Faith and how it relates to religion and science

[RL...]

I was thinking the other day at work, because I don't do shit and came upon a conclusion., and let me start off by saying that I am not taking any sides here, nor trying to prove or disprove religion as that is pointless.

I think most of us are under the assumption that religious peoples have faith in their beliefs, whether they believe in christianity, judiasm, islam, etc..and the notion that people who do not believe in God or religion or both do so because of a Lack of faith.

I disagree, I think that whether you're religious or not, both idealogies require great leaps of faith.

It is fact that religious peoples take leaps of faith in their religion to come to the conclusions they do. But people who do not believe also take leaps of faith in what they "do not" believe. As of now scientists have no 100% accurate explanation of how the universe started except for variations of the big bang theory. I do not know about you guys, but believing a story that the universe all started in a densely concentrated object of matter and exploded sounds just as unbelievable about a god creating the earth in 10 days.

Basically what it comes down to is, what we "know" and what we do not know. We know that we are here and we exist, but we still have not found out exactly how, why and when this happened. As such, it takes a leap of faith to believe that everything can be proven by science, or happened the way certain scientists have claimed.

It's like global warming...there is just as much evidence to support it as there is against it. Whether you believe it to be true or false takes a leap of faith in that belief.

[5speed]

You hit it the nail right on the head with that one! Reps

[Kevykev]

I Completely understand the perspective here, it's accurate.

[AirMax95]

I can appreciate this post. Good job.

[geoff]

very accurate my friend, EXCEPT God created the earth in 6 days not 10( just had to fix that lol). but it all does come down to faith. both sides of the spectrum provide what they term as evidence or proof, it is then up the the individual to search, study, and then decide based on their own convictions what is their belief.

[Kevykev]

very accurate my friend, EXCEPT God created the earth in 6 days not 10( just had to fix that lol). .

I'm guilty of completely not even seeing that sentence. :D

[RL...]

lol I knew that I have no idea why I typed 10 ROFL.

[geoff]

hey we all make mistakes lol. its all good

[Starrfire]

"Faith", so many have died over that word.

[geoff]

yes they have. to some faith is that much to them. i can proclaim that i would be willing to die for my faith in Jesus.

[StreetHazard]

yes they have. to some faith is that much to them. i can proclaim that i would be willing to die for my faith in Jesus.

you obviously are not alone....or kill others for your "faith"

[geoff]

i would never kill for my faith because it goes against my faith. vengence is not mine but the Lords.

[StreetHazard]

i would never kill for my faith because it goes against my faith. vengence is not mine but the Lords.

*runs, hides....continues to praise devil for safety reasons* :devil:

[bu villain]

I would strongly disagree. Science is the opposite of faith (although not mutually exclusive). Faith is belief in the absence of evidence whereas science absolutely requires evidence.

Do you think using a cell phone or a computer is a matter of faith?

I agree that complex and abstract ideas such as the big bang seem like leaps of faith because most people don't understand cosmic radiation, red shift, or other evidence behind the idea. To most people it "just sounds crazy" but it was an idea that is based on the same fundamental principles that led to your cell phone, computer, or any other invention of science.

[geoff]

you make a partial point, some things in science are factual and have evidence and are not faith based. but it takes a leap of faith to accept the theories, i think thats what he was trying to say

[RL...]

I would strongly disagree. Science is the opposite of faith (although not mutually exclusive). Faith is belief in the absence of evidence whereas science absolutely requires evidence.

Do you think using a cell phone or a computer is a matter of faith?

I agree that complex and abstract ideas such as the big bang seem like leaps of faith because most people don't understand cosmic radiation, red shift, or other evidence behind the idea. To most people it "just sounds crazy" but it was an idea that is based on the same fundamental principles that led to your cell phone, computer, or any other invention of science.

1) Cell phones and computer are proven, tangible objects that we can ALL prove to be real. So the existence of such does not require faith.

2) There are only a handful of scientists in this world that are smart enough to really grasp the complex theories and ideas of higher physics/mathematics/chemistry/biology,quantom theory/etc... so do not act like you are a genius on the subject. You know just about as much as the average person.

3) The fundamental concepts of the big bang theory is not what led to the cell phone being invented.

4) If the big bang theory was 100% true, and could be proven then all religion would automatically be proven false. And although I never watch the news, I am going to assume this phenomenon has not happened yet.

5) There is as much evidence to support the big bang as there is against it so yes, the decision to believe the big bang theory over a religious faith still takes a faith. It is a conscience decision, and since you do not kow everything about physics/particles/chemistry then you are taking "their" word for it! And that, is fact.

[geoff]

ima go ahead and call 5speed in here. drop your bomb bro. its time

[RL...]

ima go ahead and call 5speed in here. drop your bomb bro. its time

he was post #2 in this thread

[geoff]

dont worry he has more info to share

[5speed]

ima go ahead and call 5speed in here. drop your bomb bro. its time
Now I am here


he was post #2 in this thread
Yes, indeed

Now most would agree that Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of all time, correct? You know the guy responsible for the development of theory of relativity, photoelectric effect and Brownian motion, and the reason we have an atom bomb.

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

and my personal favorite

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."


See even this genius had Faith. This is not an argument to make you believe but to show faith in both science and God.

[RL...]

Now I am here


Yes, indeed

Now most would agree that Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of all time, correct? You know the guy responsible for the development of theory of relativity, photoelectric effect and Brownian motion, and the reason we have an atom bomb.

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

and my personal favorite

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."


See even this genius had Faith. This is not an argument to make you believe but to show faith in both science and God.

sounds like he agrees with me

[geoff]

amen to that brother. so for those who argue that God and logic can not coexist or that to have faith in a God that we can not really provide tangible proof of, what say you to the fact that one of the greatest minds in modern time and modern science that gave this world so much knowledge, himself had faith in this same Christian God? apparently he must of been dimwitted and a foolish unlearned man too right?

[5speed]

He wasn't that great in other academics besides math and science but was well spoken so is obviously not an idiot. But I see people might try to use that as a way to argue against it.

[geoff]

it doesnt matter if he wasnt great in every area. the fact is that he left the world with something significant and intellectual.

[StreetHazard]

Speaking of scientific and intellectual, I am actually reading this thread while taking the stinkiest shit I have had in awhile, it smells like a dead sqirrel or something feirce! and it made my butt hurt a little, like prison sex with an Asian dude.

[5speed]

Thanks for sharing lol

[RL...]

Speaking of scientific and intellectual, I am actually reading this thread while taking the stinkiest shit I have had in awhile, it smells like a dead sqirrel or something feirce! and it made my butt hurt a little, like prison sex with an Asian dude.

pics or its a lie

[ahabion]

I was thinking the other day at work, because I don't do shit and came upon a conclusion., and let me start off by saying that I am not taking any sides here, nor trying to prove or disprove religion as that is pointless.

I think most of us are under the assumption that religious peoples have faith in their beliefs, whether they believe in christianity, judiasm, islam, etc..and the notion that people who do not believe in God or religion or both do so because of a Lack of faith.

I disagree, I think that whether you're religious or not, both idealogies require great leaps of faith.

It is fact that religious peoples take leaps of faith in their religion to come to the conclusions they do. But people who do not believe also take leaps of faith in what they "do not" believe. As of now scientists have no 100% accurate explanation of how the universe started except for variations of the big bang theory. I do not know about you guys, but believing a story that the universe all started in a densely concentrated object of matter and exploded sounds just as unbelievable about a god creating the earth in 10 days.

Basically what it comes down to is, what we "know" and what we do not know. We know that we are here and we exist, but we still have not found out exactly how, why and when this happened. As such, it takes a leap of faith to believe that everything can be proven by science, or happened the way certain scientists have claimed.

It's like global warming...there is just as much evidence to support it as there is against it. Whether you believe it to be true or false takes a leap of faith in that belief.

Hope I'm not rubbing off on you... :goodjob:

[ahabion]

I would strongly disagree. Science is the opposite of faith (although not mutually exclusive). Faith is belief in the absence of evidence whereas science absolutely requires evidence.

Do you think using a cell phone or a computer is a matter of faith?

I agree that complex and abstract ideas such as the big bang seem like leaps of faith because most people don't understand cosmic radiation, red shift, or other evidence behind the idea. To most people it "just sounds crazy" but it was an idea that is based on the same fundamental principles that led to your cell phone, computer, or any other invention of science.

It takes faith to believe that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotes millions of years ago.

Science is not the dismissal of faith. Science is our grasp of knowledge to the world around us. Don't confuse the two because science requires a certain level of faith and faith requires a certain amount of science.

[bu villain]

1) Cell phones and computer are proven, tangible objects that we can ALL prove to be real. So the existence of such does not require faith.


Agreed but you must also agree they are the results of science and hence the scientific method. See Item 3 for more.


2) There are only a handful of scientists in this world that are smart enough to really grasp the complex theories and ideas of higher physics/mathematics/chemistry/biology,quantom theory/etc... so do not act like you are a genius on the subject. You know just about as much as the average person.

I'm not sure what I said to make you think I was claiming to be a genius on any subject. I guess I should avoid even mentioning scientific principles or maybe just disagreeing with you. Either way, you are attacking me, not my reasoning with this one.


3) The fundamental concepts of the big bang theory is not what led to the cell phone being invented.

Agreed but the scientific method led to both. The method used to reach the big bang theory is what makes it less of a leap of faith than religion. The fact that many experiments have been done which could disprove it and yet don't are what makes it more legitimate.


4) If the big bang theory was 100% true, and could be proven then all religion would automatically be proven false. And although I never watch the news, I am going to assume this phenomenon has not happened yet.

I hate to be a stickler for semantics but it is important in this case. Science never proves anything to be true, it can only proves things false. Also if the big bang theory was "true" that doesn't negate religion unless you are taking certain creation doctrines literally. Most people don't take the bible or other holy books literally, they take them allegorically.


5) There is as much evidence to support the big bang as there is against it so yes, the decision to believe the big bang theory over a religious faith still takes a faith. It is a conscience decision, and since you do not kow everything about physics/particles/chemistry then you are taking "their" word for it! And that, is fact.

If there is even one piece of evidence that disproves the big bang then it will no longer be accepted at all, that's how science works. You are right that there is a certain amount faith in believing science you don't understand, but if you do understand it then it takes very little faith at all. Certainly you put faith in your doctor when he tells you that you need an injection. You have faith in him and the science he studied but would you really put that faith on the same level as religious faith?

[bu villain]

It takes faith to believe that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotes millions of years ago.

Science is not the dismissal of faith. Science is our grasp of knowledge to the world around us. Don't confuse the two because science requires a certain level of faith and faith requires a certain amount of science.

A crude list of faith that is required in science:
All effects have a cause
Things exist and can be measured consistantly
...

This argument is becoming rediculous because absolutely every belief requires some amount of faith. Believing you are looking at a computer screen right now requires faith. You have faith that you are not hallucinating. If you think a theory based on what we can see, touch, measure, etc requires the same amount of faith as a belief in something that can not be seen, touched, or measured then I don't think there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise.

[RL...]

A crude list of faith that is required in science:
All effects have a cause
Things exist and can be measured consistantly
...

This argument is becoming rediculous because absolutely every belief requires some amount of faith. Believing you are looking at a computer screen right now requires faith. You have faith that you are not hallucinating. If you think a theory based on what we can see, touch, measure, etc requires the same amount of faith as a belief in something that can not be seen, touched, or measured then I don't think there is anything I can say to convince you otherwise.


1) that list sucks, and I am not going to explain why

2) The fact that I am looking at a computer monitor as I type this is not only happening I can proce this to be happening. This is reality. And the reason why this does not require faith, is because if I asked anyone is the world what I am doing right now, they would say the same thing. They would say I am sitting at a desktop looking at a computer screen. As such, since everyone would be able to come to this conclusion, it can be deemed reality. Reality means "the state of things as they actually exist" and if something actually exists and can be proven than I do not see how that requires belief or faith. It is simply, fact.

Basically, you're telling me that if I were to hit you in the face with a baseball bat, it requires faith to believe that you're feeling pain? I think it would be pretty damn obvious.

[5speed]

1) that list sucks, and I am not going to explain why

2) The fact that I am looking at a computer monitor as I type this is not only happening I can proce this to be happening. This is reality. And the reason why this does not require faith, is because if I asked anyone is the world what I am doing right now, they would say the same thing. They would say I am sitting at a desktop looking at a computer screen. As such, since everyone would be able to come to this conclusion, it can be deemed reality. Reality means "the state of things as they actually exist" and if something actually exists and can be proven than I do not see how that requires belief or faith. It is simply, fact.

Basically, you're telling me that if I were to hit you in the face with a baseball bat, it requires faith to believe that you're feeling pain? I think it would be pretty damn obvious.
:lmfao::lmfao::lmfao::cheers::lmfao::lmfao::lmfao:

[geoff]

ima take your quote and take it one step further, aparentley the non believers on this site dont believe in any faith either. they only believe in the tangible evidence. so with that said, i guess you could tell some of these people that if you hit them in the face with a bat it would hurt, they wouldnt believe it until it actually happened. :)

[Starrfire]

ima take your quote and take it one step further, aparentley the non believers on this site dont believe in any faith either. they only believe in the tangible evidence. so with that said, i guess you could tell some of these people that if you hit them in the face with a bat it would hurt, they wouldnt believe it until it actually happened. :)


Why do you think only religious people are the only ones who can use the word "faith"? I have faith that you are wrong, and lots of it. "Faith" is not only used in religious terms. I use it as hope/trust. I wouldn't go through life hoping I was right with no proof. But you have hope that you are right. So be it

But I don't go through life bullshitting to other people telling them my business and how they are wrong. No wonder Christians are always persecuted and killed, and prophicied to be killed. They get into peoples business all the time, and are an easy scape goat.

Its like in Clerks when the guy starts talking about "Porch monkeys". We're taking it back.

[bu villain]

1) that list sucks, and I am not going to explain why

Ok, simple enough.


2) The fact that I am looking at a computer monitor as I type this is not only happening I can proce this to be happening. This is reality. And the reason why this does not require faith, is because if I asked anyone is the world what I am doing right now, they would say the same thing. They would say I am sitting at a desktop looking at a computer screen. As such, since everyone would be able to come to this conclusion, it can be deemed reality. Reality means "the state of things as they actually exist" and if something actually exists and can be proven than I do not see how that requires belief or faith. It is simply, fact.

I guess you've never heard of ontology. With science, everyone should be able to come to the same conclusion. Just because most people aren't willing to take the time to learn about a theory and the reasons for it doesn't make it a bad theory.


Basically, you're telling me that if I were to hit you in the face with a baseball bat, it requires faith to believe that you're feeling pain? I think it would be pretty damn obvious.

Actually I would argue the opposite. I just thought using your interpretation of "faith" would lead to thinking that believing anything requires faith. I guess I don't understand where you draw the line for what's faith and what's not. We can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell radio waves. Are you saying that our faith in radio waves is the same as faith in religion? If not, was it the same until someone actually built a radio?

[ahabion]

Ok, simple enough.



I guess you've never heard of ontology. With science, everyone should be able to come to the same conclusion. Just because most people aren't willing to take the time to learn about a theory and the reasons for it doesn't make it a bad theory.



Actually I would argue the opposite. I just thought using your interpretation of "faith" would lead to thinking that believing anything requires faith. I guess I don't understand where you draw the line for what's faith and what's not. We can't see, touch, taste, hear, or smell radio waves. Are you saying that our faith in radio waves is the same as faith in religion? If not, was it the same until someone actually built a radio?

What you're talking about are everyday occurrences which are obvious. *love the baseball bat analogy*

Science requires a certain amount of faith, such as coming to conclusions that one cell evolved into another or that bacteria where the first living organisms billions of years ago. I guess it makes sense... but it still requires faith to believe in the evidence as a whole. Biologist say that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells which evolved into living beings such as us today based on the evidence. That to me, takes a huge leap of faith imo.

[StreetHazard]

Why this holy apparition of the virgin Mary is not officially acknowledged by Vatican is beyond me. It even looks more convincing than some of the apparitions they do consider "legitimate".

[Starrfire]

^^^LOLZ, It is a holy relic.

[bu villain]

What you're talking about are everyday occurrences which are obvious. *love the baseball bat analogy*

Science requires a certain amount of faith, such as coming to conclusions that one cell evolved into another or that bacteria where the first living organisms billions of years ago. I guess it makes sense... but it still requires faith to believe in the evidence as a whole. Biologist say that prokaryotic cells evolved into eukaryotic cells which evolved into living beings such as us today based on the evidence. That to me, takes a huge leap of faith imo.

So it sounds like to you, faith is believing in anything that isn't common sense or immediately obvious? Is that a fair discription of your feelings?

I think one important discrepencies that was left out of the original post is that science never proves anything 100% so for any given idea there is a different amount of confidence we have in that theory. The theory of gravity for example would have a higher confidence than the big bang theory but less than the theory that nothing can exceed the speed of light. I simply disagree that the amount of faith in believing these theories is anywhere near that of religion.

[bu villain]

Now I am here


Yes, indeed

Now most would agree that Albert Einstein was one of the greatest scientists of all time, correct? You know the guy responsible for the development of theory of relativity, photoelectric effect and Brownian motion, and the reason we have an atom bomb.

"I, at any rate, am convinced that He (God) does not throw dice."

"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

"Nature shows us only the tail of the lion. But I do not doubt that the lion belongs to it even though he cannot at once reveal himself because of his enormous size."

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

and my personal favorite

"Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions."


See even this genius had Faith. This is not an argument to make you believe but to show faith in both science and God.

But to give the whole picture, he also said:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

So his idea of God is quite different from any modern mainstram religions' God and I don't see how you reach a conclusion that science = faith. Maybe I misunderstood your conclusion though because I agree that religious faith and science can coexist.

[5speed]

But to give the whole picture, he also said:

It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere, “Religion and Science”, New York Times Magazine, 9 November 1930

So his idea of God is quite different from any modern mainstram religions' God and I don't see how you reach a conclusion that science = faith. Maybe I misunderstood your conclusion though because I agree that religious faith and science can coexist.

Good quote. I didnt say that he was of a certain religion nor do I know what it is. He simply states that he believes in a God. Taking God seriously is another story. He also believes in science. He didnt know for sure that splitting an atom would make a reaction as it does, but he had faith in his theory. I was just showing that they can coexist. The debate over whether God is real or not is a different topic and up to oneself.

[bu villain]

sounds like we are in agreement then as long as you are defining "faith in his theory" to mean, feels confident about the outcome of an event based on years of studying measurable and reproducable events that gave him insight into how atoms and energy work.