|
By definition science is not based on faith, so here we have it. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree but it supports and/or provides evidence of myths that previously existed. And i have faith
in that notion. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Science is built around facts. Religion is built around groups of people who believe one thing is
true at one moment but change their mind the next.
Yes facts in science can be changed but not without common agreement between scientists |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Religion is a house of cards. The slightest breeze of reason knocks it down but rabid believers
refuse to admit it fell and claim it still stands.
Science is a house made of bricks. Until a brick is tested and proven solid, it is not used to
build the structure. Religion blows like a hurricane and fails to fell it, yet they claim "victory"
or "god will knock it down, one day! Just wait and see!"
To the_atom:
I find it doubly appropriate. The phrase "house of cards" is exactly what religion and faith are,
and science doesn't use things learned ("bricks") until they're proven.
Evolution isn't an "argument against 'god'", it's an inevitable conclusion based on solid facts.
Without the prior scientific work of James Hutton, Charles Lyell or Alfred Russel Wallace, Charles
Darwin would never have come up with evolution. His bricks were laid on solid foundations that
others laid before, hence why godbots have never been able to knock it down.
Religion comes up with its myths out of thin air. |
| |
 K9  28 Apr 2008 20:38
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
By itself science is not based on faith, and should not be based on faith. That is why Gore's
statement that "the debate on Global warming is over" is preposterous, unless global warming is more
a faith based initiative than it is science. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
That's actually already been established quite a bit on this website |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Science is based on faith just like everything else in life is based on faith. I believe that God
created everything, including Science. Without God, Science would not exist. God created things and
gave us Science so that we could study and understand how and why he created something. Science and
faith work together. Faith is the belief that something exists and Science is the proof that it
does. Therefore, I do not think that Science is like religion. I think that religion is Science. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I do not agree so much that science is BASED on faith, but I do believe that the two can certainly
run in parallel, intertwined.
For example, the fact that science and scientific concepts exist could be down to the fact that God,
if you believe that God does exist, meant for the Universe and Earth to be created in such a way
that there were explanations.
Everything has an explanation after all; everything from why the sky is blue, to why plants grow.
Also, as quoted, from myself, from the "Evidence Is The Only Logical Reason With Any
Evidence To Why People Are Here" Debate:
"It may well be possible that God almost planned for, or intended, there to be some sort of valid,
scientific explanation to exist; indeed, if we had almost no knowledge about anything at all
(admittedly, even now, we know merely a fraction of a single percentage of everything there is to
know), we would all be pretty bemused about everything - even more so than we, arguably, are
currently."
Yes, everything is, arguably, theory; but there is still no reason why Science and Religion cannot
be linked, in my opinion.
|
| |
 jsh4 19 Feb 2008 23:04
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Faith is belief in things unseen, which is the opposite of how science works. Science functions by
following a specific methodology and continually tests it's results.
Those who claim science has anything to do with faith simply have an agenda. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Science cannot exist without empirical evidence, while religion certainly can, and does often exist
on faith alone. In general, scientific knowledge rests on discoveries made through repeated
observations and consistency. Science relies on tests, performed within a controlled environment,
and not just on trust or faith, based on one's personal life-story, experiences and anecdotes.
This having been said, it is good to point out that many scientists are also people of faith, as the
two are not at all mutually exclusive. We all have some type of faith, and it need not be religious
or in the supernatural. When we cross the street, we have faith that the stranger sitting in the car
will not decide to put his foot on the gas all of a sudden and run us over. We trust that the driver
will act in a rational way, even though we cannot know this for sure. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
I agree. That is why macro-evolution is not science- it is based on faith. Faith in the majority of
scientists (I think). |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
As for evolution, I'm unsure, but you'd be surprised how much science has roots in religion. In the
nineteenth century, the only people who had an exceptional education were aristocrats and people
involved in the church. For instance, Robert Hooke was involved in the church, and he named cells
after monastery rooms because that's what they reminded him of. See? Much science has a basis in
faith, and many discoveries made since then can be traced back to these core beliefs and
discoveries. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
