Is science grounded on faith?

[Moonstruck888]

I am sorry, but I have no clue how that answers my questions. Could you please elaborate? Thanks

There are things that can be taken as read. I can take it as read that I exist. I can take it as read that the Universe exists. I do not need faith to believe that, it is self evident. From there, I can start to collate data, tested by scientific methodology, on how the Universe works.

It is only when assumptions are made in the absence of verifiable and falisifyable data that Faith is required.

For example. The Universe is here, I don’t know how it got here, ergo God built it.

You can’t see, hear, smell, touch, feel or detect him in anyway, only your assumption based on wild surmise backed up by nothing would lead you to believe he / she / it exists at all.

Personally, I require more than that. I require proof. As Bertrand Russel said, “My Lord, you left no evidence.”

 

[buffalo]

So, just to be clear, you refuse to explain and defend your absurd statement “religion drives science”?

Of course I may be living in a universe with a God. I may also be living in a universe where leprechauns are after me lucky charms. I may be a lot of things. I’m not going to believe them until there is evidence, and there is a hug difference between evidence and faith.

EDIT: Oh, and your quote (and what I’m assuming is your intended purpose behind quoting it): nice argument from incredulity! You’re racking up quite a few logical fallacies here. Not that I ever expect you to understand or acknowledge it.

I already linked it - did you read it? That would be step 1.

Do you know who Paul Davies is? Do you know why this quote from him is relevant?

 

[Joe_Scott]

Faith is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand how it came to be and so try to fill the gap of ignorance with what they want to belive in (God.

Science is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand hot it came to be and so try to find out by acctuly trying by looking at the stars, expermenting and researching.

 

[buffalo]

So, just to be clear, you refuse to explain and defend your absurd statement “religion drives science”?

Of course I may be living in a universe with a God. I may also be living in a universe where leprechauns are after me lucky charms. I may be a lot of things. I’m not going to believe them until there is evidence, and there is a hug difference between evidence and faith.

EDIT: Oh, and your quote (and what I’m assuming is your intended purpose behind quoting it): nice argument from incredulity! You’re racking up quite a few logical fallacies here. Not that I ever expect you to understand or acknowledge it.

Will you answer post 15?

 

[Moonstruck888]

I assume you are aware of the flatlanders.

How does a 3D guy show himself to a flatlander?

You do realise that outside the fictional yarn, “Flatland, A Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin A. Abbott, there is no such thing as a flatlander, or certainly no evidence for it.

 

[buffalo]

Faith is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand how it came to be and so try to fill the gap of ignorance with what they want to belive in (God.

Science is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand hot it came to be and so try to find out by acctuly trying by looking at the stars, expermenting and researching.

Nope. Catholics were behind the explosion of science. Catholics understood the universe to be intelligible while the pagans didn’t because they thought “why study chaos”?

 

[Shredderbeam]

I assume you are aware of the flatlanders.

How does a 3D guy show himself to a flatlander?

A 3D person can interact with the 2D world, presumably. I don’t know exactly how he would show himself - perhaps he’d poke his finger through the 2D world. The flatlanders wouldn’t fully understand what was happening, but they’d see that something out of the ordinary was occurring.

So too, if a God interacted with our world (I’m assuming that’s what you were driving at with the flatlanders question), we probably wouldn’t understand exactly what was happening, but we’d see that something strange was going on.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I think that your second paragraph is a commonly accepted fallacy. In Hebrews 11;1, (and what better source for defining faith than this?) in the NAB we read, “Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence of things not seen.”
So, faith is evidential in and of itself.

Faith is subjective, and therefore not admissable as evidence. Evidence must be objective…

To give a secular example, we don’t see the wind blow, but we do see what the wind blows.

We can detect the wind. We can feel it, we can understand it, we can measure it…

Another secular example, is that atomic particles were an unproven idea from the fourth century BC until the mid twentieth century. That is, for 2,400 years the idea of atoms was carried by faith. So, I respectfully submit, that some science can be based on faith.

Scientists would suspend judgement on the idea of the atom until such time as it could be tested… As you probably know, the model of the atom we have now bears no resemblence to the idea proposed 2,400 years ago…

 

[buffalo]

You do realise that outside the fictional yarn, “Flatland, A Romance of Many Dimensions” by Edwin A. Abbott, there is no such thing as a flatlander, or certainly no evidence for it.

Is that your answer?

 

[Moonstruck888]

A 3D person can interact with the 2D world, presumably. I don’t know exactly how he would show himself - perhaps he’d poke his finger through the 2D world. The flatlanders wouldn’t fully understand what was happening, but they’d see that something out of the ordinary was occurring.

So too, if a God interacted with our world (I’m assuming that’s what you were driving at with the flatlanders question), we probably wouldn’t understand exactly what was happening, but we’d see that something strange was going on.

It’s a fictional story… Fictional… There is no Flatland, nor is there a shred of evidence for Sub nor Hyperspatial dimensions…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Is that your answer?

A simple answer to a stupid question…

How would a fictional three dimensional being show himself in a fictional two dimensional Universe?

Make up whatever answer you like…

 

[Shredderbeam]

It’s a fictional story… Fictional… There is no Flatland, nor is there a shred of evidence for Sub nor Hyperspatial dimensions…

I understand, I am just answering buffalo’s hypothetical question. I believe he was trying to establish that God is to humans as a 3D person is to a flatlander.

 

[buffalo]

It’s a fictional story… Fictional… There is no Flatland, nor is there a shred of evidence for Sub nor Hyperspatial dimensions…

What about in the multi-verse?

Whether fictional or not the question stands.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I understand, I am just answering buffalo’s hypothetical question. I believe he was trying to establish that God is to humans as a 3D person is to a flatlander.

He’s using a fictional construct to try to prove that God isn’t fictional?

His coat is hanging on a very shakey nail there, is it not?

 

[buffalo]

I understand, I am just answering buffalo’s hypothetical question. I believe he was trying to establish that God is to humans as a 3D person is to a flatlander.

It is an area they are extremely uncomfortable in.

 

[Shredderbeam]

He’s using a fictional construct to try to prove that God isn’t fictional?

His coat is hanging on a very shakey nail there, is it not?

Well no, I think he’s trying to illustrate that we would not be able to understand a God if we saw one.

 

[buffalo]

Well no, I think he’s trying to illustrate that we would not be able to understand a God if we saw one.

You get it shredder.

 

[Moonstruck888]

What about in the multi-verse?

Multiverse? Where is that? Can you show me where I can locate it?

Whether fictional or not the question stands.

I think I have already answered it… You’ve taken a postion that’s indefensible. Fiction cannot be used to prove anything.

Incidentally, if God ever did suddenly appear in our 3D universe, there would be a catastrophic event associated with it due to our Universes energy conservation laws…

 

[Moonstruck888]

Well no, I think he’s trying to illustrate that we would not be able to understand a God if we saw one.

Well since he admits he can’t understand a God, why is he pontificating on a matter he admits he knows nothing about?

 

[edwest2]

Faith is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand how it came to be and so try to fill the gap of ignorance with what they want to belive in (God.

Science is for the people who look at the universe and can’t understand hot it came to be and so try to find out by acctuly trying by looking at the stars, expermenting and researching.

Here is a perfect example of the required assumption to do science and to deny religion as an actual historical event.

To the OP. No, science as practiced today seeks to distance itself from the religious faith most commonly practiced, however it does make faith statements regarding the faith statements of religion, essentially that there was no plan or purpose for human beings coming to be, we just are. And are just animals at that.

I have no idea why nontheists post on this subject on a Catholic forum.

God bless,
Ed