2007-10-30 10:27:33 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
For the purpose of the question please assume that a fact conflicts with a faith.
2007-10-30 10:34:02 · update #1
No, because empirical evidence is limited by our ability to observe, measure and interpret the object under investigation. To accept empirical evidence, even what appears to be overwhelming evidence, as unquestionably true requires a leap of faith!
All empirical investigation is biased to some extent by a variety of factors. I won't bore you with a dissertation on reliability and validity and the threats to each (ironically, both terms ARE included in the title of my doctoral dissertation LOL), but suffice it to say that all empirically-derived "facts" contain some element of error. You can't accept something a unquestionably true without putting at least some faith in something. Some people prefer to put their faith in men and/or machines...others put their faith in God...both groups don't allow evidence (empirical or otherwise) trump their basic faith!
2007-10-30 11:09:18 · answer #1 · answered by KAL 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Empirical evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, so I prefer to rely on the word of the creator of the universe, and all that is in it.
In most cases science has seen the evidence, and yet they cannot agree on what the evidence says to us.
For instance I remember a geologist saying that the more we know, the more we know that we do not know.
Einstein said that we probably know about 3% of all that is to be known about the vastness of the universe. What lies in the other 97%?
grace2u
2007-10-30 17:35:53 · answer #2 · answered by Theophilus 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, because reality is the best possible guide to making decisions.
Ah, but will you now challenge the Postmodernist? Its fine to say this about Christians, but do you have the guts to post a question of this kind to Feminist of NOWs ilk?
2007-10-30 17:33:54 · answer #3 · answered by Herodotus 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't understand why people seem to still believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive-reason is one of the things that supports faith.
2007-10-30 18:53:45 · answer #4 · answered by neil 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Your question is deeply flawed, empirical evidence is interpreted, as such it is not fact. People can interpret things in different ways, often people will interpret empirical evidence to show what they _believe_ to be true.
2007-10-30 17:49:34 · answer #5 · answered by Josh R 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes it does. Science has proven itself over the last 200 years to solely be able to make the claim that it's fundamental tenets require logic and reason to beleive. Faith, while important, and beneficial to many, isn't required to be human, where we're all equal despite our different beliefs.
2007-10-30 17:33:02 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Faith is for the delusional. Facts are much more amazing. You can actually build upon them and have them take you places that faith never can.
2007-10-30 17:32:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
I trade you a 5 dollar bill for a 100 dollar bill. You just need to believe me when I say the 5 is worth more.
2007-10-30 17:32:29 · answer #8 · answered by questioning 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Empirical science will eventually trump faith. We'll just have to work to get there.
2007-10-30 17:36:05 · answer #9 · answered by kwxilvr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. It can't, by definition.
Faith is belief in something that has no evidence to support it. If it had evidence, it would be called reason.
Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. You cannot believe something on faith and reason. It is one or the other.
2007-10-30 17:29:36 · answer #10 · answered by Mojo 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋