Science and Faith

[requiett]

Furthermore, look at all the time and money thrown at pushing creationism and its variants into public schools. All of that could also be put to more socially or economically productive purposes.

May I ask what socially and ecomically viable purposes NASA and Hadron colliders serve?

Science is economically viable. Quite a bit of pure research eventually has applications. Just because you cannot immediately see them does not render them impossible or non-existent.

Besides, someone (a lot of someones, really) gets paid to build that stuff.

I'm aware these all have future applications. I know science is to thank for introducing many day-to-day life-saving conveniences and products. I'm not going to argue strongly in favor of either side of this issue. What you fail to realize though is that faith (belief without proof) also has useful applications in peoples' lives, and that's what irks me.

I will note that medical sciences make heavy use of the placebo effect. Also, many astronomical scientists have faith in life other than our own in the universe, though there is no evidence to support it.

I see no reason why people should abandon either system: science or faith. They both clearly serve us well.

I find it ironic that you have so much faith in science so as to try to discredit all traditional belief. The nice thing about faith is that it can continue to operate when all else has failed. I wonder... where will you turn when everyone and everything has failed you?

[Otohiko]

What is so good about traditional belief, other than that it's been long enough to be socially accepted as status quo?

[requiett]

What is so good about traditional belief, other than that it's been long enough to be socially accepted as status quo?

Are we arguing in extremes here?

[Kalium]

I will note that medical sciences make heavy use of the placebo effect. Also, many astronomical scientists have faith in life other than our own in the universe, though there is no evidence to support it.

The placebo effect is science, and a much-studied psychosomatic phenomenon. It works regardless of who or what the person has faith in, suggesting that the faith itself is also a placebo of sorts.

Astronomers wishing to believe in extraterrestrial intelligences are also smart enough to know that their belief is no kind of evidence, and that it is in fact quite dangerous.

I see no reason why people should abandon either system: science or faith. They both clearly serve us well.

Wrong again. One has served us well. The other has blinded mankind for centuries and continues to do so today.

I find it ironic that you have so much faith in science so as to try to discredit all traditional belief. The nice thing about faith is that it can continue to operate when all else has failed. I wonder... where will you turn when everyone and everything has failed you?

To reality. Where else should I turn, Tavion?

[Otohiko]

From a discussion on a totally different forum, a month ago, I give you...

Well you've lost the argument at the point where you failed to state which precise God's existence you want us to disprove, or rather which God's absence you want us to prove. You have no reference for us. You also haven't managed to say anything substantial in regard as to why the burden of proof should be with the unmarked (absence) rather than marked (presence) position.

Meanwhile, since you're asking us to prove the absence of a God to whom we can't possibly have a reference, you're essentially asking us to disprove the existence of a concept without reference. In other words you're asking us to disprove nothing. We can't disprove nothing. Nothing is nothing.

You've essentially asked us to divide 0 by something here and come up with an answer of 1. We can't divide a 0 by anything. Give us a number to divide, and then we can start dividing it.

For me there is no arguement. God exists. You have not proven that he does not.
God is beyond your mathematics. Your attempt to place Him within your human understanding is how He wants you to find His grace.
AND
Seems to me the only thing(s) proven is that atheism is a religion on this board (my original post was moved to a discussion about religion). Secondly, that there is a prejudice against those who believe in God on this board. Its OK to question those who believe in the existance of God but not to question those who deny God's existance.

Honestly, I'm willing to come out and say that a traditional perception of God is
1) degrading to God (lowering himself to doing the dirty laundry of wayward primates - and that's besides being clinically insane);
2) shamelessly egocentric (raising the place of humanity and one's own individual status as an 'immortal soul' in the grand scale of things without cause);
3) an insult to what one might call a 'divine' harmony of logic and structure that is precisely WHERE God most obviously is (in my view) - you're rejecting universal reason in favour of a concept you've no proof for. I think it's in the rejection of God's reason (in the sense of logic, harmony and structure) where you most directly and unwittingly disproved his existence in the form that you perceive.

My relationship with God is not up for your debate. How dare you question how I speak to God?

Let me see if I can explain. Firstly, my relationship with God is sacrocant as far as I'm concerned and I will not allow anyone to to bring that relationship or how I speak with Him up for debate. If you plan to question my relationship with my Lord I urge you not to. That being said I will give you some insight as to how I found God.

[story]

Thanks, but that doesn´t answer any of my questions.

[Flint the Dwarf]

Belief is as beneficial as pride. And, ultimately, just as egocentric.

[Shazzy]

Personally, I think it takes alot more faith to think that a well-organized existence sprang out of chaos and nothingness than to say there is some intelligent design involved.

That's nice, but faith is not evidence. Occam's razor is a useful logical tool, though, and it dictates that the larger the unknown, the less probable it is. An omnipotent and omniscient is pretty much the largest unknown possible.

Also, implying that I'm nuts or similar for having strong views will get you nowhere.

Quantum multiverses are easily more "unknown" than God. If we're going by Occam's razor, an intelligent creator is much simpler than every microevent having its own state-differentiated universe in an already infinite set of observable universes.

[Kalium]

Quantum multiverses are easily more "unknown" than God. If we're going by Occam's razor, an intelligent creator is much simpler than every microevent having its own state-differentiated universe in an already infinite set of observable universes.

Well, not with the general God definition that allows for a being that transcends all possible universes.

Regardless, the multiple-universe interpretation is messy at best. I don't make a habit of study QM, so I'd rather not go there.

[Otohiko]

I don't agree with that also. Scale-wise perhaps, but it doesn't strike me that an intelligent creator is to any degree more elegant systematically than even the messy QM...

[requiett]

The point I'm trying to make here is that science should help us define the universe. Faith should help us define ourselves.