Is Science a Product of Human Invention?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do not believe that Chiro is using an alien definition of the term "faith". I believe that some religious people use an alien definition of the term "faith", particularly in the sense of "blind faith". For instance, I as a lay person, have "faith" in science. I have not run any experiments nor done any of the research necessary to actually have "knowledge" of the science that I consider "true". I have "faith" in the scientific community to screen this information and use rigorous peer review. I have "faith" in my ability to read the information as presented and consider the soundness of the methodology. Ultimately I do not actually "know" anything about the sciences, it is all taken on "faith" in the system and philosophy of science.

When you believe a thing no matter what, that is not "faith", that is generally called "brainwashing". It is only called "faith" by orthodox apologists.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I do not believe that Chiro is using an alien definition of the term "faith". I believe that some religious people use an alien definition of the term "faith", particularly in the sense of "blind faith". For instance, I as a lay person, have "faith" in science. I have not run any experiments nor done any of the research necessary to actually have "knowledge" of the science that I consider "true". I have "faith" in the scientific community to screen this information and use rigorous peer review. I have "faith" in my ability to read the information as presented and consider the soundness of the methodology. Ultimately I do not actually "know" anything about the sciences, it is all taken on "faith" in the system and philosophy of science.

When you believe a thing no matter what, that is not "faith", that is generally called "brainwashing". It is only called "faith" by orthodox apologists.

I would replace every use of the word faith there with trust. It makes more sense.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I would replace every use of the word faith there with trust. It makes more sense.

The first definition for faith from dictionary.com...

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

By etymology dictionary "duty of fulfilling one's trust"...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=faith&searchmode=none

"Faith" and "trust" are not such different things based on a standard, non religious orthodox, definition.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

The first definition for faith from dictionary.com...

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith

By etymology dictionary "duty of fulfilling one's trust"...
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=faith&searchmode=none

"Faith" and "trust" are not such different things based on a standard, non religious orthodox, definition.

Therein lies the problem. The word is used to describe two utterly different things needlessly and interchangeably. There is no need to use the word faith when you mean trust, all it does is open the door to potential conflation with religious faith.

For example: to say "I have faith in science" is a statement used by proponents of religion in place of science to conflate the two. Someone arguing against using religion as a means to determine truth about the world could rightly point out the necessity of faith and why that's an intellectual dead-end, if the debate is in the public sphere it's dishonest but easy for someone to argue that scientists have faith too.

 

[FinixUnion]

However, you are talking about politics here not science. Science is a profession and converting other people to believe in or accept science is not a part of that profession IMO.

What are you talking about? What do you think influences policy? The fact that scientific discoveries conflict with religious belief is highly evident. You speak for all scientist?

 

[redrum419_7]

Science predicts the future based on measurable [and measured] properties of the environment. Religion predicts the future based on supernatural authority. Both methods produce incredible results, but, science produces repeatable results.

What incredible results does religion produce? Compared with science?

 

[SHISHKABOB]

What incredible results does religion produce? Compared with science?

well, when's the last time science started wars, etc.? Not the same kind of results, but definitely "results". In ancient and medieval times, religion was also a wonderful way for the rules of the day to keep the populace settled and peaceful.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

well, when's the last time science started wars, etc.? Not the same kind of results, but definitely "results". In ancient and medieval times, religion was also a wonderful way for the rules of the day to keep the populace settled and peaceful.

 

[Evo]

well, when's the last time science started wars, etc.?

true, science has not started wars, but religion has.

In ancient and medieval times, religion was also a wonderful way for the rules of the day to keep the populace settled and peaceful.

Actually in ancient and medieval times the church helped keep the populace under their control, and the church also controlled the kings and emperors to a great extent. Poor people were forced to work for free on church lands and pay tithe. The local Abbots and Bishops were filthy rich from taking grain, animals, money from the peasants (they also levied taxes, although they paid none), and taking land. Not to mention gifts from rulers that wanted the churches favor. There was major corruption.

There were crusades and other church sanctioned holy wars. The inquisition. It's a long list, it's off topic, and we're not going to start a discussion about it here. I just wanted to make sure we remember things correctly.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I'm not saying it was *good*, I'm just saying it was a *result*. Quite widespread and influential results.

 

[Evo]

I'm not saying it was *good*, I'm just saying it was a *result*. Quite widespread and influential results.

Absolutely.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I'm no medieval scholar, but I'm pretty sure that most people back then led "peaceful" lives. In that they did not join the army. They probably got stomped on by wars pretty often, but did not enjoy it.

but yeah, I'm not arguing any apologies for religion, just pointing out other kinds of "results".

There's plenty of bad things and also good things that happened because of religion in the world. I'm making no point about the goodness or badness of these things, just pointing out that some things happened because of religion, and they were not insignificant in the scheme of things.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I'm no medieval scholar, but I'm pretty sure that most people back then led "peaceful" lives. In that they did not join the army. They probably got stomped on by wars pretty often, but did not enjoy it.

but yeah, I'm not arguing any apologies for religion, just pointing out other kinds of "results".

There's plenty of bad things and also good things that happened because of religion in the world. I'm making no point about the goodness or badness of these things, just pointing out that some things happened because of religion, and they were not insignificant in the scheme of things.

I don't think anyone was seriously arguing that religion hasn't had a significant effect on the world but rather comparing the results of science and religion is irrelevant. It's like comparing the speed in which a building has been constructed with the score of the local football team. Science is a tool for ascertaining truth about the world and using that knowledge to innovate better tools and methods for survival, proliferation and happiness. The only real way you can compare it to religion is where they both have claims in the same field i.e. at ascertaining truth.

 

[SHISHKABOB]

I don't think anyone was seriously arguing that religion hasn't had a significant effect on the world but rather comparing the results of science and religion is irrelevant. It's like comparing the speed in which a building has been constructed with the score of the local football team. Science is a tool for ascertaining truth about the world and using that knowledge to innovate better tools and methods for survival, proliferation and happiness. The only real way you can compare it to religion is where they both have claims in the same field i.e. at ascertaining truth.

rereading the discussion, I agree that I misunderstood what was meant