Faith in Science
How strong is your foundation?

Some scientists tends to be as arrogant as some religious leaders all claiming a monopoly on knowledge. Wisdom is in knowing that our knowledge base is in constant state of flux whether that knowledge is science or philosophy, it changes as we discover new things and explore new ideas. The only thing that has ever been consistent in my soon to be 50 years of life is my faith in Christ.

Many of you will not give any credence to my faith but instead place all of your faith in science as being an end all of wisdom and knowledge. What is claimed to be evidence in a laboratory is often refuted by the next team of scientists to enter the lab. A new piece of scientific evidence often has the effect of destroying the lifetime accomplishments of its past masters. Much of what is discovered in science never even makes it out of the laboratory because it’s either financially devastating to the sponsors of the researchers or is far too dangerous to be common knowledge.

Many of you call Christianity blind faith yet I have a certain amount of blind faith toward science also, on the grounds that they may find cures for illnesses and extend a pain free life for the injured and elderly. But it is faith just the same. Because if I were to concentrate on the negatives, goof ups and flaws of science I just might lose any hope I had left in the scientific community. Check out the following link for a few examples.

What scientists used to believe? LINK

Without getting into the tired old debate of science vs. religion I would like to know where each of you places the majority of your faith: examples money, self, friends, science, God, religion, family or your own intellect.

What is the meaning of faith to you? And do you divide it up among several things.

All the Best
Irish

In God I trust, now and forever.

Faith to me is believing that man in not alone in the universe, that there is an afterlife, and that a million years from now we will still be learning, and that God loves and will love us through it all.

When it comes to finding the most probable cause for a given phenomena, I place all my faith in scientific methodology.

Edit: And no, I cannot agree with most of what you said about science.

Sometime within the last hundred years science has become a religion unto itself. I say this because many of the experiments that are offered as proof by scientist are not within the capability, means or intellectual grasp of the majority of the population. Yet the followers of science blindly follow their leaders. And hope that these men and women truly are earnest in their research and not just in it for the money.
Sounds very similar to the way the Catholic Church approached the knowledge they had acquired over the centuries. By keeping bible reading in Latin only the elite knew what the heck was really going on and us common folk had to rely on the priests to explain it to us. For they believed we are not capable or possess the means nor intellectual grasp of the elite priest/scientist.

All the Best
Irish

But then that would not be science becoming a religion unto itself; that would be people choosing to follow science as a religion, rather than taking the time and effort to understand it.

If you go and fix a person's computer, and they form a cult around your abilities, despite your attempts to explain how you did it and how they can learn to do it themselves, are you the one to blame for this new religion?

I like this quote. And this is definitely true of other people. They should take that into consideration imo.

Very true aquatus1 same kind of thing happened with Christianity alone the way. Jesus came to fulfill scripture, sum up the commandments into just two. And pay the price for mans salvation.
A few men thought this was far too simple of a plan and decided to use it as means of control for the populace and have themselves appear righteous and elite while making a few shekels on the side.
Irish

I'll blame Paul for most of that.

The thing of it is, though, that with science, while it is true that many people do take it on faith, the fact remains that, unless it goes through the extensive and exhaustive procedure of peer review, data dissemination, and formal logic, it cannot be refered to as scientific. In other words, while the judeo-christian faith requires pure faith to believe (since the root source of knowledge has not been objectively verified), science does not require faith, but rather merely understanding. It is commonly said that everyone must find their own path to God. Because of that, it is impossible to ever say for certain whether any one path is any better than any other, so one ultimately must rely on pure faith that one is correct, or that your mentor is correct, in their beliefs. In science, you not only do not have to rely on your mentor, but you are required to actively question him. Every claim that you are taught comes with exhaustive proofs on how it is derived. You are not taking the professors word on it that it occurs, but rather you are activily engaged in translating the process itself. At this point, it no longer belongs to faith. At this point, you have delved into it with your own hands, and confirmed it to be imperically true. Whether you decide to believe the conclusion or not is up to you, but there can be no denying the claim itself is valid.

If someone choose not to avail themselves to this, well, then they take science on faith, which defeats the purpose of it. That in now way, hoever, demeans science. It only refers to the people who choose and easy path over a more difficult one.

Key words "used to". If something does not fit the religious thinking what is done with it? Change their (Christians) thinking or ignore it?


BTW: How are you doing?
Got that pint you owe me?

Cheers Zandor ! Don't forget to practice for St.Paddys Day
[attachmentid=23608]
The original concept of Christianity was so simple nothing really has change! Only mans take on it.
Given the fact that research is built on others research a scientist is not required to take the same steps and procedures as his predecessors did. Only a short revue and an acceptance (faith) that his predecessors were correct in their final analysis. Granted this is done in the expedience of the time involved or science would achieve very little. Yet it is a form of faith regardless a faith that could conceivably crumble if any of the scientific predecessors was wrong in their initial calculation
Irish

Well, aquatus, you beat to everything I was thinking as read the posts. As always, well said.

What does faith mean to me? Good question.

Probably a long time ago I would had really had to consult a dictionary. I probably would have said most of my faith lyed in what I believed to be God than. I probably would have said that God was the only thing I had true faith in because life just seemed to always disappoint and could never be depended on in my eyes than.

But faith to me now is somewhat different. I have faith in life itself; humanity, science, God, love, etc.....
If I could put stock in one thing, have faith in one thing it would be love which is the whole of everything to me and the goal we cannot see or touch. I have faith and complete trust that love was the beginning is the whole and will be the end. It might take a thousand lifetimes, a million mistakes but I have faith that everything and all this and every lesson is just a journey to be complete with love again. So in saying that love would be where my core of faith lyes.

Science to me is, well, a foundation nevertheless.

At the dawn of time we stood and said, "look theres a rock, oh, theres another rock" that equals two rocks. And it took off from there into everything from Music to Art to building Cars run on hydrogen. It was a way for us to grasp our surroundings and ourselves in an Emprical matter. Everything scientific is proveable and reproducable.

That's simply not true. Nothing in science is taken on faith of one's predecessor. Calculations must work, start to finish, in any given equation. New theories are arrived at through calculations, but these calculations must have their predictions borne out through experimentation to be accepted, otherwise they are simply that, predictions. Alot of folks find certain aspects of science so impenatrable (for good reason sometimes, it can be dense stuff) that they think it's a teetering deck of cards but that's simply not the case. If the math is sound and everything works but one thing, then that thing is something to look for. The lack of sufficient mass in the universe has beffudled cosmologists for years but they knew it had to be there, experimentation showed their other calculations to be correct, now we've dark matter and dark energy, two things long sought after, but it took us a while to figure out how to test for it (and we don't understand it at all yet). There's no faith there, just scientific method.

I think you are missing my point capeo. What I am trying to get across is we have to rely sometimes on our predecessor’s knowledge being correct or we fail in our own Endeavour. Example, you wish to build the first antigravity interstellar space vehicle. You simply would not have enough time in your lifetime to acquire the necessary knowledge to achieve your goal so you build your new knowledge based on the foundation of your predecessor’s conclusions and if those conclusions are correct you may accomplish what you had set out to achieve or pass your acquired knowledge the next generation of scientist.
The foundation of acquired knowledge is there so a new scientist does not have to start out at 1+1 =2 and so is therefore required to take a step of faith.
Irish

It took thousands of years for the human race to reach this far in their learning of ethics and morality that sustain civilizations. While it is imperfect, it is plain stupid to throw it all away simply because it is imperfect. It is far better than what it was.

If you keep reinventing the wheel all you will ever have is a wheel.
Take the wheel and keep improving it, and eventually you have wings attached to it to fly with.

By Jove you have it Bella-Angelique The Scientific leap of faith!

Science is good and bad because through Alchemy man learnt how to make weapons to conquer but at the same time science can help us create and design a better standard of living.Great scientists like Einstein and Newton were very religious in return they did great work therefore (Science+Religion) are 1 and =Wisdom

Ah, my friend, but I think you are missing the point.
If your predecessors' conclusions were not true, your interstellar space vehicle would never get off the ground. It's not faith because experiment has shown the knowledge you'd be using to be fact.

Not to mention, in school, they make you work out every single bit of physics proofs in use, so you know how they work and how they were proven experimental and at some point you'd be working in the lab yourself seeing the stuff in action. In actuality each person does have to learn and work out every bit of knowledge know in their field. Every mathematician and physicist starts with 1+1=2

Believe me, when I was sitting in that classroom, staring at two whiteboards full of equations showing the proof for gravitational attractions, I WISH I could have taken it on faith!

No dice, though. We have to be able to explain why the theory works. Whether we choose to believe the theory works is entirely up to use, but our belief isn't going to keep the same results from appearing each and every time.

is there a faith within science?

the answer:
well, is something correct until proven incorrect,
or is something incorrect until proven correct,
or is something never proven at all?

For me Religon as a social and moral framework is acceptable at some levels and is a natural requirement and out come of any sentient social entity however this is not to say it has any real merit in the real world i.e. Any tangible measurable effects in reality and to me is only a construct of mind so can be discounted as a real viable force and ignored in any real scientific debate

Science for me is a means of explaining an observable event that can be measured and recreated by others and requires no blind faith only an understanding of the concepts involved and the ability to apply those concepts to things seen or indicated only those who are ignorant of the concepts involved require blind faith

so i would say i give my "faith" (for want of a better term) in science a 90% leaving 10% to uncertainty because it would be arrogent of me to say i was 100% sure on everything

It seems to me that a fundamental error is being made here. People are mistaking experience for faith.

That scientific theories work is inherent in the definition; if it didn't work, it would not be accepted as a scientific theory. In essence, a scientific theory is the best guess possible with the given data that has yet to be falsified. In other words, the theory works consistently. In our experience, the theory has not yet been shown to not work.

To say that thinking a theory will work requires faith is similar to saying that thinking your car will work in the morning requires faith. It doesn't. Faith implies a belief system. There is no belief system involving your car; it is simply that, in your experience, the car has always worked in the morning.

I have faith and trust in science and also that there is a perfect source out there(GOD). I don't put my faith into religion, but I trust and have faith that the religious people I know are genuinely good, and I trust their reasons for being religious. I also respect and trust scientists. I don't always trust their explanations for why certain things occur, but I do trust that they have come to the conclusion that it does occur. Kind of like the global warming scenario-we know that the earth is warming up ever so slightly. Some scientists argue that this is due to human interaction with nature, through our use of fuels, aerosols, ect. causing a greenhouse effect. Some scientists believe that the sun is the culprit, because it has slightly increased in temperture. Some believe the earth goes through natural cycles that we cannot control. I tend to lean toward the later two. I put my faith in that conclusion because I'm not capable of testing this. We all use faith. Scientists have faith in their predecessors' opinions. They go through intense testing to prove certain theories, a lot of times to no avail. But more times than not they 'stumble' across something unexpected and in turn open up doors for new research. Their 'leap of faith' brought forth positive results.
People take a leap of faith towards God and spirituality and most of time this brings forth positive results in their lives.
And that is the ultimate goal, right? Positive results.

Science like government is easily corrupted by business and large monetary pay outs.
This is rampant in the US right now.

If there is a fault in the base knowledge it will eventually become apparent.

Give one example, and I'm not talking about businesses like the pharmecutical industry, scientists work for them, they don't control them.
Results are results and are incorruptible. It's really something for someone who very likely doesn't read any peer-reviewed journals and has what seems to not be the best grasp on scientific method to be accusatory in such a manner. Pure science is objective, its data, results, predictions and more results.

Artymoon, I understand your example on global warming but here we're mixing ideas. These are all hypothesis on the cause of global warming and require no faith, only experimental proof to discern which is correct. One just needs to follow the weight of accumulating evidence. At some point enough evidence may accumulate to move past the point of hypothesis and we can start dealing with it, or maybe not, it's a daunting task with many earthly and solar related systems and cycles in play.

when innovating, there is faith.
when replicating, there is not faith.

And religon isn't ?

Religion has been molded to suit the needs of many goverments and leaders throughout history and is as malleable as plastcine even the icons and esthetic imagry of religion are subject to the corruption of leaders far more so than science wich can be coberated by any third party at any time is religion so easily validated ?

Allo Folks
I just joined the Forums and, on browsing through the topics, I thought I'd throw my tu'ppence worth in here

I believe in both Science and God, although I follow no 'labeled' religious path. I reckon that it doesn't matter which path a person follows, it's the act of travelling that path that attunes your faith to your God, based on your personal observations and deductions as you go along. I can't get my mind around blindly accepting as fact, what some person claims to believe in, although some folks make a bit more sense than others

At the same time, to understand this world or this universe, science is needed, if only to supply the technical jargon for everything . Also, scientists need faith, lot of it, to persevere in their experiments cos they believe a certain theory to be right or wrong.

Nowadays, we have the horror and threat of nuclear war and terror, but in years to come, (if we survive it all that is), the knowledge gained from this madness will be a basis for something a lot more useful. From fusion to fission and who knows what other offspring research along the way as just one example.

The way I'd sum it up is:
Science explains HOW something works....
Faith/belief explains WHY something works...

While chatting to a local Priest years ago, he asked me a very poignant question:
"Science can explain the 'Big Bang Theory' and all that followed, but WHO lit the blue touch-paper???"

I'm still trying to figger that one out!!

Sorry for waffling on a bit

Science is what sets us apart from the animals and without it you couldent read what im writing.

On the same note you don’t see to many animals in church on Sunday either! Well maybe the occasional baboon!

On a more serious note literacy was originally taught by monks and priests as the common man did not have access to the books required.

Irish

True, and so was limited and allowed on what was taught/learned (religious teachings).

But to be fair you can only share knowledge you yourself know.