Science and Faith

[CHAMELEON_D_H]

The only way to take the Bible literally is if you could read Hebrew and Greek.

I can. Still doesn't make sense.

[Fall_Child42]

First of all, let me say THANK YOU. This is what I like to see and read.

Second, I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply as i have only just found out and read this.

Third, If we are talking about Science V. Faith here I'm going to throw in my two cents, and possibly flip a switch and send the topic into a slightly new direction. The majority of opinions so far seem to say Religion, Faith, and Science are mutually exclusive. If one were to look at the root word of Religion "relegate" many things we accept as scientific fact, and process fall into the faith and religion category. For example, have a look at math. Math is based on series of axioms that have no particular way of proving that they exist.

Modern Economics, however, is the best possible example of faith science and religion mashed into one. Economics, considered a science in a general scholarly fields, is STILL based on John Smith's "invisible hand of the marketplace". (however I'm sure if Smith were to have a look at modern economics he would find many of the same problems he was complaining about in the first place) and Economists, seem to have put SO much faith in human inginuity that they firmly believe we can have a system of infinite consumption and constant growth.

I have, felt for quite a while now capitalism is the most pervasive religion of the modern age, because wether you believe in God or Jesus or Bhudda, etc. or Nothing at all, People from all over are bound by the faith in the all mighty marketplace.

[Otohiko]

I have, felt for quite a while now capitalism is the most pervasive religion of the modern age, because wether you believe in God or Jesus or Bhudda, etc. or Nothing at all, People from all over are bound by the faith in the all mighty marketplace.

I'm not

/socialist (seriously)

[Fall_Child42]

I have, felt for quite a while now capitalism is the most pervasive religion of the modern age, because wether you believe in God or Jesus or Bhudda, etc. or Nothing at all, People from all over are bound by the faith in the all mighty marketplace.

I'm not

/socialist (seriously)

We need more people like you in our army You are hired.

[Arigatomina]

The majority of opinions so far seem to say Religion, Faith, and Science are mutually exclusive.

I think science should be kept separate from religion. Faith should go with any subject you actually believe to be real or true. I tend to call any faith that relies entirely on appologetics a religion. They pick a belief and then accept only things that support that belief. Science does this in it's early stages, but that hypothesis is subject to change if facts are found to disprove it. A religion simply disregards any facts that don't support the the original belief, putting it beyond debate and into the realm of "blind faith".

You can fly a religious man into space and show him that there is no ocean in the sky above our planet like the one described in literalist creationism. But he can dismiss that by saying the ocean is invisible, or only visible to believers of the literal interpretation of Genesis. Thus ends any attempt to argue, prove, or dissuade.

Science relies on faith, too. I believe my computer exists because I have faith that the things anyone in the world can see with their own eyes and touch are real things that actually exist and will continue to exist no matter what a religion might say to the contrary. I have faith in the existence of physical fossils that can be seen just by walking into the right museum, and I'll continue to have absolute faith no matter how many creationists deny the existence of those fossils - because I can see them with my own eyes and so can anyone else who cares to look. If someone were to prove that the fossil record was fabricated (like they originally claimed dinosaur fossils were hoaxes because dinosaurs weren't mentioned in the bible), I'll maintain my disbelief until the hoax is proven to me. Then I'll modify the "facts as I know them" and continue having faith in science.

It all boils down to proof. Theories rely on proof and if a hypothesis is disproven, it adjusts to fit the new facts as we know them. Religion doesn't adjust, it just branches out so everyone can believe whatever they want to believe and accept only the facts supporting that belief.

/economics

Just a quick comment on that. I see economics as cause and effect. Patterns visible to the casual observer. To me, it's no different from making a Naruto vid and predicting that some people will like it and some people will hate it. Depending on all the factors surrounding the video, you can narrow the prediction down until you're almost certain to know exactly what will happen before it happens. Economics are just as predictable. Both rely on the assumption that people don't make radical changes often, so the past patterns will continue to hold true. I don't think of that as having anything to do with religion. Faith, definitely, but not "blind faith". Those who have blind faith in "constant growth" are just bad historians who forget that the market has dropped and under the right circumstances it will drop again. I'd like to think the good economists know better.

[godix]

Forgive me for coming to the party late but let me jump in on the dead topic.

You guys are treating science and religion like they're two separate things and they really aren't. Both are born of mans desire to understand how the universe works and they often deal with the same questions. The big bang vs creationism are the same thing, an attempt to answer 'why are we here'. Philosophy, religion, and social sciences are all concerned with 'how should we act'. Older religions are full of explanations for thunder, the sun/moon/stars, fire, and other physical aspects of our world which science has since explained (mostly).

Both require a large degree of faith. In religion this is obvious but everyone forgets that science requires it as well. No one has ever seen a single cell creature turn into a human, we have to take the theory of evolution on faith. Now that faith is grounded in some facts we can observe but it is, in the end, still faith. Similarly no one saw the big bang, we take the small bits of the universe we can see and put together a theory but unless someone can honestly say 'I was there, I saw it' it's still faith in the end. Hell, take a look at our current pet scientific theories. String theory is the buzzword of the moment but have you ever sat down and looked at the facts behind it? There are none. It's all based on an abstract mathematical computation and as any honest mathematician will tell you, abstract math doesn't always equal reality. Keep in mind that math says you can't multiple any number by itself and get a negative number but for those times the real world does it you can use imaginary numbers and just pretend it isn't a huge flaw in mapping math to reality. Most people take this faith a step further, many don't believe evolution because they know the facts and the theory. They believe evolution because at some point a guy in a white coat told them it's true. The majority of people can't tell you how the eye developed over time, how the theories has changed since Darwin, or even what facts support evolution. How exactly is believing a scientific theory because a white coat told you it's true different than believing in a god because the guy in a funny hat told you it's true? And let us not forget the ultimate act of faith, the one so fundamental to our ideas that we rarely question it. The belief that the universe is rational, can be explained, and in fact even exists at all is the first act of faith anyone must take to believe in religion or science.

Both change over time. With science this is the well known scientific theory in action but religion isn't static either. The brand of christianity practiced today is only vaguely like the christianity Peter preached. Hell, just the fact there are so many different sects of christianity shows change over time. Anyone who knows religion knows about Martin Luther pounding 95 Theses on a church door. Was that any less a shock or change in the religion that Galileo announcing 'it still moves'? Humanity used to believe that lightning and thunder were caused by the gods. Not an indirect 'well god caused it to happen' either, but rather a direct 'Thunder is the sound of our gods hammer hitting something'. Few seriously believe gods are a direct cause of natural phenomenon like that anymore. Was that change in their view of the world any less dramatic than the change in how gravity works that Einstein caused? Religion and science both evolve over time, the only difference is there's set rules for how it's supposed to happen in science while it just occurs in religion.

Both are used by people to justify how to live their lives. Someone mentioned economics before and that is a very good example. Long before us there were people describing capitalism/communism/socialism/etc as a religion. Another examples are stem cells, abortion, and other matters involving the time between conception and birth. Some use scientific explanations to mark a point where it transforms from 'clump of worthless cells' to 'human life'. Others use religion to answer the same issue. Both are taking their beliefs into an area that it really wasn't meant to go. Anyone remember Terry Schiavo (if you don't I'm sure minion will post an edited picture of her shortly)? That was a clear case of science and religion being used to justify our morality. These issues, along with several others, all are related to the question of 'So what is a human anyway?' With neuroscience, AI research, and philosophy science is trying to define what makes us what we are while religions have long ago answered this question.

So long story short, in your belief of science don't disregard religion. It comes from the exact same motivations, tries to answer the same questions, and to a large degree uses similar methods. Hell, in some cases it provides a more satisfying and believable answer as well. I do know that for all our study of how the brain works and all our social sciences that science still hasn't found an answer to what makes us human that is better than "there is a fundamental but intangible element to people, we call it the soul." Although personally I prefer answering the 'what is a human' question with 'whatever asked that question'.

Final quote I couldn't resist tossing in:
"LET ME PUT FORWARD ANOTHER SUGGESTION: THAT YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A LUCKY SPECIES OF APE THAT IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE COMPLEXITIES OF CREATION VIA A LANGUAGE THAT EVOLVED IN ORDER TO TELL ONE ANOTHER WHERE THE RIPE FRUIT WAS?"
- Terry Pratchett

[Minion]

IDGAF how we came to exist.
we exist, and that all i need to know. the idea of a god is far fetched, to me.

[Orwell]

I have, felt for quite a while now capitalism is the most pervasive religion of the modern age, because wether you believe in God or Jesus or Bhudda, etc. or Nothing at all, People from all over are bound by the faith in the all mighty marketplace.

When do you define the modern age? The all mighty marketplace has ruled for millennia. Sure, in some cultures, especially the older ones where subsistence farming was the main practice of survival, it's hand wasn't as strong, but there was still trade in the community. You might have some small communal systems, but your still exchanging the products of your labor for theirs. Maybe I'm replacing trade for marketplace however, and by marketplace you mean the NYSE or something of the like.


Also, concerning my personal opinion on religion, I can't accept there being a god. I'll accept a 'spirituality', but a crazy person in the sky? Lulz. This illustrates my point better than I could.

[Fall_Child42]

When do you define the modern age? The all mighty marketplace has ruled for millennia. Sure, in some cultures, especially the older ones where subsistence farming was the main practice of survival, it's hand wasn't as strong, but there was still trade in the community. You might have some small communal systems, but your still exchanging the products of your labor for theirs. Maybe I'm replacing trade for marketplace however, and by marketplace you mean the NYSE or something of the like

I guess i mean, the historical modern age 16th century on, after feudalism and Surfdom.

Though this brings up a completely different situation as I have heard a very persuasive argument that with the advent of NAFTA and the WTO we are in a new state of feudalism (especially as defined by Marx) and when we buy stuff from GE, WalMart, Sony, etc we are their surfs.

[Kalium]

Unfortunately, godix, they are two distinct things. One works from actual evidence. The other works from declaring something written a longass time ago holy, and then treating that as 'evidence'.

The difference is as remarkable as a flat earth versus a round one.