Faith In Science

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Many non-scientists often claim to have scientific evidence to support their scientific beliefs. While this claim may be true for the scientists themselves who perform scientific tests and experiments, it is not necessarily true for the non-scientists who do not perform such experiments and tests. So for the non-scientists to claim to have scientific evidence is not necessarily true. What they usually have is faith, faith in the claims of the scientists who do perform those experiments and tests.

More often than not, if non-scientists are presented with scientific evidence they may still not be able to comprehend it, especially if the evidence involves a lot of mathematical equations requiring a mathematical mind, like Einstein’s, to comprehend it, so all the non-scientists can do in such circumstances is to have faith that the math is correct and that it is also being applied correctly to the observations.

One example of faith is science is Gravitational Lensing:

Einstein_Cross.jpg


To the non-scientists, these celestial light objects are seen as five objects. To the scientists, however, these objects are claimed to be only two. And because of this scientific claim the non-scientists accept these objects as two even though they are seen as five. This is because the non-scientists accept them, not on the basis of what they see, but on the basis of faith in the scientists who claim they are only two.

Creationists are often criticized for not having evidence to support their theological beliefs and exercising faith in biblical claims. But these criticisms often come from non-scientists who themselves have no evidence to support many of their scientific beliefs and who are simply exercising faith in scientific claims. They may say they have evidence, but they really don’t. When asked to provide evidence they simply quote science papers from the peer-review bible as if science papers is evidence.

I always thought that science papers was an explanation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. But some people like to quote those papers as if they are evidence. Well if science papers in a peer-review bible can be considered evidence then so can the theological papers in the Holy Bible, and we all can just exercise faith in both papers.
 

Pete Harcoff

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce
Jun 30, 2002
8,304
71
✟9,874.00
Faith
Other Religion
The problem with this argument is that you're spreading the definition of "faith" very thin and basically comparing apples and oranges.

Do people have "faith" in scientists? In a generic sense, sure, although I'd probably use the term "trust" over "faith". But this is basically true of a lot of professionals. People train in certain fields and have the skills/expertise/knowledge in that field so that they basically become authorities in that field. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about scientists, accountants, or plumbers. People trust them in their respective fields because they have expertise in that field.

The key, though, is that nothing published in a scientific journal is above and beyond anyone else. Anyone can learn science. Anyone can learn the underlying theories, models, forumulas, etc, used in scientific papers. This is basically the point of peer-review and publication: put the ideas, evidence, tests, theories, etc, out there for critique. The whole idea being that if Scientist A does something, then there's no reason Scientist B can't look at their hypothesis, materials, methods, and conclusion, and test it for themselves.

And this is the difference between "faith" in fellow people's expertise and "faith" of a religious nature. Faith in things like the Bible is faith in the supernatural. And the supernatural can't be tested, at least not in an empirical sense. In contrast, scientific papers can be empirically tested and are tested on a regular basis.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Split Rock
Upvote 0

Hespera

Junior Member
Dec 16, 2008
7,237
200
usa
✟8,850.00
Faith
Buddhist
Marital Status
Private
The problem with this argument is that you're spreading the definition of "faith" very thin and basically comparing apples and oranges.

Do people have "faith" in scientists? In a generic sense, sure, although I'd probably use the term "trust" over "faith". But this is basically true of a lot of professionals. People train in certain fields and have the skills/expertise/knowledge in that field so that they basically become authorities in that field. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about scientists, accountants, or plumbers. People trust them in their respective fields because they have expertise in that field.

The key, though, is that nothing published in a scientific journal is above and beyond anyone else. Anyone can learn science. Anyone can learn the underlying theories, models, forumulas, etc, used in scientific papers. This is basically the point of peer-review and publication: put the ideas, evidence, tests, theories, etc, out there for critique. The whole idea being that if Scientist A does something, then there's no reason Scientist B can't look at their hypothesis, materials, methods, and conclusion, and test it for themselves.

And this is the difference between "faith" in fellow people's expertise and "faith" of a religious nature. Faith in things like the Bible is faith in the supernatural. And the supernatural can't be tested, at least not in an empirical sense. In contrast, scientific papers can be empirically tested and are tested on a regular basis.


Oh lets play with all the meanings of a word. See how "meanignful" dove's argument is.

Dove has faith in god!

Definitions of god on the Web:


  • deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force
  • a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"
  • idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"
  • Göd is a small town in Pest County, Hungary.

  • God, as a male deity, contrasts with female deities, or "goddesses". While the term 'goddess' specifically refers to a female deity, the plural 'gods' can be applied to all gods collectively, regardless of gender.
so all them people who say they have faith in god really have faith in a small town in Hungary. And worship idols.
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
Many non-scientists often claim to have scientific evidence to support their scientific beliefs.
Exhibit number 1: Christian Forums.

While this claim may be true for the scientists themselves who perform scientific tests and experiments, it is not necessarily true for the non-scientists who do not perform such experiments and tests.
Even when scientists do perform these alleged and so-called "tests and experiments" they still don't know what the hell they are talking about. But don't worry they have faith. Furthermore, experiments and tests are irrelevant because just because something tests a billion ways the same way that doesn't mean that on the billion and first time it won't test totally different. But don't worry they have faith.

For example they have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow even though it is known from the historical record that the sun has risen contrary to experience 4 times in the past 14,000 years.

"Thus the whole period is eleven thousand three hundred and forty years; in all of which time (they said) they had had no king who was a god in human form, nor had there been any such either before or after those years among the rest of the kings of Egypt. Four times in this period (so they told me) the sun rose contrary to experience; twice he came up where he now goes down, and twice went down where he now comes up." -- Herodotus, historian, Book II, ~440-420 B.C.

"... the day was retarded in contrariety to nature, and the sun delayed." -- Plutarch, historian, 1st century

"That the sun will not rise to-morrow is no less intelligible a proposition, and implies no more contradiction, than the affirmation, that it will rise." -- David Hume, philosopher, 1772

So for the non-scientists to claim to have scientific evidence is not necessarily true.
Correct. And even when scientists claim to have scientific evidence it's not necessarily true.

What they usually have is faith, faith in the claims of the scientists who do perform those experiments and tests.
Correct.

And scientists also have faith that their experiments and tests are correct. 99.999% of the time they aren't correct.

"Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all." -- G. K. Chesterton, philosopher, Orthodoxy, Chapter III: The Suicide of Thought, 1909

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged in scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'" -- Max Planck, physicist, 1932

More often than not, if non-scientists are presented with scientific evidence they may still not be able to comprehend it, especially if the evidence involves a lot of mathematical equations requiring a mathematical mind, like Einstein’s, to comprehend it, so all the non-scientists can do in such circumstances is to have faith that the math is correct and that it is also being applied correctly to the observations.
Any philosopher knows that mathematics is not physics.

"...there is no more common error than to assume that, because prolonged and accurate mathematical calculations have been made, the application of the result to some fact of nature is absolutely certain." -- Alfred N. Whitehead, mathematician/philosopher, 1911

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, January 1921

"Geometry is not physics." -- Halton C. Arp, astronomer, June 2007

"All I can say is, beware of geeks bearing formulas." -- Warren Buffett, financier, 2008

Any Euclidean geometer and philosopher knows that any mathematics is totally imaginary and any mathematics, namely General Ralativity, based upon Non-Eucludean geometry is a joke. So-called "spacetime" is also a totally imaginary concept and only exists in Meinong's Jungle with the invisible pink unicorns. But don't worry: they have faith.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
The whole idea being that if Scientist A does something, then there's no reason Scientist B can't look at their hypothesis, materials, methods, and conclusion, and test it for themselves.

Where do I get a gram of "dark matter" or some inflation to make sure that "scientists" didn't just "make it up"?
 
Upvote 0

Exiledoomsayer

Only toke me 1 year to work out how to change this
Jan 7, 2010
2,196
64
✟10,237.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Where do I get a gram of "dark matter" or some inflation to make sure that "scientists" didn't just "make it up"?

you may aswell ask

Where do i get full comprehensive knowledge about gravity and how it keeps the moon in orbit to make sure scientists didnt just make it up?

You start at college i suppose. There is no easy street like reading a 'truth' book then go with what feels right.. :preach:
 
Upvote 0

Agonaces of Susa

Evolution is not science: legalize creationism.
Nov 18, 2009
3,605
50
San Diego
Visit site
✟11,653.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Constitution
you may aswell ask

Where do i get full comprehensive knowledge about gravity and how it keeps the moon in orbit to make sure scientists didnt just make it up?
"Since Newton announced his universal law of gravitation, scientists have accepted and educators taught it, and rarely has it been questioned. Occasionally one has the temerity to say that gravitation is a myth, an invented word to cover scientific ignorance." -- C.H. Kilmer, historian, October 1915

Brown, T.T., How I Control Gravity, Science and Invention, Aug 1929

Velikovsky, I., Cosmos Without Gravitation: Attraction, Repulsion, and Electromagnetic Circumduction In The Solar System, 1946

Electrogravitics Systems: An Examination of Electrostatic Motion Dynamic Counterbary and Barycentric Control, Gravity Research Group, 1956
 
Upvote 0

Cabal

Well-Known Member
Jul 22, 2007
11,592
476
38
London
✟30,012.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Creationists are often criticized for not having evidence to support their theological beliefs and exercising faith in biblical claims. But these criticisms often come from non-scientists who themselves have no evidence to support many of their scientific beliefs and who are simply exercising faith in scientific claims. They may say they have evidence, but they really don’t. When asked to provide evidence they simply quote science papers from the peer-review bible as if science papers is evidence.

I always thought that science papers was an explanation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. But some people like to quote those papers as if they are evidence. Well if science papers in a peer-review bible can be considered evidence then so can the theological papers in the Holy Bible, and we all can just exercise faith in both papers.

Creationism is not scientific and CANNOT ever be tested. The difference with scientific ideas is they CAN be tested. However, one does not necessarily have to personally test everything in order to make a scientific statement.

We've known that force = mass x acceleration for a few centuries now - does that mean anyone who wants to the make the claim needs to go do it themselves first? No, because the fact that you CAN test scientific ideas and the fact that these ideas HAVE been repeatedly tested means it is acceptable to posit a law of nature without having personally tested it.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

3sigma

Well-Known Member
Jan 9, 2008
2,339
72
✟3,007.00
Faith
Atheist
Creationists are often criticized for not having evidence to support their theological beliefs and exercising faith in biblical claims. But these criticisms often come from non-scientists who themselves have no evidence to support many of their scientific beliefs and who are simply exercising faith in scientific claims. They may say they have evidence, but they really don’t. When asked to provide evidence they simply quote science papers from the peer-review bible as if science papers is evidence.
You are painting a misleading picture by restricting your discussion to individuals. It isn’t just that individuals have no sound evidence supporting creationism. The difference between science and creationism is that there are masses of sound evidence supporting scientific findings whereas there is no sound evidence whatsoever supporting creationism. There has never been a single shred of sound evidence anywhere that your God created anything or that it even exists.

Scientific papers are not evidence per se that something happens; they contain the evidence. You actually have to read them to gain the evidence. However, having read them, you can verify that they are correct by repeating the same research yourself, if you have the intelligence and resources.

Once again, scientific findings are supported by masses of sound evidence whereas there is absolutely zero sound evidence supporting the beliefs that your God created anything or that it even exists. Such beliefs are the result of religious believers allowing their need for emotional comfort to override their reason.
 
Upvote 0

Naraoia

Apprentice Biologist
Sep 30, 2007
6,682
313
On edge
Visit site
✟15,998.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Many non-scientists often claim to have scientific evidence to support their scientific beliefs. While this claim may be true for the scientists themselves who perform scientific tests and experiments, it is not necessarily true for the non-scientists who do not perform such experiments and tests. So for the non-scientists to claim to have scientific evidence is not necessarily true. What they usually have is faith, faith in the claims of the scientists who do perform those experiments and tests.
A splendid example of the equivocation fallacy, I think.

More often than not, if non-scientists are presented with scientific evidence they may still not be able to comprehend it, especially if the evidence involves a lot of mathematical equations requiring a mathematical mind, like Einstein’s, to comprehend it, so all the non-scientists can do in such circumstances is to have faith that the math is correct and that it is also being applied correctly to the observations.
That's undoubtedly true when it comes to math-heavy ideas. But it's still not the same "faith" required by the belief that a body of ancient mythology, poetry, and "eyewitness" reports that were written down decades after the event is Inerrant Truth. In the case of observations about the universe, they can be repeated again and again and again in the here and now. Often, they can be repeated on demand (you can set up the same experiment and see whether you get the same results). There is also a huge body of qualified researchers that agree (and sometimes, vehemently disagree) on the interpretations.

Not having "faith" in established science amounts to not trusting the instruments, or spinning conspiracy theories about the scientists. Of course all cosmologists might be making the same mistake in their math, or all geologists might be misinterpreting this or that phenomenon in the same way. How likely is that, though? For the layperson, the best course of action is to trust the scientific consensus, if there is one.

Of course, if I were to evaluate someone's arguments based on "scientific facts", I would look for some evidence that they understand what they're talking about, at least on an informal level. E.g. quote-mining a science textbook wouldn't fly with me. Luckily, the internet is usually wonderful for reading up on the other party's "facts" for yourself.

One example of faith is science is Gravitational Lensing:

To the non-scientists, these celestial light objects are seen as five objects. To the scientists, however, these objects are claimed to be only two. And because of this scientific claim the non-scientists accept these objects as two even though they are seen as five. This is because the non-scientists accept them, not on the basis of what they see, but on the basis of faith in the scientists who claim they are only two.

Creationists are often criticized for not having evidence to support their theological beliefs and exercising faith in biblical claims. But these criticisms often come from non-scientists who themselves have no evidence to support many of their scientific beliefs and who are simply exercising faith in scientific claims. They may say they have evidence, but they really don’t. When asked to provide evidence they simply quote science papers from the peer-review bible as if science papers is evidence.
Well, if someone quotes a scientific paper, you can always go and read it. If you don't believe what's written in it, you can sometimes repeat the observations for yourself. If you can't, you can always check whether others have also made the same observations. It's not like you have to rely on the person's claim alone...

(Which is not to excuse those who quote papers in parrot mode, of course.)

I always thought that science papers was an explanation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. But some people like to quote those papers as if they are evidence.
You are correct, they are not evidence per se. The evidence is invariably described in them, though. You can doubt that it's the way the paper says it, but for that doubt to be reasonable, you need evidence that:

(1) something is fishy about the methodology or the interpretation (e.g. there is a picture of a fossil, and the authors say this smudge of black is organ X, but it's such a generic shapeless blob that you suspect they are overinterpreting it; or you discover that the experiment didn't control for some blatantly obvious confounding variable... you get the idea)

(2) the authors are being dishonest about their reporting. (That would make an awful lot of lying scientists in some cases!)

Well if science papers in a peer-review bible can be considered evidence then so can the theological papers in the Holy Bible, and we all can just exercise faith in both papers.
Do you know the difference between eyewitness reports of unique events, and reports of repeatable observations?

That's the difference we're dealing with here.

Besides, what was the intention behind Biblical writings, and how did it play out in practice? Science has a well-developed culture of pedantry - make sure your reporting is clear, at least as detailed as necessary to support the claims you make, and complemented by visual or other evidence such as good quality photographs - all intended to ensure that facts don't get distorted and everyone sees where opinions come from. Did the writers of the Bible have the same priorities?
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I always thought that science papers was an explanation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. But some people like to quote those papers as if they are evidence. Well if science papers in a peer-review bible can be considered evidence then so can the theological papers in the Holy Bible, and we all can just exercise faith in both papers.
Scientific papers start with data, then analyze that data, and then draw conclusions from that analysis in comparison with similar papers. Therefore, you are wrong when you claim scientific papers are not evidence themselves. The rest of your statement falls apart.

You want your pet creation idea to be on equal grounds with scientific theory. That is really the basis for this thread. You want parity. You have not earned parity. Just making stuff up based on your biased and flawed interpretation of scripture and cherry-picking from the scientific literature to make it fit, does not give you a "theory" equal to any theory in science. Fail.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
you may aswell ask

Where do i get full comprehensive knowledge about gravity and how it keeps the moon in orbit to make sure scientists didnt just make it up?

I don't have to take anyone's word for "gravity", I can experience it's effects right here, right now anytime I want. Dark stuff tends to never show up in the lab, unlike gravity that shows up in *EVERY* lab on Earth. What exactly differentiates "faith" in God from "faith" in "inflation"?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Once again, scientific findings are supported by masses of sound evidence whereas there is absolutely zero sound evidence supporting the beliefs that your God created anything or that it even exists. Such beliefs are the result of religious believers allowing their need for emotional comfort to override their reason.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending YEC, but how does "inflation did it" pass as "science". When did inflation ever do anything to anything in a controlled experiment?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending YEC, but how does "inflation did it" pass as "science". When did inflation ever do anything to anything in a controlled experiment?
Observation in science

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:[citation needed]
  1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
  2. Making observations of the phenomenon
  3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
  4. Predicting a logical consequence of the hypothesis
  5. Testing the hypothesis by an experiment, an observational study, or a field study
  6. Creating a conclusion with data gathered in the experiment
I just started reading "Origins" by Neil deGrasse Tyson, explains inflation perfectly.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Observation in science

The scientific method requires observations of nature to formulate and test hypotheses. It consists of these steps:[citation needed]
  1. Asking a question about a natural phenomenon
  2. Making observations of the phenomenon
  3. Hypothesizing an explanation for the phenomenon
So exactly how is "inflation did it" a "better" and more "scientific" explanation than "God did it"? Can you demonstrate that either inflation or
"Godflation" exist in nature and/or has the effect(s) you claim?
 
Upvote 0

LifeToTheFullest!

Well-Known Member
May 12, 2004
5,069
155
✟6,295.00
Faith
Agnostic
So exactly how is "inflation did it" a "better" and more "scientific" explanation than "God did it"? Can you demonstrate that either inflation or
"Godflation" exist in nature and/or has the effect(s) you claim?
Yes. It's been observed. Yes. We can observe the effects of CBR.
Educating yourself on the matter is highly suggested.
 
Upvote 0

Split Rock

Conflation of Blathers
Nov 3, 2003
17,607
730
North Dakota
✟22,466.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I don't have to take anyone's word for "gravity", I can experience it's effects right here, right now anytime I want. Dark stuff tends to never show up in the lab, unlike gravity that shows up in *EVERY* lab on Earth. What exactly differentiates "faith" in God from "faith" in "inflation"?
1. Inflation is based on emperical observations: e.g. the red shift of distant galaxies.
2. Inflation theory has made predictions that have been verified: e.g. the CBR
3. The continued acceptance of Inflation theory is contingent upon further observations, and is held as tentative. If it is falsified, it will be abandoned.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending YEC, but how does "inflation did it" pass as "science". When did inflation ever do anything to anything in a controlled experiment?
In science we cannot test every theory with a laboratory experiment. We cannot put a star or a volcano into a test tube. Nor can we recreate a hurricane or an earthquake in a petri dish.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Doveaman

Re-Created, Not Evolved.
Mar 4, 2009
8,444
593
✟77,387.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The problem with this argument is that you're spreading the definition of "faith" very thin and basically comparing apples and oranges.
Do people have "faith" in scientists? In a generic sense, sure, although I'd probably use the term "trust" over "faith".
Well, sure. But faith of a religious nature (Christian faith) also means trust, trust in Jesus.
But this is basically true of a lot of professionals. People train in certain fields and have the skills/expertise/knowledge in that field so that they basically become authorities in that field. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about scientists, accountants, or plumbers. People trust them in their respective fields because they have expertise in that field.

The key, though, is that nothing published in a scientific journal is above and beyond anyone else. Anyone can learn science. Anyone can learn the underlying theories, models, forumulas, etc, used in scientific papers. This is basically the point of peer-review and publication: put the ideas, evidence, tests, theories, etc, out there for critique. The whole idea being that if Scientist A does something, then there's no reason Scientist B can't look at their hypothesis, materials, methods, and conclusion, and test it for themselves.
But the non-scientists don’t even know how to test much of what is presented.
And this is the difference between "faith" in fellow people's expertise and "faith" of a religious nature. Faith in things like the Bible is faith in the supernatural. And the supernatural can't be tested, at least not in an empirical sense. In contrast, scientific papers can be empirically tested and are tested on a regular basis.
While this may be true, not everyone who trusts in science does this. They simply put their faith in those who do.

I’m not saying that faith in science is necessarily a bad thing. I’m simply showing that even those who believe in science, especially the non-scientists, often have to rely on faith in scientists who examine the evidence, since they themselves don’t know how to examine it.

There is no need for anyone to be ashamed to admit this. Or is there? :)
 
Upvote 0