Posted on 06/30/2008 4:41:23 PM PDT by Kevmo
Faith in Science? It goes against the very tenets of Science that you accept something provisionally based upon evidence. Faith is the opposite of that.
New evidence would change any view I had in Science if it was compelling enough.
Nothing would ever change my faith in God.
Do you see the difference?
You haven’t really defined what you mean by scientism.
***I think it was succinctly defined in post #47.
Do you really mean evolutionism?
***We can call it whatever you want to call it.
There are so many true scientific disciplines that do not engender the deep philosophical biases that are usually best described as religion. Do we really want to call them religion? I don’t.
***I note that so many true scientific disciplines do not seem to have a faith element nor an emotional attachment to the discipline that the evo stuff has. When we do, then it would probably be proper to include them in such an ecumenical discussion system so they can talk things out on a reasonable plane.
Feel free to put the entire set of posts into italics. And thanks.
Yes I see the difference.
Oops, I hit the post button before I was done.
Faith in Science? It goes against the very tenets of Science that you accept something provisionally based upon evidence. Faith is the opposite of that.
***Then if something is not demonstrable, it is not science. Things that happened in the past aren’t very easily demonstrable.
New evidence would change any view I had in Science if it was compelling enough. Nothing would ever change my faith in God.
***If your faith was in something like, say the Vedas that said earthquakes are caused by elephants jumping up & down and it was demonstrated to you what earthquakes are, would you have to wrestle with your faith a bit? People put their faith in science, it’s simple enough to see. They just don’t want to admit to it.
Do you see the difference?
***Yes I see the difference.
People like me have CONFIDENCE in Science based, tentatively, upon the preponderance of evidence. Faith is something that is not based upon physical evidence, and thus is immune to the collection or interpretation of physical evidence.
In answer to your question I suppose I would know from the beginning that the ‘parable’ of elephants jumping up and down was written to convey some sort of spiritual truth (like a universal flood). Obviously no elephant could generate that kind of force, and plate tectonics shows that earthquakes have a non-supernatural origin.
Faith is something that is not based upon physical evidence, and thus is immune to the collection or interpretation of physical evidence.
***Um, my faith in Jesus is based upon physical evidence. And evolutionist/science-faithers beliefe is based upon physical evidence. It is at the edge of human knowledge where faith comes in.
What is putting your faith in science?
I constantly “put my faith” in reliable technologies that were developed by scientific means to accomplish various rapid, high precision measurements; does that mean that I am practicing a religion?
I think that using the word ‘science’ in this manner is counter-productive. It’s something else; not science in any way (although many of its proponents try to claim the title ‘scientist’ in the persuit thereof)
Thank you.
What is putting your faith in science?
***See post #38.
I constantly “put my faith” in reliable technologies that were developed by scientific means to accomplish various rapid, high precision measurements; does that mean that I am practicing a religion?
***Probably not. But with all the problems mankind is facing, how do you think such problems will be solved? By science?
I think that using the word ‘science’ in this manner is counter-productive. It’s something else; not science in any way (although many of its proponents try to claim the title ‘scientist’ in the persuit thereof)
***If you put your trust/faith/confidence in science, then using the term in that manner is not counter-productive.
So you contend that Confidence is a synonym for Faith? And thus anyone who has confidence because of evidence also has faith, which is without evidence?
Faith: belief that is not based on proof (I would change proof to evidence when talking about Science)
Confidence: full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: certitude
What physical evidence do you have of Jesus? Like me all you have his words written by the students of his disciples and the faith that it is the word of God.
***When I first started looking into it, I wouldn’t even accept that level of documentation. I looked at it from the perspective of, “What do even his enemies and indifferent sources acknowledge about him?” I’ve posted about this process on FR before, using what I call the rule of COIN — where C = Concurring Sources, O = Opposing Sources, I = Indifferent sources, and N = No evidence against.
What evidence do you have of Julius Caesar or Columbus? It’s the same historical kind of evidence that we have for Jesus of Nazareth. Even his enemies acknowledged that he claimed to be God, and they put him to death because of it.
Now, what miracles have I cited? What physical evidence or process have I departed from? Where do I go off into the weeds in my scientific process when I analyze the evidence for Jesus? I have seen people who claim to be scientists deny the historicity of Caesar just so they could deny the historicity of Christ. That’s bad science, let alone bad religion.
You made that one too easy. All the serious problems that mankind faces have their roots in sin, and science is powerless against sin. Science solves physical tasks through the development of technologies that speed or simplify those tasks. Clearly science has no linkage to the religions that we invent to cover our spiritual short commings.
So you contend that Confidence is a synonym for Faith?
***Yes, but that doesn’t matter much for purposes of our discussion on this thread. Note that the first definition showing up on Dictionary.com was that “confidence” included “faith” in the definition, so my contention is valid.
And thus anyone who has confidence because of evidence also has faith, which is without evidence?
***My faith is WITH evidence, so I reject that loaded definition.
Faith: belief that is not based on proof (I would change proof to evidence when talking about Science)
***I do not accept this definition. The definition I accept is the first one that pops up from Dictionary.com, and note that BOTH definitions include the word “trust” in their primary description. So we should proceed with the unbiased, unloaded definition offered by Dictionary.com and interpose the word “trust” where we use “faith” and “confidence”.
Confidence:
1. full trust; belief in the powers, trustworthiness, or reliability of a person or thing: We have every confidence in their ability to succeed.
faith:
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another’s ability.
Then it looks to me that you place your faith in ... a God who addresses our spiritual shortcomings. So do I.
With that in mind, Should Scientism be considered a religion on Free Republic?
Excellent idea.
How do you guys pray?
OK, so we do not ONLY have the words of Jesus, we also have a few comments by a single Jewish writer sometime after his death. Other than that we have no physical or historic evidence for Jesus. There are absolutely no Roman records saying why Jesus was put to death, or even that Jesus was put to death. Of course absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
If you base your faith in Jesus Christ our Lord on physical evidence you are putting a lot of weight on some rather scant shards of evidence. I base my faith in Jesus the Christ on the Bible and my faith that it is the word of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.