[Tronix (OP)]

a good point Yilde. But still, a scientitst may, whether intentionally or not have faith in a theroy. this seems to happen alot in technological and medical advancements. Faith that there is a way to cure polio, for example. i dont know if Jonas Salk prayed for a cure or the intellegence to figure one out, or if he gave more concessions to get on god's good side, or even if he did freaking voodoo rituals to help. But im sure he believed, or even "knew" he could find a cure. There was no solid proof he could find a cure for polio, excpet maybe the logical reasoning that other people figured out cures for other diseases that told him "hey, if they could do it, why cant i?". Still though, technically, if one is defining faith as belief in something that cannot be proven or disproven (at least until its a moot point), then yeah, Jonas likley had faith in his hypothesis. But if it is defined as "knowing/assuming/beileving very strongly that something is true/false without proof", then not many, but some scientists have fatih. No, faith didnt create his theory for a cure, his logic that a disease can be cured becuase other could did, but at least belief, if not faith was involved. Now, HOW he did it, and the detials of the hypothesis (that it could be cured with a "killed" version of the disease, for example) were scientific, based on logic and proof and reasoning and lots and lots of thinking. A scientist can and does generally believe in something about his theroy until its proven or disproven.

Now, generally, scientists may have faith, maybe even in one or two of their theories, but generally they keep it loose and at a minimum. A scientist, whom has faith in gravity pointing away from the center of the earth would be called insane, much less a crackpot, unless he had damn good logic, and then even better proof. A scientist whom has faith in a theory that is disproven will likely be at least upset if not devestated, depending on how much time , energy and money he sunk into it. Thus, a scientist would be wise to also at least believe he could be dead freaking wrong.

    Now, with most religion, its not so easy to disprove them, becuase of the loftiness of the "theories" and that while the basic concepts of the faith rarely if ever change the logic behind them can be picked from anywhere, thus its hard to disprove, and even if it was, they wouldnt care, as proof is not the point of religion, its faith (at least thats my observation).

But as far as i know, Copernicus wasnt persecuting altar boys that thought the earth was at the center of the universe, and Albert didnt kill anyone because of his "faith" in a Gravity/Electomagnetism Unified Theroy. That statement alone can spark a raging fire amoungst people based on what they believe about Unified Theory. Belief, even faith, in his Unified Theory, drove him to search until he died.  

Faith is not (i would hope) used in the proving of a theory, and it should not entirely be used in the creation of a hypothesis, if it has to be used at all (but that would mean it would be a proven theory). But still, for some of the biggest scientific endeavours, one must "believe", without any proof and logic that can be wrong, that this hypothesis or that hypothesis is worth doing. Same for some great technological advancements. Edison tried at least 2000 times to make a light bulb, and he may not have gotten to it if he hadnt have a little faith that there was a way to do it. No praying on the rosary. No invoking the godess. No poking voodoo dolls with heated needles between their legs, just a little confidence in himself and some faith in an effective electrical light device that couldnt be proven until he made it, at which point its moot. That is the "faith" of the scientist and the inventor, while its not not nessesary, it can happen without ruining the whole thing or causing "fundamentalism", and it does happen. And its not so bad to believe in your theory, i think, so long as you believe or realize it could be wrong.



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...

[neilep]

Can I just mention Tronix, that when you say a scientist can have faith, you're not meanining that the faith a scientist has means that he/she believes in a god yes ?...you mean that the scientist just believes that the answer to a problem or research will eventually be attained by study and experimentation eh ?...therefore the  Faith a scientist has is just the belief that a conclusion must exist after empirical study.........nothing to do with religion at all eh ?

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

[xardra]

some scientists may say that god will help prove that they are right (weather or not you would call that person a scientist or a nut job is up to you)others will just  have confidence that they have dona all they can to prove that they are right. both rely on the same thing--a blind belief that something will be right or will work. you can test a theory 20000 times and "know" that it is correct. then someone coomes along and does a few experiments then BAM! you're proven wrong. but you had the confidence/faith that you got it that far...

Science and religion are of the same family, but they hate eachother... Family reunions are a nightmare....

[Tronix (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by neilep

Can I just mention Tronix, that when you say a scientist can have faith, you're not meanining that the faith a scientist has means that he/she believes in a god yes ?...you mean that the scientist just believes that the answer to a problem or research will eventually be attained by study and experimentation eh ?...therefore the  Faith a scientist has is just the belief that a conclusion must exist after empirical study.........nothing to do with religion at all eh ?

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

doink, right on the money. Again, not saying that there is no such thing as a Christian or Buddihist or even Hermetic scientist, but yeah, the kind of faith you mentioned is the kind that many that scientists have, and that relates us in some ways to religion. We both have faith, just not the same way.

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...

[Sandwalker]

A rational faith perhaps!
If such a thing exists.[}:)]

[gsmollin]

"rational faith"... an oxymoron. Either you people have never studied religion, or you just never paid attention. Articles of faith are taken without proof, not even enough proof for a scientist to construct a coherent hypothesis. In a religious sense, the word "faith" has no relationship to the use of the same word when we really mean "reasonable hope". A scientist has "reasonable hope" that after enough theory and experiment he can prove a hypothesis and raise it to a working theory. The word "faith" may be used in place of "hope", but its got nothing in common with religion.

In a religious context, articles of faith have been already proved by the word of God, and are not open to anymore meddling. What you are discussing here is heresy, and the church has not treated heretics kindly in the past.

Some scientists are deeply religious. Whatever religious beliefs they hold on faith are not the same things they seek to prove by scientific method.

[MayoFlyFarmer]

as a "scientist of faith" (doesn't that sound screwed up.... but i gues sits the propper term) I have to say qsmollin is right on the money there.

Are YOUR mice nude? []

[Tronix (OP)]

quote:Originally posted by gsmollin

"rational faith"... an oxymoron. Either you people have never studied religion, or you just never paid attention. Articles of faith are taken without proof, not even enough proof for a scientist to construct a coherent hypothesis. In a religious sense, the word "faith" has no relationship to the use of the same word when we really mean "reasonable hope". A scientist has "reasonable hope" that after enough theory and experiment he can prove a hypothesis and raise it to a working theory. The word "faith" may be used in place of "hope", but its got nothing in common with religion.

In a religious context, articles of faith have been already proved by the word of God, and are not open to anymore meddling. What you are discussing here is heresy, and the church has not treated heretics kindly in the past.

Some scientists are deeply religious. Whatever religious beliefs they hold on faith are not the same things they seek to prove by scientific method.

That does bring up a good point, and that intesity of faith is something that science doesnot naturally achieve. Still, you can see some overlap when faith isnt as focused or strong. Some relgions are loosley structured and not only allow but encourage their followers to "do it their way". Some religions dont have much in the way of mythology or big books where they get there doctrines from. Less structured religions like that cultivate all kinds of degrees of faith and kinds of faith, even some kind of "reasonable faith" based on "unscientific" things ("hey, if everything good in my life has had the number 3 in it somehow, and i was born on the 3rd day of the 3rd month and the 3rd hour, that must be my lucky number, and (insert deity)'s number is 3, so ill pray/invoke/call upon/do magic with him/her"). Even in highly dogamtic relgions, not all patrons nessarily "know" that everythign in their main book is pure as gold, although they generally either keep quiet about or start a revolution. Take good old catholics and protestants. The Catholics "know" the pope cant be wrong, but eventually some of them started to not like what the pope was doing. At first, they may have had only faith in him becuase he was supposed to be chosen by god, where as they "knew" that god went by "these" standards. When the two didnt mesh, they may have had a "revelation", and know their faith was turned against the pope, or at least disapeered. This is how demoninations are formed. Hell, at first the thing that seperated the jews and christians was Jesus.

In conclusion. There are all kinds of faiths to be found in relgion, including the faith that requires no proof at all. Still, Science and religion share common bonds in places. very very very streched bonds, bt they are still there.

--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...

[ADD HAHAHA]

has any1 noticed that most religion r agenst eachother but most ariginated from the same place ( sand scriped ) its all just different interperitations of it.

its dissction has gone on n on about cathlic n ect...
but wat about budisum, finding 1s inner self, thay beleve that in the body there is hmmm.... a coflict wit the good n the bad n they meditae to find the balance of the 2.

Then theres druidism vary scientific and respecting of nature. they ask y or how

humens r bouned 2 come up wit some kind of reilig... its in there nature. like 2 blame a drought on a rain god or a good harvest on the god of food.

P.S. hi all i'm new at this but mainly HI ()
 


Drew Rody

[gsmollin]

ur pst s nrly impsbl 2 rd

[ADD HAHAHA]

PST???

lol 2 ur spellin

Drew Rody

[chimera]

Post.

Did you know one guy wrote a little program 2 'Prince-nise' ur ritin'? Hilarious, but after two pages it's been quite enough. Had the same nearly with Train Spotting, which is a different 'slang' (Scottish), but has to be read out loud to be understandable, nearly... []

OT: pick up The Religion of Technology by D. Noble

http://faculty.washington.edu/nelgee/lectures/comments/s_hall-nobl_rev001.htm

and you'll see that the two are much closer intertwined than you believed possible. Like two faces of one coin, in stead of opposite numbers...

[pink_person]

science is great it helps us understand the things God does, but every once in a while it gets out of place and Jesus has to nudge it along to the right place again

Pink

[kjahafa]

This is kinda like asking would you like paper or plastic? Both have the same purpose but are different. My take on this subject is this: Science explains our tangible existence and religion fulfills the intangible/phenomenal/spiritual/unexplainable existence. Science is not a belief and religion is not the only way to communicate with the Creator. If a child asks questions about the sun, moon and earth, will scientists answer all the questions? If religious people were to see the full spectrum of human life, will they be able to answer the underlying question of why? I don't think our brains are nor ever will be capable of understanding existence.  The bottom line is believe what you want, firmly. It has taken me awhile to come to this conclusion on my existence; because I am alive,I must do something. It is in the how have I accomplished what I accomplished that is important.

[simeonie]

It is pretty cool reading all these people's different opinions and they are all quite different. I personally think that science and 'religeon' are quite different in some ways. Science is very slowly proving that God is real. A lot of Scientists have a lot of different opinions and there are qutie a lot of Chrisitan Scientists. However Generally Scientists believe in evolution and they are very slowly being prooved wrong. I think that Science is just a way of trying to explain how God made this earth etc. but has now drifted from that.

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz

[daveshorts]

I think that faith and the scientific method are incompatable, as the whole point of faith is that you should belive without evidence, and the point of the scientific method is to question everything, believe nothing, and keep testing your theories against how the world works. There might be a god, ten gods, or whatever, but even if this was prooved, a scientist would then ask how he worked.

PS I don't think there are many scientists who think that much of evolution is being slowly prooved wrong who don't have ulterior religious motives.

[simeonie]

hmmm well I think we have disagreements then because I think that you can be a scientist and have faith. I think you can actually prove a lot of 'religeos' things but I do admit for some of them you do need faith.....
p.s I hate using that word 'religeous'

----------------------
-__- my website!!!!
http://www.simeonie.co.uk
has forums too!
Think about it! lolz

[daveshorts]

I didn't say you couldn't just that the two approaches are incompatible, so it requires you to partition the things that you are going to think about scientifically and those that you are going to think about religiously. As thinking about religion scientifically will lead immediately to the lack of hard evidence, and if you think about schience religiously you end up being hung up on dogma - hence the whole Catholic earth is the centre of the solar system issue...

[chimera]

The big bang theory was not Hubble's, but Lemaitre's (Belgian Catholic Priest), and immediately embraced by the Vatican, since it 'confirmed' a moment of creation.

Just one example of how close the two 'disciplines' can get, simply because they are looking for answers to the same questions, albeit in totally diverse manner.

The living are the dead on holiday.  -- Maurice de Maeterlinck (1862-1949)

[Tronix (OP)]

so this is where this threads been hiding.

well im glad yall are still responding and think this thread is worthy of replying in.

on the subject of christian scientists, this seems to happen alot. Albert Einstein, the practical founder of an entire branch of science, which is also the science of everything, was relgious, and often said he was trying to know what god knew. Religion and scence can coexsist, clearly.

but what is also clear is that there is a point in which they conflict, and dave makes this point when he mentions that the scientific method pushes questioning even the most proven laws of nature, and faith should survive even the most damning scrutiny.

Their idealogies dont mix, that is certain. but if oen gives leeway to both, they can mix. paranormalists know what im talking about, becuase they lack concrete proof for what they believe, but know without proof that what they are looking for is at least worth looking for, if not true. And on the relgious end, there are very forumulaic magical arts (hermetics, alchemy, numerology) in which practioners do experiment and attempt to understand thier art and the world, but they come from the relgious end, their basic laws based on faith (like hermetics based on the faith that their magical and metaphysical laws are from the revelations of an egpytian god)



--------------------------------------------
"If i cannot have company whose minds are clearly free, I would prefer to go alone."                  -Dr. Gideon Lincecum

The BPRD rejected my application becuase their brain-controled by Cthulhu Rip-offs. And im sure "Sparky" is sleeping with them too, kinky little firecracker she is...