Faith and how it relates to religion and science

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.