Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 10:44 AM Feb 2018

Faith and Science

We hear the argument that science is not faith-based like religion - because there is no provable, verifiable fact underlying most religion.

Dr. Ejaz Naqvi makes some interesting observations about this:

Scientific Fact: Most of the scientific (and non-scientific) community believes that light travels at 186,000 miles/second.

However the fact is that most of us (if not all of us) have no idea how fast that is.

That it's really incomprehensible for most people.

Most people (I would say over 99% of us) have not independently verified it themselves.

But they have faith in the scientists, so they believe this to be true.

I am in that category.

Scientific Fact: Our galaxy-the Milky Way, has a diameter of about 100,000 light years and that the Sun lies about 30,000 light-years from the center. (A light-year is the distance traveled by light in one year and is roughly 5,880,000,000,000 miles or nearly 6 trillion miles).

To be frank, most of us (if not all of us) have no idea how big that really is.

That it's really incomprehensible for most people.

Most people (I would say over 99% of us) have not independently verified it themselves.

But they have faith in the scientists, so they believe this to be true.

I am in that category.

Are the messengers of God (e.g. Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad) and the Scriptures (The Bible and the Qur’an) like those scientists who asked the others to believe in the unseen?

Believing in the unseen God is incomprehensible (to some at least).

Most have not independently verified it.

But they still have faith.

But they have faith in the messengers/scriptures, so they believe this to be true.


If so many of us express such an unblinking faith in science, why would it be such a leap to express that faith in one's religion? Isn't faith in either coming from the same source?

We believe in things we cannot even comprehend because people we trust tell us it is true. That is faith.


http://www.patheos.com/blogs/askamuslim/2018/02/believing-science-not-based-faith-science/


87 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Faith and Science (Original Post) yallerdawg Feb 2018 OP
It's not faith zipplewrath Feb 2018 #1
You sure have a lot of faith in science! yallerdawg Feb 2018 #3
Trust zipplewrath Feb 2018 #22
From Bing. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #34
All theories from science can be backed up by evidence. BigRig Feb 2018 #2
That is certainly what most of us believe unquestionably. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #5
"hoped for" and "not seen" - so that is *not* what BigRig was saying muriel_volestrangler Feb 2018 #80
If you have faith that something is so... yallerdawg Feb 2018 #81
Because it's drummed into billions from childhood that their eternal fate depends on believing muriel_volestrangler Feb 2018 #82
What about free will? yallerdawg Feb 2018 #83
The huge majority of the world stays with the religion they were taught as children muriel_volestrangler Feb 2018 #84
If it works for the parents, why wouldn't it work for the children? yallerdawg Feb 2018 #85
If it works? edhopper Feb 2018 #87
Did Zeus, Odin, Baal, Osiris, edhopper Feb 2018 #86
This doesn't really prove what you want it to prove. ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #4
It's called an analogy in regards to our premise of faith. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #11
And the analogy isn't a good one... ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #14
"We can all see the benefits science has brought us." yallerdawg Feb 2018 #29
The issue isn't that science can't harm us marylandblue Feb 2018 #49
I would go further and state that regardless of whether religion actually helps... ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #68
I'm still waiting for my god-powered toaster.... ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #64
There are Jesus toasters, however. longship Feb 2018 #65
Would it be sinful to cover His likeness with jelly? nt ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #67
You don't need to do that marylandblue Feb 2018 #71
That would be quite a mess! ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #72
Bullshit argument using an equivocation fallacy. Voltaire2 Feb 2018 #6
Weak sauce, yallerdawg PJMcK Feb 2018 #7
Illogical attempt at analogy.. Permanut Feb 2018 #8
Light speed and Warp speed Cartoonist Feb 2018 #9
You can verify the speed of light fairly easily VMA131Marine Feb 2018 #10
If I studied it real hard so I could comprehend all this... yallerdawg Feb 2018 #12
Lol, "science is hard so it is just like religion"? ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #15
I'm just pointing out that in reality the vast majority of us live in faith. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #17
Ah, well my other posts have already covered that. ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #19
That was my point VMA131Marine Feb 2018 #52
Faith in science is not the same at all. sfwriter Feb 2018 #13
That's interesting, but very poor logic. MineralMan Feb 2018 #16
I went with an easier argument myself ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #18
Well, an even easier argument is available. MineralMan Feb 2018 #20
If someone gives you the figures, anyone can do the math. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #26
Uff da! MineralMan Feb 2018 #27
No, the light was seen long before science explained it. MarvinGardens Feb 2018 #35
Change a few words... yallerdawg Feb 2018 #38
Yeah, you just have to change the word "real".... nt ExciteBike66 Feb 2018 #70
Deities are "incomprehensible" to you. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #21
That's just silly. I comprehend the concept of deities just fine. MineralMan Feb 2018 #24
What a bunch of stupid shit. AtheistCrusader Feb 2018 #23
Scientific theories are falsifiable. MarvinGardens Feb 2018 #25
Scientific theories are falsifiable ... Mariana Feb 2018 #31
Dude, this is just embarrassing. Cuthbert Allgood Feb 2018 #28
Is it impossible for you to look at it from someone else's perspective? yallerdawg Feb 2018 #32
You really don't understand my position. I'm fine with people practicing their faith. I really am. Cuthbert Allgood Feb 2018 #36
Hold on a second. progressoid Feb 2018 #37
Lost me at Dr Ejaz Thyla Feb 2018 #30
What about citing historical religious documents for a basis of any argument? yallerdawg Feb 2018 #33
If you watched the eclipse last summer as millions did marylandblue Feb 2018 #39
What if I trust Muhammad? yallerdawg Feb 2018 #40
Perhaps you could pray for better understanding MineralMan Feb 2018 #41
Maybe God will tell me you're right? yallerdawg Feb 2018 #42
Perhaps, but highly unlikely. MineralMan Feb 2018 #46
Because one is an objective thing that you can see with your eyes marylandblue Feb 2018 #44
I agree. There is one great similarity. PdxSean Feb 2018 #43
Scientists are good and infallible. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #45
That is not what the poster said. MineralMan Feb 2018 #48
You are predictable, that's for sure. Mariana Feb 2018 #51
There you are. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #54
That is not a response to the post. MineralMan Feb 2018 #55
Along those lines, my physics professor demonstrated marylandblue Feb 2018 #47
A very good objective example of the law of gravity. MineralMan Feb 2018 #50
Cool... spicysista Feb 2018 #53
I'm glad you can read it with an open mind. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #59
You can verify the speed of light yourself. Eko Feb 2018 #56
I'm going to take their word for it. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #57
you shouldn't just take their word for it edhopper Feb 2018 #60
Uh-huh. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #62
You are really missing the point here edhopper Feb 2018 #63
If I could verify one miracle in the Bible marylandblue Feb 2018 #74
You don't have to trust them. MineralMan Feb 2018 #61
Well my point is. Eko Feb 2018 #76
My point is... yallerdawg Feb 2018 #77
How you feel about it doesnt matter. Eko Feb 2018 #78
Here is a simple physics lab experiment that MineralMan Feb 2018 #58
You are merely insisting that you believe in nothing. yallerdawg Feb 2018 #66
"Believe in" is not an expression I use. MineralMan Feb 2018 #69
Every bit of your argument... yallerdawg Feb 2018 #73
I don't care what others believe. If they discuss it in public and MineralMan Feb 2018 #75
The same predictable response from the same few non-theists. guillaumeb Feb 2018 #79

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
1. It's not faith
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 10:53 AM
Feb 2018

Calling that "faith" is wrong. It may be "trust", or "confidence". Faith, in the religious context, is belief in the unknowable or unobservable. I don't have "faith" in scientists finding. I pay attention to their method and rely upon the method to produce repeatable results. As the number of different methods begin to produce similar results, my confidence in the value of those results increases. However, I never stop questioning and I always know that new results may be produced that cause us to re-evaluate the details of our understanding.

The process has shown itself to be very reliable when followed. Even when we discover new understandings of physics, the old understandings aren't shown to be false so much as they are shown to be inaccurate. Newton got alot of stuff right (more than even he understood). It's just that as one speeds up, the accuracy decreases.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
3. You sure have a lot of faith in science!
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:02 AM
Feb 2018

As do almost all of us!

"Unknowable and unprovable?"

For many who practice their faith, they would argue you are wrong. For you, it may just be "incomprehensible."

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
22. Trust
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:58 AM
Feb 2018

It isn't faith, it's trust.

And it is a trust I test on a regular basis. Do those who practice their faith test it on a regular basis?

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
34. From Bing.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:44 PM
Feb 2018

"Trust: firm belief in the reliability, truth, ability, or strength of someone or something."

"Belief: something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction."

"Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something."

Round and round it goes...

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
5. That is certainly what most of us believe unquestionably.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:06 AM
Feb 2018

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
80. "hoped for" and "not seen" - so that is *not* what BigRig was saying
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 10:29 AM
Feb 2018

The facts from science given as examples are not just "hoped for" and "not seen". They are seen. People experience the delays in satellite communication. People who design computers take the speed of light, ie the speed an electromagnetic wave or pulse propagates, into account because one cycle of 1 GHz is equivalent to 30 centimetres.

Everyone knows that thousands of scientists have repeatedly measured the speed of light as best as they can, and told others how they did it so they can check as well. Our fundamental units of measurement are based on the speed of light. We know that the modern world functions because we have shown it, time and again.

While the size of the galaxy is not widely known, and may well be 'incomprehensible' to normal thinking, it doesn't actually change our behaviour. If the many scientists who have come up with a figure for it are all significantly wrong, and it is, say, 10 times bigger, then our normal behaviour won't change when we find out. But the claims for religions are supposed to inform our morals and our lifestyle. They make grandiose pronouncements about the fundamental nature of reality, and tell people what they should do as a result, but they don't have the reproducibility of science. Major religions disagree about the major ideas.

The trust in science is fundamentally different from faith in religion. Trust in science is more like trust in geography - you may never meet someone who has been to Gough Island in your life, but it's not a question of 'faith' if you reckon that the information you get from that Wikipedia link, or a Google search, is roughly accurate, or the basic fact of Gough Island's existence.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
81. If you have faith that something is so...
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:22 PM
Feb 2018

and nothing supports that faith, there is no tangible proof or evidence in the justification of that faith that make it worthwhile and true, why would billions adhere to a faith that is meaningless and false?

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
82. Because it's drummed into billions from childhood that their eternal fate depends on believing
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:36 PM
Feb 2018

the people who tell them what to do. Fear is a powerful motivator, especially for children. Humans also assign agency to random happenings - this is what 'animism' is, and superstition, belief in ghosts, astrology, and organised religion as well.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
83. What about free will?
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 01:54 PM
Feb 2018

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things." 1 Corinthians 13:11

muriel_volestrangler

(101,153 posts)
84. The huge majority of the world stays with the religion they were taught as children
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 03:38 PM
Feb 2018

In some parts of the world, it's still physically dangerous to leave the religion that was forced on you, of course. In other parts, it's a social danger.

So, no, the main point of religion is to cut down on free will. Some religions are quite open about that - see the Garden of Eden myth, for instance. The "original sin" was to think for ourselves.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
85. If it works for the parents, why wouldn't it work for the children?
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:04 PM
Feb 2018

If it gives you what you need - although many change religious paths or stop believing altogether - why wouldn't they stay with what they know?

I don't think "I'm a mindless automaton who lives in constant fear" is the answer you'll get from those who are practice their faith.

edhopper

(33,205 posts)
87. If it works?
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 05:03 PM
Feb 2018

nevermind if there is any truth to it.

"Tax Cuts work!!"! "My family has always voted Republican" "Gay people are sinners and shouldn't marry, it's just something I was taught."

It's all okay if you just have faith.

edhopper

(33,205 posts)
86. Did Zeus, Odin, Baal, Osiris,
Tue Feb 13, 2018, 04:59 PM
Feb 2018

etc... exists?
Because most of the population had faith in them as well.

ExciteBike66

(2,280 posts)
4. This doesn't really prove what you want it to prove.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:05 AM
Feb 2018

Science does not claim to have all of the answers locked up, that would be absurd considering the history of science as one of tectonic shifts in knowledge due to discoveries.

It is dumb to state that the "faith" in scientists re: the speed of light is the same as "faith" in a god. We admit there is some verifiable speed that light attains in a vacuum, and the theoretical measurements of said speed have been good enough to allow mankind to make all sorts of predictions and useful inventions. It doesn't take "faith" to recognize that this scientific knowledge has benefited us all.

It is also dumb to make the same argument as to the size of the universe/galaxy/cluster, etc, in a similar way.

No one who counts has "an unblinking faith in science", this is anathema to how science actually works. The biggest, most earth-shattering scientific discoveries have happened EXACTLY BECAUSE THE SCIENTIST MAKING THEM DOES NOT HAVE FAITH IN THE CURRENT "DOGMA" OF THE TIMES.

Basically, I have two arguments here:

1.) If scientists had "faith" in science (as you describe), then there would be no discoveries made at all since they would apparently just be cool with whatever previous scientists said.
2.) If regular human beings who are not scientists have "faith" in science, then who the F cares. Regular human beings also have faith in Trump, astrology, gods, luck, and Santa Claus.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
11. It's called an analogy in regards to our premise of faith.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:19 AM
Feb 2018

One argument used against "faith" is that science is fact-based.

This analogy points out that most of us make a "leap of faith" regarding science - we will never see or prove many, many things we believe to be scientifically true.

An analogy.

ExciteBike66

(2,280 posts)
14. And the analogy isn't a good one...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:32 AM
Feb 2018

You are distorting what science actually is (well technically the guy you quote does that).

I'm happy you responded though because I wanted to expand on my answer above.


1.) Scientists and faith:

- Scientists cannot just have "faith" in prior scientists' work. This is not how science gets things done. I will use the example in your OP of the speed of light. It is perfectly valid for a modern scientist to make a prediction based upon the speed of light as calculated by prior scientists. However, this is not merely taking the prior measurements on "faith" in the sense of religious faith. If the modern scientist's prediction turns out to be false, he is perfectly at liberty to start to doubt the prior scientist's measurement of the speed of light. Science is only "true" insofar as it is useful. Once a scientific theory/measurement proves to not lead to good predictions, it can be jettisoned. As I state in my original post, it is the essence of science that the biggest discoveries overturn prior "dogmas".


2.) Regular folks and faith in science/scientists:

- I was brief in my prior post about this. Basically, regular folks (i.e. those who are not employed in furthering mankind's knowledge and technology) can believe whatever they want about science. The quoted guy in the OP is correct that most people will not calculate the speed of light on their own, but that is not really relevant to whether or not science is a matter of "faith". Just because I will not personally measure the speed of light doesn't mean I have "faith" that it is a certain mph. Other people have measured the speed of light, and I can see with my own eyes the benefits of said measurements. Whenever my GPS gets me to the right address, I can see the benefits of science. I need no "faith", because science got me to where I wanted to be.

- Your argument that regular people have "faith" in science isn't a very strong one in your case. We can all see the benefits science has brought us through technology, it doesn't require any faith at all.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
29. "We can all see the benefits science has brought us."
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:27 PM
Feb 2018

That would be a good argument is support of and proof of religious faith!



Before you say "religion bad," science gave us Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl, Fukishima...

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
49. The issue isn't that science can't harm us
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:59 PM
Feb 2018

But that even awful scientific inventions work exactly the way they are predicted to work. But religion claims to make us better people and the evidence for that claim is inconclusive at best.

ExciteBike66

(2,280 posts)
68. I would go further and state that regardless of whether religion actually helps...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 04:13 PM
Feb 2018

the practical benefits of religion cannot be used to bolster one's "faith", since "faith" is not supposed to be based on evidence. Ironically, if the OP argues that religion is good because it has social benefits, then he is making a scientific argument, not a "faith" based one.

ExciteBike66

(2,280 posts)
64. I'm still waiting for my god-powered toaster....
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:41 PM
Feb 2018

My point is that one can appreciate science without any "faith" at all, since we can experience the benefits through technology. I need not have "faith" that the current speed limit of light is a certain mph, since I know that my GPS works and that is enough for me.

You are incorrect to state that my argument can be used in support of religious faith, since experience is the exact opposite of faith in this context. You could claim that you experienced the benefits of religion, but that would ruin the whole concept of "faith" since "faith" is not supposed to be based on experience. In fact, the "proof" of religious faith you seem to be talking about is actually mere psychology (I am assuming you mean the organizational benefits of a religion, which are substantial, and also the personal benefits like feeling assured of a reward for a good life and stuff like that).

As for Hiroshima: you should not confuse the concepts of "scientific creation" and "use of that creation". The fact that science split the atom is neither good nor bad, morally speaking. The fact that nuclear bombs were used is a completely different moral situation that has nothing to do with their creation. "Science" in itself, did not dictate that the bombs be dropped.

On the other hand, "Religion" has dictated many times in the past that "bombs" be dropped.

Voltaire2

(12,626 posts)
6. Bullshit argument using an equivocation fallacy.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:08 AM
Feb 2018

Plus it’s not even original. It is a rehashed equivocation fallacy argument.

PJMcK

(21,921 posts)
7. Weak sauce, yallerdawg
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:13 AM
Feb 2018

Your examples are flawed. Your repeated use of these sentences demonstrates ignorance not blind faith:

That it's really incomprehensible for most people.

Most people (I would say over 99% of us) have not independently verified it themselves.


If someone wants to learn about photons, the speed of light and general/special relativity, it is possible to do so. Learning facts is profoundly different than blind faith.

But you know this. It seems that you frequently are just looking for an argument.

Permanut

(5,436 posts)
8. Illogical attempt at analogy..
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:14 AM
Feb 2018


"..scientific practices—observation and experiment; the development of falsifiable hypotheses; the relentless questioning of established views—have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.

Religion has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths."

- Paul Bloom, in The Atlantic, November 24, 2015.


[link:https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/11/why-scientific-faith-isnt-the-same-as-religious-faith/417357/|

Cartoonist

(7,298 posts)
9. Light speed and Warp speed
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:18 AM
Feb 2018

Light travels very fast. Can we all agree on that? Can we accept that as reality? If so, then his argument is nonsense.

In science fiction, they've come up with faster than light travel. Some writers use scientific sounding explanations to describe their physics, but in the end, they admit it is all fiction.

That is the essential difference between faith and knowledge. The reality of science, and the fiction of religion.

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
10. You can verify the speed of light fairly easily
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:19 AM
Feb 2018

Just time the delay on transmissions between mission control and the moon on the Apollo missions. The Earth-Moon distance is 238,000 miles (on average) and the delay is around 2.5 seconds. Do the math and see what you get. You can even fire laser at the moon and time the return signal.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
12. If I studied it real hard so I could comprehend all this...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:32 AM
Feb 2018

and possessed "something" which would transmit "something" I could call "a measurable increment" of "something" we call light, and had "something" that could measure the distance between the light source and "something" that receives the "increment of light" and...

You know what? I'll just trust that this is the speed of light, like 99% of us do!

We trust an awful lot of things to be true. That is my point.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
17. I'm just pointing out that in reality the vast majority of us live in faith.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:43 AM
Feb 2018

We just don't want to acknowledge it in science.

The vast majority of us do acknowledge it in "other aspects" of our lives.

VMA131Marine

(4,124 posts)
52. That was my point
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 02:19 PM
Feb 2018

somebody else did the experiment for you (unless you don't believe we went to the moon). All you have to do is divide one number by another "et voila!" There it is!

And another thing, the reason you can trust the science is the peer review process, which critiques methods and the fact that experiments have to be replicable, and frequently are. If a person doesn't trust the science to be correct, that's their own problem.

 

sfwriter

(3,032 posts)
13. Faith in science is not the same at all.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:32 AM
Feb 2018

Faith is an english word with multiple meanings. It can mean "confidence in" or "a leap of."

In the first sense, that on which your examples rely, this confidence does not come from the stated facts. Whether we can imagine or reproduce the results is irrelevant. The examples hinge on the faith in scientists, but that's not the whole picture. Your faith is not the evidence. You have confidence that the evidence is there and rely on the word of experts. Using the "confidence in" construction can clarify what that "faith" is made of. In layers:

You have confidence in the scientists because,
you have confidence in their process because,
they have confidence in peer reviewed evidence because,
they have confidence in peer review because,
results are reproducible and verifiable.

Evidence is a reproducible or observable object wielded by the experts you have "faith" in.

Faith of the second, "leap of" type is "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," according to Hebrews. That is different than the faith that someone else HAS seen things. Faith itself IS the evidence. Your faith in god is your own. It does not require peer review, experts, or systems to produce it. This faith is self reinforcing and self generated by your own hopes.

I have faith that Dr. Ejaz Naqvi knows the difference and is muddying the water deliberately to equate faith in religion with the authority of science. That's sad because religion should never rely on the authority of science. Gods do not fair well when peer-reviewed.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
16. That's interesting, but very poor logic.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:37 AM
Feb 2018

I have actually verified the speed of light in a lab class at college. The experiment involved lasers. I also understand the concept of light-years quite clearly, and have no trouble with the numerical size of that concept. Even as a child of 8, I knew how long it took light to travel from the sun to Earth. I calculated the time for light to travel from the outer planets to our planet in junior high school

Perhaps the writer you quote is not able to understand such things. I don't know, but they are taught in science class to countless children every year. That he cannot comprehend such things is his problem, not mine.

The examples provided have nothing whatsoever to do with the third set of statements. The speed of light is verifiable and the mathematics of measuring distance based on light speed are not complicated at all. No faith whatsoever is required. Deities, on the other hand, have no physical manifestations that allow us to acknowledge their existence. No calculations can be done. We have no evidence of deities, so the only way we can believe anything about them is through sheer faith.

Logic is not on your writer's side here.

ExciteBike66

(2,280 posts)
18. I went with an easier argument myself
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:43 AM
Feb 2018

I have GPS in my car, it uses the speed of light to tell me how to get places. If the scientists were wildly wrong about the speed of light, GPS would not work.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
20. Well, an even easier argument is available.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:52 AM
Feb 2018

Light exists. It is a real thing. It's speed can be, and has been, measured to a high degree of accuracy. Only simple mathematics are required to calculate how long it takes for light to travel for specific distances. Grammar school (or middle school) children can do that math.

If necessary, the speed of light measurement can be duplicated quite easily.

But, the bottom line is that light actually exists, and that's something everyone with vision knows. Flip a switch on the wall, and light appears. Some people understand why that light appears. Others do not. But, it does appear and is real.

Deities have no such obvious existence. In fact, there is no evidence whatever that they exist at all. Some people believe that one or more of them do exist, but evidence does not exist for that. Only through something called "faith" do people believe that. Deities cannot be measured. They cannot be seen. They cannot be detected by any instruments.

Light, on the other hand, quite obviously is a real thing that exists. There is no comparison. The logical argument fails, due to that. It's not even a good simile.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
26. If someone gives you the figures, anyone can do the math.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:11 PM
Feb 2018

Flip a switch and we have a source of "light" and illuminated objects we can "see."

"Light" is that something we can't actually "see" between the source and the object.

Science and scientists tell us there is "something" there. Maybe you've seen electomagnetic radiation and lightwaves but the vast majority of us have not.

We take it on faith from people we trust.

MarvinGardens

(779 posts)
35. No, the light was seen long before science explained it.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:47 PM
Feb 2018

People saw and described light long ago, and then attempted to explain it. We now call it electromagnetic radiation and have discovered mathematical rules that it obeys, but it was always there for anyone with sight to see. It is a real, tangible thing that anyone with sight can see.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
21. Deities are "incomprehensible" to you.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 11:56 AM
Feb 2018

And you have unshakable faith in science.

That's one perspective.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
24. That's just silly. I comprehend the concept of deities just fine.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:05 PM
Feb 2018

They are complex inventions of the human mind. They vary widely in their characteristics, but they are quite easy to comprehend.

However, there is no evidence that they are real. There are many, many deities. Some are no longer believed in. Others are. At some point, new deities will appear, perhaps, if someone is clever enough to invent a popular one that does something new that is helpful.

I do not believe that any such things exist, except in human imagination. So, I don't bother with them.

I have no faith in science, unshakable or otherwise. Faith is not a word that applies. I have evidence from science. I have results from science. Some things science theorizes about are not proven. I don't accept such theories on "faith." I look at the available evidence, study it, and assign some level of probability to it, based on what I know. I have no doubt whatever that gravity, for example, exists. I understand its behavior in my own life. I can very accurately calculate how long it will take an object to fall to the surface from a known height. There are theories about what gravity is, and how it acts in other environments than this planet. I find those theories interesting. But gravity clearly exists. It's easy to demonstrate its existence.

Deities have no evidence for their existence. Thor, for example, does not manifest itself in a way that can be examined. No deity does. So, I don't have any reason whatever for believing that any such deities exist. I am a non-believer in things that have no evidence.

The writer you quoted is illogical and the arguments he presents are false.

AtheistCrusader

(33,982 posts)
23. What a bunch of stupid shit.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:02 PM
Feb 2018

Not only do I 'get' the speed of light conceptually, I know that the speed of light VARIES. Specifically, when light passes through a non-vacuum state. Also, you lose all fucking credibility when you specify the speed of light in imperial units.

I have an idea how big the milky way is, and also; is it valid to measure the distance to the center that way, or along the length of the spiral arm? Depends on what you want.

We CAN see and we CAN verify scientific findings. There's no correlation between the 'truth' of your claimed religion, and evidence that any of us can pursue and verify.

MarvinGardens

(779 posts)
25. Scientific theories are falsifiable.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:10 PM
Feb 2018

For every scientific theory, there are experiments, the results of which would cause us to confirm or reject said theory. As someone pointed out upthread, even Newton's laws, once thought to be exactly correct, were later shown to be only a good approximation. In science, nothing is sacred.

Most religious beliefs are not falsifiable in this sense. Religious "truths" are a constantly moving target, and when they conflict with the evidence, then the meanings of words, logic, and reality itself are bent to keep them "true". The more vague a religion can be about nature, the better a chance it has in the long run, because it can be bent to not conflict too much with science, all while remaining "true".

Example 1:

Religionist: The Earth, and all living things on it, were created in 7 days.

Scientist: We have evidence that this process took millions of years.

Religionist 1: To God, a million years is as a day.

Religionist 2: Radioactive dating must be false, because it disagrees with Bible cosmology, even though I accept other science every time I turn on a light.

Example 2:

Religionist: God created the first man out of dust approximately 7000 years ago.

Scientist: We have evidence that man evolved from more primitive lifeforms over the course of millions of years.

Religionist 1: But such a process must have been directed by an intelligent force, which we call God. Oh, and maybe the scriptures glossed over a few thousand generations, or people lived for thousands of years back then, or something.

Religionist 2: The fossils are a fake, atheist conspiracy. Or, God put the fossils there to test our faith.

In this way, religion can never be proven false, because even its natural predictions are retroactively changed to match reality, or reality is denied to conform to the religion.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
31. Scientific theories are falsifiable ...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:34 PM
Feb 2018

Some religious people believe that tons of real, physical evidence exists that contradicts various currently accepted scientific theories, but all this evidence is being suppressed in order to preserve the theories.

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,867 posts)
28. Dude, this is just embarrassing.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:24 PM
Feb 2018

For you.

This is like arguing with a 3rd grader. "I can't test what science tests so it's just like religion."

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
32. Is it impossible for you to look at it from someone else's perspective?
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:36 PM
Feb 2018

For those who practice their faith everyday they never question the reality of it.

In every one of these defenses of "science" replace the word "science" with "God" and see how the argument from both sides is virtually the same!

Cuthbert Allgood

(4,867 posts)
36. You really don't understand my position. I'm fine with people practicing their faith. I really am.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:51 PM
Feb 2018

What I'm not fine with is people trying so hard to make their faith look like science. It isn't. Not even close.

Faith is about believing without proof. Science is all about proof. Just because you can't (or won't) do what it takes to prove what science has proven doesn't mean that it is the same as faith. I trust science when they tell me the speed of light. I trust that if they ever realize they were off by a bit, they will let me know. Those people are good at what they do and have the degrees to do the work. Just like with Pluto.

Same as my wife. She is an attorney. I don't think believing what she tells me about the law is the same as belief in religion. She is an expert and has spent thousands of hours becoming an expert at what she does. And she's good at it. When she says something, I listen.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
33. What about citing historical religious documents for a basis of any argument?
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 12:39 PM
Feb 2018

Why tolerate any conversation at all?

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
39. If you watched the eclipse last summer as millions did
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:13 PM
Feb 2018

You have independently verified science.

Contrast that with The Quran. You explicitly cannot independently verify that God spoke to Mohammed because Mohammed was the last prophet - He will never speak to you, and even if He did, you risk your life for saying so. All you have or ever could have is Mohammed's word.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
40. What if I trust Muhammad?
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:21 PM
Feb 2018

And believe what Muhammad says?

And find proof and evidence in my faith everyday in how I practice it?

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
46. Perhaps, but highly unlikely.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:47 PM
Feb 2018

If you think God speaks to you directly, there is medication available for that.

Why you fail to accept that the arguments put forth by the person you quoted are specious and logically nonsense, I do not understand. I can only think that you were not exposed to logic in your educational process. That can be corrected. Most ignorance can be corrected, with study. There are plenty of resources available.

Nobody minds if you believe that some deity exists. Nobody cares what you believe. It is only when you attempt to justify your belief using faulty logic that you get arguments in return. That will continue, I guarantee. Relying on questionable authorities who also appear not to understand simple logic does not advance your argument, either.

Several people have explained why what the author in your OP said makes no sense. They are correct. You continue to engage in dispute, despite that. That is inexplicable.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
44. Because one is an objective thing that you can see with your eyes
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:40 PM
Feb 2018

regardless of whether you believe or not. While the other requires you to enter into a subjective condition of belief first, from which may follow other subjective feelings of well being or spirituality. But such subjective feelings do not confirm the objective claim that God spoke to Mohammed, anymore than my subjective feeling that Yosemite National Park is a more spiritual place than Mecca disconfirms it.

PdxSean

(574 posts)
43. I agree. There is one great similarity.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:39 PM
Feb 2018

Scientists as a group consistently and predictably act in a manner consistent with their professed beliefs, i.e. they use the "known" speed of light when calculating space travel, they don't use syrup as a lubricant in automobiles, they don't build skyscrapers made of paper, and they don't build borders at the edge of the world so people don't drive off the flat edge of the earth. In short, you need only watch scientists to understand what they truly believe. If scientists didn't believe what they preach, it wouldn't take long for the fraud or con to be revealed.

Similarly, to determine whether "people of faith" truly believe what they preach, you need only watch them in their day-to-day actions and see how they treat their fellow humans.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
48. That is not what the poster said.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:50 PM
Feb 2018

Not at all. Your paraphrase is inaccurate.

A poor scientist will soon be discredited by his or her peers. That has happened countless times.

There are many wonderful people of faith. I know some myself.

The two things are not connected in any way.

Mariana

(14,849 posts)
51. You are predictable, that's for sure.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 02:14 PM
Feb 2018

I knew it wouldn't take long for you to start lying about what other posters have said. Again.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
55. That is not a response to the post.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 02:56 PM
Feb 2018

You clearly misstated what that poster wrote. I mentioned that, and now someone else has. You did not respond to our statements in defense of the poster you paraphrased incorrectly. Why is that?

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
47. Along those lines, my physics professor demonstrated
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 01:49 PM
Feb 2018

the laws of a pendulum which state that it swings no higher than it's initial starting point. He had a ten pound iron weight attached to a long string tied to the ceiling. He held the ball up to his chin, then let it swing out far out into the room. When it swung back, it stopped exactly at his chin. That's real faith.

Compare that to a Christian asking God if he should go on a car trip, then getting into a serious car accident and saying, "well I guess God wanted me to learn about accidents and I am so happy I crashed so that He could save me from death."

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
50. A very good objective example of the law of gravity.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 02:00 PM
Feb 2018

Your physics professor, however, required no faith to conduct that demonstration. It was absolutely certain that he would not be hit by that pendulum weight. His faith only consisted in his being convinced that he would not move his chin. I'm not so certain of my own ability to stand completely still in such circumstances.

spicysista

(1,663 posts)
53. Cool...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 02:25 PM
Feb 2018

Thanks for an interesting post. I guess many don't share this view. I find it very peculiar that what the article says to me is so very different from what it says to the many responders. It's just saying......think about it from this perspective..... that's all I'm getting.
An example that I'd like to offer is my hair. From my scalp it grows straight up and out standing proudly despite the laws of gravity. I still believe in gravity as a tangible force on this planet and throughout the universe.
Faith on the other hand, at least for me, has nothing to do with proof at all. For me, it's stronger than a belief or trust. On one hand, I do see what the piece means about the unquestioned belief in certain scientific theory as fact. But, I still feel that overall people's belief in science is more trust than faith because they are reliant upon tangible proof.....or at least what they deem as tangible proof (ie. Many theories are simply math equations). Cool article.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
59. I'm glad you can read it with an open mind.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:19 PM
Feb 2018

All we are pointing out is another perspective.

A perspective shared by so many of us!

Eko

(7,170 posts)
56. You can verify the speed of light yourself.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 02:58 PM
Feb 2018

All you need is a decent telescope.
"Specifically, while studying one of Jupiter’s moons, Römer noticed that the time between eclipses would vary throughout the year (based on whether the Earth was moving towards Jupiter or away from it). Curious about this, Römer began taking careful notes about the time I0 (the moon he was observing) would come into view and how it correlated to the time it was usually expected. After a while, Römer noticed that as the Earth orbited the sun and in turn got further away from Jupiter, the time Io would come into view would lag behind the expected time written down in his notes. Römer (correctly) theorised that this was because the light reflected from Io wasn’t travelling instantaneously.

Unfortunately, the exact calculations he used were lost in the Copenhagen Fire of 1728, but we have a pretty good account of things from news stories covering his discovery and from other scientists around that time who used Römer’s numbers in their own work. The gist of it was that using a bunch of clever calculations involving the diameter of the Earth’s and Jupiter’s orbits, Römer was able to conclude that it took around 22 minutes for light to cross the diameter of Earth’s orbit around the Sun. Christiaan Huygens later converted this to more commonplace numbers, showing that by Römer’s estimation, light traveled at about 220,000 kilometres per second. This figure is a little off (about 27% off) from the figure noted in the first paragraph, but we’ll get to that in a moment."

What’s even more amazing is that the reason for Römer’s estimation being a little too slow is thought to have less to do with any mistake on his part and more to do with the fact that the commonly accepted diameter of the Earth’s and Jupiter’s orbits were off when Römer did his calculations. "
https://gizmodo.com/how-the-speed-of-light-was-first-measured-1138348467

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
57. I'm going to take their word for it.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:11 PM
Feb 2018

I don't need proof, since I trust them to be telling the truth.

That's the point.

edhopper

(33,205 posts)
60. you shouldn't just take their word for it
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:20 PM
Feb 2018

you should understand the process and see if the data and evidence back the theory. That is why we don't accept that cold fusion happened but that they found the Higgs boson.

That is the difference between science and religious faith. All you have is the faith that what was written thousands of years ago, with no evidence it is true.

Really dawg, you're close to Ken Hamm territory with this post.

edhopper

(33,205 posts)
63. You are really missing the point here
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:27 PM
Feb 2018

there are numerous post here that show you the flaw and sheer wrong-headedness of your post.

You should read them and maybe you will understand where this fails so much.

And really, this I have seen this same ridiculous argument many times from Fundies. It isn't even weak, it's just absurd.

What next, comparing faith in God with the faith that my wife loves me? Why not pull out that old chestnut.

marylandblue

(12,344 posts)
74. If I could verify one miracle in the Bible
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 04:39 PM
Feb 2018

I might believe it more. Instead we are told to have faith. But science doesn't say that. Science says please verify any part you want, and even better, if you can prove us wrong, we will give you a prize and eternal honor. I have verified some of science myself, but I haven't found anything wrong with it, so no prize for me.

Compare that with religion. If you prove any part of religion is wrong, they call you a heretic or sometimes do terrible things to you.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
61. You don't have to trust them.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:22 PM
Feb 2018

Because that speed of light can easily be verified by experiment, you can see the proof for yourself.

Below, you'll find a video of how it is done in high school and college physics classes everywhere these days.

It's not religion. It's science. The truth can be demonstrated at any time with science.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
77. My point is...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 08:35 PM
Feb 2018

I don't have to repeat it to believe that it is true, even if I can't even wrap my head around what they are describing.

By the way, you got a 'supercollider' under your bed?

Eko

(7,170 posts)
78. How you feel about it doesnt matter.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 09:09 PM
Feb 2018

The fact is science is repeatable, some of it easy enough for you to do. Religion has no way to prove itself.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
58. Here is a simple physics lab experiment that
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 03:19 PM
Feb 2018

measures the speed of light in air with an acceptably high degree of accuracy. It is essentially the same experiment used in the physics lab by me, way back in the early 1960s. We didn't have a laser, but used a different focused light source. Otherwise the experiment is the same. Watch this video, and you can see how this experiment is done. It is duplicated in lab after lab every semester at almost every college and university. These days, it's also done in high school physics classes, since lasers and triggered sweep oscilloscopes are so affordable these days. The speed of light is verified every time the experiment is done. Watch:

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
66. You are merely insisting that you believe in nothing.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 04:06 PM
Feb 2018

I understand. That is what your argument proceeds from.

You're arguing you can provide proof of everything in science without ever resorting to "belief."

I'm pointing out that that is not true.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
69. "Believe in" is not an expression I use.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 04:19 PM
Feb 2018

I believe many things, based on evidence. I don't "believe in" things, though. That expression is meaningless to me. I did not say there were proofs for everything in science. I would not say that, because it is not true. I believe that many things have been demonstrated to be true by science. I believe that other things have perfectly satisfactory theories that explain the observations. I believe that scientists also hypothesize other things, based on mathematics, that may never be physically demonstrated.

I believe many things. I do not believe in anything, nor do I believe that expression actually means anything.

yallerdawg

(16,104 posts)
73. Every bit of your argument...
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 04:33 PM
Feb 2018

is to deny the validity of others to have faith in what they chose to believe.

You profess to believe in nothing you can't prove to be true, is likely to be true, is probably one day going to be true...

All to justify denying that same thing as a rational, reasonable, logical basis for other people's faith.

MineralMan

(146,192 posts)
75. I don't care what others believe. If they discuss it in public and
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 04:52 PM
Feb 2018

in a place where I typically discuss things, I will discuss believe, though.

I would never deny anyone's belief. I'm sure they hold that belief, if they say they do. Again, though, I do not "believe in" things. I believe things that are demonstrably true, and for which there is evidence that those things are real.

guillaumeb

(42,641 posts)
79. The same predictable response from the same few non-theists.
Mon Feb 12, 2018, 10:26 PM
Feb 2018

No real surprise.

Interesting argument. Recommended.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Religion»Faith and Science