No, it is completely different.
Science requires no faith. Understanding science doesn't require faith.
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
No, it is completely different.
Science requires no faith. Understanding science doesn't require faith.
Faith is synonymous with Trust however. You can have faith in the scientific method for example without actually understanding it..you put yopur faith in those that do, equally you can have trust in your religion without being fully conversant with all its Theology, again you put your faith in those that do. Both imply confidence in something, be it Science or Religion or anything for that matter.
The difference is only apparent when we discuss Blind Faith...which is something different, as that implies a trust or confidence in something without any evidence (whether it be personal, observable or otherwise)..this is more common (although not as common as some people would like to believe) in Religion than in Science, simply due to the differences in application. There are people who have blind faith in Science, or more accurately Scientists..we have a few roaming around the Climate Change discussions for example.
In short, Faith is not the sole domain of Religion.
Yes, but trust in a proven method to determine truth claims from false ones (Along with it's application being part of all of our lives via technology) isn't comparable to faith in the existence of an entity no verifiable evidence exists for.
I'm not actually knocking faith, some people I know are happy to admit it is a matter of faith - trust in a proven method really isn't comparable.
You are of course correct, many have no idea how technology works, or even are that sceptical who reject the idea of a god (not everybody arrives to the same location via the same means as we all know) - but embracing rationalism & scepticism to determine reality doesn't require any faith (as nothing is taken as fact without evidence).
Not many people who believe in a god simply "think" god exists, they claim to know it exists as a matter of faith.
Bertrand Russell puts it well (as ever)
"Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."
Faith in the field of science is a commitment based on evidence.
Last edited:
Accepting what Scientists (and by association Science) state when you have neither the understanding or ability to peer review does.
For example, I accept the Theory of Evolution as being pretty much a Fact...I do not fully understand its complexity or specificity..I trust and have faith in both the scientific method and that it has been applied correctly along with the individuals having assessed the evidence accordingly. I have faith in their assessment and I use that, along with what evidence and information I do have and understand to formulate my own position. This is an example of having Faith.
Blind faith, would be if I simply took what someone told me about evolution without any evidence or understanding at all and put my complete and unwavering trust in it...even if it could be demonstrated otherwise. This is an example of Blind Faith.
Faith doesn't mean blind acceptance, and it does imply a level of trust.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
I never assumed you're religious, I was explaining the difference between faith and reasoned beliefs that you a trying to label as faith for the sake of your "you're just as bad" argument.
If there were no bones, no fossils, no scientific evidence for dinosaurs and I still believed because someone said to believe in them is good, then it would be faith. I have reasoned beliefs, not belief without reason.
Besides, it’s pretty obvious that the whole concept of faith was created to directly counter the total lack of good reasons to believe.
If you were to go to a hospital and see a specialist who states you need an operation. You aren't visiting someone who has just been pulled in off the street. You're trusting the medical profession to have put this person through an exam to make sure he's competent and you're trusting the research done prior to the operation to have been peer reviewed and verified as correct.
Faith and trust, although they have similar meanings, are taken in a completely different context when discussing science and religion.
OP. Glad you agree.
If I were to find someone's assessment of atheists, paraphrase it rudely and then put it on here saying "I agree" would it be ok? I get the impression that if I said all those things to you directly that I would earn myself a wonderful suspension.
I think it's narrow-minded to believe that everyone should be the same.
p.s. It's "your".
If I were to find someone's assessment of atheists, paraphrase it rudely and then put it on here saying "I agree" would it be ok? I get the impression that if I said all those things to you directly that I would earn myself a wonderful suspension.
I think it's narrow-minded to believe that everyone should be the same.
p.s. It's "your".
Don't confuse the issue of Trust/Faith with its applications...the point is that science or religious faith requires a trust in certain applied methods..in science it is the application of the Scientific Method, in religion it is in the application of its Theology and Doctrine. Science deals with a different nature than Religion, and so the way each is applies their relative evidences to the individual and their respective conclusions are not to be confused with each other. I kn ow that some doctrines, mainly Conservative Biblical Literalism have attempted to shoehorn science into theology, but that simply leads to Blind Faith and that is not what I think is being discussed by Spoffle. It does however create a false perception of how most people come to or continue to hold their own beliefs...whether they are personal, theological, secular, philosophical or even Scientific.
They are different because the applications are different, however the underlying mechanism for the individual is the same.
This implies that no-one comes to religious faith without scepticism, rational thought and evidence..this is not my experience of most religious people I know. They hold their faith, not blindly believing, but they question their faith everyday, weighing it against their experience and the evidence of that experience and their perception of the world around them.
Scientific Evidence is not the only kind of evidence.
They trust their own beliefs...mostly found through their own rational and considered thought.
There difference is between Faith and Blind Faith...Faith without Reason is Blind to coin a paraphrase.
A great video on the subject (I can listen to Sagan all day), he echoes many of my thoughts on the matter & puts in a way for more eloquent way that I ever could.
Even such basic concepts such as good & evil (a core element of many religions) are not being put into question by the scientific method - as our understanding of the universe grows - the shadows in which religion resides narrow.
In some cases I agree, but religion makes claims about the world in which we live - many religions outright contradict the history of the universe via literal biblical creation.
Even such basic concepts such as good & evil (a core element of many religions) are not being put into question by the scientific method - as our understanding of the universe grows - the shadows in which religion resides narrow.
Scientific evidence is the only evidence which can be used to mitigate against human fallibility, while the individual may think so, it could be that every single person who has spoken to a god/gods was simply experiencing aural hallucinations.
I guess it depends on how you define reason, a key part I'd say is being verifiable - without that element (which requires evidence immune from human fallibility) makes it somewhat difficult.
Last edited:
If you are seeking philosophical or spiritual answers then you wouldn't just visit someone dragged off the street either...not if you were a rational person...Theology is not simply a collection of off-the-cuff idiosyncratic ideas..it is build on a basis of belief, world views, perceptions and philosophical and religions ideas and interpretations over hundreds if not thousands of years. People put their trust in these institutions and people in the same way as people put their trust in hospitals and doctors...the difference is the subject, not the underlying application of trust in those subjects.
I rarely watch videos posted, I would rather debate with the thoughts and words of those participating in the thread..however I will say that Carl Sagan (my childhood hero btw) would never agree with Richard Dawkins...I would hazard that he would be pretty distraught at how such people advocate the use of Reason....by not using it themselves.
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,326
- Location
- Woking
Could you consider this from an Atheist's perspective? Why we might think that religious people are slightly crazy?
You feel loved by sometihng that you've never seen, never touched, never spoken to, wouldn't have thought existed unless someone had introduced you etc...it just sounds insane!
Well you know my thoughts on Biblical Literalism (formed through research, knowledge and rational criticism)..that it simply demonstrates the application of Blind Faith rather than actually understanding the scriptures to which they attribute their interpretation.
You will have to expand and clarify on this...If scientific evidence is the only kind with which we can actually mitigate our own fallibility, then how do we recognise our own mistakes through more esoteric events such as emotion or conscience...are we all damned to make mistakes over and over until we can recognise through the scientific method which actions, thoughts, emotions etc make us fallible?
I do not see that Science holds all those answers, in fact the Human Condition is more often addressed through philosophy, religion, art, expression and far less grounded manifestations than pure science. So I am somewhat confused by what you mean here.
Science is also fallible.
Reason is basically the application of logical, rational, and analytic thought...and this is universally applicable..it is not the sole domain of Science.
Last edited:
I'm interesting as to which parts you feel he would have disagreed with (my personal hero also!).
I do prefer his method of converting people to reason (he most certainly was far more inclusive than Dawkins & preferred to steer away from divisive labels).
I mean, he was clearly not a believer in a deity & very strongly in favour of socialist policies but avoided using terms which related to either of them (as a way of presenting an argument without pigeonholing it or putting people off them).
A shame we don't have anybody around able to present science in the light it should be.
Not as part of this specific subject, I would most certainly recommend watching the Carl Sagan tribute series (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL73E5E40315EA40FE) at another time, it's simply extracts from his books on a whole range of different subjects - most of which Cosmology.
While I do love to read his books, he's able to vocalise it in such a way which makes the experience even more enjoyable.
A good point, I do recall a post on this very subject some time ago.
One element of reason I believe is the ability to verify, something absent outside the domain of the scientific method.
The key purpose is to determine reality, without the prospect of the individual fabricating events, having a delusional mind - or being simply mistaken.
In short, science is simply the took to which we understand the universe - the method allows us to determine reality while mitigating against fallibility.
As our understanding increases I don't personally think anything will remain outside of it's domain - while philosophy, religion, art are ways in which we express our humanity - they do not relate to the world as is, science attempts to view the universe without the lens of subjective human experience - to determine what is actually there as opposed to what we just see (metaphorically speaking) - it makes more sense when you consider I'm a proponent of materialism.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Claim 1: I’ve got a tabby kitten.
Claim 2: I’ve got a 12” pygmy, winged, green and red striped giraffe.
Play all the semantic games you like, but one of those is reasonable to believe and the other isn’t.
Claim 2: I’ve got a 12” pygmy, winged, green and red striped giraffe.
Play all the semantic games you like, but one of those is reasonable to believe and the other isn’t.
I have watched and read just about everything Carl Sagan has put out.
He would have never agreed with Dawkins redefinition of Agnosticism, or his anti-religious stance (Sagan wasn't anti religion..quite the opposite, he held some, particularly Hinduism and Buddhism in high esteem) and he certainly would not have agreed with the soapbox theatre that Dawkins indulges in. In fact many atheists (and agnostics) are increasingly distancing themselves from Dawkins and his soapboxing.
Carl Sagan was the man that Richard Dawkins could have been and sadly is not even a shadow of. If Sagan was alive today, I suspect that Dawkins and his kin would have been sidelined before they had even begun.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
People Castiel likes would't agree with people Castiel doesn't like.
I like Richard Dawkins, he is a very personable, intelligent and polite man in person..I simply don't agree with everything his says or how he says it in public.
The big flaw in that is, Human Individual Perception. My world, is not your world so to speak...so I see the subjective projection of Human experience as a window on the world as we all see it, as individuals...and this is the true substance of existence...for me at least. (In my youth I far was more like you, I wonder if you will agree when you are my age?...I have often wondered how our perceptions and ideas and what we accept as evident alters as our experience alters?)
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
I must admit, he does come across as a pompous ***** sometimes, but his reach and influence is still nothing compared to that of Christianity in the US. I think his attitude comes from frustration and incredulity at just how entrenched and fundamental Christianity still is in most of the US.