Science vs Faith

[Nescio]

In discussing the apparent conflict between faith and science with believers, I often come across the same sort of arguments made by theists. Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

Or, similarly, I hear:

"You haven't done the research yourself. How do you know that the so-called experts in their fields are telling the truth? You have faith in expert scientists, just as I have faith in Jesus/Muhammad/etc."

Does anybody else encounter this sort of thing when talking with theists?

 

[Nathan Poe]

In discussing the apparent conflict between faith and science with believers, I often come across the same sort of arguments made by theists. Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

Or, similarly, I hear:

"You haven't done the research yourself. How do you know that the so-called experts in their fields are telling the truth? You have faith in expert scientists, just as I have faith in Jesus/Muhammad/etc."

Does anybody else encounter this sort of thing when talking with theists?

Stick around -- you'll hear all of it and worse from the regulars around here.

Myself, I prefer having "faith" in proven results.

"The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." -- Joseph Campbell.

 

[keith99]

In discussing the apparent conflict between faith and science with believers, I often come across the same sort of arguments made by theists. Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

Or, similarly, I hear:

"You haven't done the research yourself. How do you know that the so-called experts in their fields are telling the truth? You have faith in expert scientists, just as I have faith in Jesus/Muhammad/etc."

Does anybody else encounter this sort of thing when talking with theists?

On chat boards like this or in real life? I don;t ever recall hearing it in real life. Of course going to a good college and majoring in Geophysics (with enough bio and chemistry classes to make med school a viable option) I did in fact verify quite a few things and had friends who verified more and investigated things that would have given confusing results if the basics were not as taught.

There is one other HUGE difference. In the sciences things are laid out so one can perform experiments and verify things, in faith based areas this is not the case.

 

[juvenissun]

In discussing the apparent conflict between faith and science with believers, I often come across the same sort of arguments made by theists. Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

Or, similarly, I hear:

"You haven't done the research yourself. How do you know that the so-called experts in their fields are telling the truth? You have faith in expert scientists, just as I have faith in Jesus/Muhammad/etc."

Does anybody else encounter this sort of thing when talking with theists?

You may want to browse conversations in Origin Theology forum. You will definitely hear something different.

 

[AV1611VET]

Hello, Nescio --- --- welcome to CF!

Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

I once had a thread on this very topic, but it got archived into cyberspace and is now inaccessible.

So, I'll repeat it --- it's a simple question:

How deep is the Mariana Trench?

It has a maximum depth of about 11,033 meters (36,201 feet; 6.8 miles)...

 

[sbvera13]

"The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them." -- Joseph Campbell.

And of course...

 

[TheReasoner]

In discussing the apparent conflict between faith and science with believers, I often come across the same sort of arguments made by theists. Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

Or, similarly, I hear:

"You haven't done the research yourself. How do you know that the so-called experts in their fields are telling the truth? You have faith in expert scientists, just as I have faith in Jesus/Muhammad/etc."

Does anybody else encounter this sort of thing when talking with theists?

Yes. From other Christians. It's a false dilemma though. Science is not antithetical to a religious belief, unless said religious belief is antithetical to science that is.
There are some religions whose beliefs are demonstrably false, but the larger ones are not. Christianity is obviously the one I know most about (seeing as how I am a Christian). I cannot see why and how some Christians think science is antithetical to Christian faith. To me that is a ludicrous assumption. To me science is a form of worship as it were. Researching and learning about that which God has made - objectively - can teach me more about God and can improve my relations to the bible and my faith.

The way I see it the people who make such comments have a weak faith. After all, if you truly believe God is real you will not consider objective study of His creation a threat, but rather something which ultimately will help us approach and learn about Him.

 

[Hespera]

Yes. From other Christians. It's a false dilemma though. Science is not antithetical to a religious belief, unless said religious belief is antithetical to science that is.
There are some religions whose beliefs are demonstrably false, but the larger ones are not. Christianity is obviously the one I know most about (seeing as how I am a Christian). I cannot see why and how some Christians think science is antithetical to Christian faith. To me that is a ludicrous assumption. To me science is a form of worship as it were. Researching and learning about that which God has made - objectively - can teach me more about God and can improve my relations to the bible and my faith.

The way I see it the people who make such comments have a weak faith. After all, if you truly believe God is real you will not consider objective study of His creation a threat, but rather something which ultimately will help us approach and learn about Him.

I like this post. I'm not a Christian (yet if ever) but if I do become one its your kind!

One little change in what you said? "unless said religious belief is antithetical to science that is." I'd change that to "antithetical to reality".

If God lays before you his mighty works and you say no, that cant be coz in the BOOK here I (that is me, I personally interpret it to say) think it says it cant be.....Well, who is right, you or the mighty works you see before you? Maybe to someone that is showing respect, to go with what you interpret and plain good sense but not to me.

 

[AV1611VET]

After all, if you truly believe God is real you will not consider objective study of His creation a threat, but rather something which ultimately will help us approach and learn about Him.

Ya --- check out this Joseph Campbell's chart here.

And of course...

Notice on the right-hand side how it uses the word "idea", instead of "doctrine"?

And notice how it says, "Get an idea" --- not "Read the doctrine"?

He may have Sbvera fooled, but not us, eh?

 

[atomweaver]

In discussing the apparent conflict between faith and science with believers, I often come across the same sort of arguments made by theists. Usually, I end up hearing some variation of:

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion."

A concept in science is asserted as valid, in proportion to the volume of positive evidence that supports it, and a lack of evidence disproving it.

A concept in religion is asserted as valid, in proportion to the tenacity with which the believer believes.

Or, similarly, I hear:

"You haven't done the research yourself. How do you know that the so-called experts in their fields are telling the truth?

Falsification of evidence leads to an inability to reproduce experiments that derived said evidence. Liars in science are found out when their assertions aren't corroborated. Whats more, science built upon falsehoods fails to work, because the main point of science is to objectively understand reality, and reality, as the saying goes, is a harsh mistress...

Compare this to the theist, there is no objective means of validating the tenacity of a believer's belief, as this process is entirely internal to the believer.

You have faith in expert scientists, just as I have faith in Jesus/Muhammad/etc."

There is an external means of validating scientific concepts as accurate, not so with faith.

 

[Hespera]

A concept in science is asserted as valid, in proportion to the volume of positive evidence that supports it, and a lack of evidence disproving it.

A concept in religion is asserted as valid, in proportion to the tenacity with which the believer believes.



Falsification of evidence leads to an inability to reproduce experiments that derived said evidence. Liars in science are found out when their assertions aren't corroborated. Whats more, science built upon falsehoods fails to work, because the main point of science is to objectively understand reality, and reality, as the saying goes, is a harsh mistress...

Compare this to the theist, there is no objective means of validating the tenacity of a believer's belief, as this process is entirely internal to the believer.


There is an external means of validating scientific concepts as accurate, not so with faith.

"You have faith in science, just like I have faith in my religion." QUOTE from Nescio


To a person who works on the basis of "faith" I guess it probably does seem "just the same".

I think I would compare it more like that I have CONFIDENCE that the mechanic I go to will do a fair honest job on my car; he has in the past, I know him, he's always done right by my Dad, so I have a high level of confidence ih him. He might make a mistake but he is competent and he is honest. Good enough.

Faith, though, seems like a jump into the unknown with no basis other than belief in the power of belief. That would be compared to me buying lottery tickets at the store and having faith that by a miracle I'd win enough to pay for a semester's tuition.

Faith and confidence are very different kinds of things.

I have confidence in the quality of work that is done by science.

People who think that scientists are wrong all the time about important concepts like evolution and geology assume that scientists routinely do sloppy fraudulent work; so they wont have any confidence in them. Tho they will get on an airplane. And have "faith" that it will fly. Weird.

 

[TheReasoner]

Ya --- check out this Joseph Campbell's chart here.Notice on the right-hand side how it uses the word "idea", instead of "doctrine"?

And notice how it says, "Get an idea" --- not "Read the doctrine"?

He may have Sbvera fooled, but not us, eh?

Just remember that this chart doesn't hold true for everyone. Galileo Galilei was a Christian. So was Blaise Pascal, and Copernicus too. Not to mention Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (the father of the Big Bang theory, if you didn't know) in fact he was a Catholic priest.
So I can get mighty angry with people who bash Christianity's intellectual side through their own refusal (as Christians) to acknowledge the value of science. They do Christianity a great disservice. The monasteries took care of much knowledge in the chaotic dark ages. And many devout Christians have done much to further science in many areas. Without sticking to the misinterpretations of certain biblical passages that hold such strength in the American bible belt today.

Personally I think Christianity should be - if not synonymous certainly associated with science and open search for knowledge.

 

[AV1611VET]

Personally I think Christianity should be - if not synonymous certainly associated with science and open search for knowledge.

Or, as I put it, scientists are a gift from God, and we should hold science up to a Higher Standard.

 

[atomweaver]

Personally I think Christianity should be - if not synonymous certainly associated with science and open search for knowledge.

excluding creationists and other religious fundamentalists who would co-opt a scientific attitude (but without scientific rigor) to lend their views a degree of reputation, Christianity largely is associated with science in the fashion you envision.

It'd be nice if Christianity had some mechanism for the rooting out of the "snake-oil salesmen" (both theological, and scientific). Sadly, it is the nature of faith itself that you almost cannot avoid impugning another person's faith in such a process. Christianity as a whole entity seems to prefer to avoid stepping on theological toes, and so ignores the issue of its own "bad apples" in large part, leaving them to run afoul of some legal trouble or another (eg. Catholic priesthood's many sexual abuse scandals, Kent Hovind's tax evasion, Warren Jeff's sex crimes, etc etc).

 

[atomweaver]

Or, as I put it, scientists are a gift from God, and we should hold science up to a Higher Standard.

And as I like to reply; Creationism is equal to having no Standard, at all.

 

[Hespera]

Originally Posted by AV1611VET

Or, as I put it, scientists are a gift from God, and we should hold science up to a Higher Standard.
​

And as I like to reply; Creationism is equal to having no Standard, at all. QUOTE///


Well really. Creationism sets no standards at all other than personal belief that it is aligned with personal interpretation of the bible.

Of course that little quip or slogan about (H)higher (S) standards could be looked at, if in fact it means anything other than a quip.

"we" suggests some sort of in-group who has this idea (knowledge)
and the capital letters suggest that the standard comes from God.

So "we" know what God's "standards" are.

Interesting.

Of course, what science does it to derive data from what are presumably, Gods works.
Observations of the highest standard that human beings are capable of making.

So unless someone can enlist God to make better observations, that gonna have to the the high standard.

What creationism does it take their interpretation of a book and twist
edit mix up and otherwise savage the data that came from Gods creation,until they are ready to announce it is something it is not. And that it fits their interpretation!

That is the HIgh Standard that is being proposed.

Im told by a classmate that life under the Taliban wasnt much fun.
Just mentioning.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ya --- check out this Joseph Campbell's chart here.

AV -- did you even bother to Google who Jospeh Campbell is?

Besides, are you trying to tell us that a "doctrine" is more than just someone else's idea?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Or, as I put it, scientists are a gift from God, and we should hold science up to a Higher Standard.

And as the rest of us put it, AV -- Your ego is not a "Higher Standard."

 

[Hespera]

And as the rest of us put it, AV -- Your ego is not a "Higher Standard."

THAT is true!

 

[Nathan Poe]

Of course that little quip or slogan about (H)higher (S) standards could be looked at, if in fact it means anything other than a quip.

Rarely is anything along these lines worth examining, but let's...

"we" suggests some sort of in-group who has this idea (knowledge)

Safety in the illusion of numbers is a pupular Fundie tactic.

and the capital letters suggest that the standard comes from God.

When in fact, it comes from the Fundie's own imagination -- but good luck getting them to make a distinction.

So "we" know what God's "standards" are.

Interesting.

Not "we" -- "they" know. And "They" want nothing more than to enlighten the rest of us. That's pretty much the whole point of the power trip.

Of course, what science does it to derive data from what are presumably, Gods works.

Observations of the highest standard that human beings are capable of making.

So unless someone can enlist God to make better observations, that gonna have to the the high standard.

The Fundies will tell you they've done exactly that -- enlist God. Since God is what the Bible says He is -- and nothing more -- knowing His mind is apparantly pretty easy. Any fundie can speak on God's behalf with a simple Bible verse.

What creationism does it take their interpretation of a book and twist edit mix up and otherwise savage the data that came from Gods creation,until they are ready to announce it is something it is not. And that it fits their interpretation!

That's it in a nutshell.

That is the HIgh Standard that is being proposed.

Im told by a classmate that life under the Taliban wasnt much fun.
Just mentioning.

May we never find out firsthand.