Christianity, science and faith

[nobspeople]

In a recent thread about christianity and science, the idea of faith came up and persisted for a bit.
It made me curious how faith plays into the idea of science.

For discussion:
Do people have to have faith in science like they have to have faith in their religion?
Surely, humanity doesn't know everything about everything, so faith is needed in some fashion. But is faith in science the same type of faith in religion?
Or is 'faith faith' - there are no different types?

[nobspeople]

Some believe the earth is a few thousand years old, while science says it's a good deal older than that, is one example. Neither is proven beyond doubt. Thus, supporters of each case need to 'have faith' in their respective views that come from other, more learned people (sometimes professionals) as no one was there when the earth was created to witness and record it, either by a supreme being a several thousand years ago or by nature billions of years ago.

Surely there are others - anyone can feel free to supply examples.

That example actually negates your attempt at creating a false equivalency. The idea of a young earth is based on one thing and one thing only, i.e., a religious belief stemming from an alleged holy book. OTOH, that the earth is billions of years old is an objective conclusion reached via multiple lines of evidence accumulated over centuries by countless people, operating independently of each other. That they all converge on the same result is powerful evidence supporting the conclusion.

You may as well be trying to equate forensic scientists' conclusions about a crime scene with end times preachers belief in Jesus' second coming.

I agree that each are based off of differing POVs and data sets, nonetheless, it is an example that some use to compare.

[Jose Fly]

I agree that each are based off of differing POVs and data sets, nonetheless, it is an example that some use to compare.

And it's a pretty poor example that actually negates your argument, as I explained.

[nobspeople]

I agree that each are based off of differing POVs and data sets, nonetheless, it is an example that some use to compare.

And it's a pretty poor example that actually negates your argument, as I explained.

I believe you're wrong in that assessment, but we all have our opinions. That's why these types of places are so engaging: thinking outside our proverbial boxes.
But do you have an example that's more up to par?
Or is this simply a 'that's not correct, so there' train of thought?

[Jose Fly]

I believe you're wrong in that assessment, but we all have our opinions. That's why these types of places are so engaging: thinking outside our proverbial boxes.
But do you have an example that's more up to par?
Or is this simply a 'that's not correct, so there' train of thought?

As I've explained, and illustrated via examples, the notion that the type of "faith" one has in scientific conclusions and the type of "faith" one has in religious beliefs are not at all the same. I've cited examples such as flipping light switches, the ancient earth, Mohammed visiting heaven, and Jesus' return. To this point no one has refuted my argument (the replies have either been off-topic or simplistic "I disagree").

[nobspeople]

I believe you're wrong in that assessment, but we all have our opinions. That's why these types of places are so engaging: thinking outside our proverbial boxes.
But do you have an example that's more up to par?
Or is this simply a 'that's not correct, so there' train of thought?

As I've explained, and illustrated via examples, the notion that the type of "faith" one has in scientific conclusions and the type of "faith" one has in religious beliefs are not at all the same. I've cited examples such as flipping light switches, the ancient earth, Mohammed visiting heaven, and Jesus' return. To this point no one has refuted my argument (the replies have either been off-topic or simplistic "I disagree").

I agree with what you're saying and your thinking.
I'm simply saying this is an example that people use. Rather or not it's legitimate is another question.

[Jose Fly]

I agree with what you're saying and your thinking.
I'm simply saying this is an example that people use. Rather or not it's legitimate is another question.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I apologize if I misunderstood.

[nobspeople]

I agree with what you're saying and your thinking.
I'm simply saying this is an example that people use. Rather or not it's legitimate is another question.

Okay, thanks for clarifying. I apologize if I misunderstood.

No worries at all! There are times I'm not as clear as I should be. And if you're here long enough, you'll see me mis-understanding 'all over the place'.

[Miles]

,


In as much as there's nothing that can't be taken on faith---I can have just as much faith that a blue fairy will swoop down and leave wads of cash at my front door tomorrow morning as I can have faith that Jesus will save me from Hell---faith comes out as a pretty hollow concept. It has no more chance of being true as being false, making it utterly useless, unless, that is, one chooses to ignore its fictitious nature and uses it as a security blanket to huddle with (think Linus Van Pelt here). So when it's asked:

"Surely, humanity doesn't know everything about everything, so faith is needed in some fashion."

the answer is: No, it is not. The only need faith satisfies is hopeful expectations, and, like my blue fairy, hopeful expectations may or may not be reasonable or even possible. Keep in mind faith's weakness, and remember that "I don't know" is a far more honest and less misleading response than to hold a foolish idea as true because you have faith that it's so. Faith has never made anything true, or necessarily led to a truth no matter how fervently it's held.

As Matt Dillahunty has said, "faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence.” So no, people should not have faith in science, ever; particularly like the faith they in their religion. They should have trust in science predicated on its proven methodology to produce sound explanations.


.

A very good point to make! I'd have to disagree in that 'no faith is not needed' concept, as you said "The only need faith satisfies is hopeful expectations". For some, that's plenty!
But what I was meaning in this thread is as the above example:
No one was around to see the earth created, even though people know it was.
There's evidence to point to this or that, but ultimately, there's some sort of faith that's required to believe in a specific position - be it a creation from a deity, by nature itself or some other way.
Humans know (without getting into philosophical discussions of what is 'know' and what is 'reality') for sure the earth was created, but they don't know the specific means.
If that makes sense.

I'm not saying that where bolstering hope is desired, faith can't be of assistance, only that it's a hope based on a false premise: that faith strengthens the likelihood that its object is true. In religion faith invariably converts into trust, and considering the lack of evidence surrounding it, it's a unfounded trust.

I believe it's far more honest and possibly fruitful to hold an "I don't know" position than to construct a self-satisfying faith, which, lacking convincing evidence, nonetheless asserts a supposed truth. If there was convincing evidence for X then faith would be superfluous; there would be knowledge: "I know that . . . ."



.

[Veridican]

In a recent thread about christianity and science, the idea of faith came up and persisted for a bit.
It made me curious how faith plays into the idea of science.

For discussion:
Do people have to have faith in science like they have to have faith in their religion?
Surely, humanity doesn't know everything about everything, so faith is needed in some fashion. But is faith in science the same type of faith in religion?
Or is 'faith faith' - there are no different types?

I haven't read all the replies so far, so I apologize to anyone I may be repeating, but faith is being sure of something you have no proof of.

I always use this example: I ride a motorcycle. I know I will not die on my motorcycle. I also have a Dodge 1500. I believe I could easily die in it. And the Hyundia Veloster --I think I'm going to die every time I drive it. But my motorcycle, technically the most dangerous thing I ride, I am sure, without any proof at all, that I will never die on it. I am so sure, in fact, that if I were to start having V-tach from an MI, the best thing I could do is get on my motorcycle, because unless I deliberately crash it. I will never die on it. That's faith.

That said, I don't have faith that God exists. I believe I have proof, more than enough to satisfy me anyway, so for me to doubt God exists is like a "crazy" thought to me.

Faith could have replaced science--or most of technology anyway. I think it was a kind of faith that allowed previous ancient civilizations to build the great pyramids, Stonehenge, Gobekli Tepe, etc. Either that, or they knew something about manipulating gravity that we don't know today. Or maybe it's a mix. We don't know anything about consciousness either, but maybe they did. Maybe there is a mental way to manipulate gravity and maybe it takes a kind of surety to make it happen in the mind. Medicine could have been completely done away with, at least for the most part. Faith healing works--in small ways now, but in greater ways in the past.

Faith is an operation of mind. It may be at work almost all the time. You go to the cupboard to get a jar of peanut butter you know is there. It may only be there because you know it's there.

Then again, the world operates even when we aren't thinking about it, so maybe that means a greater mind is always thinking about it--holding it in existence. The Great Dreamer of the Universe, so to speak, God--or as I like to call him, "Dad."

Jesus said, and he seemed quite direct and certain about this, that if you had only a small amount of real faith, you could say to a mountain, "Move and be cast into the sea." And if you did not doubt, but truly believed, it would happen. Was he lying? Was Jesus a liar?

[Tcg]

[Replying to nobspeople in post #1]

I think with science the word would be trust not faith. For instance, I trust that fresh water freezes at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, but I've never tested that. What reason would one have to report that falsely? I have however seen ice form on the tops of streams when it is cold out. I've never seen that happen on a hot summer day.

Faith that Jesus rose from the dead for instance is a whole different deal. By most accounts it was a supernatural event. How can that be measured? How can that be experienced? We don't have any dead people posting on this forum. Jesus certainly hasn't logged on. I can however take a thermometer and measure the temperature of ice. Faith is required when one wants to accept that which can't be shown to be true.


Tcg