jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (58 posts)

Comparing faith and science

  1. jonnycomelately profile image86
    jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago

    A basic rule of scientific inquiry is that you start from something you already know, something that can be proven, repeatedly, by other investigators in exactly similar circumstances.  From something that is known for sure, one can make further hypotheses, and investigate.  New questions come in and challenge currently accepted premises, sometimes to prove the original theories false.
    A second rule is to always reserve room, even if it's very small, for further information to enter the picture.
    Honesty is a prerequisite for the advance of science.

    How does this requirement for science sit with anything "believed" in religion?  In religion one starts from what one believes, then adds more beliefs and more beliefs, etc.  There might be a scientific discovery which confirms or excludes some religious presumption, which can give confidence in the beliefs. But this cannot allow a presumption that other aspect are equally true.

    Anything that comes solely from belief cannot be "proven" to be true.

    1. Live to Learn profile image81
      Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      To be fair, let's think about yours statement from the angle of a believer.

      Something you already know---
      Life exists. In an ever expanding infinity. We are just beginning to be aware of this.

      Something that can be proven---
      We know it exists and we prove it by existing and observing the universe surrounding us.

      From something that is known for sure, one can make further hypotheses, and investigate---
      Science enhances the investigation for all of us. Conclusions are made by each of us. None of our conclusions (believers and non) can, as yet, be proven; on a universal scale.

      New questions come in and challenge currently accepted premises, sometimes to prove the original theories false---
      This applies to the religious as well as the non believer. We should allow both equal respect.

      A second rule is to always reserve room, even if it's very small, for further information to enter the picture---
      I am not sure how this would exclude the believer. Most allow for fine tuning belief with the input of more information; whether they be religious or otherwise.

      Honesty is a prerequisite for the advance of science.
      As it is for the advancement of understanding our reality from any perspective.

      How does this requirement for science sit with anything "believed" in religion?
      The only 'belief' that begins religion is a belief that our universe began in an organized and intelligent manner. The believer then uses this original premise to expand on the what and how. This is no different from the basic premise of the 'non believer'. They believe the universe began in a different manner.

      In religion one starts from what one believes, then adds more beliefs and more beliefs, etc.
      How is this different from our armchair uneducated 'scientists'? They start with a basic belief and then use tidbits of information supplied by others to solidify their original premise.

      There might be a scientific discovery which confirms or excludes some religious presumption, which can give confidence in the beliefs. But this cannot allow a presumption that other aspect are equally true.
      This is also true with scientific discovery. One observation, or an experiment which proves a simple basic premise cannot be used to imply that all other premises are true. It simply adds some information and a very miniscule amount of credence to the base belief one is working toward proving.

      Anything that comes solely from belief cannot be "proven" to be true.
      I'm not sure I agree with this, in the context you are presenting it. Because this applies to any hypothesis or belief which attempts to ultimately resolve universal questions. An hypothesis on that level is little more than belief; no matter how much we would like to believe otherwise

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Faith and science are two very different things. Faith deals with that which cannot be seen, science deals only with what can. The mistake is often made that these are two opposing choices for a point of view, but they are not. They each deal in two completely different aspects of reality and are not interchangeable.

      If something is observed in science, it no longer requires faith. Faith deals with what cannot be empirically determined. The fact is science cannot account for all that reality is. There is more beyond what science can detect, yet this must also be accounted for. This is where things like religion and philosophy come into play. Where the jurisdiction of the physical sciences and all its methods ends.

      1. jonnycomelately profile image86
        jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        I agree.  That is the reason we leave room for that "stone unturned."
        But personally I am happy to work with what is known; and preserve patience with what hitherto is unknown.

        Thanks for your input, Headly.

    3. J - R - Fr13m9n profile image85
      J - R - Fr13m9nposted 5 months ago in reply to this

      Science is concrete. As you stated it is proven. In the scientific community there is also room for theory. Theory has yet to be proven. Theory is also referred to as hypothesis. Some theories can be put to the test to see if they are right or wrong, while others such as the "big bang theory" take in much analysis of creative scientific thought.
      Religion is a "horse of a different color" figuratively speaking. Things do not have to be proven. Belief is at the core of our western religious teachings.

  2. colorfulone profile image87
    colorfuloneposted 7 months ago

    A presumption of innocence does not need to be proven. In a criminal case the prosecution bears the burden of proof.  What kind of presumption are you making?

    In the United States, freedom of religion (First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment) is upheld by the constitution. A challenger of a religious belief would bear the burden of proof. 

    What religion (belief) are you referring to?

    After seven years a missing person is presumed dead.
    Believe it or not science requires faith in dealing with nature and its forces of development processes.

    1. Castlepaloma profile image24
      Castlepalomaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Religion is the greatest offender of salvery, prisoner, wars, destruction of the natural environment.

      If this is Religion greatest morality contribution to mankind and bio diversity. Than I will take ethical science and understanding every time.

      A belief loose morallities most often floats around lost in space. Where a grounded knowing business like ethic can take action in changing for the better.

      1. Live to Learn profile image81
        Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Don't know whether you have noticed this, or not. Science has allowed us to poison our environment and our bodies in ever increasing ways. Science helped to build the H bomb and has enhanced our ability to provide electricity at an ever increasing cost to our environment. So, we'd need to define 'ethical' science carefully.

        Religion was not responsible for the 2 world wars, the pograms of communism or many other atrocities. Religion has its down sides, to be sure. It has its atrocities and crimes against humanity. But it is no different from the rest of life and, in our lifetime, has not been responsible for anywhere near the amount of loss of life of other impetuses. It's always fun to bash religion but let's be reasonable in our complaints.

        1. jonnycomelately profile image86
          jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

          Live to Learn, thanks for your input.

          "Science" does not, has not, allowed us to poison.   Humans, we, us, poison the environment and our bodies.  It is careless, ignorant, sometimes deliberate action that allows us to do so.  Not science itself.
          Scientific knowledge allowed humans to design development of the H bomb.  It also allowed us to design and develop defenses against disease of all kinds, to build machines which could produce electricity and enhance our way of life.   In all cases, it's humans who take responsibility for it....some times, admittedly, in IR-responsible ways.   But we cannot blame science.  Chernobyl did not happen because of the science.  It happened because of careless and irresponsible application of the science, leading to faulty technology.   Institutional (governmental) application of communisim led to shutting off contact with modern technical enhancement, thereby putting their systems at risk.  It was lack of science.

          Closed religious presumption can have the same disastrous effect.  (By the way, that word "disastrous" comes from the religious belief that our misfortunes were somehow dictated by the stars.)

          This discussion is an attempt to throw light upon the arguments.  It is not a complaint, therefore cannot be regarded as unreasonable.

          1. Live to Learn profile image81
            Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

            Without genetic engineering we wouldn't have genetically modified foods. Without science our food wouldn't be over processed and contain ingredients that you have to read twice in order to pronounce; which contribute to a host of health problems as the consumer ages. Without science we wouldn't be medicating ourselves to relieve one symptom while creating a host of problems on top of that by the medications we take. We wouldn't have nuclear waste without science. Or nukes.

            Of course, humans are the scientists. We can't blame the individual for what others choose to do with their inventions but we wouldn't have others doing something with the inventions if they hadn't been made.

            I think it is short sighted to attempt to attack religion because people use it unwisely but claim the same doesn't hold true for things such as science.



            I agree with you that science has brought us a host of benefits. It has also caused a host of problems. Which, science will resolve; but will again result in a host of problems.

            I'm not anti science. I'm just pro reality. As to your assessment of Chernobyl I never blamed communism for Chernobyl. There have been enough reactor failures and problems to know that something such as Chernobyl can, and will, happen again.  But with this defense, you attempt to separate the consequences from the initial action. Science gave us nuclear power. We are dealing with the problems of this gift.



            Closed minded presumptions, no matter what belief structure which brings them about, can have disastrous effect.

            1. jonnycomelately profile image86
              jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

              So, how would you try to separate the "good" use and the "bad" use of scientific research?

              In a world which has seen a very rapid rise in its human population, mainly as a result of scientific research, this brings with it a mix of anti-social behaviour.  Another area for research.

              But what you do about it?  Promote prophilaxis?  The pill?  Condoms?  Abortion?

              Or maybe support same-gender partnerships so reproduction rates are reduced?   Anything to control our population. 

              Is further science needed?

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                That's a slippery slope. Take medical advances, for example. Are we really doing good to extend the lives of people beyond what they should have lived, or are we ultimately undermining our own evolution for future generations? Are we allowing genetically inferior information to pass along when nature would have weeded it out without our interference?

                1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  The very questions I have asked recently.  There are people around here that think such questions are of the devil.

              2. Live to Learn profile image81
                Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                There is good and bad in everything so it is difficult to separate. That would determine on the individual perspective. I say judge by how much harm is done, to how many, and how much good. But, there are levels of harm and good so even that is difficult.


                Seriously, I don't see science as responsible for the rise in human population as much as simple procreation. Yes, we can cure some diseases and prevent some. But, third world nations don't have access to the same medical science we do and they don't have any problem multiplying.

                I don't see anti-social behavior being associated with over population as much as I see it tied in to the inequities prevalent in the world. Unemployment, poverty and frustration in response to a sense of social inequities causes anti social behavior more, in my opinion.



                Where, exactly, are you going to promote these things? In countries which have a large percentage of their population starving? In developed nations? Part of the problem we are witnessing in Europe at the moment is countries which have developed and gravitated toward smaller families being inundated by refugees from countries which wouldn't think to promote any of those things, which refuse to develop and cannot offer a decent standard of living. Here in America we are constantly pondering the massive influx of workers from south of our border. We may all see a change in the fabric of our individual societies within the next 100 years. That, in itself, appears to be contributing to anti social behavior and unrest.



                Beg pardon? Push same gender relationships in order to control population? I'm laughing here. We've just come out of a phase where those attracted to their same sex were forced to live in a closet. Do the same thing to those of us that aren't? I'm afraid I'm not willing to sleep with a woman just to avoid pregnancy.


                Further research is what drives our species. It protects it and endangers it simultaneously. Of course it is needed. We simply need to cross our fingers and hope we don't kill ourselves in the process.

                1. jonnycomelately profile image86
                  jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                  Did I or anyone suggest that?  Surely not!   I was simply suggesting that those who wish to enter into same-gender relationships should be encouraged and supported to do so.  Just as heterosexual partners are.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image87
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Not that I have anything against anyone finding happiness, and if that's what they want I have no issue with that other than the fact that everyone who enters into a same sex relationship removes their genes from the gene pool. That I find troubling. When you consider just how much those genes had to go through to exist on this planet in this age, good genes too, intelligence, empathy, compassion, all gone and no longer represented in future generations. Survived for millions and billions of years, only to be removed from the gene pool, never to be seen again. Sad.

                  2. Live to Learn profile image81
                    Live to Learnposted 7 months ago in reply to this

                    Well, adults should do as they please and not need encouragement from others in order to do it.

    2. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Colorfulone, thank you for your input.

      A "presumption," as I understand it, assumes something is true without having first proven it.
      A "belief," in the religious sense is, I suggest, a "presumption."
      This would be true of any religion. 
      After seven years a missing person is presumed dead.  This complies with my definition.  It can't be proven, but the evidence available leads one to that presumption, but it still can't be proven 100%.

      Scientific investigation of natural processes does not need faith.  It simply asks questions, designs experiments, tests hypotheses, observes and considers/reconsiders results of those test, formulates conclusions and tries to elucidate rules surrounding what has been observed.  From those rules, further hypotheses may be made to see of the rules are consistent.  If they are, then it's reasonable to suppose that proof has been made.   Alternatively, if proof is not there, further investigation may follow.   Sure, there might be a "belief" in the first instant, but it is not sustained. 

      Having arrived at a position of "knowing," as far as possible, that something is true, one can then build on that and grow the learning process.  If the further learning is based upon flawed previous research, then the new knowledge will inevitably be flawed also.

  3. Castlepaloma profile image24
    Castlepalomaposted 7 months ago

    Religion and politics are much the same by over authoritarian. You don't see communist system much anymore yet replaced by much happier Socialist systems.

    You can't blame sciencist for over authoritarian rule, for it's a tool , much like the arts that has much more positive influence our cultures and nature.

    Since 85% of the world's poplution is Religiously empaired. You can easily see how authoritarian drive the world into debtor economically salvery and given a race to extinction a 1000 times faster than any other time in recorded human history.

    I love and trust my science and art. You can keep your athoritarian bullies to boss salve you around every day. Steal half your money and destory nature.

  4. Castlepaloma profile image24
    Castlepalomaposted 7 months ago

    Jonny

    How do you view science?

    To me science feels like a branch in the tree of life. Atheist strongly  centre themselve around science, kind of way of thinking.

    Where faith in Religion lacks sciencetific facts. Religion has a long history experience with so many myths like Hollywood today.
    No matter how simple and directly you present facts of numbers and pattern, they ignore. It's seem to be based on attitude of social structure she was and fear of unknowns. Just another branch in the tree of life

    My chooen elution is arts and nature. Art design is to please and nature is the only true religion or the base of the tree.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Apparently scientific research is showing that the tendency to belief or rationality is genetically imprinted.

  5. Oztinato profile image82
    Oztinatoposted 7 months ago

    The Incompleteness Theorem proves that science is incapable of ever answering "everything". Science has limits.
    In the realm of studying ultimate causes and proof of the existence of God etc it is religion and philosophy that take precedence because science literally can't explain such things. Science deals very imperfectly with physical events and it's field does not cover the spiritual or religious or philosophical. Religion deals specifically with the ultimate philosophical cause (God etc) but science admits it can't deal with this. Hence the futility of atheists trying to debate such questions as it is non sequitur for them to even begin trying as they've divorced themselves from the philosophical discussion related to this topic ie their only recourse is religion which they don't admit into the philosophy.

    1. jonnycomelately profile image86
      jonnycomelatelyposted 7 months ago in reply to this

      Science does not answer anything.  Humans use scientific process to discover, know and understand things.  There will always be further areas to explore.  Always new learning and understanding.  This is what makes science so enlightening and exciting.
      Religious beliefs find an answer that suits the mood.  Then the door is closed and God gets locked in to that understanding.   Is your mind open or closed, Oz?

      1. Castlepaloma profile image24
        Castlepalomaposted 7 months ago in reply to this

        Lo, ingnore the man behind the curtain.

  6. Castlepaloma profile image24
    Castlepalomaposted 7 months ago

    Carl Sagan speaks of earliest sciencetific pantheism of nature and comos being the beginning of philosophy and Religion emerge from that. The Arts and cultures even earlier than both.

 
working