Faith Vs Science

[forumtengu]

Is Faith a science? If faith is a science then everything that is validated by faith is science and should be considered as scientific research

 

[Blayz]

Is Faith a science? If faith is a science then everything that is validated by faith is science and should be considered as scientific research

Absolutely correct! if faith is science then it should be considered scientific research.

Fortunately, faith is as far from science as you can possibly get, and as such has nothing in common with scientific research except the letters f, a, i, t and h.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is Faith a science?

No. Faith is belief in the irrational (i.e., belief in that which for which no rationale has been given). Science is a logically-derivable method by which the most probable explanation is picked from however many are presented.
Science tells us what to believe based on reasoned arguments. Faith, by definition, is belief in things without reasoned arguments. Thus, faith is the antithesis science.

If faith is a science then everything that is validated by faith is science and should be considered as scientific research

Naturally. However, faith is not a science, so this line of reasoning is moot.

 

[cantata]

Is Faith a science? If faith is a science then everything that is validated by faith is science and should be considered as scientific research

No. Science relies on evidence. Faith abhors evidence.

This is just a very odd question, really.

 

[mark kennedy]

The only question that comes to mind is if this junked up thread has anything to do with faith or science. If you pit faith against science then you understand the meaning of neither.

 

[Valkhorn]

The only question that comes to mind is if this junked up thread has anything to do with faith or science. If you pit faith against science then you understand the meaning of neither.

That was completely non sequitor and nonsensical mark. That made no sense.

Science is the study of things which are backed by tangible, observeable, repeatable evidence.

Faith is the belief in things without tangible, observable, repeatable evidence.

Belief in ghosts for exaxmple is faith and not science. Acceptance of Evolution is science and not faith as there is observable, repeatable, and tangible evidence for Evolution and not Ghosts.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That was completely non sequitor and nonsensical mark. That made no sense.

Science is the study of things which are backed by tangible, observeable, repeatable evidence.

Faith is the belief in things without tangible, observable, repeatable evidence.

Belief in ghosts for exaxmple is faith and not science. Acceptance of Evolution is science and not faith as there is observable, repeatable, and tangible evidence for Evolution and not Ghosts.

Ah, but it's important to note that belief in ghosts can go from irrational faith to justified belief if evidence is presented. Indeed, those who claim to have experianced such things may very well believe that they did have an encounter with a ghost (and who knows, maybe they did!). Those people would be entirely justified in their belief in ghosts: they have, for all intents and purposes, experianced the evidence first hand.

 

[Valkhorn]

Ah, but it's important to note that belief in ghosts can go from irrational faith to justified belief if evidence is presented.

Of course it can, but to date no evidence has been presented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

 

[cantata]

Of course it can, but to date no evidence has been presented. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No *conclusive* evidence, you mean. Plenty of evidence has been presented, but it is as yet inadequate to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that ghosts exist.

However inconclusive they may be (and I agree that they are very inconclusive), personal experiences and anecdotes are still evidence!

That was completely non sequitor

Non sequitur is a noun, not an adjective.

 

[cantata]

The only question that comes to mind is if this junked up thread has anything to do with faith or science. If you pit faith against science then you understand the meaning of neither.

Does the OP pit faith against science? I thought it was attempting to equate faith with science.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No *conclusive* evidence, you mean. Plenty of evidence has been presented, but it is as yet inadequate to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that ghosts exist.12

I disagree. A good case could be made that the 'evidence' thus far presented isn't actually evidence: the photos of people in the window, the eye-witness accounts, etc, are either frauds or mistakes.

 

[cantata]

I disagree. A good case could be made that the 'evidence' thus far presented isn't actually evidence: the photos of people in the window, the eye-witness accounts, etc, are either frauds or mistakes.

As I said, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. If you dismiss it on the grounds that ghosts don't exist, you are begging the question.

I am sure that there are at least some examples of reports of "ghostly activity" for which a reasonable, conclusive, non-supernatural explanation has not yet been found. I am not suggesting that ghosts exist, but I am suggesting that there is evidence to be presented in favour of their existence, however slight in comparison with the vast weight of evidence against their existence.

The whole point of evidence is that you weigh it up. In a court case, evidence is presented on both sides. That there is a fact of the matter about whether or not the defendant is guilty does not mean that any evidence presented against the correct conclusion is not really evidence.

 

[Naraoia]

As I said, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. If you dismiss it on the grounds that ghosts don't exist, you are begging the question.

There are, however, big problems with anecdotal evidence. For one thing it's not exactly replicable. For another, it's very difficult (I'd say often impossible) to know all the circumstances involved and therefore a near futile endeavour to find the cause of whatever was observed. Anecdotes can be a good starting point for investigation but unless you can do systematic observations and replicate the phenomena in question they are near useless as supportive data.

 

[Valkhorn]

A good case could be made that the 'evidence' thus far presented isn't actually evidence: the photos of people in the window, the eye-witness accounts, etc, are either frauds or mistakes.

My dad summed it up best when he said this:

"Photographs don't lie. Photographers do."

There are, however, big problems with anecdotal evidence. For one thing it's not exactly replicable.

That and that even in a court case you would never go by witness testimony alone. I guarantee you if it was a murder trial and all you had was one witness with no murder weapon, no body found, and no other tangible evidence to tie a suspect to the crime it will not stick.

Plus court cases aren't exactly scientific either. Court cases aren't open to peer-review like science research is.

 

[Valkhorn]

I am sure that there are at least some examples of reports of "ghostly activity" for which a reasonable, conclusive, non-supernatural explanation has not yet been found.

They are few and far between - and it still doesn't mean that there is yet another natural phenomenon that hasn't been considered or that we are aware of that could cause it.

It is quite a leap to go from "I don't know, therefore its a ghost".

 

[cantata]

There are, however, big problems with anecdotal evidence. For one thing it's not exactly replicable. For another, it's very difficult (I'd say often impossible) to know all the circumstances involved and therefore a near futile endeavour to find the cause of whatever was observed. Anecdotes can be a good starting point for investigation but unless you can do systematic observations and replicate the phenomena in question they are near useless as supportive data.

This is all absolutely true, but anecdotal evidence is still evidence. It's just not conclusive.

They are few and far between - and it still doesn't mean that there is yet another natural phenomenon that hasn't been considered or that we are aware of that could cause it.

It is quite a leap to go from "I don't know, therefore its a ghost".

I know! I'm not saying that ghosts exist. I'm saying that there is a small amount of evidence on the side of ghosts, in contrast with a vast amount of evidence against their existence. My conclusion is that there exist no ghosts, but that there is still some small quantity of evidence which is yet to be dealt with. For goodness' sake, it's really not that complicated!

 

[Risu]

I get what you're saying, cantata. Evidence shouldn't be simply carted off as irrelevant, no matter the validity or conclusiveness of it. It's actually sort of silly to watch people who are agreeing on something argue about it.

As for faith as a science, I believe Douglas Adams says it pretty well:

The argument goes something like this: "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babelfish is a dead giveaway isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves that You exist, and so therefore, by Your own arguments, You don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.

 

[AdversusSarcalogos]

As I said, anecdotal evidence is still evidence. If you dismiss it on the grounds that ghosts don't exist, you are begging the question.

Ha ha ha.
Oh wow.
Thats like saying that Mary is real, because her "likeness" appeared on the glass of a skyscraper.
So in that case, the bible is anecdotal evidence, and should guarantee fundamentalist entry in the scientific community.
I think not.
Ghosts arent real, any more than the god is.

 

[cantata]

Ha ha ha.
Oh wow.
Thats like saying that Mary is real, because her "likeness" appeared on the glass of a skyscraper.
So in that case, the bible is anecdotal evidence, and should guarantee fundamentalist entry in the scientific community.
I think not.
Ghosts arent real, any more than the god is.

No. It isn't.

It's like saying that there is a small amount of evidence that Mary is real because someone reported it. (Mary's actually a funny choice because she probably did exist - Jesus must have had a mother, after all - although I doubt she was a virgin when she had her kids.) There is no need to conclude from this evidence that she does exist, however, if you have lots more and stronger evidence to the contrary.

I am absolutely NOT SAYING that anecdotal evidence is conclusive. I'm just saying that it is evidence. Supposing you have five people who say that something happened, and one person who says it didn't. Then, suddenly, anecdotal evidence becomes extremely important. The fact that anecdotal evidence in favour of young earth creationism, for example, is almost completely insignificant against the weight of evidence against it, does not mean that the anecdotal evidence is not evidence at all. It is simply weak, inconclusive evidence which we are perfectly justified in throwing out because we have a better solution. The point is that IT IS STILL CALLED EVIDENCE.

And no, I know (as far as it is possible to prove a negative) that ghosts aren't real. I have stated this over and over again. You are apparently not bothering to read those bits, but ignoring evidence seems to be a habit with you, so...

 

[AdversusSarcalogos]

And no, I know (as far as it is possible to prove a negative) that ghosts aren't real. I have stated this over and over again. You are apparently not bothering to read those bits, but ignoring evidence seems to be a habit with you, so...

I dont ignore actual evidence.
I dont consider anything anecdotal to be evidence.
It is not scientific process.