Is Science a Faith System?

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Han,

 

To sum up, everyday, or common experience from the equipment and things around you confirms at least the science that can be used for practical things. While the science that goes outside our ability to personally experience or test, requires a trust in the people from the field and trust in the reporters giving us the information.

 

I appreciate you took time to answer my post, and I’m looking forward to see next week what you have to say in response to this one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Slowly addressing old posts, one by one…

 

Yeah, I agree with your “levels of belief” idea. I think that’s a good way of expressing it.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[dogmatically_challenged]

Hey Han,

Slowly addressing old posts, one by one…

 

Yeah, I agree with your “levels of belief” idea. I think that’s a good way of expressing it.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That does not mean that we should let Hans think that cigars are good for him does it? hehe.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Mr. Spooky,

Having "faith" in someone means you trust that said someone will not lie to you.

 

However, this is dependant on the person existing in the first place.  You can't "have faith" in someone that doesn't exist.

 

Ergo, this usage of "faith" is useless in the context of "having faith in God" to demonstrate his existence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was not attempting to prove God is real, only demonstrate how we all take many things on faith (or the noun of your choosing.)

When we "have faith" in scientific authorities, we first of all know that said authorities exist and second of all know that we can trace the claims of the authority back to hard evidence.  A valid appeal to authority is dependant on rational means.

 

Religious faith, as a suspension rational means, can do neither.

 

Again, ONLY by conveniently ignoring the distinctions between these two different applications of the concept of "faith" does the Theist make a claim, and a specious one at that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So on some level, you and I agree; we must have faith in scientific authorities, or more likely, the scientific process. So, what is my specious claim?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[dogmatically_challenged]

Burry The Rag

I was not attempting to prove God is real, only demonstrate how we all take many things on faith (or the noun of your choosing.)

For what purpose? What is your motive here?

 

Also, please do not use the word Faith. Try the word confidence. Faith can mean a lot of things. Wishful thinking is not the same as confidence based on evidence.

 

Lets say I have pretty much no understanding of science and that I treat scientists like priests and just swallow everything they tell me without ever trying to gain a basic understanding. You believe in the claims made by the bible writers and I believe in the claims of scientists. Who is taking more of a leap of faith?

 

I can point to real miracles given us by scientists. What can your prophets do aside from what I can do myself? Oh wait your prophets are all dead. My bad..hehe!

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Antlerman,

 

This has always been the issue I wish to cut through.  I hear Christians try to charge the argument by using the word "faith" in the context of people accepting the veracity of science.  What I see is an attempt to suggest "So why is it that you criticize it when we have faith, if you have faith with science too?" 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That’s not at all what I am maintaining:

There are many here who maintain I can not prove Christianity. I am one. My faith in God is a belief. I am also not arguing there is no difference between science and religion. I am not claiming science is a religion. Clearly science is provable and religion is not. But many things we accept as knowledge are actually beliefs based on the knowledge of others.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I accept as credible science the Theory of Evolution.  The Bible on the other hand is "incredible".  It makes grandiose claims of the supernatural then offers unreliable evidence as proofs.  To accept that requires an act of pure faith.  Reason is abandoned. Science is the exact opposite of that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is it? Science has “proved” many things which are later discovered untrue. This is not to say science is flawed, quite the contrary, the method has proved its ability to flush out the truth. But to assume our generation is the first in which it has done so completely seems a bit naive.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey white_raven23,

Not to mention if "Faith" was honestly considered applicable to both science and religion equally as Burry suggests, this duality would very much fly in the face and up the butt of that whole "Thou Shalt Have No Other Gods Before Me" crap.

 

How do you weasel out of that one? According to the religion, there's only one god, so there's no "Well it just means the Christian god is to be worshipped above all others". That would have been the only possible loophole. Obviously it fails.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You lost me on this one. Can you please rephrase, sorry. By saying I have faith in science. I was saying I am unable to conduct the experiments myself and must trust the experts. I can trust what someone else tells me without worshiping them. I maintain we all believe many things that surround our lives. No one can know it all.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Madame M,

How can you agree, when you chopped one sentence out of my statement?  I put faith in "" and said, "if it can be used in that context".  In other words, I didn't think faith was an appropriate word usage, but I was trying make a relation for the sake of the thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, didn't mean to misquote you.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey qadeshet,

A Scientific Theory is tested and retested over the course of many years.  Since I am not a Scientist, I have to take the word of experts in the various fields of Science.  But Scientists are perfectly willing to abandon a Theory if it is disproven, unlike followers of most Religions.  Through Science we learn about the Universe through testing, not faith.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Interesting. How would you maintain a religion could be (dis)proven? (I can think of a few ways.)

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Ouroboros]

That does not mean that we should let Hans think that cigars are good for him does it? hehe.

Hey! Don't touch my cigars! They're sacred! j/k

[Antlerman]

Is it? Science has “proved” many things which are later discovered untrue. This is not to say science is flawed, quite the contrary, the method has proved its ability to flush out the truth. But to assume our generation is the first in which it has done so completely seems a bit naive.

 

What I said was this:

"I accept as credible science the Theory of Evolution. The Bible on the other hand is "incredible". It makes grandiose claims of the supernatural then offers unreliable evidence as proofs. To accept that requires an act of pure faith. Reason is abandoned. Science is the exact opposite of that."

 

I wasn't saying I think science has "proved" the Theory of Evolution" to be true. That defies how science operates. Science cannot speak in terms of absolutes because we cannot ever know everything. I tried to be careful in my wording above. I will state it this way: There are mountains of evidence today that make the Theory of Evolution as close to being as "practically" irrefutable as the Theory of Gravity. (Notice the attempt to avoid absolute terms there?)

 

This is not some new theory in a single disciple that may later be unseated as many have in the past. To unseat this incredibly supported scientific theory would take mountains of contrary evidence from not just one, but nearly every scientific discipline on the planet.

 

My acceptance of what science says on this subject is all about degrees of reliability.

 

The Bible on the other hand is a book of faith. If you say you won't try to offer evidence to support its claims, then I salute you for your integrity. My grievance is with those who say things like the resurrection is one of the most historically recorded events of the world, therefore providing a "proof" that Jesus was the Son of God. Forgive my disrespect but, right!

[MrSpooky]

So on some level, you and I agree; we must have faith in scientific authorities, or more likely, the scientific process. So, what is my specious claim?

 

Burry, you either read far too much into a quote or far too little.

 

Note that my post was regarding "The Theist." I was addressing the classical error of the "Faith" argument as a fallacy of equivocation.

[MrSpooky]

Scientist seem to maintain some state of skepticism in everything, because everything is always changing depending on new evidence or exceptions to the rules... right? Yet, it seems to me that scientist must have 'faith' that EVENTUALLY there is a world-wide, mutually difinitive conclusion on each subject... otherwise they are using a method that is leading no where, but going with the ever-changing winds of the current times... wouldn't they?

 

Oh my, I can't believe I missed this.

 

Again, Amanda, I think you're utterly misrepresenting science if you define it as by necessity working towards an "ultimate truth" or a pure repesentation of noumenal reality. Science and scientific knowledge (indeed, ALL knowledge) is based on epistemic concerns, not concerns that are purely metaphysical. Science seeks to work in ideas, not in reality as-it-is. Reality that is relevant to man is not reality external to human cognizance. Rather, reality that is relevant to man is that which is brought INTO cognizance.

 

To place knowledge on such a pedestal that one must have a final "ultimate representation" of reality really is committing the Infallibilist Fallacy... applying a standard of perfection that is inapplicable to man. You have defined Knowledge in a manner such that acquiring Knowledge is impossible. This is the major error you make, I think.

 

EDIT: I'm very sorry if that's a bit unclear. I'll try to explain further later.

[Amanda]

Objectivity means that a field is NOT dependant on (or actively attempts to minimize its dependance on) personal opinion, experience, or bias.  In particular, it seeks to eradicate dogma.  As such, people who study objective fields appeal to forces OUTSIDE of their personal, subjective psyches as an ultimate arbiter of truth (that is, reality.  This is where experimentation, presentation of empirical evidence, and peer-review comes in).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thanks for setting me straight on that one, Mr Spooky! I won't ever make that correlation again... hopefully... in regards to 'objective facts' about 'spirituality'. (BTW, I don't believe in dogma) You're so gracious in the way you explain it too, you have patience and diplomacy that are very admirable... not to mention your gifts of knowledge you give so freely to everyone. I must say that I am impressed with your style! I think everyone else here is too.

 

Mr. Spooky, may I ask you... what are your thoughts of spirituality? Do you believe that there might be something 'inside' us that transcends our tangible body?

[Amanda]

I wasn't saying I think science has "proved" the Theory of Evolution" to be true.  That defies how science operates.  Science cannot speak in terms of absolutes because we cannot ever know everything.  I tried to be careful in my wording above.  I will state it this way: There are mountains of evidence today that make the Theory of Evolution as close to being as "practically" irrefutable as the Theory of Gravity.  (Notice the attempt to avoid absolute terms there?)

 

This is not some new theory in a single disciple that may later be unseated as many have in the past. To unseat this incredibly supported scientific theory would take mountains of contrary evidence from not just one, but nearly every scientific discipline on the planet.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Antlerman, I saw a compelling documentary about evidence against evolution. A lady archeologist was saying that she had found evidence of modern men in Mexico that tremendously predated present Evolutionists' theories about the status of man at that time, I think about 200,000 years ago. This ruined her career, as her findings didn't substantiate popular ideas, and they stopped her funding... and it seems everyone else has chosen to ignore these findings that don't fit their Darwinian model.

 

Predominantly, the documentary was about an archeologist, Michael Cremo, who wrote a book called Forbidden Archeology, which asserts there is evidence of modern men millions of years ago, if not billions! More information can be found here http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

 

I AM also of the Darwinian persuasion, yet I keep an open mind and would be interested in others opinions who may be more familiar with these claims. This may be a tribute to the topic, is science a faith... because it seems, according to Cremo, SOME scientists are Darwinian fanatics (faith in Darwin?) and won't even consider reviewing his/any contrary findings! Also, don't you think after one has invested so much of their energy in one direction, it seems natural to dismiss a few pieces of evidence in contention of a theory as insignificant or misrepresented in regards to the magnitude of what seems to be 'evidence' for it?

[Amanda]

Again, Amanda, I think you're utterly misrepresenting science if you define it as by necessity working towards an "ultimate truth" or a pure repesentation of noumenal reality. 

--------------------------

To place knowledge on such a pedestal that one must have a final "ultimate representation" of reality really is committing the Infallibilist Fallacy... applying a standard of perfection that is inapplicable to man.  You have defined Knowledge in a manner such that acquiring Knowledge is impossible.  This is the major error you make, I think.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OK............ you're right again. I stand corrected. .......Thanks.

[Zach]

Predominantly, the documentary was about an archeologist, Michael Cremo, who wrote a book called Forbidden Archeology, which asserts there is evidence of modern men millions of years ago, if not billions! More information can be found here http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

Hmmm. A quote from the website: "In his sequel, Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory, Cremo suggests that human beings 'did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit.'"

 

So now we have a Hare Krishna with no archaeology/anthropology credentials throwing his opinion into the Intelligent Design debate? Does any one see how ridiculous this is becoming?

[Ouroboros]

Antlerman, I saw a compelling documentary about evidence against evolution. A lady archeologist was saying that she had found evidence of modern men in Mexico that tremendously predated present Evolutionists' theories about the status of man at that time, I think about 200,000 years ago. This ruined her career, as her findings didn't substantiate popular ideas, and they stopped her funding... and it seems everyone else has chosen to ignore these findings that don't fit their Darwinian model.

 

Predominantly, the documentary was about an archeologist, Michael Cremo, who wrote a book called Forbidden Archeology, which asserts there is evidence of modern men millions of years ago, if not billions! More information can be found here http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

Hmmm. This Cremo might be an extremist of his own kind. Since if he's right, then of course the Genesis story still would be wrong and God didn't create the world according to the Bible 6000 years ago, but humans existed 200,000 years ago.

 

I find it hard to believe that there would be some kind of large conspiracy amongst scientists to supress contrary evidence. If that was true, how come ID has come this far to almost to be entered into the school curriculum as a "science"? Would the Evolution Conspiracy be able to stop world wide evidence gathering, but would not be able to stop politicians?

 

I AM also of the Darwinian persuasion, yet I keep an open mind and would be interested in others opinions who may be more familiar with these claims. This may be a tribute to the topic, is science a faith... because it seems, according to Cremo, SOME scientists are Darwinian fanatics (faith in Darwin?) and won't even consider reviewing his/any contrary findings! Also, don't you think after one has invested so much of their energy in one direction, it seems natural to dismiss a few pieces of evidence in contention of a theory as insignificant or misrepresented in regards to the magnitude of what seems to be 'evidence' for it?

I believe there are scientists that have become fanatics too. Like you say, "some", and it's very unfortunate, but I guess it's just a result of the human nature. Most scientists are open, a few fanatics, and that's how I see religion too, many are good but a few extremists.

[Amanda]

Hmmm. A quote from the website: "In his sequel, Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory, Cremo suggests that human beings 'did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit.'"

 

So now we have a Hare Krishna with no archaeology/anthropology credentials throwing his opinion into the Intelligent Design debate? Does any one see how ridiculous this is becoming?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Zach, you may not like his labels, or lack thereof... I did assume he was an archeologist, so thanks for pointing that out... what is important, IMO, is his evidence. Not reliable? Like I said, I AM of the Darwin persuasion, yet I want to keep an open mind. If he can date tangible spherical metal balls with a groove around the middle, not naturally made, back to existing millions/billions of years ago with scientific reliance... then do we accept that much of it at least? Or do we continue with Darwin's theory without even considering modification?

 

Another aspect of the documentary, showed foot prints of a man alongside those of a dinosaur, in stone, in Texas... and the documentary expressed a compelling spin on its authenticity to show both existed in the same time period. Have you ever heard anything on that, suggested as evidence of man being here millions of years ago? Similar assertions: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm Please ignore this web site is of a biblical affiliated agency, and hopefully consider the 'evidence' itself. We can draw our own conclusions, I'm just curious if the suggested evidence does have merit.......

[Ouroboros]

I think the footprint has beed debunked. MrNeil or Spooky knows more about that "evidence".

[MrSpooky]

Thanks for setting me straight on that one, Mr Spooky! I won't ever make that correlation again... hopefully... in regards to 'objective facts' about 'spirituality'. (BTW, I don't believe in dogma) You're so gracious in the way you explain it too, you have patience and diplomacy that are very admirable... not to mention your gifts of knowledge you give so freely to everyone. I must say that I am impressed with your style! I think everyone else here is too.

 

Aww, isn't that sweet. ^______^

 

I'm afraid I DO have quite a temper in debates, but only when people persist for a very long time continuing to make the same arguments I've addressed before. I try to keep calm, though.

 

Honey and vinegar, and all that.

 

 

 

Mr. Spooky, may I ask you... what are your thoughts of spirituality? Do you believe that there might be something 'inside' us that transcends our tangible body?

 

I don't think that it is objectively true that there is something that transcends materialism, and I won't put weight in the idea until it is proven.

 

However, I do believe that one can aesthetically and subjectively interpret the human condition as such. For example, I do understand that my actions (and hopefully these are good things I do in life) will leave a permanent mark on reality. One can interpret this as the lasting essence of a being. Not merely his actions and beliefs, but his effects on reality.

 

Just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's real. It's just something real only to YOU, and that's just peachy. To me, spirituality is refined and deeply held poetry.

[MrSpooky]

Another aspect of the documentary, showed foot prints of a man alongside those of a dinosaur, in stone, in Texas... and the documentary expressed a compelling spin on its authenticity to show both existed in the same time period. Have you ever heard anything on that, suggested as evidence of man being here millions of years ago? Similar assertions: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm Please ignore this web site is of a biblical affiliated agency, and hopefully consider the 'evidence' itself. We can draw our own conclusions, I'm just curious if the suggested evidence does have merit.......

 

Oh yeah, the Paluxy tracks.

 

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

 

Really, the evidence indicates that the larger "dinosaur" tracks were the result of erosion. I don't know the details yet, but I'll read through this and condense it for you in a yummy bite-sized format right now.

[Antlerman]

Antlerman, I saw a compelling documentary about evidence against evolution. A lady archeologist was saying that she had found evidence of modern men in Mexico that tremendously predated present Evolutionists' theories about the status of man at that time, I think about 200,000 years ago. This ruined her career, as her findings didn't substantiate popular ideas, and they stopped her funding... and it seems everyone else has chosen to ignore these findings that don't fit their Darwinian model.

 

Predominantly, the documentary was about an archeologist, Michael Cremo, who wrote a book called Forbidden Archeology, which asserts there is evidence of modern men millions of years ago, if not billions! More information can be found here http://www.biped.info/articles/cremo.html

And we know for a fact from dispassionate, objective sources that her funding was cut off because her findings didn't substantiate popular ideas? Frankly that smells of conspiracy theory, and is often the cry of those that are on the fringes of any discipline who don't know how to deal with their ideas not cutting the grade. Maybe they're not accepted because they're faulted?? Red flags going up all over the place on that one!

 

I can dig into this later, but..... as I said above, one discovery, if credible that challenges the Theory of Evolution will not unseat it. Theories are constantly being modified - overthrown is entirely different. BTW, Evolution is not just about the history of man. It is the origin of all life. Also, the earth is approximately 4 billion years old. So it would be astounding beyond all comprehension if man were in the Billion years plus category. That would mean the earth was habitable for land creatures that long ago, and what's more it would indicate he was a transplant from some already evolved plant elsewhere in the universe.

 

Hmmmm... are these guys ET junkies who are mad at not being accepted as credible scientists? (Sounds like our Intelligent Design boys have a cousin out there).