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

[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

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

Forgive me, but I don't see your point. Can you elaborate further?

I assert that you are not using the word Faith as it is used in the bible, when you apply it to science. And if you do, you have the problem illustrated above.

I don't see how your response is relevant to my post. If you're point is that it is not blind faith, then I refer you to the quotes above from the bible itself, which refute (largely) this claim.

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.
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.

Science has proven itself worthy of faith

Thanks for acknowledging that one believes that Science is based on faith.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Regards

[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

Forgive me, but I don't see your point. Can you elaborate further?

I assert that you are not using the word Faith as it is used in the bible, when you apply it to science. And if you do, you have the problem illustrated above.

I don't see how your response is relevant to my post. If you're point is that it is not blind faith, then I refer you to the quotes above from the bible itself, which refute (largely) this claim.

all the best

I believe that Bible, both OT and NT, are to be accepted only if these are reasonable and or based on Word of God. To accept otherwise is just a blind-faith, not faith. It has got nothing to do with the Truthful Religion, please.
Regards

[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

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

Forgive me, but I don't see your point. Can you elaborate further?

I assert that you are not using the word Faith as it is used in the bible, when you apply it to science. And if you do, you have the problem illustrated above.

I don't see how your response is relevant to my post. If you're point is that it is not blind faith, then I refer you to the quotes above from the bible itself, which refute (largely) this claim.

all the best

I believe that Bible, both OT and NT, are to be accepted only if these are reasonable and or based on Word of God. To accept otherwise is just a blind-faith, not faith.

The quotes from the bible that I provided seem to espouse blind faith (one literally says this: "things unseen").

It has got nothing to do with the Truthful Religion, please.

I do not know what this sentence even means. Or how it relates to our conversation.

[paarsurrey1]

• 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.

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

So one deletes the assumption "We assume that the universe is consistent" and takes another assumption "assuming that the evidence we collect is accurate and our senses are somewhat accurate".
Is it accurate to state and does our friend Neatras who enumerated them agrees with it, please?

Regards

[Neatras]

Y'know, it's time to dissect some stuff.

So the assumption "the universe is consistent" is something I could make. But there's also an assumption I could make that would make it redundant: Evidence we collect is valid (and this evidence supports that the universe is consistent).

But if we don't assume the universe is consistent, then it's possible the evidence we collect doesn't apply to the universe. We haven't collected any evidence ever that this is the case (that the universe is inconsistent), but the assumption itself would still be legitimate.

In any case, I'll cede that it's important to have epistemological foundations in the idea that evidence can give us an idea of how reality works. So I accept. I make the assumption that evidence we collect is legitimate, and this leads to the point that the universe is consistent (as far as our observations show).

[Kenisaw]

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.

One has faith in the people doing science perhaps. Most people have long understood the validity and usefulness of the scientific method, and accept that process as the best way to understand phenomena in the universe.

The key difference in your question is science verses religion. We know science works, we've experienced it's accuracy and reliability every day of our lives, and can (if we wish) verify anything about it at anytime we do desire. We have no idea if religion works, and the vast majority of them have already failed to last, and none of them have any predictive power whatsoever.

You are comparing apples to fire hydrants I'm afraid.

[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...

So one deletes the assumption "We assume that the universe is consistent" and takes another assumption "assuming that the evidence we collect is accurate and our senses are somewhat accurate".
Is it accurate to state...?

No need to add another assumption: as "assuming that the evidence we collect is accurate and our senses are somewhat accurate" is already in the list.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

Faith is your emotional motivation to believe or pursue an idea or goal. You can have faith guided by reason, or if not, it's blind faith. Faith is the ships engine, and reason is the captain at the helm. Without reason, the ship runs off course and onto the rocks. Without faith, the ship is dead in the water. Both are necessary.

[KenRU]

[Replying to post 1 by paarsurrey1]

Faith is your emotional motivation to believe or pursue an idea or goal.

Funny, it is not defined or explained that way in the bible...