Science is based on faith?
- Thread starter xPixelatedx
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No, we do know it to be true. What we don't know is whether or not it will keep being true at any time in the future. An act of faith would be to believe that the scientific method will always work. No faith is needed to believe it works now.The_Darkness said:
We do kind of rely on it working indefinitely, yeah, but I will not make a claim it will as a statement of fact, even if some people, even scientists maybe would.
Well, technically, we don't even know that it works now. We only know that it worked a moment ago. (The present is a remarkably difficult thing to quantify.) But whenever we make a prediction, we assume that it is true.Vegosiux said:
Let us try an alternative, but related, assumption. Science is based on Statistics. By extension, Science assumes that the universe is mathematical, that things can always be quantified. If we found something unquantifiable, Science would not be able to handle it. Science wouldn't be able to say anything about it. It would be equivalent to finding real magic. (I studied Astrophysics, not Philosophy of Science, so I may not be expressing this very well.)
Alright, let's try a few more. Science runs on the assumption that things happen for a reason. We assume that there are Laws of Physics, and then we try to find them. They may not be there. We assume causality.
Heck, we even assume time - I've seen a perfectly good philosophical argument (that is to say, there is one in my memory) that neither the past or the future exist. That the entire universe is frozen in one moment - there is everything you remember, but it never happened. There are your speculations about the future, but they will never happen. All there is is your mind, in this moment, right NOW. And if you know a way to prove that argument wrong, I'd love to hear it.
If a system is totally dependent on a series of axioms, to the point where if a single one was false the system would fail, and said system has so far never failed it doesnt take faith to assume the axioms are true. Thats the reasoning basically? No one is stating the axioms are always true and will never be proven false. Just that the system that uses them has been 100% accurate so far, like science the axioms themselves are open for critique, if you could disprove or show an exception to the axiom it would be changed. It doesnt take faith to do any of this.Vegosiux said:
Okay, let's stop on the axiom talk a little. Example, the Peano axioms.BiscuitTrouser said:
* There is a natural number 0.
* Every natural number a has a natural number successor, denoted by S(a). Intuitively, S(a) is a + 1.
* There is no natural number whose successor is 0.
* S is injective, i.e. distinct natural numbers have distinct successors: if a ≠ b, then S(a) ≠ S(b).
* If a property is possessed by 0 and also by the successor of every natural number which possesses it, then it is possessed by all natural numbers.
They serve as the foundation for natural numbers. A tool that we created in order to further our understanding, one of them. Without those axioms, math as we know it would not exist, correct? Now, I still do not see why I need to have "faith" in them.
We assume them because we need a starting point, they're basically a framework. A different framework would end up in different mathematics. They are not statements about the world and reality in which we live, they are statements upon which we build our understanding. Or in other words, the first axiom doesn't say "There is a natural number 0" because Peano and mathematicians meant to say "In this universe, there exists a natural number 0", but simply because a tool was needed for a job to be done, and that was the first step of creating that tool.
Again, those assumptions are not made as factual claims about the universe, but as a basis of understanding. If you want to dispute that, find me a fundamental statement that's not merely a definition.The_Darkness said:
Which argument? I mean, I will not dispute the existance of said argument, but it'd be nice to actually provide me with the argument itself (complete with all the stuff that should support it) if you want to see me have a go at it.
Well, if those assumptions are false, then every single thing that Science has ever said is false. Do you disagree?Vegosiux said:
We may have no reason to doubt them, but we do not know them to be true. By extension, if we don't know that things happen for a reason, we cannot draw conclusions based on observation on why things happen. We can't say why a rock falls to the ground because there may not be a reason. And, again by extension, whenever we say that anything is Scientific Fact, we are saying that these basic assumptions are also fact. Otherwise the Scientific Fact... isn't. Or at the very least, it isn't a scientific fact of this universe, which makes it next to useless.
The above was the argument. Please, prove to me that the universe isn't frozen in time, that my description above is demonstrably false. Because otherwise you are taking the existence of time on faith. (In other words, please prove time.)
...
At the end of the day, there is another question here. What is Science? What are Scientists trying to do? Are we trying to make Scientific models of the universe? If so, we can never state anything to be true - we can only say whether or not it fits the model. Or are we trying to work out how the universe works? If so, in order to stop the endless, pointless series of the question 'Why?' (Remember doing that as a kid?), we have to take something on faith somewhere.
The above was a statement. An argument would be making a case for that statement. Actually, I think you and I both know that.The_Darkness said:
Actually that's precisely what I was about to say in response to the first paragraph of your post (that got left out). Wel not precisely, but the gist of it - is "science" a thing that's inherent to the universe, part of its existence, or is it a tool with which we seek to understand the universe? I say the latter.
The only reason science doesn't just stop is that we keep asking that endless series. The moment we stop asking it...no more science.
What I thought Vegosiux was getting at with his talk of axioms is that they're not strictly assumptions. His example is a good one; those axioms define the natural numbers, they can't be false - it would be like you telling me that I made the wrong assumption of the name of my book, when I named it.The_Darkness said:
This applies more to Maths than the other Sciences, because in some sense you can prove things in Maths, so long as you're internally consistent. That is, something is true in the framework I've set up. Of course, this doesn't answer the question if we can rely on this to explain the Universe.
I already said this. Because If you don't make this assumption you can't make definite statements about anything. If you want my argument it's in my previous posts.Saxnot said:
It's only necessary in my OPINION. This isn't fact. In my opinion it is necessary to be able to make definite statements about reality. If your opinion is that we don't need to be able to make definite statements about reality then that's YOUR opinion, and arguing about it would be like arguing that a certain brand of music is better because you like it better. It's pointless. Neither of us are going to gain anything.
You want to take this to the middle ages where they cracked peoples heads open to let out evil sprites, where they crucified people, with the crusades and where the church threatened Galileo with torture when he found evidence that the earth rotated around the sun? Yeah sure lets go there..........Saxnot said:
This isn't a matter of opinion but of fact.Saxnot said:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/06/01/gallup-poll-46-of-americans-are-creationists/
Um yeah it kinda is.Saxnot said:
Well than you picked the wrong book.Saxnot said:
You must be reading a different version of the bible you know the ones with 90% of it cut out. Because I don't find killing people for working on Sundays, Sending bears to eat children, selling your daughter into slavery and stoning disobedient children very loving or forgiving.Saxnot said:
The bible isn't accurate, as a moral guide it's horrible, even as a work of fiction it fails, it jumps around, it is inconstant, contradictoril and the characters are painfully one dimensional.
Yes it does.Saxnot said:
All of it, stop trying to mislead and derail keep on topic.Saxnot said:
I don't.Saxnot said:
No it isn't.Saxnot said:
Exactly so it's not faith based. Finally you get it, I accept your apology on being wrong.Saxnot said:
Yes they can be tested and falsified. Through observation and actions, through questions and answers, through body language. We can very much test a persons empathy and feelings towards others, it's a branch of science called psychology you might have heard of it. It's how we diagnose psychopaths, mental disorders and other personality disorders.Saxnot said:
Nope.Saxnot said:
And to say that god definitely does exist without any evidence isn't presumptuous? There is about as much evidence for god as there is for the giant spaghetti monster. But it's one thing to say it's possible although unlikely for the spaghetti monster to exist, but another to say he could exist believe in him, and try and get others to believe in him without any evidence. That's insanity.Saxnot said:
"When one person suffers from delusion we call it insanity, when many people suffer from the same delusion we call it Religion"
Richard Dawkins.
They threatened Aristotle? Because he found evidence for the earth rotating around the sun? In the middle ages? Don't try to debate on subjects you know nothing about.disgruntledgamer said:
disgruntledgamer said:
That actually illustrates my main point very well. The idea of creation, being unfalsifiable, cannot be effectively debated by pointing out lots of mistakes in holy books. As such, scientific knowledge increasing does not mean less religious people.
Despite that, i don't think the belief in creationism means many of these people believe male fluid comes from between the ribs. Again, religious faith and scientific knowledge don't really act on the same parts most people's lives.
I think you're a little confused. None of what you're saying has anything to do with what i said. You seem to think you're arguing with a christian on the value or validity of the bible. You're not. You're missing the point. try to read what i said again, because you don't seem to have understood it.disgruntledgamer said:
disgruntledgamer said:
The thread topic is whether science is based on faith. We haven't debated that at all so far. I thought our topic was the relevance of using proof and factual arguments in a discussion on religion and faith. What do you think the topic is?
Now this is just getting silly. You are now telling me what i'm trying to tell you? If you're just going to make up what the person you're talking to is saying, why even have a conversation? Do you even need me to respond to you? Should i just leave so you can debate whoever you seem to think you're debating?disgruntledgamer said:
disgruntledgamer said:
Well, in science, as in all things, faith is required in many ways. The validity of observation, human capacity for understanding the universe, the validity of a given theory and so on. There are elaborate philosophical underpinnings to the ideas of being able to observe accurately, theorise properly, and understand fully the world around us. And that's without going into faith in theories that ARE falsifiable and turn out to be wrong.
So love is a scientifically defined term? In what circumstances can a persons assertions that he loves someone be falsified beyond a doubt, then?disgruntledgamer said:
Why? Do you have any arguments? Have you seen and understood every situation in which faith plays a role?disgruntledgamer said:
I agree. Again, i never said otherwise.disgruntledgamer said:
Look, you don't seem to have understood what i'm saying, so i'll try again.
To debate religion and faith in the context of evidence and proof is to fundamentally misunderstand what religion is and what the significance of a holy book is.
The reason for this is that the value in a faith is not in its accuracy to physics. Its value is personal, moral and spiritual. Even if you disagree with the morality and spirituality of the faith, that's still how faith functions to the faithful.
To debate faith by pointing out male fluid doesn't come from between the ribs, then, is not very helpful or useful in any context. It's true, but it doesn't matter that much within the context of religion and faith.
Well, we might gain a better understanding of each others position. But i get what you mean. If that's your philosophical position, i understand totally. I'm not saying your position is invalid or strange, i'm trying to debate you in order to find out why you think what you think and how that applies to my ideas about the world. That does not mean you're wrong.Use_Imagination_here said:
It's my philosophical position because I feel it makes it easier to define the nature of claims. And also I feel that the possibility of everything at once would unnecessarily complicate several of the more existential fields of philosophy.Saxnot said:
Before I start, two things.
One: This is going to be my last post on the subject. No offence, but I don't want to still be debating this in three days time...
Two: Let's just step outside of the debate for a moment. Out of curiosity, what would it mean for you if it was logically proven that Science requires faith?
To keep things fair, I'll turn this question around and use it on myself: What would it mean for me if I was shown logical proof that Science does not need faith? Well, it does depend on how such a thing was demonstrated. If it was merely a case of my mixing up some definitions - a case of finicky language - then I'd be disappointed because I'd have been in the wrong. I'd try to learn from the mistake - I'm only human - but the disappointment would be there nonetheless.
On the other hand, if it wasn't merely a case of finicky definitions and wording, but that Science, as I understand it, requires absolutely no faith - that everything it states can be shown to be 'true' (for want of a better phrasing) - I'd be fascinated. No really - to find such an absolute fact would be amazing.
Regarding the infinite series of "Why?" in my earlier post - yes, you're right, in most cases, there will be questions that we can investigate and find answers for, and to stop asking questions then would be a mistake. But then, there will also be questions that we will never find an answer for. "How do we know time exists?" is one of them. As are: "How do we know there is an objective reality? How do we know that the Universe obeys strict laws? How do I know I exist?" Because to investigate anything, you have to assume that these things are true. (I think we're in agreement on this point - you're referring to them as axioms, I'm referring to them as assumptions.)
In short, in your view Scientists are saying "Let's see if we can build a model that includes objective reality, time, causality and strict laws that also matches what we observe within the Universe."
(This is important, because the existence of Faith is more prominent in some alternate interpretations of Science.)
...
So now I have a question:
Do you have faith in the Scientific Method? Do you trust it?
I don't care that it's a justified faith, justified by millennia of active progress, that doesn't change the fact that there is still a measure of faith. Torrasque's post, the one that I originally responded to, mentioned the 99.9999% (or more) certainty. Faith accounts for the remaining 0.00...001%. It may be tiny, but it's there. For all we know, God could have spent the last 3000 years setting up every observed event to fit with the Scientific Method. You and I both believe otherwise - but there's the catch. Belief. We can't know for sure.
And you may answer yes to the above question, but even so, that doesn't mean that Science as a whole requires faith. Does it?
Well, let's go deeper. (Inception-Bwong)
Does the Scientific Method require faith to work?
The method can be summed up in three parts:
1) Observation
2) Creation or modification of a Scientific Model
3) Prediction
Point 2 is arguably removed from the universe, and is where the axioms come into play. Let's discard it as requiring no Faith.
That leaves 1 & 3. Observation and prediction.
1) Observation is an action, but it is passive (ignoring high level quantum for now). I can get into the question of whether you are assuming anything by making an observation - primarily I'd be arguing that you have to assume the existence of an observer before you can make an observation - but that argument gets self-referential very quickly, so I'm avoiding it.
3) Prediction is a necessary part of the Scientific Method. Without it, we can't test the validity of any Scientific Models that we have constructed. However, in making a prediction, you are placing faith in your model. At the very least, you are placing faith in the idea that by testing your prediction, testing your model, you will get something useful. And by that, to get back to my earlier point, you are placing faith in the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method wouldn't work if people didn't use it. People use the method because they trust it. But in that trust is a (tiny) act of faith.
Science even acknowledges this detail. Any Scientific Theory could be overturned if new evidence came to light. Gravity, Quantum, Cosmology (actually, it's happening all the time in Cosmology...), even Thermodynamics - although Thermodynamics is an interesting one because of how closely it is tied to Statistics. Newtonian Physics was overturned, but remains accurate enough for day to day usage.
All this is because of that one little bit of faith, and because Science is willing to be sceptical in how that little bit of faith is applied.
And I'm done. If you do write a response to this - and please do - then I will add a few small closing comments, responding to anything you've brought up. Otherwise, thank-you. You've given me some ideas to think about and mull over, and forced me to shore up some areas of my own interpretation of Science (note - mine isn't the Copenhagen one).
One: This is going to be my last post on the subject. No offence, but I don't want to still be debating this in three days time...
Two: Let's just step outside of the debate for a moment. Out of curiosity, what would it mean for you if it was logically proven that Science requires faith?
To keep things fair, I'll turn this question around and use it on myself: What would it mean for me if I was shown logical proof that Science does not need faith? Well, it does depend on how such a thing was demonstrated. If it was merely a case of my mixing up some definitions - a case of finicky language - then I'd be disappointed because I'd have been in the wrong. I'd try to learn from the mistake - I'm only human - but the disappointment would be there nonetheless.
On the other hand, if it wasn't merely a case of finicky definitions and wording, but that Science, as I understand it, requires absolutely no faith - that everything it states can be shown to be 'true' (for want of a better phrasing) - I'd be fascinated. No really - to find such an absolute fact would be amazing.
Fine. It's a statement, not an argument. I used the wrong word. That doesn't change the fact that it is impossible to prove the statement wrong, and that by extension, time is an assumption (since I just described a perfectly valid model of the universe in which time doesn't exist). In any case, this gets absorbed into the axioms, which I discuss below.Vegosiux said:
Regarding the infinite series of "Why?" in my earlier post - yes, you're right, in most cases, there will be questions that we can investigate and find answers for, and to stop asking questions then would be a mistake. But then, there will also be questions that we will never find an answer for. "How do we know time exists?" is one of them. As are: "How do we know there is an objective reality? How do we know that the Universe obeys strict laws? How do I know I exist?" Because to investigate anything, you have to assume that these things are true. (I think we're in agreement on this point - you're referring to them as axioms, I'm referring to them as assumptions.)
Okay. So you view Science as constructing an internally consistent model to match our observations of the Universe. Am I right? And the basis of this model are the axioms above. And because these axioms are within the model, not the Universe, they are themselves a tool, not assumptions, and certainly not factual statements.
In short, in your view Scientists are saying "Let's see if we can build a model that includes objective reality, time, causality and strict laws that also matches what we observe within the Universe."
(This is important, because the existence of Faith is more prominent in some alternate interpretations of Science.)
...
So now I have a question:
Do you have faith in the Scientific Method? Do you trust it?
I don't care that it's a justified faith, justified by millennia of active progress, that doesn't change the fact that there is still a measure of faith. Torrasque's post, the one that I originally responded to, mentioned the 99.9999% (or more) certainty. Faith accounts for the remaining 0.00...001%. It may be tiny, but it's there. For all we know, God could have spent the last 3000 years setting up every observed event to fit with the Scientific Method. You and I both believe otherwise - but there's the catch. Belief. We can't know for sure.
And you may answer yes to the above question, but even so, that doesn't mean that Science as a whole requires faith. Does it?
Well, let's go deeper. (Inception-Bwong)
Does the Scientific Method require faith to work?
The method can be summed up in three parts:
1) Observation
2) Creation or modification of a Scientific Model
3) Prediction
Point 2 is arguably removed from the universe, and is where the axioms come into play. Let's discard it as requiring no Faith.
That leaves 1 & 3. Observation and prediction.
1) Observation is an action, but it is passive (ignoring high level quantum for now). I can get into the question of whether you are assuming anything by making an observation - primarily I'd be arguing that you have to assume the existence of an observer before you can make an observation - but that argument gets self-referential very quickly, so I'm avoiding it.
3) Prediction is a necessary part of the Scientific Method. Without it, we can't test the validity of any Scientific Models that we have constructed. However, in making a prediction, you are placing faith in your model. At the very least, you are placing faith in the idea that by testing your prediction, testing your model, you will get something useful. And by that, to get back to my earlier point, you are placing faith in the Scientific Method.
The Scientific Method wouldn't work if people didn't use it. People use the method because they trust it. But in that trust is a (tiny) act of faith.
Science even acknowledges this detail. Any Scientific Theory could be overturned if new evidence came to light. Gravity, Quantum, Cosmology (actually, it's happening all the time in Cosmology...), even Thermodynamics - although Thermodynamics is an interesting one because of how closely it is tied to Statistics. Newtonian Physics was overturned, but remains accurate enough for day to day usage.
All this is because of that one little bit of faith, and because Science is willing to be sceptical in how that little bit of faith is applied.
And I'm done. If you do write a response to this - and please do - then I will add a few small closing comments, responding to anything you've brought up. Otherwise, thank-you. You've given me some ideas to think about and mull over, and forced me to shore up some areas of my own interpretation of Science (note - mine isn't the Copenhagen one).
Technically it's correct as induction doesn't work. In short; you can't actually prove cause and effect and so cannot make predictions for the future based on past events, which is exactly what science does. Science has faith that a few things hold up almost no matter what; cause and effect, maths etc. Therefore Science is based on faith. However it's still a ridiculously loaded statement; best explained here. First couple of minutes and 5.20. Good stuff.
If you think this you haven't examined the evidence for both cases. Scientific proof is necessarily devoid of discrepancy, if there is discrepancy in evidence the theory is discarded or revised.Mimsofthedawg said:
Creationism begins and ends by trying to prove something very specific and does it by looking for evidence that seems to corroborate this position.
Evolution is the culmination of 204 years of tens of thousands of observations by some of the most brilliant people who have ever lived. There is overwhelming evidence to support evolution, there are literally many thousands of tons of fossils numbering in the billions. The entire field of science called genetics is based entirely on the "theory" of evolution. Most modern medical treatments would fail if evolution was incorrect, ALL treatments regarding microbes would fail if they were based on an incorrect theory of evolution.
Let me put this another way, we've already built a house on this foundation that is evolution and it's not collapsing, if evolution were false and full of "indescrepencies" it would have collapsed over 80 years ago. In science we're nine steps ahead of evolution, we're already taking our first steps off the bridge we crossed where evolution served as a keystone. Within 70 years scientists will be able to create life, like "God", in a laboratory, within 140 a child will be able to create life, like "God", in his backyard with a kit he bought from a toy store. Creationism is just a death rattle issued by a crumbling orthodoxy 90 years too late to matter.
Religion was the first science or the first we know of. It gave a hypothesis on the world around us through the methods available to the human race at the time. We continue to do this to this day just in a little more complex method.
So to call them separate things is a little stupid.
So to call them separate things is a little stupid.
(i come into this with the croshaw philosophy of not influencing my opinion by watching the video in question)
well of course science has its roots in faith, they are both ways in which we try to understand the universe, and in times gone by the two were not so distinct. humans looked at rain and said' "well it must be caused by the rain god". they had no means to prove otherwise, so at the time the explanation was perfectly valid; it satisfied curiosity and was believable enough when you dont know any better. but humans are inquisitive: over time they start to think more and more about this rain god, what he looks like, how he acts, what he thinks about, why he does what he does... this is a scientific way of thinking...
...but some people just lose sight of WHY they are asking those questions and prefer to go on creating their own personal fantasy based on their thoughts rather than what they observe. they regale their children with stories of the rain god, perhaps intending them to be only stories, but children hinge on these words regardless of intent. when they grow up, the fantastical rain god they were told about as kids becomes their instinctual perception of him, what they fall back on whenever questions arise. so when someone with a different idea comes by and says, "hey, it only rains when the clouds are thick and afterwards they disappear, maybe their is no rain god and its just clouds doing what they do" there is already a whole community of faithful worshippers opposed to that idea, that grew up on a long, rich, successful history of worshipping the rain god. they feel their belief is threatened, more importantly they feel their security in knowing when and why there are floods and draughts being threatened, so they instinctively do one of two things: adapt their belief to fit the new data (the rain god made the clouds! what a clever little god!), or more commonly they vilify whoever believes the new idea. when that happens, a wedge is driven between the community, and as humans always do, both sides begin to enhance the differences between "us and them", both in action and in thought, creating artificial barriers to strengthen the bond between fellow believers and weaken their bond to non-believers. in this, the rain god is enhanced from an actual belief to a fact of the universe; he is no longer the best explanation at the time, he becomes fact and reality must be bent to satisfy that fact. science, in turn, learns the danger of sticking to one theory to zealously, and advances into something we know today; detached, logical, with a strict method and no room for error.
TL;DR faith is taking the simple and making it complicated with your own beliefs. science is taking the complicated and trying to make it simple with logic and reason. they both have their roots in the simple.
well of course science has its roots in faith, they are both ways in which we try to understand the universe, and in times gone by the two were not so distinct. humans looked at rain and said' "well it must be caused by the rain god". they had no means to prove otherwise, so at the time the explanation was perfectly valid; it satisfied curiosity and was believable enough when you dont know any better. but humans are inquisitive: over time they start to think more and more about this rain god, what he looks like, how he acts, what he thinks about, why he does what he does... this is a scientific way of thinking...
...but some people just lose sight of WHY they are asking those questions and prefer to go on creating their own personal fantasy based on their thoughts rather than what they observe. they regale their children with stories of the rain god, perhaps intending them to be only stories, but children hinge on these words regardless of intent. when they grow up, the fantastical rain god they were told about as kids becomes their instinctual perception of him, what they fall back on whenever questions arise. so when someone with a different idea comes by and says, "hey, it only rains when the clouds are thick and afterwards they disappear, maybe their is no rain god and its just clouds doing what they do" there is already a whole community of faithful worshippers opposed to that idea, that grew up on a long, rich, successful history of worshipping the rain god. they feel their belief is threatened, more importantly they feel their security in knowing when and why there are floods and draughts being threatened, so they instinctively do one of two things: adapt their belief to fit the new data (the rain god made the clouds! what a clever little god!), or more commonly they vilify whoever believes the new idea. when that happens, a wedge is driven between the community, and as humans always do, both sides begin to enhance the differences between "us and them", both in action and in thought, creating artificial barriers to strengthen the bond between fellow believers and weaken their bond to non-believers. in this, the rain god is enhanced from an actual belief to a fact of the universe; he is no longer the best explanation at the time, he becomes fact and reality must be bent to satisfy that fact. science, in turn, learns the danger of sticking to one theory to zealously, and advances into something we know today; detached, logical, with a strict method and no room for error.
TL;DR faith is taking the simple and making it complicated with your own beliefs. science is taking the complicated and trying to make it simple with logic and reason. they both have their roots in the simple.
Saying that "X is based on faith" sounds a little extreme to me. Not even Christianity is based on faith, but at the events which happen in the (Christian) bible. So why would science be?
Does faith have a place in science's roots? Maybe, it really just depends on how you define faith.
Does faith have a place in science's roots? Maybe, it really just depends on how you define faith.
There is a difference between faith and logic. You can get far by applying logic to the world and assuming something will react or act in a certain way because something else does.
The anatomist Galen assumed our bottom jaws were split like a lot of mammals because he was prevented from dissecting humans. He was wrong but was later corrected with further exploration.
Logic and assumption is all we can apply to things we cannot grasp hold of yet. Like the assumption there will be life on Europa. That's not faith that's logic worked out from the scientific data we have access too. It may be wrong but we will see when we get there and if it's wrong we will correct our knowledge.
Faith has nothing to do with science. Logic and extrapolation of data does. In fact you might even say they are opposites as you could argue true faith is believing in something that has no grounding or reason to be true.
'How do we know he will stand up for us.'
'We will just have to have faith'
Whereas having logical assumptions, extrapolations and predictions from data requires no faith at all. Because you have some sort of reasoning that you will be correct.
'How do we know he will stand up for us'
'Because he has done it before in similar circumstances'
The anatomist Galen assumed our bottom jaws were split like a lot of mammals because he was prevented from dissecting humans. He was wrong but was later corrected with further exploration.
Logic and assumption is all we can apply to things we cannot grasp hold of yet. Like the assumption there will be life on Europa. That's not faith that's logic worked out from the scientific data we have access too. It may be wrong but we will see when we get there and if it's wrong we will correct our knowledge.
Faith has nothing to do with science. Logic and extrapolation of data does. In fact you might even say they are opposites as you could argue true faith is believing in something that has no grounding or reason to be true.
'How do we know he will stand up for us.'
'We will just have to have faith'
Whereas having logical assumptions, extrapolations and predictions from data requires no faith at all. Because you have some sort of reasoning that you will be correct.
'How do we know he will stand up for us'
'Because he has done it before in similar circumstances'