To the people who say science is a matter of "faith"...?

Question

Can you name one commonly accepted scientific principle other than evolution that you feel is a "faith, not facts" issue?

I'm just wondering because Fish has said several times today that science is a matter of faith and that he'll keep his faith and we can keep ours. I'm curious to understand what we're talking about.

Is gravity a faith thing? How about the earth being round, not flat? Or heliocentricity? What about thermodynamics? Ohm's law? Kirchhoff's principles? If you don't believe in those things, should you still be accepted by the scientific community? Can you get a job designing airplanes if you think gravity is a matter of faith?

I'm all confused.

It seems to me that only the people who don't want evolution to be true call science "a faith thing" simply because they want to discredit it?

Wolfgame, I never said there wasn't a difference. I'm asking you to name a single theory besides evolution that you think is a faith issue.

Answer 1

Sounds to me the word FAITH is beginning to be seen as the dirty word it truly is. When superstitious people begin to label scientists as people of FAITH, we know we are being slandered.

Famous scientist Jim Watson of the Human Genome Project, when asked if he knew of any FAITH believing scientists today and he replied: "Virtually none. Occasionally I meet them, and I'm a bit embarrassed because, you know, I can't believe that anyone accepts truth by revelation." (From THE GOD DELUSION)

If science truly supported evidence of creation, Noah's Flood, virgin birth, etc...Christians would be all over it..."See how science supports religion?" But when test after test proves that science does not and can not support superstition, religious people around the world try to discredit science and rational thinking to the point of allowing children to die by refusing medical treatment in lew of FAITH.

This is a sign that religious people are getting desperate...and are becoming confused enough to call science and the laws of gravity...that nasty word FAITH. ("If I don't believe in gravity enough, I could throw this ball up in the air and it would never come down!" What a stupid concept...gravity works whether you believe in it or not. It simply can not be FAITH based.)

Excellent question...I look forward to reading some religious answers to this one.

Answer 2

M-theory - never been experimentally proven and may never be so proven.

On evolution, I would say there is more evidence for it being fact than otherwise. Also, it may not be proven, but it is correct to say that it IS PROVABLE. There is a big difference scientifically between unproven and unprovable.

On the other hand, m-Theory, mathematically, its the best theory going for actually finding some equations that describe the 'holy grail' of physics which is what was once called GUTs (Grand Unified Theory) or the single equation that accurately describes all the interactions seen in nature by describing to the extent of being able to predict Electromagnetism, Strong Nuclear Force, Weak Nuclear Force and Gravity. IE - THE 'Theory of Everything" The singular, simplest mathematical equation from which literally everything from which everything else can be derived - either directly or through a number of steps, indirectly.

Quantum Mechanics has to date been THE most accurate theory when it comes to describing what we actually see on a small scale. Relativity has to date been THE most accurate theory when it comes to describing what we actually see on a large scale.

The two theories are diametrically opposed mathematically, yet M-Theory does the best job so far in linking the two together into a single theory. The problem with it is that by scientific definition is is not directly provable through experimentation - science doesn't like unprovable theories. Unproved is fine - just give some time to come up with some experiments. Unprovable (more accurately, falsifiable - it is theoretically possible to construct an experiment that has the potential to disprove the theory in question - there is a difference, but I believe the argument still words regardless - the limits at these scales are not about falsifiability but are usually proven impossible themselves so the question is academic at best) is something else - there is no experiment possible - you can't get smaller than the Planck length experimentally nor can you harness all the energy in the universe experimentally to perform tests.

If its physically proven to be impossible to come up with an experiment that would either prove or disprove a given theory, that's where science gets uncomfortable and where theology starts to salivate. The deeper and deeper you go into the unprovable, the the weaker the argument from the perspective of theology, which is logically correct I think.

On the other hand, when theological theories ask again and again, layer upon layer to ask more and more levels of 'just assume this to be true for a moment." Then take these temporary assumptions to be true eternally, theologians start to get nervous and scientists start chomping at the bit. The longer and more often that is done, the weaker the argument from the perspective of science, which is logically correct in my opinion as well.

Doesn't mean its right or wrong, simply unprovable and to science, regardless of how accurate it might be, its inherently distasteful to deal with something that is unprovable - just like its inherently distasteful to try to empirically deal with God - God is unprovable and that has no use empirically - regardless how true it might be.

That is the difference between faith and science. Science will not tolerate unprovability, whereas faith relies upon it. Without that setup, neither would function.

The separation between the two gets smaller and smaller over time and as that happens, the tension between the two gets greater and greater.

Intelligent Design is a manifestation of this tension politically, M-theory is a manifestation this tension scientifically, the serious religious backlask world wide is the manifestation of this tension theologically.

I think we really are getting close enough to the point where hard core science and religion are being force to start asking the same kinds of questions so much that its noticeable in society.

To answer your origional question though, I'll use gravity as an example. I don't think any scientist would consider the existance of gravity to be a matter of faith - that is a matter of every day experience proven every time a step is taken, thus, but definition, is not faith.

However, when it comes to what's the correct way to describe gravity mathematically? That is a matter of faith - that's how far both physics and theology have come. I hope the rest of my reply has prepped you so to speak, but yeah, its to a point that the theories are so accurate - beyond the point of being able to test them directly that physicists have to ask themselves - ok, all of these theories work equally well as far as we will ever be able to prove them experimentally when it comes to describing gravity. At that point, its faith as to which theory you choose or if you choose to reject them all.

Experience without the possibility of proof IS faith.

Science is to a point where theories that accurately describe experience cannot be proven - IE - experience without the possibility of proof, IE faith.

"The circle is now complete, when I left you I was but the learner, now I AM the master." Bad quote from an old yet brilliant science fiction file of the mid 1970's. cheesy, yet fitting. lol

Answer 3

True science and the bible agree, it's religion and science that don't get along. ;) Gravity is a fact- we throw a ball into the air and watch it fall back to earth. The bible isn't a science book, sure but consider the fact that the order in which Genesis lists the creations by God agree with science. (Illuminaries first, man last.) Solomon described the water cycle long before science understood it. (Ecclesiastes 1:7- "All the winter torrents are going forth to the sea, yet the sea itself is not full. To the place where the winter torrents are going forth, there they are returning so as to go forth.")

The bible is not a science text book and should not be expected to be. Science cannot explain why we grow old and die. The bible explains that- we inherited sin like a fatal genetic disorder from our first parents, and that sin leads to death. If a person wants to learn about why we exist, turn to the bible. If a person wants to know why the sky is blue, read a scientific book. Religion teaches that the earth was made in 144 hours, not the bible- it refers to all the creative works of God in Genesis as 'the day God made the heaven and the earth' (Genesis 2:4). People say, "In my day, I used to ___", when refering to a time period incorporating years, just as "day" refers to an indefinite time period in Genesis.

Evolution: theoretic matter of faith. True science: facts in evidence. Bible: scientific backing. Christendom: contradicts facts of science and the bible.

P.S. I'm one of Jehovah's Witnesses.

Answer 4

Personally I believe scientist exhibit "faith" when they form a hypothesis -- otherwise why bother, if you don't believe it could be true.

Science shouldn't be discredited (too many wonderful accomplishments), for the sake of religious faith, but it can be over rated or presumptuous in some aspects.

Personally I have a problem when theories involving millions of years are espoused as facts. At some point this becomes pure speculation and conjecture and not science (observable and provable). Just my thoughts.

.

Answer 5

Clearly Evolution is not the only false Satanic Science. Satanic Geology claims the earth is billions of years old and that the flood didn't happen. Satanic Astronomy Claims Stars are billions of years old. Also Astronomers claim other anti-biblical teaching such as the earth revolving around the sun. Medical Science is in conflict with the medical practices we recieved from the god in the bible. Not only that but the theory of Human sexual reproduction claims babies result from sex while we know Mary was a virgin. Physicists claim nature follows laws, the bible tells us god is beyond laws. I think it is clear that we need to throw out all of Satan's sciences not just Biology.

Answer 6

Physic, chemistry and biology; these are the basis of Evolutionary Science. These are also the basis of allopathic medicine. The difference is that Evolitionary Science has more than 4 times the evidence supporting it that modern medicine does. (1) Does Fish (and those of a similar ilk) take his/her children to the doctor?

On the other hand, though I highly value empirical method, I am not so sure that science is not (arguably) guilty of the fallacy of "asserting the consequent".

Answer 7

first science itself is not wrong. when it is proven true. what they mean by science is faith is when they are talking about evolution. that is faith. just like we as christians have faith God created everything you have faith something out there came about and blew up causing order and not caos which by the way goes against science for science has proven that explosions cause caos not order. and then some how out of that life form started up and then eventually grew from different animals tell it got to humans. and in this process supposed to be that we lost things we did not need. well i sure could use a tell that i can grab stuff with. anyways that takes faith to believe just as much as faith in God. they are not talking about gravity or other science. or true science. false science. like saying evolution is science. when they have not proven it let alone observed it over and over again.

funny how science does not have a cure for aids nor an explanation how people have been completely healed but christians do. in Jesus name. and those healed even say that. that they were prayed for in Jesus name. same with cancer and other diseases being healed.

Answer 8

the first thing that comes to mind is the claims made on the Animal Planet programs "Waliking with Dinosaurs", ".....Prehistoric Beasts", "....Cavemen" etc. There are so-call facts presented as truth, like the behavior of certain animals, which no one could possibly know since there is no recorded documentation & the animals are extinct. There are some things which Have been preven scientifically & somethings which HAVE NOT. Evolution is still just a theory. If it is true, where are the missing links between apes (or whatever) & humans. To honest, I find the theory that humans descended form apes to be highly insulting.

Answer 9

The "church" has been demonizing science for thousands of years...this is nothing new. For example - The Dark Ages. The 'church' demonizes anything that doesn't fit with "it's" views and doctrines. However, not all things are demonized equally.....anything that threatens church membership and more importantly tithe amounts is attacked with a fervor beyond any tent revival's emotional upheaval. Evolution hints at there being no god. Therefore it must be destroyed by any and all means. For these religious fundaMENTALists "end justifies the means".

Answer 10

The idea is basically to undermine all belief by saying that just like religious conviction, scientific hypothesis relies on a basic premise that itself is unsupported.

The axiom of science is that drawing reasonable conclusions based observable evidence will probably lead you to the truth. The axiom of religion is that God wrote a book.

Within the context of either premise, you cannot find faulty logic. And they consider their axiom on equal footing with science's axiom.