Does science and faith need each other?

Question

Faith drives you to seek evidence. You gather evidence generally in a scientific way.

Seems like you got to have faith in your observations to experiement to prove them. Then doesn't your faith increases as more of your observations leads to more evidence and proof?

I ask this question here because the R&S section is a zoo and question like this creates a lot of insults...

Answer 1

When you go gather evidence for scientific purposes, it is better to have an open mind otherwise you may skew the data in favour of your prefered opinion or belief.

If you have true faith in something there is no need to prove it.

I would say they don't need each other, but they complement each other, whereby not everything can be answered purely by science, so to fill in those gaps we form our own ideas and have faith in them. Such as, science cannot PROVE the existence of God so we have faith in Him.

Answer 2

First off, you didn't define what "faith" is. I'll have to assume you mean the Christian definition. Faith is a religious concept used to believe in the supernatural without any evidence you could share with another person.

If I were to say to you that an eternal being created the universe in six days, you would believe it through "faith". If I were to say to you that youghurt makes you invisible, you would ask for solid proof you could share with a skeptic.

You mentioned observations, faith helps you to perceive things how you wish to observer them. For instance, you could pray for rain, and receive rain. That is your "evidence" that prayer works. However if you did an experiment and prayed for rain ten weekends in a row during a season in which the chance of rain was exactly 50%, you would probably be right around half the time.

Trusting your senses is appropriate. We can tell with years of experience that what we observe in scientific experiments, is what happens. We share the results with our colleagues and publish them in papers. Other people repeat the experiment and receive comprable results.

Faith is the lazy way of gathering information. You are told/believe certain things about how the world works, and mine instances in which your preconception matches the "evidence". This is exactly how creationism works. The non-nullable hypothesis says the earth is at best 10,000 years old. You gather questionable "evidence" and poke little tiny holes in evolutionary theory.

As Mark Twain said, "faith is believing in something you know ain't so."

Answer 3

yeah the R and S is a zoo ha!

Really, if you think about it, "Axioms" are based in faith. And all theories have to start with axioms. But what if you come to the correct conclusion with wrong axioms? Does that make the conclusion false?

Everyone has faith by the way. You have faith the sun will rise in the morning, and that there's china all the way across from here. You have no guarantee of both unless you prove them. Faith NEEDS to be backed up evidence though.

Blind faith like "dogs have mini invisible wings and there's nothing you can do to change my mind" though is just ignorance.

So faith without correcting it when it's in error, is ignorance. But faith that's corrected and correlated with empirical information is actually where science comes from.

Answer 4

By definition, faith does not require proof...nor should it drive us to seek evidence. To the contrary, faith is derived from a foundation of traditional doctrines and requires complete conviction...in the absence of proof.

On the other hand, curiousity, or worse, doubting one's faith, can lead to the drive you refer to. Coming up empty-handed, a decision must then be made. Do you still believe?

Consider this: Having faith that my wife has been honest requires no more than my unflinching conviction in this belief. Once I have begun the pursuit of evidence, I have allowed my faith to falter. Proving (assuming this is possible) her honesting has not affirmed my faith, it has only transformed my earlier conviction into an immutable fact.

Answer 5

The post modern view is that faith and reason do not mix. That they are forever separated. That there is no such thing as a reasonable faith. I disagree. Every worldview starts out with certain faith presuppositions. Even naturalists presuppose a naturalistic ultimate reality. They can not possibly know for certain that is true, therefore they simply accept that is true based on faith.

Answer 6

Science and faith compliment each other. Science is discovering what we already believe by our faith. I don't have a blind faith. My faith is based on very real evidence. I see life itself, the order of the universe, and the nature of all existence as powerful evidence for a creator. I don't see the Creator, but I have faith that he exists based on the evidence I see.

Therefore, faith and science compliment each other.

I know what you mean about R&S. I don't go there much anymore.

Answer 7

I don't think that they need each other. Science is the quest for explanations to natural phenomena, whereas faith is more of a blind acceptance in which no proof is required.

Answer 8

Faith generally means belief in the unprovable and unknowable. So in that sense I would say they do not need each other. If you mean the simple idea or "expectation" or something like that, then sure.

But more data doesn't increase "faith". It increases your conviction.

Answer 9

Their tactics to determining what's authentic are diametrically hostile. faith assumes that what it believes is authentic and tries to in wonderful condition reality to that. whilst faith is puzzled or contradicting evidence is got here upon, faith the two ignores it or performs "psychological gymnastics" to manage the evidence whilst leaving its ideals untouched. faith determines "new understanding/reality" according to revelation and concept. technological information, on the different hand, assumes no longer something and gathers purpose, empirical evidence to construct an know-how of reality. as quickly because it has reached an know-how, it consistently exams and reevaluates that know-how in easy of latest evidence.