I'm implying that unless you've done every scientific experiment yourself, you have faith that they are presenting the facts to you completely and without tainting them. Just like salmon with faith believes their priest/pastor is presenting them the correct facts, you have faith in the scientists to present you the correct facts.
As far as I know they have no reason to lie and explain/show evidence of their findings? No, the difference here is rationally and logically there is no reason for them to lie about what they've found. To suggest otherwise is just to have doubt in science over some ridiculous, unfounded and illogical conspiracy. Scientists do show their evidence for what they're claiming and they do explain it -- there's no debate to this. If any new discovery is made and reported, an explanation for it and/or evidence is always given. Always. If not, the claim does not get made because that's not how science work. Science is not some big, strange conspiracy.
I really just don't view it as a blind faith in the same vain as religion.
Lump together a body of scientific community, then also lump together a body of theological community, and they are functionally not that different from one another: Dogma. Faith comes into play, because of the institutional need to support dogma. A scientific upstart is going to have just as hard time selling his alternative ideas as his theological counterpart. While bad theology is entirely possible, so can bad science. (A very good example of bad science today can be seen from dogma found in obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases.) Bear in mind that both pursuits are conducted by people and thus will carry over their peculiarities like cherry-picking.
Think about it this way. A priest tells us, "God did this" and since none of us saw it for ourselves, we believe it.
A scientist tells us, "Science did this" and since none of us did the experiment ourselves, we believe it. While science has tests to back everything up, you have no idea if the people who did those tests are credible. You have to have faith in them to not lie, to not make human error. Unless you are doing the tests yourself, you put faith into the people who do.
This only works if you expand the term faith to cover both religious faith, which is blind faith, as well as meaningfor example with the theory of evolution, trusting in the repeated verifiable and peer reviewed, documented results and practical applications of scientific research by an enormous amount of scientifically trained individuals and teams crosschecking eachothers findings and expanding on them, correcting mistakes over a myriad of fields from genetics, biochemistry to paleontology, geology etc going back 150 years to form the strongest scientific theory we have.
And the best part is, anyone can check the results out and repeat the exeriments if they want to, since it's all documented.
If your argument is that the word "faith" covers both of these things, then good for you then faith covers two gargantunaly different concepts.
I said this on a forum the other day so I don't know if you heard it via me or someone else.
But I said it because I believe the secret to true knowledge is knowing that you know nothing.
Now that might not appear to make sense at first as you clearly know we need to breath oxygen to live right? But what if there really is life after death? Are soul would live on when are body is starved of oxygen.
So this basic concept is designed to show That every thing you ever learn (in science) while you are on this planet, is only based on the environment around you and the current technology you poses to investigate that environment.
This is because science uses the highest technology available to investigate the world and its laws them makes theory's about why it happens in the environment.
However these theory's are just the current beliefs. when new technologies become available they could actually turn out to be wrong
but just like any belief system many people convince themselves that what they have read in a text book has so much evidence to support it that it must be a fact. So these people now believe in something that may or may not be true.
or to put it simpler everything you where ever taught in science is based on your current level of technology, the environment you live in and the rules that environment follows.
However if something was to change to any one of them things everything you know would change.
To explain this in better detail let me point out the The Expanding Earth theory
A good number of scientists subscribed (believed) that the Earth was forever increasing in volume. The expanding Earth hypothesis stated that phenomena like underwater mountain ranges and continental drift could be explained by the fact that the planet was gradually growing larger. As the globe’s size grew, proponents argued, the distances between continents would increase, as would the Earth’s crust, which would have explained the creation of new mountains. The theory has a long and storied past, beginning with Darwin, who briefly tinkered with it before casting it aside, and Nikola Tesla, who compared the process to that of the expansion of a dying star.
This expanding Earth hypothesis has never been proven wrong exactly, but it has been widely replaced with the much more sophisticated theory of plate tectonics. While the expanding Earth theory holds that all land masses were once connected, and that oceans and mountains were only created as a result of the planet’s growing volume, plate tectonics explains the same phenomena by way of plates in the lithosphere that move and converge beneath the Earth’s surface.
So as scientists found out new things about the environment they live in this theory seemed less and less likely and there belief has now changed.
science is not belief because science uses belief as, again, a starting point, and then it makes sure if that belief actually pans out or if it's in error.
Religion isn't just based on belief, it is *entirely* belief. There are no facts to the statement that there is a god, or an afterlife. That's on faith alone.
There are plenty of religious scientists, but they're not ignorant enoguh to claim that their faith is anything but just that, faith, and they know the difference between that and science. That's why science actually produces results, like medicine.
That's why the comparison is bullshit, religious faith and science are in no way shape or form equally based on faith. One is entirely based on unproven faith, the other makes damn sure it is not based on unproven faith.
"If you look at any theory there is evidence to support it and evidence to show it wrong but the side that screams the loudest has the most support wins."
That, right there, is bullshit. Pure and simple. This is not how science works. Thinking that this is an accurate portrayal of scientific work and then using darwin versus religious opponents as an example is furthermore a useless comparison since that is an example of science versus *religious fundamentalists*.
"Now scientists scream louder the majority of people support Darwin however there's still plenty of scientists that believe Darwin is wrong."
What? there are still a huge number of people who deny evolution based on *religious unscientific reasons*. There is not a scientific debate going on about wether or not evolution happends or is a sound theory. Also, weve moved on with well over a century of science past darwin, saying there are scientists who believe darwin got it wrong is completely irrelevant today, we may as well make the useless assertion that many scientists in the field of medicine think that the medical science 150 years ago wasn't all correct.
We know that darwin didn't get everything right. Science is aware of this, we are not at the same place we were one and a half century ago, we know more now, thanks to science not resting on belief but striving forward all the time.
That's how science works, it progresses, it does not sit still with its beliefs or hopes, it goes out and corrects mistakes and checks out if initial assertions and ideas bear scrutiny.
"However either way it does actually all come down to belief and what side you pick to believe in and defend."
Again, pick whatever side you want, just don't make the false statement that religion and science are somehow on an even footing because they both rely on belief, because this is simply not true. Science uses verifiable proof, experimentation, falsification, research, ability to duplicate experiments, peer rview and when something is shown to be wrong, science evolves.
Religion set up its tentpoles in the sand with the texts and beliefs written down two millenia ago, and it stayed there. Belief is the end of the line, which is fine, just don't be dishonest enough to compare that to science.
There are scientists who don't belive in evolution. How does that change anything? They are a handful of religious fundies, who have absolutely no single iota of scientific research to back up their ideas, jsut like the rest of the creationist movement.
"and the magic 98% dna with apes is false i suggest you might not be looking."
What? You're veering into the embarassingly ignorant territory of creationists now, if you honestly reside there with your ideas, go for it, just don't expect people who are actually educated on the subject to take you seriously. There is an abundance of actual scientific research, peer reviewed, re-tested, cross-examined across several brances of science on this subject.
If you want to think the theory of evolution is wrong, or that science and faith are somehow using equal systems to verify their ideas, then you go right ahead. You get to come along with the rest of us and use the advances of science regardless of your own ignorance on the subject.
Everything starts with what you believe then you simply find the evidence to back it up.
Religion does it via verses and argue all the time have to make sub-relgions as people can never agree and everyone reads the verses different.
Sceince does it via formulas and one minute they prove chocolates bad for you the next its good for you because its all based on what the person believes in and is trying to prove.
Now a scientist that spends 30 years trying to prove something even if hes totally wrong can have a pretty convincing argument at first glance (when you only see his side.)In-fact you may never realize hes wrong because you don't live long enough to see the counter argument.
Or you might live long enough to witness other scientists who don't believe him creating a counter argument many years latter.
"Now that might not appear to make sense at first as you clearly know we need to breath oxygen to live right? But what if there really is life after death? Are soul would live on when are body is starved of oxygen.
Software isn't a thing in it of it self, but an arrangement, behavior and/or property of a thing(and yes, that thing is physical; a computer).
It's like saying you can touch a traffic jam. A traffic jam is a certain arrangement of cars, not the cars it self. Sure, maybe you want to say that if you touched a car that's in a traffic jam, then you've touched a traffic jam. Then in this case, you can touch software. Since it all boils down to how the electrons are behaving in a computer(electrons are indeed physical), if you physically touch the electrons while they are performing an arrangement that corresponds to any given software, then you've, indeed, touched the software.... and probably got electrocuted.
These things however, have all been physically measured and have an agreed concrete definition, unlike the soul.
You obviously don't understand how software works. Software is digitally stored data. It a process of the hardware. Without the hardware there would be no software. The software isn't there if the computer isn't running much like the consciousness isn't there if the brain is dead. Consciousness like software exist within the matter/energy universe.
You said “You obviously don't understand how software works. Software is digitally stored data. It a process of the hardware. Without the hardware there would be no software.”
Are you saying something along the lines of software would never exist if the hardware was not created ?
As that would technology be right you cant have one without the other however if that's the case once the hardware (body) and software has been created (the soul) the software has come into existence so it doesn't matter if the body fails because the software can simply be moved into another pc (body). Now we clearly have body’s and souls already so that argument fails?
Or where you trying to suggest that if the hardware dies the software dies with it?
Because software can be stored on devices that are independent of the main hardware and can be transferred.
I.e. if I stored my software on a CD any pc can access it at any time.
So unless every pc suddenly died and we could never create a new one my software is pretty safe.
Now in my previous example you already have the software (soul) stored on a computer (in a body). The computer then goes wrong (body) and dies. So you cant access the software via that computer (body) as its kuput.
However if you have another working computer (body) and the right software and experience you can create a link to that so called dead computer. And simply transfer the software into your new computer.
Which is what could happened when you die (god access your soul via a super computer)
So it actually doesn’t matter what state the first computer (your original body ) is in, if you have a replacement,Because the hardware dying does not actually effect the software. So you can simply take the software out and place it elsewhere.
You then said
“The software isn't there if the computer isn't running much like the consciousness isn't there if the brain is dead. Consciousness like software exist within the matter/energy universe. “
This is also untrue because are computer stores data from software in different places Ram, Rom , Hardrive, CD’s etc. So even when the pc is off there is always a physical backup somewhere in-case the computer goes wrong.
Note This is how the police catch paedophiles that think they have destroyed there computer and all the images on it . Some of these paedophiles put viruses on the pc to try and wreck it, some format the hardrive then run a magnet over every component and set alight to the computer but there’s always a way to access the software (images) even if it does take a long time.
So the human body / brain could simply do the same I.e.
I’m sure you have heard of the subconscious mind and i'd also assume people who only use with scientific brain like to assume that because you cant measure it it cant be real.
But my example is about how science is just a belief and there’s more than just science In the world. so lets assume for one minute that although it doesn't exist in science (cant be measured yet) there’s a possibility it might actually exist. If this is beyond your reasoning I can list hundreds of examples of it in use but id like to think that humans have the possibility to accept that something cant be explained by science.
If the consciousness dies the soul would still be stored in this subconscious, so it could easily be accessed via another body.
So everything that made you would simply be transferred into a new improved body, in a new dimension and you would live on somewhere else!
Your entire argument fails due to the fact that the software is still maintained in a physical format weather it is stored on the hardrive, ram or cd. It would be the same as preforming a successful brain transplant (so long as the consciousness remains intact.) Without a physical format to imprint the data the software is gone. Another more accurate representation is when one erases data from a hard drive using magnets. When magnatized the it destroys the software to a point in which the data is not retrievable. This is what braindeath is like. This is why bringing people back from braindeath is currently impossible.
Well it seems there's many definitions of faith, and/or it has a broad meaning, but we'll go with "belief without proof" for this.
Not only is faith not required for science, but having that mentality "belief without proof" would inhibit your scientific process. In science, whenever you don't have proof for something, you simply say "I don't know". Filling in gaps in science without proof is gonna make everything messy, and when real information DOES arise that fills in these gaps, and it happens to be different than your "faith", you'll simply have a (psychologically)harder time facing that information(a bias). Better to save yourself that trouble and replace having faith with realizing you don't know something, and leaving it at that until sufficient information arises.
There's no real reason to ever have faith in science. The only reason I ever see people having faith in something is because they want something to be true. That's also something one must NEVER do in science. Believing something to be true because they want it to be true. In science, you only believe(if you want to use the word 'believe') something to be true if you think you've seen the right information for it, and have considered all other information.
You can believe something to be true, and you can want something to be true. But don't believe something to be true because you want something to be true. In other words, believe or disbelieve things to be true IRRESPECTIVE of whether you emotionally like the information or not. For example, I may want it to be a fact that world hunger is gonna end tomorrow. But I don't believe it's going to happen. That's something I want to be true, but still don't believe to be true.
And yes, there are scientists who are guilty of this mental bias that I just described. And you know... it never helps... NEVER. It only ever slows things down. So I can't call it a requirement for scientific process. If anything, it's a requirement NOT to have it.
You know, not all religious people are that resistant to science. Since you said "my" faith, I'll tell you. If science could prove anything in my beliefs wrong, I would accept it without a second thought. I wouldn't have a melt down or anything, I'd just accept it. Anyway, this topic isn't about my faith :3
Really where this statement comes from is the idea that most people aren't doing scientific experiments themselves, therefore they have to have "faith" in the scientists who did them not to lie. They believe what these scientists are saying, they believe they actually did the experiments. Yeah, they may write it in a magazine but since you don't actually know, you have faith in them. You have faith that everything to get the information from the lab to you is perfect and nothing along the way got messed up.
I didn't mean your faith in particular. I'm just trying to explain why faith has no place in science.
And you should never blindly believe in a scientist just because they write something in a book or magazine. It's generally, not even expected of you to do that. If you can, try to do the/an experiment yourself. If you can't, then try to see if what they say corrisponds with things you do indeed know. If it doesn't, try to find more information. But never ever EVER blindly believe a science.
(Now don't get me wrong with what I'm about to say, I believe in evolution.)
We blindly believe in things like evolution. We can not test that, and as far as we as normal people know, scientists dug up bones, connected dots, did experiments, etc. They have given us enough "proof" that we believe it and expect it as fact. But all we know is what they tell us and we reed, much like religion. Religious people believe what a priest and their book tell them. Scientific people believe what a scientist and books tell them.
Yes, and I'm saying you really shouldn't do that, nor do you really have to as you seem to think you do.
You're not asking enough questions, which is why you're accepting "facts" even while consciously knowing that you don't have sufficient information. You get to a certain point of learning something, and then you stop and "accept". Next time you're at a museum or at a school etc... and someone is explaining "facts" with no physical data to present, you keep asking questions. Find out where you can see the physical data(experiments, bones... etc) publicly. Also, try to find out what experiments you CAN do with resources that are easily obtainable... perhaps with everyday household items. You'll be surprised with what you can truly find out, no faith required. I'll give you a random example.
There are certain cameras, such as the ones on cellphones, that can pick up frequencies of light that can't be seen by the human eye. Television remotes emit such a frequency(I think infrared, but don't remember). Take the remote and point it at the cellphone camera while it's in camera mode, and push any random button on the remote. You should see a bright light coming from the remote, but ONLY on the screen of the phone. If you, however, look at the remote with your eyes, you will not see it emit light what so ever. So if you do this, then I just showed you that you don't have to have blind faith in a physics book that tries to explain that the electromagnetic spectrum is much wider than what we see with our eyes.
The bottom line is, not to sound too critical... you're having faith in science by choice. Not because you have to, even though you think you do. You're choosing to stop at a certain point(albeit, you think you have to stop there), when you can always keep going.
By the way, Evolution is one of those things you can explain to people with things everyone already knows. Such as...
Fact #1: Creatures replicate themselves. No faith required to "believe" this, as I'm sure you know humans and other creatures reproduce; have offsprings and the offsprings inherit traits from the parents.
Fact #2: No replication is absolutely perfect. There's always slight variation... i.e you don't look exactly like your parents, I'm sure.
Fact #3: Different variations will have different advantages and disadvantages in any given environment. Now listen carefully as this part is crucial(yet very simple to understand). The more advantages you have, the more likely you are to survive, thus, the more likely you are to reproduce and pass on your traits. Makes perfect sense, right?
This video explains it in more detail, and you don't have to have blind faith in it, because it explains it with physical data you already have(i.e... you have parents, and you don't look precisely like them).