originally posted in:Secular Sevens
Faith has nothing to do with religion
You have faith in the scientists who found the "proof" that a god doesn't exist in the same why that the religious people have faith in their god/gods.
English
-
This guy gets it.
-
No he doesn't.
-
[quote]You have faith in the scientists who found the "proof" that a god doesn't exist in the same why that the religious people have faith in their god/gods.[/quote] This is wrong in so many ways.
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 4/11/2013 1:51:00 PMWe don't take the word of scientists on faith. A key part of the scientific process is peer review, by which any conclusions arrived at by an individual scientist are mercilessly scrutinized, picked apart, and if possible disproved by other scientists all over the Earth. Only once a finding survives this process is is accepted as true until such time as new evidence might change our understanding again. Faith never enters into the equation.
-
The only things in science that don't require some amount of faith are laws. All theories require some faith because they always have the possibility of being proven wrong. Perhaps you should consult a dictionary and stop pretending you know what you're talking about.
-
What dictionary do you have that told you that there is some fundamental difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Yes, by definition, we are more certain of laws than of theories. No, no one is claiming that we are 100% certain of either. Both theories and laws are simply the logical conclusions to our previous observations and experimentation, and could be proven wrong later. But the former part of that sentence is all that's important; scientific theories are, generally, the logical conclusion to our observations, and therefore require no faith. And if your conception of a scientific theory requires faith in order to be valid, then that's a problem with said conception (or, in this case, your blatantly unreliable dictionary), not with science itself.
-
I find it funny how you agree with me, then exclude the part of the post that matters to cater to your failing argument, and attempt to make it seem like I'm wrong when you basically confirmed my entire point. If you knew how to analyze basic language, you'd be aware that faith is composed of trust or confidence, and we have to have confidence in a scientific theory to apply it to problem solving and teach it to students. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about the application of science if you're not smart enough to understand how a theory works in the scientific community. Logical conclusions in science aren't absolute, and the fact that they're almost always disproved is a testament to that. The only logic that is absolute is in mathematics, which you should have learned in middle school. So instead of regurgitating the same common knowledge that everyone here knows, and then omitting the part that's relevant, maybe you should brush up on analysis, logic, and then maybe your argument will be of some worth.
-
[quote]I find it funny how you agree with me, then exclude the part of the post that matters to cater to your failing argument, and attempt to make it seem like I'm wrong when you basically confirmed my entire point. [/quote]Oh boy. So apparently I agree with you, but my argument still fails to support my point (which is identical to your point, since I totally agree with you), but then I actually confirmed your point, which is the same thing as proving my point, since we agree. I guess you're taking the ''if I claim two contradictory mutually exhaustive assertions, then I'm always right'' approach. The only three points I noticed in the post I was replying to were these: theories require faith, laws can be known with certainty, and consulting a dictionary should correct any misconceptions on the first point. I'm pretty sure I responded to each of these, so I'm not quite sure which part of your post I overlooked. I also disagreed with each of those three points. [quote]If you knew how to analyze basic language, you'd be aware that faith is composed of trust or confidence, and we have to have confidence in a scientific theory to apply it to problem solving and teach it to students. I wouldn't expect you to know anything about the application of science if you're not smart enough to understand how a theory works in the scientific community. [/quote]If you knew how to analyze basic language, you'd know that definitions are descriptive (as opposed to prescriptive), so ''faith'' and ''confidence'' are not necessarily synonymous (definitely not in the context of this thread), as per their common usage. ''Trust/confidence'' is a valid definition of faith. But the word has multiple, slightly similar definitions. The definition I'm certain Ric Adbur was using (and pretty sure everyone else was using) was actually ''belief in a proposition despite a lack of evidence for this belief.'' And unless you've looked through my previous posts to find a post where I described my perception of what the scientific process is, I don't see how you can make such a bold assertion as to my understanding of it, considering I didn't explicitly describe it in my post. All I said about it is that it doesn't require faith, that theories/laws tend to be the logical conclusions to observed evidence, and other more minor points. I don't think these are claims that are only made by stupid, uneducated people like me. [quote]Logical conclusions in science aren't absolute, and the fact that they're almost always disproved is a testament to that.[/quote]When I saw your post, I was afraid that I had implicitly made a false claim about the scientific method in my post by mistake. In fact, I actually said the opposite of the false claim you're implying that I made. I literally said that the logical conclusions made in science could ''be proven wrong later,'' and that ''no one is 100% certain of [scientific theories or laws].'' [quote]The only logic that is absolute is in mathematics, which you should have learned in middle school. [/quote]Criticizing things that were not shown in my posts is one thing, but things that are also completely irrelevant to the entire thread? What's next, are you going to criticize an entirely different person, and then just direct that at me? But if you ever want to argue about who's more proficient in math, my PM box is open at all hours of the day. [quote]So instead of regurgitating the same common knowledge that everyone here knows, and then omitting the part that's relevant, maybe you should brush up on analysis, logic, and then maybe your argument will be of some worth.[/quote]Clearly, the knowledge I've been regurgitating (that people generally don't believe in science/scientists based on faith) isn't quite common enough for either you or westpointusma15 to know it.
-
It's interesting that you're telling him to go brush up on logic while you're busy equivocating. Maybe you should take your own advice. In any event, there's no need for you to be such an arrogant and condescending dick about this; we're just trying to have an interesting discussion. If you can't handle it like a mature and reasonable individual, then don't bother participating.
-
In no way am I being an "arrogant and condescending dick". All I did was simply reply to his comment because he challenged me.
-
No, you had to add in the parts where you tell him he's stupid and/or under-educated, suggesting that he go learn things that, in actuality, he almost certainly has a better grasp of than you do.
-
lol. Well as I said, faith is never required in the scientific process because nothing is ever claimed as certainty. We accept scientific truths - no matter how much evidence there may be to support them - on a provisional basis only; if any new future evidence contradicts what we think we know, then we alter our understanding to accommodate it. People who think scientifically don't need faith, because they are skeptical on some level about absolutely everything.
-
Edited by Bistromathics: 4/10/2013 10:59:46 PMI don't think anyone has found proof that an undetectable entity doesn't exist. And nobody has faith in scientists. For one, we know they exist. We are also aware of their track records, standing in the scientific community, and how well they stand up to peer review. The methods they use are verifiable, and conclusions drawn from their research has been proven to work. We often use "faith" colloquially, as in having faith that a good friend will pull through for you, or that the fullback you just sent on the field will cross the goal line. But that's not really faith. Faith is the foundation of religion.
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 4/10/2013 11:49:34 PM[b]EDIT:[/b] [i]Oops, replied to the wrong comment.[/i]
-
Edited by King Dutchy: 4/10/2013 10:25:27 PM[quote]You have faith in the scientists who found the "proof" that a god doesn't exist[/quote]...?
-
I was just saying that both sides of this argument base their opinions on faith in evidence. There is no way to possibly answer the question with definitive proof.
-
...No we don't.
-
Well, gnostics on both sides are few and far between, especially on the internet.