Is there a scientific stigma against faith that I am misunderstanding or something?

Many people who appreciate science, also appreciate rationality/reason, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.

True, but humans are only rational in their thinking, reasoning. Different story when it comes to their actions.


And I only see Ghandi flying in the air when I'm drunk. When I'm sober, he's just dead.

[naive]

That's true, but pedantic and technical, as the same could be said of virtually anything that occurs in one's life. Most people share the belief that doctors can identify and treat illnesses. Most people hold the belief that their birthday is actually on the day specified in their birth certificate. Most people share the belief that the sun provides warmth and light. Most people share the belief that we cannot fly. etc. Would you deem it necessary to call these things shared belief systems of faith, and liken them to religions?

Yes.

That's the problem of religion, not the luxury of science. It just makes it harder for religions to possess credibility when their claims are not testable.

So if science were not able to be easily tested, would you have no faith that you would not wake up out of bed one morning and fall into the sky? Just because a theory is untestable does not mean it is false, nor does scrupulous testing mean that results will never change.

Imagine the members of this site created a book with Gandhi as supernatural saviour of the world (who flew around in the sky and converted sand into food) and copied real historical events into it as well as Aesop's fables. Then just imagine a couple of thousand years into the future: it becomes a widely accepted religion with thousands of believers writing books about it. Does this prove that Gandhi was really anything more than a mortal man? If you were one of these believers, you might believe with every ounce of your body that the depictions of Gandhi are real, and believe that there is proof everywhere, but your "proof" of supergandhi is based on embellishments and fantasies written in books.

Ok, lets assume that Ghandi really did do these things. How would you prove it to people 1000 years from now? If I was adding two coins together all day long and then all of a sudden one time I ended up with three coins (1+1=3), but I couldn't repeat the process or explain it, it would have nothing to do the the 'truth' of it happening. There are anomalies that happen and a lack of proof doesn't not imply a lack of truth. 

Religion might be emotionally compelling, but it is not rationally compelling. It relies on faith, not rationality.

Rationality is only faith in knowledge, and without faith you can have no rationality.

It specifically depends on which scientific theory & religion you are talking about. For instance: Evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible's Genesis.

I'm not speaking of any specific religions, it's not my purpose to say which theories are true or false. Simply that anything accepted as truth, is based on a system of faith.

In science, most experimental data is objective.

The data is objective, our understanding of the data is not.

Many people who appreciate science, also appreciate rationality/reason, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.

I do not believe this statement to be true, I believe that rationality/reason requires faith.

[pTK]

I don't like these types of threads because it takes players I like and shows me their stupidity.

Well the only thing I can say is now I understand why your username is naive

I don't like these types of threads because it takes players I like and shows me their stupidity.

Well the only thing I can say is now I understand why your username is naive

thats is why i haven't really been reading this thread till i saw your post.

[naive]

pTK, just because you may have narrow minded opinions about the world does not mean those who do not share them with you are stupid. I'm simply exploring a side of an argument which to me seems correct based on my understanding.  If you wish to simply throw insults you don't belong in the conversation, I'm pretty sure this isn't the flame forum. You may have already drawn your boxes of what is acceptable in your reality but I have not. You may think I am stupid, but perhaps I just have been exposed to information you have not. I forgive you for it, it's much easier to attack a person than an idea.

I live in a world of logic (information security degree, entrepreneur, professional programmer). I've worked with computer vision, neural networks, and I aspire to do great work with artificial intelligence in my life. The secret of my name 'naive' is that I really named it after naive-bayes classifiers. I do not declare myself to be a member of any religion, however I do not have any disdain for any religion. We have evolved with religion and at many points in history science and religion were not even distinguished between. Both are attempts to understand the universe.

An argument saying that the two are not mutually exclusive concepts is really not very far fetched. Not from a historic or neurological viewpoint at least. From a scientific attempt to understand the cognitive processes which allow for higher consciousness activities (like religion and science), neurologically the original article even collaborates my entire side of this discussion. Unless you have something of value to add nobody is forcing you to comment.

where the fuck is canister why hasnt he comented on this he loves to argue religon LOL

[pTK]

pTK, just because you may have narrow minded opinions about the world does not mean those who do not share them with you are stupid. I'm simply exploring a side of an argument which to me seems correct based on my understanding.  If you wish to simply throw insults you don't belong in the conversation, I'm pretty sure this isn't the flame forum. You may have already drawn your boxes of what is acceptable in your reality but I have not. You may think I am stupid, but perhaps I just have been exposed to information you have not. I forgive you for it, it's much easier to attack a person than an idea.

I live in a world of logic (information security degree, entrepreneur, professional programmer). I've worked with computer vision, neural networks, and I aspire to do great work with artificial intelligence in my life. The secret of my name 'naive' is that I really named it after naive-bayes classifiers. I do not declare myself to be a member of any religion, however I do not have any disdain for any religion. We have evolved with religion and at many points in history science and religion were not even distinguished between. Both are attempts to understand the universe.

An argument saying that the two are not mutually exclusive concepts is really not very far fetched. Not from a historic or neurological viewpoint at least. From a scientific attempt to understand the cognitive processes which allow for higher consciousness activities (like religion and science), neurologically the original article even collaborates my entire side of this discussion. Unless you have something of value to add nobody is forcing you to comment.

pTK, just because you may have narrow minded opinions about the world does not mean those who do not share them with you are stupid. I'm simply exploring a side of an argument which to me seems correct based on my understanding.

based on my understanding
narrow minded opinions about the world

Based on my narrow minded opinions about the world


Fixed that paragraph for you.

No need to project yourself onto me.  This is a forum. It's much easier to defend fairy tales on it that it is in the real world against tons of evidence.  You really should do a little more reading. 

Btw I love fantasy. I read tons of fantasy, but the difference between us is that I can come back to reality when its necesarry.

Also any Religion Thread should instantly go to Flames Section.

i love being involved in a religion vs science debate. ive been doing it for years, and hope thats what this thread turns into, rather than "is science a religion?". i feel that is not even worth arguing.

i also really hope this does not turn into a flame war. religion vs science is one of the oldest and most exciting topics imo. maybe i feel that way because a conclusive argument can never be made by either side, and the debate will continue to rage on: scientists will always fall back on empirical evidence (and will never be able to supply ALL the answers) and religionists will always fall back on "you just have to have faith".

The quotations in this post are pretty badly organised.

That's true, but pedantic and technical, as the same could be said of virtually anything that occurs in one's life. Most people share the belief that doctors can identify and treat illnesses. Most people hold the belief that their birthday is actually on the day specified in their birth certificate. Most people share the belief that the sun provides warmth and light. Most people share the belief that we cannot fly. etc. Would you deem it necessary to call these things shared belief systems of faith, and liken them to religions?

Yes.

Do you believe that there is a distinction in probability between the possible truth of the claims that "humans cannot fly", that "Jonah lived in a whale for three days", and that "men are from Mars while women are from Jupiter"?

That's the problem of religion, not the luxury of science. It just makes it harder for religions to possess credibility when their claims are not testable.

So if science were not able to be easily tested, would you have no faith that you would not wake up out of bed one morning and fall into the sky? Just because a theory is untestable does not mean it is false, nor does scrupulous testing mean that results will never change.

Do you not recognize, that there is no compelling rational reason for a person to take their belief away from the evidenced status quo (that people don't fall into the sky) and instead replace it with an unsubstantiated notion (that I could fall into the sky). 

Formally, If a claim is not testable, then the truth of it cannot be verified, and it cannot be accepted. It's possible that it could still be true, but there is no reason to believe that it is. There exists a "burden of proof", and all positive claims must provide sufficient evidence in order to be accepted as true. Without evidence/proof, there is no way to distinguish between the likelihood of any claim.

Imagine the members of this site created a book with Gandhi as supernatural saviour of the world (who flew around in the sky and converted sand into food) and copied real historical events into it as well as Aesop's fables. Then just imagine a couple of thousand years into the future: it becomes a widely accepted religion with thousands of believers writing books about it. Does this prove that Gandhi was really anything more than a mortal man? If you were one of these believers, you might believe with every ounce of your body that the depictions of Gandhi are real, and believe that there is proof everywhere, but your "proof" of supergandhi is based on embellishments and fantasies written in books.

Ok, lets assume that Ghandi really did do these things. How would you prove it to people 1000 years from now?

I don't particularly know, but this point does not help your argument. It is important that you recognize that if there is not sufficient evidence for something, there does not exist a compelling rational reason to believe it.

If I was adding two coins together all day long and then all of a sudden one time I ended up with three coins (1+1=3), but I couldn't repeat the process or explain it, it would have nothing to do the the 'truth' of it happening. There are anomalies that happen and a lack of proof doesn't not imply a lack of truth.

There is no rational reason to believe that two coins can magically transform into three, there is only pure faith. There is no evidence that things like that actually happen. Also, being able to test something does not make it true, it just makes it possible to determine whether or not it is true.

Religion might be emotionally compelling, but it is not rationally compelling. It relies on faith, not rationality.

Rationality is only faith in knowledge, and without faith you can have no rationality.

How so? Rationality involves logically consistent beliefs, it requires logic and reasoning.

In regards to:

I'm not speaking of any specific religions, it's not my purpose to say which theories are true or false. Simply that anything accepted as truth, is based on a system of faith.

I was replying to:

Science and religion are very very linked by the shared systems of faith and are most definitely not mutually exclusive concept

with:

It specifically depends on which scientific theory & religion you are talking about. For instance: Evolution is not compatible with a literal interpretation of the Bible's Genesis.

I made a claim that science and religion definitely can be mutually exclusive concepts, and if you want to dispute that, then I can provide evidence to back up my claim.

In science, most experimental data is objective.

The data is objective, our understanding of the data is not.

So you think that scientific data can accurately depict objective truth?

Many people who appreciate science, also appreciate rationality/reason, which is pretty much the opposite of faith.

I do not believe this statement to be true, I believe that rationality/reason requires faith.

In what way does reasoned logic require faith?

i also really hope this does not turn into a flame war. religion vs science is one of the oldest and most exciting topics imo. maybe i feel that way because a conclusive argument can never be made by either side, and the debate will continue to rage on: scientists will always fall back on empirical evidence (and will never be able to supply ALL the answers) and religionists will always fall back on "you just have to have faith".

Yeah pishtim, I don't believe that science can be effectively used to argue against religion. However, I think that religion can be effectively argued against with the use of philosophy and logic.

Aaah, one of those endless topics. 


Science and religion differ from each other in a significant way, but are also related. Both are about humans trying to understand the world. The difference is that science has a strict method, that is not the case with religion.

The scientific method is simply put about coming up with a hypothesis and trying to test that hypothesis. This is probably where the scientific method has the most in common with religion. A person coming up with a hypothesis doesn't have any proof for that, at most some clues. Still he believes that he's right.

Religion comes from humans having difficulty with the futility of life. That we're not put here with a purpose. They have a hard time grasping that we just are here and that it doesn't even matter that we (or the entire human race) are alive, the planet/galaxy... just goes on without us.

Personally I'm glad there isn't 'a higher power' that put me here with a purpose. And even if I did believe it, I wouldn't care. I only have about (maybe) 80-90 years to live and I have to do 'his' work or follow 'his' rules? No, thank you, this is my life.