Faith can be science based

Zeuzzz · 31st January 2011, 08:51 PM

Who agrees?

Sledge · 31st January 2011, 08:54 PM

Faith in what?

The True Scotsman · 31st January 2011, 08:58 PM

(crickets chirping)

not daSkeptic · 31st January 2011, 09:01 PM

Originally Posted by The True Scotsman

(crickets chirping)

I have faith in that.

The Greater Fool · 31st January 2011, 09:02 PM

Hebrews 11:1-2 (NIV) 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Science is all about examining what we see, so no.

slingblade · 31st January 2011, 09:12 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Who agrees?

Why should I?

gph · 31st January 2011, 09:16 PM

I've seen crickets and I've heard them chirp but what if I've never seen a cricket chirp. Do I need faith that crickets chirp? No. I have evidence.

That and a strong personal relationship with reality.

not daSkeptic · 31st January 2011, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by The Greater Fool

... faith is ... assurance about what we do not see.

But if one has assurance then faith is unnecessary.

Halfcentaur · 31st January 2011, 09:22 PM

Faith is no longer faith when you have evidence that it is true.

The Norseman · 31st January 2011, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by slingblade

Why should I?

Such a contrarian thou art!

The Greater Fool · 31st January 2011, 09:28 PM

Originally Posted by daSkeptic

But if one has assurance then faith is unnecessary.

One would need faith in whoever is providing the assurance, no?

The Bible has wonderfully imprecise language.

temporalillusion · 31st January 2011, 09:31 PM

Define faith.

Skeptic Ginger · 31st January 2011, 09:34 PM

Originally Posted by daSkeptic

I have faith in that.

Have I ever told you I love your avatar?

.....

as long as we're passing the time.

Lord Emsworth · 31st January 2011, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Who agrees?

That statement is vague to the power of four.
1. "faith" -- can mean a lot of things
2. "can be" -- some sort of safety net
3. "science" -- can mean a lot of things
4. "x based" -- another safety net

I'll leave it up to you to chose a reply as you see fit:
[ ] Yes, I agree. Faith can be science based.
[ ] No, I do not agree to the statement "faith can be science based."
[ ] Depends.
[ ] Not applicable.
[ ] Else.

slingblade · 31st January 2011, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Such a contrarian thou art!

I am not!

Eric D · 31st January 2011, 10:09 PM

Faith is the opposite of science.

AdinDraco · 31st January 2011, 10:17 PM

Depends entirely on what you meen by 'faith'. This word has a number of uses depending on the speaker and the context. Even if you narrow it down to god belief specifically, then you still need to indicate whether you mean it as "acceptance of/belief in the existance of god" or "belief in the absence of knowledge/evidence" or......basically what temporalillusion said.

slingblade · 31st January 2011, 11:23 PM

My response, in spite of the humor following it, was a serious question:

Faith can be science based
Who agrees?

Why should I agree with that? What reasons are there to agree with it? What premises do you use to back up that statement? How can faith be science-based? What do you mean?

What
do
you
mean?

I cannot answer "who agrees," until I know what you mean.

lionking · 31st January 2011, 11:30 PM

Zeuzzz, it's incredibly bad form to start such a vague thread like this without explaining what you mean. It's nothing but trolling.

fishbob · 31st January 2011, 11:31 PM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Who agrees?

Nobody agrees.

Happy?
Surprised?
R U N N O F T ?

Andrew Wiggin · 31st January 2011, 11:48 PM

Faith is the choice to believe something in the absence of evidence, or in the face of conflicting evidence.

Science is the choice to believe something only in the presence of evidence.

So no.

Rincewind · 31st January 2011, 11:58 PM

Actually, I once knew a lady called Faith - and she worked in a laboratory...

Does that count?

Darat · 1st February 2011, 12:25 AM

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Who agrees?

If you mean faith as it is defined in a religion like the RCC then I would have to disagree.

Gawdzilla · 1st February 2011, 01:14 AM

Originally Posted by Rincewind

Actually, I once knew a lady called Faith - and she worked in a laboratory...

Does that count?

But she was fired due to budget cuts which caused her work space in the University's Science Dept. to be retasked. The letter of dismissal stated the obvious:

Dave Rogers · 1st February 2011, 01:21 AM

Correction: Faith can be science, debased.

Dave

Squeegee Beckenheim · 1st February 2011, 01:22 AM

Nah, Faith was more about going on instinct. That's why she killed that bloke, turned evil, shagged Xander, tortured Wesley, then turned herself in to the police, only to end up instrumental in preventing the Apocalypse. Willow was the scientific one. Until she got addicted to magic and turned all evil, the big silly. And don't get me started on what she did at band camp.

Evolved Wookie · 1st February 2011, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by Sceptic Tank

Nah, Faith was more about going on instinct. That's why she killed that bloke, turned evil, shagged Xander, tortured Wesley, then turned herself in to the police, only to end up instrumental in preventing the Apocalypse. Willow was the scientific one. Until she got addicted to magic and turned all evil, the big silly. And don't get me started on what she did at band camp.

That ONE time!

ONE time!

And you just won't let her forget...

ETA: Oh yeah...the OP...

No. I disagree. Science is the process of making faith irrelevant.

Cuddles · 1st February 2011, 09:39 AM

No. Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. *Disappears in puff of logic*

epix · 1st February 2011, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

No. Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. *Disappears in puff of logic*

Hard-obtained proofs arrive on a horse named Faith. As if it were not for the famous Fermat Theorem: there was never a proof that the theorem could be proven.

The Norseman · 1st February 2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by Cuddles

*Disappears in puff of logic*

Crap. Looks like we need a new moderator.

mikeyx · 1st February 2011, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Sledge

Faith in what?

typical crap, even science has a dogma, and then is forced to revise the dogma when its current form fails.

mikeyx · 1st February 2011, 12:12 PM

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for civility.

dlorde · 1st February 2011, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by The Norseman

Crap. Looks like we need a new moderator.

Nah, if what I hear is true, his disembodied consciousness should be able to handle things psychically. Spooky action at a distance, anyone?

George152 · 1st February 2011, 12:23 PM

In whos world ?

The Norseman · 1st February 2011, 12:23 PM

Edited by Tricky:

Edited for response to modded post.

Originally Posted by dlorde

Nah, if what I hear is true, his disembodied consciousness should be able to handle things psychically. Spooky action at a distance, anyone?

Looks like you just volunteered to channel him!

Aepervius · 1st February 2011, 12:23 PM

Science is evidence based (well should be).
Faith is belief in absence of evidence.

Now *YOU* tell us how something by definition without evidence and something based on evidence can be based on each other.

BTMO · 1st February 2011, 12:28 PM

No, because science and faith (assuming I understand what you mean by faith) are at opposite ends of a spectrum of how we understand the world.

In a faith based world view, you take someone's word for how the world works, how it was formed and what rules apply. You don't test these things. You don't challenge them critically - you just accept them.

In science, you test and challenge everything, starting with your preconceptions. If it isn't demonstratable, repeatable and explicable, it isn't science. It is imagination.

epix · 1st February 2011, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by BTMO

In a faith based world view, you take someone's word for how the world works, how it was formed and what rules apply. You don't test these things. You don't challenge them critically - you just accept them.

Yes, a lay person can have a choice between appealing to the scientific authority or not to form his or her view. I guess more lay people have faith in the method of investigation called "science," coz the strange language that science speaks is not just gibberish -- there are practical examples that the principles work -- in medical science, for example.

Quote:

In science, you test and challenge everything, starting with your preconceptions. If it isn't demonstrable, repeatable and explicable, it isn't science. It is imagination.

Science does not know its debt to imagination.
~Ralph Waldo Emerson

Preconception with no imagination attached to it is not exactly a ground-breaking way to start. If God wanted man to fly . . . If an explanation isn't "demonstrable, repeatable and explicable," then it doesn't mean that the imagination that sparked an idea becomes unrealistic fantasy. There just may not be the right tools available at the moment to satisfy the basic requirements for a conclusion called "scientific evidence."

Foster Zygote · 1st February 2011, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

typical crap, even science has a dogma, and then is forced to revise the dogma when its current form fails.

Could you offer an example of this occurring?

Foster Zygote · 1st February 2011, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by mikeyx

And being otherwise blind, learn as you go with an open mind would be better than just being a debunking prick

Like when you learn the actual origin of an abbreviation for a religion?

31st January 2011, 08:51 PM	#1
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241	Faith can be science based Who agrees?
Zeuzzz Banned Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 5,241

31st January 2011, 08:54 PM	#2
Sledge Grammaton Cleric Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Swingin' on a star Posts: 7,123	Faith in what?
	__________________ "The perfect haiku would have just two syllables: Airwolf" ~ Ernest Cline "Science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop" ~ Dara O'Briain.

31st January 2011, 08:58 PM	#3
The True Scotsman Muse Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: In Great Birnam Wood, high on Dunsinane Hill Posts: 864	(crickets chirping)
	__________________ I don't have enough faith to be an a-Thor-ist. There's just too much proof for Thor. Like thunder and stuff... All good pets have Stockholm Syndrome.

31st January 2011, 09:01 PM	#4
not daSkeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,919	Originally Posted by The True Scotsman (crickets chirping) I have faith in that.
	__________________ Skepticism, good. Organized skepticism, bad. Formerly daSkeptic.

31st January 2011, 09:12 PM	#6
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Who agrees? Why should I?
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

31st January 2011, 09:02 PM	#5
The Greater Fool Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way Posts: 463	Hebrews 11:1-2 (NIV) 1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. 2 This is what the ancients were commended for. 3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible. Science is all about examining what we see, so no.

31st January 2011, 09:16 PM	#7
gph Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 302	I've seen crickets and I've heard them chirp but what if I've never seen a cricket chirp. Do I need faith that crickets chirp? No. I have evidence. That and a strong personal relationship with reality.
gph Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 302

31st January 2011, 09:17 PM	#8
not daSkeptic Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 1,919	Originally Posted by The Greater Fool ... faith is ... assurance about what we do not see. But if one has assurance then faith is unnecessary.
	__________________ Skepticism, good. Organized skepticism, bad. Formerly daSkeptic.

31st January 2011, 09:22 PM	#9
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935	Faith is no longer faith when you have evidence that it is true.
Halfcentaur Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 5,935

31st January 2011, 09:25 PM	#10
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,236	Originally Posted by slingblade Why should I? Such a contrarian thou art!
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

31st January 2011, 09:28 PM	#11
The Greater Fool Critical Thinker Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA, Earth, Sol, Milky Way Posts: 463	Originally Posted by daSkeptic But if one has assurance then faith is unnecessary. One would need faith in whoever is providing the assurance, no? The Bible has wonderfully imprecise language.

31st January 2011, 09:31 PM	#12
temporalillusion Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canada's Texas Posts: 1,163	Define faith.
	__________________ One man's reason that something is not reliable evidence is another man's whine about how others won't buy 3 magic beans with the family cow. - hgc

31st January 2011, 09:34 PM	#13
Skeptic Ginger formerly skeptigirl Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Shifting through paradigms Posts: 40,507	Originally Posted by daSkeptic I have faith in that. Have I ever told you I love your avatar? ..... as long as we're passing the time.
	__________________ (*Tired of continuing to hear the "Democrat Party" repeatedly I've decided to adopt the name, ~~Pubbie Party, Repubs~~ "Republics" and Republic Party in response.)

31st January 2011, 09:36 PM	#14
Lord Emsworth Je ne suis pas une de vos élèves Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Through the Cables and the Underground ... Posts: 2,827	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Who agrees? That statement is vague to the power of four. 1. "faith" -- can mean a lot of things 2. "can be" -- some sort of safety net 3. "science" -- can mean a lot of things 4. "x based" -- another safety net I'll leave it up to you to chose a reply as you see fit: [ ] Yes, I agree. Faith can be science based. [ ] No, I do not agree to the statement "faith can be science based." [ ] Depends. [ ] Not applicable. [ ] Else.

31st January 2011, 09:38 PM	#15
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	Originally Posted by The Norseman Such a contrarian thou art! I am not!
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

31st January 2011, 10:09 PM	#16
Eric D Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 476	Faith is the opposite of science.
Eric D Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 476

31st January 2011, 10:17 PM	#17
AdinDraco Muse Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Brisbane, Australia Posts: 669	Depends entirely on what you meen by 'faith'. This word has a number of uses depending on the speaker and the context. Even if you narrow it down to god belief specifically, then you still need to indicate whether you mean it as "acceptance of/belief in the existance of god" or "belief in the absence of knowledge/evidence" or......basically what temporalillusion said.

31st January 2011, 11:23 PM	#18
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642	My response, in spite of the humor following it, was a serious question: Faith can be science based Who agrees? Why should I agree with that? What reasons are there to agree with it? What premises do you use to back up that statement? How can faith be science-based? What do you mean? What do you mean? I cannot answer "who agrees," until I know what you mean.
slingblade Guest Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 23,642

31st January 2011, 11:30 PM	#19
lionking In the Peanut Gallery Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Melbourne Posts: 29,649	Zeuzzz, it's incredibly bad form to start such a vague thread like this without explaining what you mean. It's nothing but trolling.

31st January 2011, 11:31 PM	#20
fishbob Seasonally Disaffected Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Chilly Undieville Posts: 5,666	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Who agrees? Nobody agrees. Happy? Surprised? R U N N O F T ?
	__________________ When you believe in things you don't understand, then you suffer . . . " - Stevie Wonder "Stupidity - a callow indifference to facts or data" - Stuart Firestein -neuroscientist. I hate bigots.

31st January 2011, 11:48 PM	#21
Andrew Wiggin Master Poster Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: A small planet named for its dirt. You'll find it filed under 'mostly harmless' Posts: 2,914	Faith is the choice to believe something in the absence of evidence, or in the face of conflicting evidence. Science is the choice to believe something only in the presence of evidence. So no.
	__________________ "Everyone takes the limits of his own vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer "New and stirring things are belittled because if they are not belittled, the humiliating question arises, 'Why then are you not taking part in them?' " - H. G. Wells

31st January 2011, 11:58 PM	#22
Rincewind Graduate Poster Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 1,160	Actually, I once knew a lady called Faith - and she worked in a laboratory... Does that count?

1st February 2011, 12:25 AM	#23
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,741	Originally Posted by Zeuzzz Who agrees? If you mean faith as it is defined in a religion like the RCC then I would have to disagree.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

1st February 2011, 01:14 AM	#24
Gawdzilla 121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri. Posts: 13,358	Originally Posted by Rincewind Actually, I once knew a lady called Faith - and she worked in a laboratory... Does that count? But she was fired due to budget cuts which caused her work space in the University's Science Dept. to be retasked. The letter of dismissal stated the obvious: There's no place for Faith in Science.
	__________________ World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Kido Butai did not transmit. 木戸舞台は、無線メッセージを送信しませんでした

1st February 2011, 01:21 AM	#25
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: In a world lit only by fire. Posts: 17,894	Correction: Faith can be science, debased. Dave
	__________________ "We will punish the murderer together. Our punishment will be more generosity, more tolerance and more democracy." - Fabian Stang, Mayor of Oslo SSKCAS, covert member

1st February 2011, 01:22 AM	#26
Squeegee Beckenheim Illuminator Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 4,248	Nah, Faith was more about going on instinct. That's why she killed that bloke, turned evil, shagged Xander, tortured Wesley, then turned herself in to the police, only to end up instrumental in preventing the Apocalypse. Willow was the scientific one. Until she got addicted to magic and turned all evil, the big silly. And don't get me started on what she did at band camp.

1st February 2011, 01:33 AM	#27
Evolved Wookie A rigidly defined area of doubt and uncertainty Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Two feet to the left, in accordance with the theory of indeterminacy Posts: 566	Originally Posted by Sceptic Tank Nah, Faith was more about going on instinct. That's why she killed that bloke, turned evil, shagged Xander, tortured Wesley, then turned herself in to the police, only to end up instrumental in preventing the Apocalypse. Willow was the scientific one. Until she got addicted to magic and turned all evil, the big silly. And don't get me started on what she did at band camp. That ONE time! ONE time! And you just won't let her forget... ETA: Oh yeah...the OP... No. I disagree. Science is the process of making faith irrelevant.
	__________________ W_hat W_ould T_he D_octor D_o? Some creative lies. "No. Liars aren't creative." - Justinian2 Last edited by Evolved Wookie; 1st February 2011 at 01:35 AM. Reason: So as not to be trolling for giggles

1st February 2011, 09:39 AM	#28
Cuddles Decoy Moderator Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: A magical land full of pink fluffy sheeps and bunnies Posts: 16,566	No. Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. Disappears in puff of logic
	__________________ I am not a little teapot.

1st February 2011, 09:48 AM	#29
epix Suspended Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Borgia Apartment, Vatican City Posts: 2,957	Originally Posted by Cuddles No. Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing. Disappears in puff of logic Hard-obtained proofs arrive on a horse named Faith. As if it were not for the famous Fermat Theorem: there was never a proof that the theorem could be proven.

1st February 2011, 11:25 AM	#30
The Norseman I Void Warranties Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: The Treasure Valley Posts: 3,236	Originally Posted by Cuddles Disappears in puff of logic Crap. Looks like we need a new moderator.
	__________________ "I have always thought that a wild animal never looks so well as when some obstacle of pronounced durability is between us." "Sticking the flounce is the hardest move in forum gymnastics." -tsig

1st February 2011, 12:10 PM	#31
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570	Originally Posted by Sledge Faith in what? typical crap, even science has a dogma, and then is forced to revise the dogma when its current form fails.
mikeyx Banned Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 3,570

1st February 2011, 12:14 PM	#33
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646	Originally Posted by The Norseman Crap. Looks like we need a new moderator. Nah, if what I hear is true, his disembodied consciousness should be able to handle things psychically. Spooky action at a distance, anyone?
dlorde Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 4,646

1st February 2011, 12:23 PM	#34
George152 Master Poster Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Hamilton New Zealand Posts: 2,041	In whos world ?
	__________________ Unemployment isn't working

1st February 2011, 12:23 PM	#36
Aepervius Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Bierland. I mean , germany. Posts: 7,735	Science is evidence based (well should be). Faith is belief in absence of evidence. Now *YOU* tell us how something by definition without evidence and something based on evidence can be based on each other.
	__________________ Omnes Blessant Ultima necat "I want, and this is my last and most dear wish, I want that the last of the king be strangled with the guts of the last priest" (Jean Meslier / 1664-1729 / Testament) A very early french atheist, a catholic priest in life.

1st February 2011, 12:28 PM	#37
BTMO Overlord of the Underthings Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Wellington, New Zealand. Posts: 2,343	No, because science and faith (assuming I understand what you mean by faith) are at opposite ends of a spectrum of how we understand the world. In a faith based world view, you take someone's word for how the world works, how it was formed and what rules apply. You don't test these things. You don't challenge them critically - you just accept them. In science, you test and challenge everything, starting with your preconceptions. If it isn't demonstratable, repeatable and explicable, it isn't science. It is imagination.
	__________________ Insert pithy saying here