Mickyjaystoned
Member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2005
- Messages
- 161
- Reaction score
- 1
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Mickyjaystoned said:So what do you say to people who hold the FAITH that science can offer them a better future?
Out of interest whats the Latin mean?
Faith does not entail religion. You have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, do you not? You have faith that you will fall if you jump off of a building - do either of those things constitute a religion?
There's a difference between belief and religious belief, you should make that distinction.
Mickyjaystoned said:Faith does entail Belief though, I do not have faith that the sun will rise tommorrow, i accept the fact that this is part of a cycle, a cycle that one day will come to an end.
I do not have Faith that i will fall if i jump off a building, i accept that Gravity affects the manner in which my physical body behaves on this planet.
There is a differance between belief and religious belief, there are also similarities.
My post was intended to be called Science AS Religion just to clear up, i know that science is not a religion, but Science DOES align itself with the very Christian belief in altering the planet to create a better world.
galenrox said:But what about the basic assumptions made by science, i.e. the laws of physics have always been the same (along with other assumptions that I've since forgotten). This means that science is faith based,
This seems like a meaningless statement to me. Most everything you do has some element of "faith" inherent to it. When you flip on a lightswitch, you have faith that it will work (most of the time), when you walk on the ground you have faith that it will not collapse under you. This sort of "faith" is absolutely essential to get anything done. If you don't assume that the world is consistent, how would you go about doing anything?The basic assumption is also that the laws of physics always were as they are now. Most science on how things have worked in the history of the world are based on this assumption. Now it's a reasonable assumption, I won't deny that, but it is still an assumption, and thus belief in science is indeed faith based,
and it is a matter of interpretation whether or not it is religion.
Next time an apple falls on your head, try telling yourself that the laws of gravity are merely faith based.galenrox said:But what about the basic assumptions made by science, i.e. the laws of physics have always been the same (along with other assumptions that I've since forgotten). This means that science is faith based,
galenrox said:But I beg to differ, once again. From what I cabn tell, your stance on what seperates day to day faith from making something actually faith based is that one is faith based on evidence and the other is faith based on faith. Just as there is no evidence that there is a God, there is no evidence that the primary scientific assumptions are true either, and yet all of science derives from these assumptions.
So what seperates the two, on this most basic level? I personally believe in science, but we need to address things as they are. My outlook on the world is shaped by my faith in God, and your outlook on the world is shaped by your faith in these assumptions. You cannot argue the merit of assumptions with no evidence backing them, since factually they are equal, and thus your outlook on the world is equally faith based as mine, since our perceptions of things that are not blatantly clear, due to life experience (i.e. the ground won't collapse, light switches usually turn on the lights, etc.), are shaped based on our faith in these assumptions.
There are no requirements to believe in anything if you are a scientist. You can be a Christian, Satanist, Jew, Atheist, Existentialist, whatever and still be a scientist. There is no world-view or morality or anything attached to the scientific method.I don't think so. I think science could very easily be interpretted as religion. It is a faith based group of people who believe certain things based on that faith. I don't think it would require too much wackiness to interpret it as religion.
galenrox said:The basic assumption is also that the laws of physics always were as they are now. Most science on how things have worked in the history of the world are based on this assumption. Now it's a reasonable assumption, I won't deny that, but it is still an assumption, and thus belief in science is indeed faith based, and it is a matter of interpretation whether or not it is religion.
This is untrue. There is nothing about the scientific method that contains an inherent belief that anyone should make a better world. Hitler's scientists used the scientific method to test horrific things and to sterilize an entire race of people - does that count as creating a better world?
CaliNORML said:Science has been applied incorrectly, so has religion. Citing one or the others failed applications does not mean they are groundless, it was a misapplication of data in both and as such ended in failed results. This means there is not a problem with the reasoning and logic behind both, just the "experiment" was flawed.
KMS
tecoyah said:Which path will lead to increased knowledge?
Engimo said:There is no way to glean new information from religion, it is static because of its inherent reliance upon dogma-based assertions. It's not as if you can subject the Bible to experiments that will somehow reveal more fundamental truths or better ways to be a Christian - all the information pertinent to being a Christian has already been revealed in its entirety.
Doctor Joseph Mengele never set foot in America. Can you provide any bona-fide citations that stipulate this?Mickyjaystoned said:Yes but Hitler's whole thing was about creating a better race of humans to inhabit this world, although when we look at what he did we are brainwashed to think everything he did was for a horrific cause, however we do not mention that Joseph Mengele, Hitlers chief scientist and the aptly titled angel of death was accepted into America after the war to continue his work and perfect the mind control techniques that he worked on in Nazi Germany.
Mickyjaystoned said:Science IMO has ****ed this world up, this is why i think people should question it as much as religion, regardless of alternatives i would rather be faithless than accept Science as a progression from religion.
Mickyjaystoned said:So what do you say to people who hold the FAITH that science can offer them a better future?
Out of interest whats the Latin mean?
Yes their is...Charles Darwin worshiped, but not supernatural.Engimo said:Science is not religion because there is no supernatural entity or worship involved in science.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
stsburns said:Yes their is...Charles Darwin worshiped, but not supernatural.
Also Atheism is a religion without a supernatural being or worship.
Anything else?
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?