User Tag List

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 86

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    8,960
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    37

    Default Science vs Belief

    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?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    12,271
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    34

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Euless, TX
    Posts
    132
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    74
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    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
    Last edited by summerluv; 06-10-2010 at 05:18 AM.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    6,268
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    30

    Default

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    7,033
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    35

    Default

    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.
    Last edited by Intellexual; 06-10-2010 at 06:29 AM.
    2009: Transitioned
    2020: Mature, Freeformed Locs

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    AboveMostOfYou
    Posts
    5,030
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    45

    Default

    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.
    Revelation 21:4 - Psalm 51 - Psalm 121 - Ephesians
    (All words typed above are my experience and/or opinion, please feel free to agree or disagree....just please, do so without malice.)
    Loc'ed: 19/NOV/08 - Love ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~NP Convert since 06/08

  8. #8
    SassyB's Avatar
    SassyB is offline Active Nappturality Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    719
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chachadiva View Post
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by chachadiva View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by chachadiva View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by chachadiva View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by chachadiva View Post
    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!]

    Quote Originally Posted by chachadiva View Post
    Do we really know what we think we know?
    Probably not!
    Quote Originally Posted by summerluv View Post
    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.
    "The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widespread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible." - Bertrand Russell

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    21,202
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    77

    Default

    The notion of a separation of faith and science is a recent one, most, if not all, the great scientist of the Renaissance were believers but that didn't stop them from wanting to find out how the world around them works. As far as I'm concerned religion should take care of the morale side of man and science takes care of the physical world.

    Quote Originally Posted by SassyB View Post
    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.
    I think this is where the problem lies as well. Personally i have no problem with the notion of Intelligent design, but it should remain in the relm of religion, not science because it would make science say something it isn't. I say man is descended from that first creature that crawled out of the primordial pool and came to be through evolution. You say God had a hand in making it happen because He had a plan. And if you reject what science says, that's ok too, but again, that's about faith and belief and to me, that's not on the same level as speculation based on the what one extrapolate from the physical world.


    Blog - Twitter - Ravelry - Pinterest
    To those of you who've been digging through Celebrerie archives and liking my posts, thank you

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Obamanation
    Posts
    5,477
    Reviews
    Read 0 Reviews
    Post Thanks / Like
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SassyB View Post
    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?
    I agree with this. This "either/or" stuff is really not necessary. The bible is written in historical context, metaphors, and using symbolism. So when you read something that says the earth was created in seven days, you have to ask yourself how long a day may have been by their standards. Then going from there, you can use the science to substantiate what it says.

    It's the same thing with psychology. I know people who believe that psychologists are evil, mind controlling, and manipulative and the only people you should trust are your preachers. Why can't the both of them work together if it makes sense and helps someone get their life together?

    Geesh.
    Quit tripping on what you're wearing on your behind and get some education in your head.

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •