vonFiedler
I Like Chopin
What about Baha'i, who as a strict part of their faith believe in learning more about the world through science?
That's like hijacking things a bit; true science leaves nothing to faith while faith can plead to science? Sounds like someone doesn't understand science and I'm betting it's that group.Don't you mean J-Man's point? My point is that at least one established religion supports the sciences as a part of their faith.
It sounds more to me like you don't understand faith. Science leaves nothing to faith except that wonderful sensation of learning more about your world and how it works, which is at least half of what religion is. If you don't feel that sense of profound joy in learning to understand biology, physics or astronomy, etc., you're not a scientist at heart. You're just an anal misanthrope who always has to be right.That's like hijacking things a bit; true science leaves nothing to faith while faith can plead to science? Sounds like someone doesn't understand science and I'm betting it's that group.
You're being rather liberal with your interpretations.belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion (the teachings being to observe science)
belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc. (ethics and standards! like scientific ethics and standards?)
a system of religious belief (again, in which the religion puts scientific importance above any book)
By "reflexive" I meant "you're having a firm belief in itself". More literally, a reflexive belief would be that 2=2. Do you need faith for that?Finally, shouldn't everyone have a firm belief that demonstrably true things are true?
Simplest form according to the dictionary king. And hey, I'm not lord and master of the written word, but here's a simple definition, the first definition.
1: confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
See, you can have faith in people too. Tangible people. And sometimes that faith is rewarded, sometimes it is let down. But you don't trust someone based on NOTHING. You have personality, history, you might know what they are good at what their weaknesses are. Where is the belief without evidence you keep talking about?
wikipedia said:Since faith implies a trusting reliance upon future events or outcomes, it is often taken by its detractors, notably agnostics or atheists, as inevitably synonymous with a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4]
later in the same article said:Rationalists criticize religious faith arguing its irrationality, and see faith as ignorance of reality: a strong belief in something with no evidence and sometimes a strong belief in something even with evidence against it. Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."[
Correction: they are either atheist or wrong. Or in the case of agnostics, too afraid to make a call based on data or (as some people believe to be reasonable) a feeling in their heart.It's moral absolutism because only YOUR worldview is right and people are either atheist or stupid.
respect science? You're talking about it like it's some all knowing institution or something. I am very black and white and I always regress to a bipolar piece of data. It's actually exceedingly logical, it's binary and you're right. It is self serving, that's the fun part about being right, the outcome services you.If I'm not stupid, if I respect science, I must be an atheist. How black and white. How illogical and self serving.
And on one last note, this is far more argument online than I'm usually comfortable with, so I'm going to bow out while I feel I'm ahead. And I already understand that you don't.
your own early underhanded volley used against you said:No, you don't get to say "this is what I say it is because I said so" and that's your argument. You should know better than that.
In my view, belief in what has apparently been demonstrated by science requires as much faith as does religious belief that one might claim isn't "supported by science". Everything that science has gleaned is a product of sense-based observation (i.e. empirical), and the idea that these senses are infallible or even so much as exist requires faith. Who's to say that products of scientific reasoning have any more evidence behind them when that evidence is ultimately as steeped in faith as are products of religion? The only cases in which Religious beliefs are in any way inferior, in my view, are those which have inherent logical fallacies (for example, if god is omnipotent, omniscient, and wholly good, why is there evil? And even problems like this have workarounds).faith is belief without evidence. Science demands evidence and is a process.