Home › Forums › Philosophy › Faith and Science: Which Is Right?
This topic contains 59 replies, has 18 voices, and was last updated by 
MACHO 1 year, 11 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
There are certain instances when faith and science can both be right. Using Intuition it is possible to know something or figure something out with little or no evidence. The problem with Intuition is that you cannot prove you are correct.
Science is an Empirical process in, which you can know by eliminating unknowns. Once the unknowns have been eliminated you can prove your results to anyone, who is willing to reproduce your tests.
Some members have pointed out that Modern Science has become a religion itself. That is true, Modern Science is rather dogmatic. “Celebrity Scientists” have become prophets of their doctrines. Einstein and the relativists are the best example of this.
Einstein popularized the “Thought Experiment” which is not a true Empirical process. This led to such nonsense as Schrodinger’s Cat
There can be no Paradoxes in True Science.
Sadly, Science has become tainted with this paradoxical thinking. The best Scientific works were produced from the Renaissance right up until about WWI era. Once relativity set in it’s all been downhill.
If you look at the Western World as a whole, WWI was that defining moment when everything went downhill. Paradoxical Science, S~~~ Art and Music, Feminism all of it came out from the mass “Human Sacrifice Ritual” that would define the entirety of the 20th Century. Rather sad, but the Renaissance died on the Somme.
You seem to be confusing relativity with quantum mechanics in my read of your post.
Both of these branches of physics are rigorous, and lead to definite empirically testable predictions.
Why are they a faith?
I’ve yet to see a faith described in a mathematical language at all, let alone one so precise. Not only does it make testable predications…they are quantitative predictions. A faith says, I feel this…therefore it’s true. A quantitative science (such as those you described) says the answer is 3.0002891. When we test it we get 3.00028915 repeatedly. Not a faith sir.
The answer, is no.
Further to my above post…
Did you know that lasers came about due to an understanding of quantum mechanics?
Obviously this theory is just a faith, full of paradoxes. I ask you…how can a highly refined, REAL technology come about from an inconsistent faith-based ideology?
The answer, is no.
Did you know that GPS systems would not work without the necessary corrections described by general relativity?
Doesn’t seem faith-based to me.
Seems like a lot of math wasted just to describe “I feel this”. More to the point – they work, down to the nearest meter.
The answer, is no.
Anonymous1You seem to be confusing relativity with quantum mechanics in my read of your post.
No, I am not confused at all. I don’t believe that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time. This is nonsense. As I stated, True Science cannot be paradoxical.
Yet, I have met “true believers” who have “faith” that the cat is both alive and dead because their “prophet” said so.
Obviously this theory is just a faith, full of paradoxes. I ask you…how can a highly refined, REAL technology come about from an inconsistent faith-based ideology?
It doesn’t come about from ideology, it comes about through experimentation and engineering. This is my problem with Einstein, “Thought Experiments” are no substitute for Real Experiments.
You seem to be confusing relativity with quantum mechanics in my read of your post.
No, I am not confused at all. I don’t believe that a cat can be both alive and dead at the same time. This is nonsense. As I stated, True Science cannot be paradoxical.
Yet, I have met “true believers” who have “faith” that the cat is both alive and dead because their “prophet” said so.
Obviously this theory is just a faith, full of paradoxes. I ask you…how can a highly refined, REAL technology come about from an inconsistent faith-based ideology?
It doesn’t come about from ideology, it comes about through experimentation and engineering. This is my problem with Einstein, “Thought Experiments” are no substitute for Real Experiments.
You seem to be contradicting yourself here.
You say that “thought experiments” are not a proper way to do science. I agree. They are useful for generating ideas, which lead to new theories, which are then tested by experiment. Einstein never claimed that his thought experiments validated his theory. He had to formulate his theory in precise mathematical language which lends itself to empirical testing. Relativity wasn’t accepted because of a thought experiment. The theory has withstood every quantitative empirical test so far.
Your main problem with QM is Schrodinger’s thought experiment. So…we can’t DO science through this method, but we can invalidate a science through this method?
The real experiments testing QM theory and relativity have all been successful. The real world doesn’t give a s~~~ about human intuition about how the world works. Nature is weird…weirder than we know. For the most part, we have to let the mathematics guide us at this point because we don’t have an intuition for these phenomena. Despite that, QM is the most quantitatively accurate science we’ve ever produced.
No one “likes” that nature behaves this way. No one understands it either. However, if reality agrees with the predictions of QM (it does), then we have to accept that…even if it has bizarre consequences we have no intuition for. This is not a faith. People are testing the hell out of the predictions of QM, and many would like to see the theory fail so we can go back to a much more comfortable deterministic world. So far, all these efforts have failed.
We have to accept reality on its own terms.
The answer, is no.
Some scientist have tried to say faith and science are
contradictory. They are not.Most men of faith do not deny science and do not consider that Faith and science are exclusive of each other.
I refuse to believe that scientific research can or
will ever provide viable evidence that heavenly spirits
do or do not exist.
all a scientist will ever truthfully be able to say
about faith is“after years and years of scientific
experiments, test and studies we cannot confirm nor
deny the existence of heavenly spirits.”While in the very real world of politics and law the
courts have allowed testimony as evidence for thousands
of years. Scientist are not inclined nor obligated to
accept testimony as evidence.Who has more authority A judge or a scientist?
Political science is the practiced art of telling lies without being caught or pinned down.
Politicians have been pinned down and caught now.
I pray in the name of Jesus the lord
will now guide my typing fingers. A&menTHIS IS THE HEAVENLY SPIRIT OF HARPOMASON’S
CREATOR. I CHALLENGE THE POPULATION OF THE
ENTIRE EARTH TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OTHERWISE.Jesus was challenged on the truth of his self
witness and replied:
“you judge the flesh, I judge no one.”Love and respect to all without prejudice.
I was bound to be misunderstood, and I laugh at those who misunderstand me. Kind mockery at the well intentioned, but unfettered cruelty towards those would be prison guards of my creative possibilities. This so as to learn as much from misunderstanding as from understanding. Taking pleasure in worthy opponents and making language fluid and flowing like a river yet pointed and precise as a dagger. Contradicts the socialistic purpose of language and makes for a wonderful linguistic dance, A verbal martial art with constant parries that hone the weapon that is the two edged sword of my mouth.
I totally agree with your statement
all a scientist will ever truthfully be able to say
about faith is“after years and years of scientific
experiments, test and studies we cannot confirm nor
deny the existence of heavenly spirits.”This is totally correct.
You lost me on your comments about judges and courts, scientists and judges. In any event, political science is NOT a science. It resides in the faculty of arts, where it belongs.
The answer, is no.
Further to my thoughts on QM and relativity:
These are mathematical theories. They prescribe a very precise result, under given conditions. It’s not philosophy, it’s science. The mathematics says if A, then B. We see B time and again, by experiment, in the real world.
Arguing that QM or relativity is paradoxical, it’s akin to arguing against mathematics.
Is mathematics a faith? Are math professors “prophets”?
The answer, is no.
Anonymous1Einstein never claimed that his thought experiments validated his theory. He had to formulate his theory in precise mathematical language which lends itself to empirical testing. Relativity wasn’t accepted because of a thought experiment. The theory has withstood every quantitative empirical test so far.
I have heard this before from Physicists at College. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not challenging Relativity as a theory. I know Lorentz Transformations work. I understand the reasoning behind this.
I also see that Einstein’s work drew very heavily on the work of Lorentz and Poincare. Yet, he never cited his sources. Einstein claimed to have never seen Poincare’s work. Years later it came out that Einstein had indeed seen Poincare’s work. He lifted E = MC^2 from Poincare’s work.
Relativity and it’s mathematical descriptions was all worked out before Einstein.
Why is it that Einstein takes all the credit?
Why is it that Einstein is the most famous Scientist, who ever lived?
This is a cult of personality. The truth is that what Einstein did borders on Plagiarism, but I can’t say that without getting a fanatical backlash from the Physics professors.
The way Einstein is portrayed in Media is very similar to the way Jesus Christ is portrayed. “Infallible” and that is why I can make the comparison to Religion.
I’m not trying to take away from the very real work that has been done in these fields, but I’m trying to show a cult of personality for what it is.
Also, I think Paradoxes are best left to Theologians and I consider it unbecoming of a Scientist to engage in speculation on Paradoxes.
Anonymous1Further to my thoughts on QM and relativity:
These are mathematical theories. They prescribe a very precise result, under given conditions. It’s not philosophy, it’s science. The mathematics says if A, then B. We see B time and again, by experiment, in the real world.
Arguing that QM or relativity is paradoxical, it’s akin to arguing against mathematics.
Is mathematics a faith? Are math professors “prophets”?
No, its not the mathematics that I doubt.
I’m an Engineer, but when I was at college I also took Physics classes. I used to talk with the Physics students. They all wanted to talk about Paradoxes (Schroedinger’s Cat) and String Theory and all this other stuff. This is all very entertaining, but I do not believe in Paradoxes. This is also the reason why I reject Christianity. Jesus Christ cannot be both Alive and Dead at the same time.
There is something very wrong with this…
God is the ultmate designer, physicist, engineer, coder, mathematician, chemist, biologist, etc.
As well as all the other things He is.
I think your mixing God for high IQ individuals who made the advancement of knowledge and science possible in the first place.
Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
I think that secret agent is referring to who has created them brains in the first place.
I think your mixing God for high IQ individuals who made the advancement of knowledge and science possible in the first place.
You must own a better Crystal ball than II think that secret agent is referring to who has created them brains in the first place.
Biology will say environment and evolution because if we look at different continents/regions of the world low IQ is prevalent among those people inhabiting it and thus so is poverty, lack of development, over-breeding, etc., so why doesn’t God make their brains like ours in the first place? Let’s say that Europeans never existed, do you think secret agent could still be able to say that without all of the great minds dissecting the nature of this world? We would still be in the middle ages arguing over Aristotelian syllogism and whether it fits in the biblical system!
Δεν υπάρχει τίποτε αδύνατο γι’ αυτόν που θα προσπαθήσει. - Μέγας Αλέξανδρος
Einstein never claimed that his thought experiments validated his theory. He had to formulate his theory in precise mathematical language which lends itself to empirical testing. Relativity wasn’t accepted because of a thought experiment. The theory has withstood every quantitative empirical test so far.
I have heard this before from Physicists at College. You are misunderstanding what I am saying. I am not challenging Relativity as a theory. I know Lorentz Transformations work. I understand the reasoning behind this.
I also see that Einstein’s work drew very heavily on the work of Lorentz and Poincare. Yet, he never cited his sources. Einstein claimed to have never seen Poincare’s work. Years later it came out that Einstein had indeed seen Poincare’s work. He lifted E = MC^2 from Poincare’s work.
Relativity and it’s mathematical descriptions was all worked out before Einstein.
Why is it that Einstein takes all the credit?
Why is it that Einstein is the most famous Scientist, who ever lived?
This is a cult of personality. The truth is that what Einstein did borders on Plagiarism, but I can’t say that without getting a fanatical backlash from the Physics professors.
The way Einstein is portrayed in Media is very similar to the way Jesus Christ is portrayed. “Infallible” and that is why I can make the comparison to Religion.
I’m not trying to take away from the very real work that has been done in these fields, but I’m trying to show a cult of personality for what it is.
Also, I think Paradoxes are best left to Theologians and I consider it unbecoming of a Scientist to engage in speculation on Paradoxes.
Yes, I misunderstood you. The priority of discovery argument is a separate one altogether. I thought we were arguing the validity of QM and relativity as valid scientific theories?
The answer, is no.
Anonymous1Yes, I misunderstood you. The priority of discovery argument is a separate one altogether. I thought we were arguing the validity of QM and relativity as valid scientific theories?
I don’t know enough about QM to really say. All I know is based on my brief exposure to the Physics community.
When I was in college there were Physics students, who discussed these Paradoxes (Schroedinger’s Cat was the one I always remember). That is a serious problem for me.
The last time I had discussed Paradoxes was with a Catholic Priest. He was insisting that the Eucharist turns into the body of Christ when you eat it. This is know as Transubstantiation.
I have to put all those Paradoxes into the same category “FICTION.” Its logically consistent that I do so. No one gets preferential treatment. Paradoxes get put in the “FICTION” category by default.
I consider it be a form of Double Think:
dou·ble·think
ˈdəbəlˌTHiNGk/Submit
noun
the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.Am I wrong though? Are Paradoxes compatible with Science after all? If so then what is the difference between Science and Faith?
Yes, I misunderstood you. The priority of discovery argument is a separate one altogether. I thought we were arguing the validity of QM and relativity as valid scientific theories?
I don’t know enough about QM to really say. All I know is based on my brief exposure to the Physics community.
When I was in college there were Physics students, who discussed these Paradoxes (Schroedinger’s Cat was the one I always remember). That is a serious problem for me.
The last time I had discussed Paradoxes was with a Catholic Priest. He was insisting that the Eucharist turns into the body of Christ when you eat it. This is know as Transubstantiation.
I have to put all those Paradoxes into the same category “FICTION.” Its logically consistent that I do so. No one gets preferential treatment. Paradoxes get put in the “FICTION” category by default.
I consider it be a form of Double Think:
dou·ble·think
ˈdəbəlˌTHiNGk/Submit
noun
the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time, especially as a result of political indoctrination.Am I wrong though? Are Paradoxes compatible with Science after all? If so then what is the difference between Science and Faith?
True paradoxes are a major problem. I agree with you on that point. I gave you +1 as well as this is an excellent discussion.
There are major problems with the philosophical interpretations of QM. However, there are no contradictions (paradoxes) in the math behind the theory. The math predicts a certain result, and that’s what we see in nature. The problem is, if nature really works like the math says it does we have apparent paradoxes like Schroedinger’s cat.
For me, I see no problem here. Why should ultimate reality conform to our intuition? It’s no surprise that once we dig deep enough, the usual rules will no longer apply.
The difference between faith and science is that there is a reason for belief in one case, but not the other.
QM throws down the gauntlet and says “you don’t like this…and reality is pretty ridiculous if this is true, but PROVE ME WRONG”. It also gives you a way to prove it wrong, which isn’t the case for a faith. No religion will give you concrete, unambiguous criteria to prove them wrong. QM does, and this is the key difference.
The answer, is no.
If you are looking to argue that there is an element of faith in science, there is no reason to single out QM.
The best argument against science was provided by David Hume in the 1700’s. He gave a scathing argument against the validity of inductive reasoning, on which ALL science depends. Some philosophers have attempted to address this problem, but no general agreement has been made.
Logically, there IS an element of faith to science…and everything we believe. There are few scientists that recognize it, or will admit it though.
The answer, is no.
Anonymous1The difference between faith and science is that there is a reason for belief in one case, but not the other.
QM throws down the gauntlet and says “you don’t like this…and reality is pretty ridiculous if this is true, but PROVE ME WRONG”. It also gives you a way to prove it wrong, which isn’t the case for a faith. No religion will give you concrete, unambiguous criteria to prove them wrong. QM does, and this is the key difference.
That’s a great answer. Thanks, for this thought provoking discussion. +1
The difference between faith and science is that there is a reason for belief in one case, but not the other.
QM throws down the gauntlet and says “you don’t like this…and reality is pretty ridiculous if this is true, but PROVE ME WRONG”. It also gives you a way to prove it wrong, which isn’t the case for a faith. No religion will give you concrete, unambiguous criteria to prove them wrong. QM does, and this is the key difference.
That’s a great answer. Thanks, for this thought provoking discussion. +1
You too man +1…and cheers
The answer, is no.
Thank you for everyone who participated, Great Stuff.
You must own a better Crystal ball than I- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
