Doesn't one have faith in Science?

[paarsurrey1]

Doesn't one have faith in Science?
If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?
One shouldn't have blind-faith in science and or religion, please.
Regards

______
One may like to read Post 76 thread "What is God?"
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?

I would argue that faith is not at all necessary to "believe" in science, but it is essential to believe in religions.

[Neatras]

Here are the possible avenues where a theist might sulk and say "Well you have faith, too!"

• We assume that evidence we collect is accurate.
• We assume that the universe is consistent.
• We assume that we exist.
• We assume that our senses are sometimes accurate.

This isn't a faith-based model, it's the only provisional model for reality that's remotely useful. Epistemology that uses the fewest unfounded assumptions is essential for conducting our business. Religions already take all the previous assumptions, and then layer countless other faith-based assertions on top (although whenever their preexisting beliefs are challenged, they mysteriously decide that the universe is not wholly consistent in matters regarding miracles, which they have convinced themselves exist). The problem is: Evidence becomes irrelevant to theists the moment we start dissecting their supernatural faith. Surprise surprise, the skeptic thinks that's a bad thing.

And for what it's worth, even if you have a mental lapse and suddenly decide that believing in one's own existence is a faith-based position, that still puts it leagues above other faith-based positions with far less evidence.

We decided that provisional assumptions about reality are essential to advance as a species. We do not categorize these as faith because of the overwhelming evidence in support of our position. If you wanna argue against this, we can open the discussion to that topic.

[McCulloch]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

Science is about not having faith. Science says, "Don't believe me, test it out. Rely solely on the available evidence. Take nothing on faith."

[Bust Nak]

• We assume that evidence we collect is accurate.
• We assume that the universe is consistent.
• We assume that we exist.
• We assume that our senses are sometimes accurate.

We don't need to assume the universe is consistent, assuming that the evidence we collect is accurate and our senses are somewhat accurate is enough to conclude that the universe is consistent.

As for the OP, faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. We see science at work everyday, it is seen, no faith is required.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?

I would argue that faith is not at all necessary to "believe" in science, but it is essential to believe in religions.

So, one has no faith/trust in science while science has served humanity in many ways. Why does one mistrust Science, please?

Regards

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 6 by paarsurrey1]

So, one has no faith/trust in science while science has served humanity in many ways. Why does one mistrust Science, please?

I think you misunderstood my comment. In the OP you stated

"If faith is essential to believe in Science ..."

which implied a meaning for the word "faith" as it is used in religious contexts (eg. faith in a god, or in prayer, or in an afterlife, etc.). Faith is not the same as trust, and saying that faith is not needed for science does not at all mean that science is mistrusted. It just means that there is no need to believe in things that are not shown to be real, or to exist, such as gods, prayers actually being heard and acted upon, etc.

Those things do require faith to believe them, but science does not require any such faith ... it relies on observation, measurement, and interpretation based on known physical "laws" that have been built up and confirmed over time. For example, we know that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is 3.141593... (pi), and once that was confirmed many centuries ago it can be used as a numerical fact without having any "faith" that it is true. It can be demonstrated to be true by anyone by a simple measurement, without resorting to faith in any way (ie. belief in something that cannot be demonstrated to be true, or exist).

[KenRU]

Doesn't one have faith in Science?
If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?
One shouldn't have blind-faith in science and or religion, please.

I've said this in other threads, Faith, as described in the bible, does not have the same meaning as one's "faith" in science.


Faith, as explained in the bible:

-Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1

-For we live by faith, not by sight. Corinthians 5:7

-So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. Corinthians 2:5

-For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourself, it is the gift of god … Ephesians 2:8

-Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. Romans 10:17


This kind of faith is not the same kind of faith one has when one assumes their car will start, or that their smartphone will work.

To argue otherwise is to admit one of two things:

1) the bible is wrong about what faith means, or
2) you are not using the word in the same context as the bible is, and in which case, the question is a dishonest one.


-all the best

[paarsurrey1]

Doesn't one have faith in Science?
If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?
One shouldn't have blind-faith in science and or religion, please.

I've said this in other threads, Faith, as described in the bible, does not have the same meaning as one's "faith" in science.
Faith, as explained in the bible:
-Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. Hebrews 11:1
-For we live by faith, not by sight. Corinthians 5:7
-So that your faith might not rest on human wisdom, but on God’s power. Corinthians 2:5
-For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith – and this is not from yourself, it is the gift of god … Ephesians 2:8
-Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about Christ. Romans 10:17
This kind of faith is not the same kind of faith one has when one assumes their car will start, or that their smartphone will work.
To argue otherwise is to admit one of two things:
1) the bible is wrong about what faith means, or
2) you are not using the word in the same context as the bible is, and in which case, the question is a dishonest one.
-all the best

But Jesus believed with reason.
Paul, for his own suitability, wanted that people should inculcate blind-faith in them instead of reason and Revelation from God.
Paul based creeds on "mystery" that in other word mean that the basis of Pauline Religion is based on blind-faith.
The truthful Religion has got nothing to do with blind-faith, please.
Regards

[Divine Insight]

Doesn't one have faith in Science?
If faith is essential to believe in Science, why it should be bad in Religion, please?
One shouldn't have blind-faith in science and or religion, please.
Regards

Science has proven itself worthy of faith because it makes credible predictions that can be verified repeatedly. It can even be used to produce dependable technologies for energy, food production, medicine, etc.

Religion has done precisely the opposite. Religion has made many claims, predictions, and promises that are clearly false. Religion is utterly useless from any practical perspective.

If religion became obsolete tomorrow our lives would only be improved. If science became obsolete tomorrow we would die. So there's no contest.