Everything requires faith. :shrug:
No, there is no faith involved. Science does not need faith. We don't need to believe that science works. It does work. Planes fly. Televisions pick up signals bouncing off of satellites in outer space. Medicine cures people. Computers compute and allow us to post on these forums. No amount of faith in any direction will change that. Science does not require belief. It works regardless of how we feel. Stars fused heavier elements and oceans were churned by hurricanes long before we were here to notice, and will continue to do so long after we are gone. No amount of our thoughts or feelings on the subject will ever affect that.
False equivalence between science and religious fables is just nonsense. It is a pathetic attempt to discredit science by dragging it down to the level of fairy tales. Science is better than that. Science works. No amount of praying or mushroom circles or talismans or dream catchers will change that.
Genetic and social factors, what percentage of each? I guess 80/20, to begin estimations. What percentage do you figure?
We have no evidence of orientation being a choice. Everyone I ask says they didn't choose. Have you met someone who chose? I find it difficult to believe that some people would choose to be a discriminated against minority.
But where is the evidence? Not trying to delve into the issue, but most assume it is genetic when there is no evidence that it is. So, people take it on faith (mostly) because it must be.
Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPrenatal hormones may be seen as the primary determinant of adult sexual orientation, or a co-factor with genes, biological factors and/or environmental and social conditions.
Science and Faith, contrary to what many people think, are not mutually exclusive. Many great scientists, such as Newton, Leibniz, Galileo Galilei, and Pascal, were devout Christians. Other more modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, also had strong religious leanings. So from where does the notion of a dichotomy between Science and Faith come? IMHO, it comes from choice. Some believe there is nothing greater than their own understanding and reasoning and others look in awe at the complexity of a simple cell and to them, this didn't happen by chance. For me it is simple. I see G-d as the greatest scientist of all, the architect of all. I believe science is his gift to man.
For me science does not disprove my religion nor does my religion disprove science. I see them complementing eachother quite nicely.
Probably the field of medical science is where you will find fewer non-believes than any other. They see phenomena's everyday that just blows them away.
Science and Faith, contrary to what many people think, are not mutually exclusive. Many great scientists, such as Newton, Leibniz, Galileo Galilei, and Pascal, were devout Christians. Other more modern scientists, such as Einstein, Heisenberg, and Dirac, also had strong religious leanings. So from where does the notion of a dichotomy between Science and Faith come? IMHO, it comes from choice. Some believe there is nothing greater than their own understanding and reasoning and others look in awe at the complexity of a simple cell and to them, this didn't happen by chance. For me it is simple. I see G-d as the greatest scientist of all, the architect of all. I believe science is his gift to man.
For me science does not disprove my religion nor does my religion disprove science. I see them complementing eachother quite nicely.
Probably the field of medical science is where you will find fewer non-believes than any other. They see phenomena's everyday that just blows them away.
The practise of medicine is more of an art than a science than some would have you believe. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it a simple appeal to authority?
But the question this thread is predicated upon is not "Do some scientists have religious faith" it is "Does science require faith". For the latter question we need to know which definition of faith we are using to base our answer on. For the former, it is irrelevant and an answer to a question that was not asked.
I didn't say that. I said that medicine, as an art and a science, is not all science, and has more art than many realise.
The practice of medicine is more of an art than a science than some would have you believe. Do you have any evidence for your claim, or is it a simple appeal to authority?
I don't have the time to read it, but yes. All science depends on causation and human reason. If you don't trust those then you have no reason to believe science.
No.
A personal faith in a scientific hypothesis can be destroyed by someone else presenting evidence and that person must change their opinion if abiding by scientific methodology.
Actually, they have no requirement to change their opinions at all. To proceed under scientific discipline, they need merely change their working assumptions.
We all do that sort of thing all the time. Put a $100 bill in your hand and you proceed from the idea that you are holding money. That's your working assumption. The reality is though that you're holding a probably bacteria-laden piece of nasty rag paper.
If they've changed their assumptions they've changed their opinion.
Read an interesting article I thought I would share:
Does Science Require Faith? : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR
Thoughts?
Most evidence is social, not physical. Science has not discovered genetic evidence, that's rather specific and probably involves a combination of genes/traits.
Not at all. For example, a junior researcher working for a group that proceeds from evidence that suggests that AGW is hokum can still have an opinion to the contrary. But if he wants to continue his employment, his working assumption needs to reflect that of his seniors.
I run into this sort of dichotomy frequently as an EMT. My opinion of a patient might be that they're just drunk. My working assumption though, has to be that they're sick or injured.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?