Science vs Belief

[chachadiva]

WARNING: This post is not about religion per se. Do not make posts bashing religion, bashing Christianity, the Bible, etc. Also, this is NOT about evolution versus creation. Let’s not go there.

I was watching a TV program about the future of science and technology. The interviewer asked the guest about his religious beliefs and the scientist replied that he chose to put his belief in science and things he could prove. This got me thinking. It seems a strange dichotomy exists. Science versus religion/belief.

Assertion: Belief in certain aspects of science is the same as belief in a deity.

A lot of people consider my belief in a deity as an intellectual defect or a crutch to meet an emotional deficit. However, these same people have no problems putting their belief and trust in science.

Now, don’t get me wrong. I love science. I watch the Science Channel, Discovery, the History Channel, Animal Planet, etc. I try to keep abreast of current research on things like the String theory and other matters of physics. I believe in science…to a point.

For instance, some will say that since most people were not living doing ancient times, how do I know that stories relating to my chosen deity are correct? How do I even know that such a deity exists? Where’s the proof?

I could argue that there is proof via apologetics and religious archeology, but that’s another thread.

Using the same logic as above, how do scientists really know what happened millions and millions of years ago? Sure, they’ve found fossils and things, but how do they really know that a certain fossil is 20 million years old as opposed to just 50,000 years old? What about glacier movements, ice ages, etc? Are dating techniques able to tell us what really happened all those years ago? Do we really know what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt? Try as we may, we know that life is not “paint by the numbers.” Why are people putting their trust and belief in found objects, equations and predictive modeling?

Also, I’m a big fan of Michio Kaku, the theoretical physicist. However, he will go on and on about parallel universes, worm holes, and technologies that will make things possible 500 or 1000 years from now. Umm…okay. Has anyone been in a parallel universe and have come back to provide personal testimony? Where's the videotape? I respect his (and others) method of thinking on such matters, but really, where’s the proof? What do scientists really have besides equations and a belief in what is possible? Oh, and let us not forget Stephen Hawking and his aliens.

Do we really know what we think we know?

So, with all that said, is my assertion correct? Belief in certain aspects of science is the same as belief in an unseen deity?

[CinnamonBiscuit]

Both are the same, as far as I'm concerned. One is of the world, one is of the unknown, both switch back and forth.

[Nappquest]

Making me think too much right here. i think that sciences seek to answer how and religion takes care of why. what is science really except a measure of observed phenomena? and if the scientist isn't there to personally observe, thus directly measure, then extrapolation is used. i guess then that whatever conclusion is arrived at could be considered faith, seeing as the concluder wasn't there to measure directly. so i would say yes, belief in a theory is similiar to belief in an unseen deity.

[summerluv]

Actually I believe that belief in certain theories in science requires more of a leap of faith than belief in God. Hear me out on this now. For example, my belief in an all powerful God who created the enormous amount of diversity of life down to the most basic cell (which is actually very complex) may seem crazy to others.But at least I believe He can do it.
Consider that those who place their belief in scientific theories like evolution believe in something their own laws of science say is impossible! The probability that ONE cell would spontaneously generate is staggering, let alone create the whole world we see around us.

It strikes me as funny that man would believe in a STUDY of life with such religious fervor. We are just attempting to figure out this world, how can we believe that science hs all the answers? Not trying to turn this into an evolution vs creation thread, but just used that example to demonstrate how scientists have faith in the impossible.
Here's a really insightful tract that answers many of your questions chachadiva, re: carbon dating etc.. It's called How Evolution Flunked the Science Test
http://www.amazingfacts.org/FreeStuf...R/Default.aspx

[~GAN~]

Not much to add, but this has been a question I've had for a llooonnngg time. I'll be lurking this thread!

[Intellexual]

Science is processing, proofing, and reproducing. At times, one will be able to reproduce something without mathematical or technical precision. In other instances, a scientist will be able to help prove that something is inaccurate, without needing to reproduce all of the variables him or herself. That's why there's theory and theorem. Every proof is proofed and every theory is questioned incessantly. Theorem is turned over and/or revised as experience allows it. Belief in a reigning higher intelligence and/or authority isn't contrary to science nor is it any one individual's responsibility (to the world itself) to proof that or anything else for another.

If someone says that eating feces will cure whatever, some people will pop it into their mouths on the authority and/or conviction of another. Some people will ask to see the formula and/or present that to people who can work out the (in)accuracy technically. It could be something in the feces that can be acquired otherwise or someone could be flat out lying (among other possibilities for how inaccuracies manifest in deed). Without uncertainty, there can be no faith nor test of it. Likewise, without it there would be no science. There would just be law with literal consequence. At which point, knowledge would be a constant and anyone who didn't possess it would be clearly retarded and/or delusional.

As yet, we have to prove or presume that someone is retarded and/or unfounded. Otherwise, our skepticism is self-righteous. The last great battle of science and theology that I can think of was the flat world mess. Neither should stand in the way of the other. Possibility void of absolute proof, for a time, if you will. Then, we have absolute perfection/authority void of any scientific proof. It's not even a self-fulfilling prophesy rather than an illogical reliance on a literally preconceived notion, as yet. Science doesn't care who/where the idea/truth came from. Theology does, it seems.

ETA: I have a migraine which is disturbing my ability to proofread and such. I hope this translates. If not, I'll redress concisely, when I'm up to par.

[KoilyLocGirl]

I'm with Chacha on this for the most part, and have been asking a lot of these questions for quite some time now.

I eat with researchers, professors and "scientists" on a regular basis and am totally amazed when I hear their POV on certain subjects. I'm more than willing to admit that a lot of their discussion goes over my head, but some basics are simply understood.

Carbon dating, evolution and the like make me lol when folks try to validate them. Only if you were born thousands of years ago and saw it happen, would I be willing to even consider believing what you say is true.

[SassyB]

This got me thinking. It seems a strange dichotomy exists. Science versus religion/belief.

This is just my lil' ol' opinion but I don't think this dichotomy actually exists. Isn't this negated by, let's say, a scientist with religious beliefs? No one should refute such a scientist's findings based solely on the fact that he is religious. That is foolishness to me. In this case, why do they have to be mutually-exclusive?

Assertion: Belief in certain aspects of science is the same as belief in a deity.

Scientists don't know, and probably won't ever know, everything about the universe. Black holes, the string theory, the list goes on. They have tentative facts and observations made or conjectured about such things. So yes, until more substantial evidence is discovered, then I can see how that assertion appears to be true.

A lot of people consider my belief in a deity as an intellectual defect or a crutch to meet an emotional deficit. However, these same people have no problems putting their belief and trust in science.

EVERYONE puts their belief and trust in science in one way or another.
The simplest example I can think of right now is satisfying hunger. A person knows with extremely high certainty that eating and digesting a meal will satiate his/her hunger. This person probably would not stare at a plate of food and have faith that he/she will be fed by merely staring at the plate.

Using the same logic as above, how do scientists really know what happened millions and millions of years ago? Sure, they’ve found fossils and things, but how do they really know that a certain fossil is 20 million years old as opposed to just 50,000 years old? What about glacier movements, ice ages, etc? Are dating techniques able to tell us what really happened all those years ago? Do we really know what happened beyond a shadow of a doubt? Try as we may, we know that life is not “paint by the numbers.” Why are people putting their trust and belief in found objects, equations and predictive modeling?

Carbon dating gives us a pretty good estimate of the ages of fossils, glaciers, and the like.
No, I don't believe we can't ever know anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.
The bolded assumes that there is an alternative in which people can put their trust and belief. What is that alternative and why does there have to be one? And even if someone wanted to put their trust and belief in the ideas listed, then is that a bad thing?
This is why I believe no dichotomy truly exists between science/religion--people only think it does or try to make one out to be when it really and truly doesn't have to be that way.

What do scientists really have besides equations and a belief in what is possible?

Well what else are they supposed to have? Again, to me this is assuming that there is something else beside the scientific method that scientists could be using to fortify their findings. I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that this something is attributing their findings to a higher power. I wonder...if the scientific methodology included attributing the unknown to the doings of a higher power, then would this so-called battle between religion and science be no more.
From other forums that I visit, books that I read, and documentaries that I watch, this appears to be the case to me....that some people take offense when their God isn't given credit for something that happens in the natural world. If science gave this particular god credit, then there would be no beef with science.
[...however, then there'd be arguing over which god deserves credit over what. it would never end!]

Do we really know what we think we know?

Probably not!

Consider that those who place their belief in scientific theories like evolution believe in something their own laws of science say is impossible!

This is interesting...like what?
And I am definitely not being sarcastic here, but I would love to meet someone who created their own laws of science! That would be an interesting person indeed.

[summerluv]

A common misconception that won't go away is that the Bible teaches that the world is flat. I hope one day this is dispelled once and for all! The Catholic church taught that the world was flat and persecuted any who did not believe in their teaching.

The bible clearly states in Isaiah 40:22 It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.
How did these people know the earth was round? They had no satelite pictures from space like we do yet they knew this back in ancient times.

For me, science strengthens my faith in God. I know the original Scientist created all that we see here. It's a joy to behold all of His handiwork and the order of His creation. All of this order could not have come from chaos. We see a car and we know there was a manufacturer, so how can we see all the various life forms and think it all sprang up by chance?

[summerluv]

@Sassy B
"This is interesting...like what?
And I am definitely not being sarcastic here, but I would love to meet someone who created their own laws of science! That would be an interesting person indeed."

No you misunderstood me. I'm not saying that they created their own laws,(although there are laws named after the scientist who discovered them, it's not the same as Creating them) I'm saying that the laws that they (and everyone) ascribe to proves that the theories they have faith in are impossible.

For example the 1st law of Thermodynamics aka conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only transformed to another form. So by that definition, evolution could not have occurred. Where did the first cell get the energy to divide itself from? If you're a christian this is not a problem, because we already know the Source from which all energy flows.