Faith is a belief without proof.
Religious faith is the faith in a greater entity, be it the judeo-christian-islamic God, or the Hindu Pantheon, or the Indian Spirits. It is the belief in the existence of these without PROOF of the existence of these things.
Scientific belief seems to be founded on proof. Yet this proof is all a product of human perception and reason. There is no PROOF that human perception and reason are not fundamentally flawed. There is actually no PROOF that just because something is observable and repeatable that it is universal truth or fact. We can never know whether or not our perception and reason are in fact flawed and wrong. Without PROOF that human perception and reason are whole, intact, and correct isn't any system of belief around these things, including science, nothing more than faith?
Tiger Striped Dog MD
2006-07-15
06:50:18
·
8 answers
·
asked by
tigerstripeddogmd
2
in
Arts & Humanities
➔ Philosophy
We do what we can. Buddhists, Christians, Hindus, Jews and Muslims all use the periodical table of the elements. They all prove two triangles are congruent with the same postulates. They all take LOTS of precautions when working with plutonium. They all know the load strength of a reinforced concrete bridge.
They all have different faiths. If our entire universe is just one "room" in a video game played by giants, so be it; science is internally coinsistent. It doesn't mess with God. All religions are internally consistent too. They shouldn't mess with science.
2006-07-15 06:57:37
·
answer #1
·
answered by Stuart King 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
Science is not based on faith. It is not really based on proof, either.
Contrary to what we read in the newspapers or hear on the TV news, scientists do not "prove" anything.
Science only does the following:
1) Collect data in controlled ways.
2) Develop explanations for the data.
3) Use that explanation to predict the outcome of future observations.
4) Use these predictions to test the explanation.
Scientists don't "believe" anything. They always work with the fewest number of assumptions possible. Nothing in science is 100% certain, because good scientists are wise enough to know that humans cannot be absolutely certain of anything.
Religion is completely different. Very few religious people will claim that "God may not exist, but I think He is likely to exist." No, they are 100% certain that God exists.
Religion is not self-correcting. Hoaxes and errors happen in science all the time: Egos prevent scientists from giving up on their failing ideas. But, eventually science progresses without them.
In religion, ego-driven bias, mistakes, and outright lies can go on for centuries -- often the only thing that happens is that a new religion is created out of these events.
To sum up, let's compare science and religion in the following little story:
Let's imagine that it's 10,000 BC. LOTHAR is travelling alone on a hunting trip. While building a fire for the night, he meets HILGAR, a hunter from a village far away. They have dinner together by the fire.
They begin to discuss their beliefs about storms. LOTHAR thinks that a great god named Thor creates storms to show his power over mankind. HILGAR thinks that a giant spider named Goral spins rainclouds like a normal spider spins a web.
The religious response is for the two men to think the other man is mad or just wrong and stay firm in the belief each was raised to believe.
The scientific response is for the two men to think: "Maybe MY belief is incorrect. Let's go observe the rainclouds and look for a spider or a god and record whatever we see."
These are two very different reactions to different beliefs. That is why religion is not very useful except to serve as an emotional safety net when confronted with things like death or injustice.
Science is always looking to the future, not holding on to the past. Science looks OUTSIDE the human heart for answers. Science looks to nature for answers. Religious people look deep in their own heart for the truth. They listen to that "still, small voice" that they claim is God, but in reality it is their own flawed, human emotions and limited imagination.
2006-07-15 14:36:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by Verbose Vincent 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
While our perceptions may be faulty at times, evidence holds more water than supernatural causes/answers... Truth is transitory, ie, its always changing based on the best available evidence of the time.
Remember, we used to think the world was flat, that was the 'truth' of the day. But with new evidence, we perceive a new 'truth.' We can only make judgements on the five senses that we have, if something manifests itself to one of our senses then we can hold it to be true.
That's why i pick science over religious faith, it's always open to new evidence....perhaps the evidence will prove the existence of some of the religious beliefs, but until that day...my common sense is only looking at Objective Reality.
2006-07-15 21:42:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Its not me Its u 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
First its called the truth.
Second there is no faith why becuz christians have fact....The bible!
Yet they tell themselves that they need faith therefore that dont have faith if they have no faith in there facts?? What is that?
I like to use this example all the time?
If a women walks out onto the water with great faith she will fall in!
If a women walks out onto the water with facts now she may just walk on the water...so why do you need faith when there is facts?
Truthly you dont unless you doubt your facts....sad!
@Joshua Washburn
2006-07-15 17:28:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by Eternal Nihilist 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Faith has nothing to do with belief...Belief is a belief whether scientific or religious or any other kind. Would it be that we do not discover anything but creating that which we seeking? Who is seeking, shall find...Remember?Very precise.. Those who won't find is short of Faith, not a beliefs...Beliefs based on presumptions...Beneath any belief you always will find no foundation, sand...just dig dipper.
2006-07-15 14:24:18
·
answer #5
·
answered by Oleg B 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Someone asserting your argument would be using reason to reject reason. If reasoning is valid, it cannot be used to invalidate itself.
So it's all faiths together is it? Okay, suppose I take up a faith that requires me to kill others who don't agree with me - or even if they do agree with me (but not until I have used them to kill all others). You can't complain my faith is insane, because it's all faiths together and that means you don't have a critical leg to stand on. Unless you want to cut your own throat to save me the trouble, get your army ready.
2006-07-15 22:11:56
·
answer #6
·
answered by brucebirdfield 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
the basis for belief is completely different.
That's everything.
2006-07-15 14:54:28
·
answer #7
·
answered by -.- 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Are you gonna choose yourself as best answer too ???
2006-07-15 13:59:09
·
answer #8
·
answered by Lionel 2
·
0⤊
0⤋