So for you, religious beliefs being based on faith becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, because you freely admit that you refuse to accept anything else. That is a purist idea, to keep refusing to accept people's views unless they agree with what you claim to be true.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 100
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 4:28:27 PM

So a theory with no evidence is perfectly alright for science...


Um, then that would be a hypothesis. Not a theory.

A theory is a construct based on physical observation and/or mathematical construct. I notice you stayed away from the actual list of observed phenomenon that has contributed to our understanding the the big bang.

You'll notice that none of it points to a "God" in the mix. Unless you want to bring on the "The universe is because of God and God is because of the universe" type reasoning typical of most creationists.


I know and it all makes for interesting research but it is all based on what made the universe, or even this universe.


Um, research is kind of the point in all of this. However, there is no "faith" involved since the science is always open for review and revision. Not always the case with religion.
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 101
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 5:00:20 PM

If you cannot come up with a theory on how these phenomenon came about then you accept their existence based on faith

No, you accept them because the evidence leads you to them. We conclude that it happened, without knowing what CAUSED it to happen. We don't need to know the cause in order to determine that an event took place. We don't need to assume or even think about a cause.

It would appear that you are arguing that the basic assumption that every effect has a cause, is "faith". It isn't - it's pattern recognition. Every effect so far has had a cause, therefore it's a pretty basic conclusion that the Big Bang had a cause. So what?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 102
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 5:26:53 PM
No I am not arguing that every effect that has a cause is based on faith, just that an effect without a cause is

That makes no sense. Not being able to define a cause, in no way prevents an effect from occuring. No-one is arguing for cause-less effects, only for effects being real and causes unknown.


(or a cause with no evidence is).

Of course. But hypothesizing mechanisms which are consistent with the facts, and which have the potential for being testable, is not "no evidence". Weak perhaps, but not "faith" until clung to in the face of superior alternatives.


how can this happen in a singularity...where T=0...with no time, no space and therefore no physical causation.

Good question. The effects say it happened, but it's a phenomenon we are not in a position to observe or test. We can't conclude a homogeneous timeless singularity because we have no way to measure or observe before T=0. We can't equate this singularity with any others within our universe either. There are, however, hypotheses which seek to resolve your question by novel means. Soap bubble universes, white holes, etc. These aren't simply offered up as deus ex machina solutions, but are put under the microscope to determine how or if they can be tested.

If your answer to what caused the whole universe and you to exist is so what, you might as well pack up your kit, go live up a mountain and wait for it to be all over.

Non sequitur. Answering this question has no more impact on my life or interests, than does finding out what you had for breakfast. I can't answer it and won't pretend I can. I don't even care. Zero impact, so why would I unless it happens to be my personal field of interest?
 FrogO_Oeyes
Joined: 8/21/2005
Msg: 103
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:00:46 PM

there can be no evidence for science. There can be no scientific answer.

However, some of the hypotheses come at this problem indirectly, by seeking additional side-effects which CAN be observed. A could cause B. A would also cause C. We can't observe B, but if we can identify and test C, we can still support the conclusion of "A".

Regardless, you haven't demonstrated a necessity for faith in this process. Concepts aren't simply being pulled from someone's ass and then clung to. Consistent explanations are sought, as are means to test them.
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 104
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:56:54 PM

What I have noticed is that you keep drawing us back to this list as if it has some bearing on how these phenomenon came about.

If you cannot come up with a theory on how these phenomenon came about then you accept their [those phenomenons] existence based on faith.


So, just because I couldn't observe the initial conditions that led to last August's major thunderstorms in southern Ontario, do I therefore conclude that the thunderstorm did not, in fact, occur? Because that's the logic you seem to be employing.

I hope you don't work for an insurance company.
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 105
view profile
History
It takes faith to believe in science - I'd say no.
Posted: 10/11/2009 6:57:45 PM
the only answers science will ever find are the ones science CAN find.
its a little limited, but ,that seems to be all that most of us seem to WANT to deal with.

many more questions beg answers, in my mind, anyway.


there are burning questions that science is not capable of dealing with, but beg an answer.

and no one has to agree.

the "many" have been wrong.

exploratory thinking.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >