Faith in Science

“When you die, nothing happens.”

Since: Sep 12

Gurabo, PR

#43 Sep 16, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. It is curiosity not “faith” that is the basis of a scientific hypothesis. In most cases a hypothesis is merely an educated guess. In many cases the hypothesis is a commonly held “belief” that the researcher himself does not accept and is attempting to refute. A person doesn’t test a hypothesis because he has “faith” that it is correct, he tests it because he has doubt.
"The doubter is a true man of science…" ~ Claude Bernard
I wonder what happens after we die (curiousity). I don't think I go somewhere else, since I have no reason to (doubt). Maybe nothing else comes after and I need to cherish what life I have left (hypothesis).

The experimentation/observation stage of the scientific method in this particular case would involve death. Until then, faith is all I have. I don't think there's an afterlife; I cannot prove it, but I have faith. I choose to invest my faith in an educated guess, rather than a death-denying psychological function.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

#44 Sep 16, 2012
Oberktosa wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder what happens after we die (curiousity). I don't think I go somewhere else, since I have no reason to (doubt). Maybe nothing else comes after and I need to cherish what life I have left (hypothesis).
The experimentation/observation stage of the scientific method in this particular case would involve death. Until then, faith is all I have. I don't think there's an afterlife; I cannot prove it, but I have faith. I choose to invest my faith in an educated guess, rather than a death-denying psychological function.
You have a belief and that belief is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific hypothesis. Anybody can believe anything they want in relation to things that are untestable.

If I say that in 1,000,000 years human beings will no longer have legs that might be my belief but it cannot be a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to test it.

If you say that you have “faith”(trust) or "believe" that something is true or not true you have no reason to conduct an experiment. You have already accepted it as true or not true on the basis of “faith”. The only reason to conduct an experiment is because you don’t have “faith”(trust) or "belief" that something is true or not true.

Belief (n)- acceptance of truth of something, trust

“When you die, nothing happens.”

Since: Sep 12

Gurabo, PR

#47 Sep 19, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a belief and that belief is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific hypothesis. Anybody can believe anything they want in relation to things that are untestable.
If I say that in 1,000,000 years human beings will no longer have legs that might be my belief but it cannot be a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to test it.
If you say that you have “faith”(trust) or "believe" that something is true or not true you have no reason to conduct an experiment. You have already accepted it as true or not true on the basis of “faith”. The only reason to conduct an experiment is because you don’t have “faith”(trust) or "belief" that something is true or not true.
Belief (n)- acceptance of truth of something, trust
hypothesis
1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.

Maybe you give 'hypothesis' your own twist, but you're still stuck on semantics. The reason I started this discussion was to address people's confusion of faith and science, because there's too much people claiming that science is as reliant on faith as religion. Faith by definition is not as you say having "already accepted as true," except when people use it to conclude on a certain subject; if you want you can give the word 'faith' your own twist as well, as long as you don't actually believe you've debunked my argument.

“When you die, nothing happens.”

Since: Sep 12

Gurabo, PR

#48 Sep 19, 2012
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
You have a belief and that belief is not testable and therefore cannot be a scientific hypothesis. Anybody can believe anything they want in relation to things that are untestable.
If I say that in 1,000,000 years human beings will no longer have legs that might be my belief but it cannot be a scientific hypothesis because there is no way to test it.
If you say that you have “faith”(trust) or "believe" that something is true or not true you have no reason to conduct an experiment. You have already accepted it as true or not true on the basis of “faith”. The only reason to conduct an experiment is because you don’t have “faith”(trust) or "belief" that something is true or not true.
Belief (n)- acceptance of truth of something, trust
Of course, when people use faith to conclude investigations they're making a big mistake. I thought I'd clarify that so that you don't misinterpret what I'm trying to say. The problem is that people skip the experimentation stage to reach a conclusion. I want people to put faith in its rightful place. People can believe whatever they want but if they want others to believe they must leave out none of the components of proper investigation.
Punisher

Eastchester, NY

#49 Sep 19, 2012
Oberktosa wrote:
<quoted text>
I wonder what happens after we die (curiousity). I don't think I go somewhere else, since I have no reason to (doubt). Maybe nothing else comes after and I need to cherish what life I have left (hypothesis).
The experimentation/observation stage of the scientific method in this particular case would involve death. Until then, faith is all I have. I don't think there's an afterlife; I cannot prove it, but I have faith. I choose to invest my faith in an educated guess, rather than a death-denying psychological function.
How is it an educated guess?

“When you die, nothing happens.”

Since: Sep 12

Gurabo, PR

#50 Sep 20, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
How is it an educated guess?
I don't think I need to answer that, but I will. My hypothesis is that life may not continue after my death. It is based on the fact that the mental processes found in a living subject are not found in a non-living one. I could go the other way and hope that the mind goes elsewhere after death, but my personal experience has taught me otherwise. I have endured the negative results of using hypotheses for the groundless belief in the existence of things; I'd rather be inclined to believe that things which have shown no indication of existing other than their mention don't exist, especially if there is more indication that they don't. Non-existence cannot be proven, but one can concoct an educated guess of it.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#51 Sep 20, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
"Pints" right at it? lol You just think you are shit on a stick, don't you?
The bible is FULL of REAL science, not your man made PSEUDO science of evolution.
OK Wayne, please be kind enough to give examples of the bible's real science. I ask that in all seriousness.

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#52 Sep 20, 2012
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
OK Wayne, please be kind enough to give examples of the bible's real science. I ask that in all seriousness.
http://www.blogos.org/thinkabo ut/science-in-scripture.html

“When you die, nothing happens.”

Since: Sep 12

Gurabo, PR

#53 Sep 21, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
Thanks, man. God knows I need some amusement. I'll go over them and let you know what I think.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#54 Sep 21, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
I could have said what you said to me when I provided you with a link to read. You said,
"Didn't need to. I'm sure it was a one sided video to support your position in the matter"
Anyway, I did read your link and all the bible verses to back the claim. That may be your idea of science, but I certainly won't be using it as a science manual, not when it has a talking snake and donkey, says a bat is a bird and so many other things that fly in the face of reality and reason!

“Proud To Be A Christian”

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#55 Sep 21, 2012
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
I could have said what you said to me when I provided you with a link to read. You said,
"Didn't need to. I'm sure it was a one sided video to support your position in the matter"
Anyway, I did read your link and all the bible verses to back the claim. That may be your idea of science, but I certainly won't be using it as a science manual, not when it has a talking snake and donkey, says a bat is a bird and so many other things that fly in the face of reality and reason!
Darn! it actually posted a nice reply yo me.
Sola Scriptura

Statts Mills, WV

#56 Sep 21, 2012
par five wrote:
<quoted text>
I could have said what you said to me when I provided you with a link to read. You said,
"Didn't need to. I'm sure it was a one sided video to support your position in the matter"
Anyway, I did read your link and all the bible verses to back the claim. That may be your idea of science, but I certainly won't be using it as a science manual, not when it has a talking snake and donkey, says a bat is a bird and so many other things that fly in the face of reality and reason!
Yeah, and Pluto was a planet...or was it? Gee, I was always taught it was in school and I actually graduated 12th grade! But now they say it's not. Those darn scientists! When will they ever make up my mind?
Punisher

Tuckahoe, NY

#59 Sep 21, 2012
Oberktosa wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't think I need to answer that, but I will. My hypothesis is that life may not continue after my death. It is based on the fact that the mental processes found in a living subject are not found in a non-living one. I could go the other way and hope that the mind goes elsewhere after death, but my personal experience has taught me otherwise. I have endured the negative results of using hypotheses for the groundless belief in the existence of things; I'd rather be inclined to believe that things which have shown no indication of existing other than their mention don't exist, especially if there is more indication that they don't. Non-existence cannot be proven, but one can concoct an educated guess of it.
Thanks. All I wanted was some clarity on your POV. Sorry if it offended you...but don't be so touchy, I/we cant read your mind.
Punisher

Tuckahoe, NY

#60 Sep 21, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and Pluto was a planet...or was it? Gee, I was always taught it was in school and I actually graduated 12th grade! But now they say it's not. Those darn scientists! When will they ever make up my mind?
Why does that matter to you? How is that something to focus, rather fixate on? How does it show anything but a shifting in definitions of what a planet should be..? Did Pluto being declassified change anything?

Its a stupid argument - as its not even an argument, its nothing. Its like a bug being reclassified due to better research. Does the bug world tilt off axis and all the bugs freak out?

What once might have been defined as a mountain several thousand years ago might not be one today...would that upset the apple-cart?

You/I also likely learned in school many things that have been corrected...in all subjects, that you/I simply don't know about...are they all now to be dismissed for certain internal changes?
Sola Scriptura

Statts Mills, WV

#61 Sep 21, 2012
Punisher wrote:
<quoted text>
Why does that matter to you? How is that something to focus, rather fixate on? How does it show anything but a shifting in definitions of what a planet should be..? Did Pluto being declassified change anything?
Its a stupid argument - as its not even an argument, its nothing. Its like a bug being reclassified due to better research. Does the bug world tilt off axis and all the bugs freak out?
What once might have been defined as a mountain several thousand years ago might not be one today...would that upset the apple-cart?
You/I also likely learned in school many things that have been corrected...in all subjects, that you/I simply don't know about...are they all now to be dismissed for certain internal changes?
No,YOU have a stupid argument. You DEMAND that scripture be perfect and when you are shown that it IS, you scoff.

When it is shown SCIENCE screws up ALL the time you say, so what?

So, all those years that science was SURE Pluto was a planet,(AND THAT WAS ON TESTS THAT I TOOK) they have been proven to be wrong.

YOU cannot prove scripture is wrong. Many more educated men and women than YOU have found this out.

You are nothing but a loud mouthed self centered atheist.

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#62 Sep 22, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and Pluto was a planet...or was it? Gee, I was always taught it was in school and I actually graduated 12th grade! But now they say it's not. Those darn scientists! When will they ever make up my mind?
What a silly reply I thought, then I remembered, it's Wayne!

Since: Aug 08

Somewhere in Ireland

#63 Sep 22, 2012
CIMLAS2 wrote:
<quoted text>Darn! it actually posted a nice reply yo me.
Who is "it"?
Big Al

Springfield, MO

#64 Sep 22, 2012
Oberktosa wrote:
<quoted text>
hypothesis
1. A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.
2. A proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth.
Maybe you give 'hypothesis' your own twist, but you're still stuck on semantics. The reason I started this discussion was to address people's confusion of faith and science, because there's too much people claiming that science is as reliant on faith as religion. Faith by definition is not as you say having "already accepted as true," except when people use it to conclude on a certain subject; if you want you can give the word 'faith' your own twist as well, as long as you don't actually believe you've debunked my argument.
I think you’re correct; we are in agreement and only arguing semantics. Certainly a scientist may “believe” his hypothesis to be correct. I, however, do not think he “believes” in the same sense that a religious person “believes” in god. A scientist is open to the conclusion (based on the evidence) that his hypothesis is incorrect, while a religious person is not open to any suggestion that his “belief” is incorrect.

“What makes a statement a scientific hypothesis, rather than just an interesting speculation? A scientific hypothesis must meet 2 requirements:
1. A scientific hypothesis must be testable, and;
2. A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.”
http://www.batesville.k12.in.us/physics/phyne...
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#65 Sep 22, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
No,YOU have a stupid argument. You DEMAND that scripture be perfect and when you are shown that it IS, you scoff.
When it is shown SCIENCE screws up ALL the time you say, so what?
So, all those years that science was SURE Pluto was a planet,(AND THAT WAS ON TESTS THAT I TOOK) they have been proven to be wrong.
YOU cannot prove scripture is wrong. Many more educated men and women than YOU have found this out.
You are nothing but a loud mouthed self centered atheist.
I don't demand scriptural perfection - I know its not. Its Xtians who say it it. Who say nothing is wrong, nothing is off, nothing is to be questioned. Its all literal, etc, etc...!

When you realize that its Xtians who put their feet in their mouths with this stuff - because most have no idea about the inconsistencies, errors, etc...

Prove scripture wrong, sure I can. The earth is not 6-10k years old. No man, no one has ever walked on water and no man has ever risen from the dead - no matter the claims made by his Bandmates. And no woman has ever been magically inseminated...!

And youre just a self-centered, miserable old Xtian who hates that your precious book is a mess of inaccuracies and improbable events.

But the reality is when something changes in some scientific discipline, its not a huge issue - least of all a reclassification of some planet like object...if the rules of gravity were suddenly and inexplicably re-written you might have a case - till then you grasp at an empty box of straws.
Punisher

Yonkers, NY

#66 Sep 22, 2012
Sola Scriptura wrote:
<quoted text>
No,YOU have a stupid argument. You DEMAND that scripture be perfect and when you are shown that it IS, you scoff.
When it is shown SCIENCE screws up ALL the time you say, so what?
So, all those years that science was SURE Pluto was a planet,(AND THAT WAS ON TESTS THAT I TOOK) they have been proven to be wrong.
YOU cannot prove scripture is wrong. Many more educated men and women than YOU have found this out.
You are nothing but a loud mouthed self centered atheist.
Plus its not a screw-up. If someone says, "its X because of Y," and someone comes along and says, "well, it not only because of Y, but also Z and a little of ABC." That's not a screw-up, that's simply deeper understanding.

Its like getting directions. Some one might be general in their directions as how to get to point B, while another might be exact down to the trees and roadkill to get to the same place. Is one a screw-up?

This is where you show how little real thinking and contemplation you really perform in a general sense...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Christian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Why? 19 min Atheistgirl 2
THE LORD of THE SPIRIT REALM 24 min Jesus Is 37
ASK THE LORD of THE SPIRIT REALM 25 min Atheistgirl 4
Who else wants to go back and stop the fall of ... 47 min Preacher 44
Spirit bodies. 1 hr janeebee 37
+++++++++++ THE SECRET to IMMORTALITY +++++++++++ (Nov '14) 1 hr Atheistgirl 36
Evidence Against God 1 hr Atheistgirl 3,867
News Religion, higher education and critical thinking (Aug '15) 1 hr KAB 8,269
Why do you really believe in a god? 5 hr Hardcore 626
Scientific Proof Of GOD(for dummies) 6 hr 10uhsee 1,353
More from around the web