• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Does Science require faith?

An "expert" in wireless communication can tell you how your post gets to the internet and in principle you and I can understand it perfectly (though it might take some background knowledge we don't have). Not only that, somebody had to build the system, so it's known how it works from the start (or it wouldn't be there)

Another good strategy: If you can't convince them, confuse them. -Harry S Truman

vasuderatorrent
 
In contrast, an "expert" in religion (presumably a theologian) can't explain the resurrection, just talk about its religious implications. Indeed the expert opinion about the resurrection in the Christian context is that it is a mystery and cannot ever be understood. Such was the apostle Paul's point.

And, as a biologist, I can gladly inform Christians that a case of "Lazarus Syndrome" does not equate to a miracle, nor does it imply divinity as is routinely thought.
 
So, then, why did you use precisely that same weak, meaningless strategy? Or is it only a weak, meaningless strategy when someone else uses it?



Science is speculative, and creative. The scientific method is a mainstay of science, but it does not produce the hypotheses it evaluates. The hypothesis is a creative act of scientific imagination.

The point, though, is that "confidence" is crucial to the pursuit of science. In some engineering analyses, for example, "confidence" is a quantifiable quality, being calculated to have a value between 0 and 100%. A "theory" becomes a scientific "law" when it is the consensus of the scientific community that the hypotheses which undergird the theory will not be disproved; they are confident that future experiments will have the same results as have the ones in the past. But just because they have reason to believe doesn't mean they are not believing.

Like I said you may have all the confidence that want, but that confidence has no bearing on the outcome of the evidence.

I get excited about certain subjects in science. I have pet concepts that I suspect may hold some truth to them. It indeed helps to have emotional feelings in life. One emotion is disappointment when a pet concept gets flushed down the drain when new evidence is found. Making well educated guesses, or noting the high probability of a positive or negative out come isnt faith based. We enter in the data and evaluate the results, sometimes we are correct most often we are not. its like watching a movie, as the plot moves on new evidence is revealed for the plot. The plot will unfold in only one way. My speculations could be correct or not. Either way there wasnt any faith involved.

1 + 1 = 2 I do not have faith that the answer is two, I have enough knowledge to add the two Ones and come to the conclusion that the answer is two. if need be though I could present a demonstration the validates the claim that the answer is two. That is because there is evidence that I can provide that shows the validation. the two then becomes a solid piece of evidence of its own as applied in other applications.

Science is used in a way (by those that understand science) that is open ended. Meaning that everything including known positive or negatives are left open for any correction in the future. There may actually be no possible correction but none the less the book remains open on principle.
 
That's a fair argument but you do leave out the reality that most people don't study the issue and never will.

But they can, that's the point. It is entirely possible to do so.

A second thing that you forgot is that their are religious experts too.

And, no there aren't. There are no experts who can show you how these things work. Most "religious experts" are just experts in telling you not to ask.
 
yea but practically everyone has faith in science as there has to be some sort of evidence in science e.g. cures of diseases having to have been tested out on people, although there can be mistakes at times especially if something requires a lot of thought and reasoning..

For example alcohol cannot cause depression finding one month ago - there is no real evidence to be honest. Yes it may be true that it is by other factors e.g. drinkers usually smoke, etc. but who really knows ?

However faith is definitely required to believe the Big bang Theory as theists are likely to oppose this unless religions e.g. Islam uses the big Bang Theory to support religious teachings.
 
yea but practically everyone has faith in science as there has to be some sort of evidence in science e.g. cures of diseases having to have been tested out on people, although there can be mistakes at times especially if something requires a lot of thought and reasoning..

For example alcohol cannot cause depression finding one month ago - there is no real evidence to be honest. Yes it may be true that it is by other factors e.g. drinkers usually smoke, etc. but who really knows ?

However faith is definitely required to believe the Big bang Theory as theists are likely to oppose this unless religions e.g. Islam uses the big Bang Theory to support religious teachings.

Saying people "believe" in a scientific theory is a loose way of saying that the theory is valid and should be accepted in comparison to other competing scientific theories. The reason is because the valid theory explains some of the known facts better than other theories, and in particular explains important facts (no scientific theory explains all the facts). Further no known fact contradicts the theory (if it does we must abandon the theory or modify it).

So, it's not really accurate to say people "believe" in a scientific theory the same way they believe in the American Way or the afterlife. The latter are value judgments unrelated to any known facts. The former are purely empirical evaluations of the best explanation of known facts.
 
Saying people "believe" in a scientific theory is a loose way of saying that the theory is valid and should be accepted in comparison to other competing scientific theories. The reason is because the valid theory explains some of the known facts better than other theories, and in particular explains important facts (no scientific theory explains all the facts). Further no known fact contradicts the theory (if it does we must abandon the theory or modify it).

So, it's not really accurate to say people "believe" in a scientific theory the same way they believe in the American Way or the afterlife. The latter are value judgments unrelated to any known facts. The former are purely empirical evaluations of the best explanation of known facts.
"should be accepted in comparison to other theories" - that is quite possible, considering the big Bang Theory. It doesn't just have to be comparison between scientific theories. It can also be compared to religious theories.
 
"should be accepted in comparison to other theories" - that is quite possible, considering the big Bang Theory. It doesn't just have to be comparison between scientific theories. It can also be compared to religious theories.

Not really. Religions don't have theories; they have doctrine. And they don't follow methodological naturalism. Religious "theories' are exactly what science excludes from its inquiry, since several thousand years of empirical evidence indicates that oracles and astrologers and prophets don't produce testable results.

That doesn't mean religion isn't valuable. It is to me. It just means it isn't valuable as an empirical tool to make predictions about things we care about, like curing diseases and building bridges that don't collapse.

I wouldn't go to a laboratory to find out the meaning of life, and I wouldn't read the bible to determine find the best dentistry practices. They are simply two different realms of knowledge
 
Back
Top Bottom