Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 126 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
welcome to the newly developing glaciation period.
by paul
10/24/19 03:23 PM
Potatoes on Mars
by paul
10/24/19 02:55 PM
Fishing , baiting the hook.
by paul
10/24/19 02:43 PM
F=mv ... mv=F
by paul
10/24/19 02:37 PM
Do we have a moderator?
by paul
10/23/19 12:30 AM
Is there anybody out there?
by paul
10/23/19 12:22 AM
Top Posters (30 Days)
paul 13
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#12577 - 08/23/05 03:21 AM Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
What's with all the creationist advertisements on the scienceagogo front page?

Top
.
#12578 - 08/23/05 04:16 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Kate Offline

Senior Member

Registered: 10/16/04
Posts: 334
I expect it's been "triggered" by the article on intelligent design on the front page...

Top
#12579 - 08/23/05 06:06 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Anonymous
Unregistered


The intelligent design can not be the criteria of accepting or denying faith.
We have written volumes of Maths describing the reality and still some say that the reality is not intelligent.We have grown up and so has the reality.Wait for the new reality.(someone quotes it often.. you are correct)

Top
#12580 - 08/23/05 04:04 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Uncle Al Offline
Superstar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 540
Loc: Southern California
Quote:
The intelligent design can not be the criteria of accepting or denying faith.
Faith, by definition, exists independent of observation. Faith demands unwavering failure of prediction as validation of continuing personal committment. Christ will return! That he never does is proof that he will. Ditto a billion starving Asians supplicating morbidly obese Buddha with lavish food offerings (that disappear down priets' throats).

All faith-based dogma will be (must be!) unsuccessful. If it is faith it is wrong. Test of faith!
_________________________
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf

Top
#12581 - 08/23/05 05:34 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
Well, the ads are gone now anyway.
Thank God, er, goodness. smile

Top
#12582 - 08/23/05 09:01 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
Oops - the creationist crap is back.
Does anyone have control over what ads get triggered?

Top
#12583 - 08/24/05 03:51 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Anonymous
Unregistered


Faith, by definition, exists independent of observation.
REP: Not true. Faith are of various types.
Faith which denies trueness of observation.
Faith which observes but one and the same thing again and again.
It is a very deep subject and the faith should ideally be prescriptive.Based upon individuals interest a particular method of faith should be prescribed.Science is also based on faith.Many believe simply because others believe in it.
==================================
Faith demands unwavering failure of prediction as validation of continuing personal committment.
REP:True.
===========================================
Christ will return! That he never does is proof that he will.
REP: During His times he generated deep trust.He trusted every one.He refused to believe in distrust.He knew what will happen but still he trusted.And this is called faith. For all practical purposes he is still with us.
==========================================
Ditto a billion starving Asians supplicating morbidly obese Buddha with lavish food offerings (that disappear down priets' throats).
REP:Lavish part was not necessary.Priests are also human beings.
======================================
All faith-based dogma will be (must be!) unsuccessful. If it is faith it is wrong. Test of faith!
REP:Science is also a part of it.It will be put extreme test when the Black Hole will be created in Lab just as faith in humanity was tested during the World War and Cold War..
There is no Sceintific reason to believe in Humanity as I was told that there is no goal prescribed by today's Science.
=====================================

Top
#12584 - 08/24/05 04:43 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
dkv - I'm glad to see somebody offering a deeper analysis of what "faith" might mean. I wish that more of my neighbors were willing to think about faith in the terms you outline.
You have to understand, though, that those of us living in the US are surrounded by very literal-minded Christians for whom the word "faith" means unquestioning belief in the inerrancy of scripture, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Every day, we see people who deeply want to believe that Genesis is an accurate history and that "God" is a human-like (but perfect-in-every-way) being who directs individual human lives, punishing people who disobey. What's worse, this group of idiots is gaining a lot of political power very quickly. Many of them, Bush and his puppet-masters, for example, are politically very savvy despite their drooling stupidity, because they understand how to take advantage of people emotionally. I have had many conversations with fundamentalist Christians about this topic and I have always come away feeling overwhelmed by the utterly simple stupidity of their theology (for I hesitate to call it philosophy).
[By the way, I personally have never knowingly spoken about the meaning of "faith" with a fundamentalist Muslim, but it appears to me, admittedly from a distance, that many of them are similarly literal in their interpretations.]
dkv is quite right to remind us that, when we talk about destroying faith as a guiding principle, we may be falling into the same trap as our foes: a too-simple and too-literal interpretation of the meaning of "faith." The brand of faith against which I will always fight is this: unwavering, unquestioning, uncritical Belief in something, despite a lack of empirical evidence or empirical evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I have to report that I encounter this literalist brand of faith every day.
I disagree with you, dkv, when you say that science is based on faith. You are right that individual scientists often believe the ideas of others without having personally examined the research. However, we do so not with faith, but instead with a very defensible trust in our system of peer review. There are individual scientists with good reputations who are frauds, but there is very good reason to believe that these people are few and far-between; the peer review system is designed to be quite efficient and ruthless in ferretting these people out. If there is a scientist making claims that seem questionable to you, you can easily go and read their papers to judge for yourself whether their ideas should be taken seriously. That's scientific method; scientists trust one another (always tentatively), but we do not have faith in one another.

Top
#12585 - 08/24/05 07:21 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Anonymous
Unregistered


dkv - I'm glad to see somebody offering a deeper analysis of what "faith" might mean. I wish that more of my neighbors were willing to think about faith in the terms you outline.
REP: Thanks.
================================
You have to understand, though, that those of us living in the US are surrounded by very literal-minded Christians for whom the word "faith" means unquestioning belief in the inerrancy of scripture, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Every day, we see people who deeply want to believe that Genesis is an accurate history and that "God" is a human-like (but perfect-in-every-way) being who directs individual human lives, punishing people who disobey.
REP: Every religion has this problem so need to blaim Cristians.We all have to realize this truth.
====================================
What's worse, this group of idiots is gaining a lot of political power very quickly. Many of them, Bush and his puppet-masters, for example, are politically very savvy despite their drooling stupidity, because they understand how to take advantage of people emotionally. I have had many conversations with fundamentalist Christians about this topic and I have always come away feeling overwhelmed by the utterly simple stupidity of their theology (for I hesitate to call it philosophy).
REP: Politics with Exclusive ownership of God is suicidal.Direct confrontation is inevitable when Faith A comes across Faith B.Obviously God didnot do so much of hard work to start a fight on its existence and defintion.( I have used religion to argue because we are discussing religion and not science.)
=============================================
[By the way, I personally have never knowingly spoken about the meaning of "faith" with a fundamentalist Muslim, but it appears to me, admittedly from a distance, that many of them are similarly literal in their interpretations.]
dkv is quite right to remind us that, when we talk about destroying faith as a guiding principle, we may be falling into the same trap as our foes: a too-simple and too-literal interpretation of the meaning of "faith." The brand of faith against which I will always fight is this: unwavering, unquestioning, uncritical Belief in something, despite a lack of empirical evidence or empirical evidence to the contrary. Unfortunately, I have to report that I encounter this literalist brand of faith every day.
REP: They need to be educated for their own good.
============================================
I disagree with you, dkv, when you say that science is based on faith. You are right that individual scientists often believe the ideas of others without having personally examined the research. However, we do so not with faith, but instead with a very defensible trust in our system of peer review. There are individual scientists with good reputations who are frauds, but there is very good reason to believe that these people are few and far-between; the peer review system is designed to be quite efficient and ruthless in ferretting these people out. If there is a scientist making claims that seem questionable to you, you can easily go and read their papers to judge for yourself whether their ideas should be taken seriously. That's scientific method; scientists trust one another (always tentatively), but we do not have faith in one another.
REP:Science allows you to examine itself and I think most religions allow this as well(of course using its language).
Science when encouters an evidence against a theory it changes its understanding but not its application achieved till now radically.
Religions also undergo this change(although no one will admit it openly.)Religions grow and this is reason why we have so many of them.
Most do not loose their applicability and this creates a superficial conflict.People practicsing it refuse to acknowledge the superior understanding of some religion over the other.Religion writers made this mistake and we are paying price for it. This event has nothing to do with what we were trying to acheive and that was to understand what God is saying.

Top
#12586 - 08/24/05 03:11 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 127
Loc: does it really matter?
I agree with DKV that much of science is contingent upon faith( faith = "confident BELIEF or TRUST in persons, ideas, or things"). Faith in theories (theory = "systematically organized knowledge, esp. a set of assumptions or statements devised to explain a phenomenom or class of phenomena") exemplifies this contigency. You can not have science without some semblence faith. One silly example I like is someone who says that their "senses" tell them what is real. Then I say does the Earth revolve around the sun or does the sun revolve around the Earth? Your eyes see the sun move across the sky. But science tells us a different story. I have not travelled to outerspace to "see" the Earth travel around the sun and yet I "believe" in the science that contradicts my senses. I have faith that the Earth travels around the sun and I have faith that the sun will rise tommorow wink
_________________________
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Top
#12587 - 08/24/05 08:43 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
If you believe that faith in any way relates to science you are a fool: An uneducated fool. But a fool none-the-less.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12588 - 08/24/05 09:59 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
mochilero Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/02/05
Posts: 7
Loc: AZ
I have faith that science will win out over religion in the end.
_________________________
Steve

http://www.999ideas.com

Top
#12589 - 08/24/05 11:08 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Nominal Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 08/24/05
Posts: 6
Many scientists also practice religion. I am sure, depending upon which religions, they must struggle with paradoxes. It seems more intelligent than not to keep your mind open to varying points of view. Mochilero, indeed, religion must stay out of public schools and government.
_________________________
Predict the "end of science" at your peril!

Top
#12590 - 08/25/05 12:03 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
DA Morgan Offline
Megastar

Registered: 10/17/04
Posts: 4136
Loc: Seattle, WA
The fact that some scientists practice religion is as relevant as the fact that some physicians smoke cigarettes.

Fools can be found everywhere.

The difference between a scientist and a preacher is that a scientist doesn't claim to be talking for god.
_________________________
DA Morgan

Top
#12591 - 08/25/05 02:36 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
Quote:
Originally posted by Mung:
I have faith that the Earth travels around the sun and I have faith that the sun will rise tommorow wink
Mung - I don't think you're talking about faith. You're talking about holding a belief because of overwhelming empirical evidence in favor of that belief. That's very different from holding a belief for no good reason. In common English usage, faith means the latter.

Just for fun, let's turn to the shelf.
From the OED: faith /fayth/ n. 1. complete trust or confidence. 2. firm belief, esp. without logical proof or empirical evidence. 3a. a system of religious belief b. belief in religious doctrines c. spiritual apprehension of divine truth apart from evidence or proof 4. duty or commitment to fulfill a trust, promise, etc; obligation; allegiance (e.g. keep the faith) 5. (attrib.) concerned with a supposed ability to cure by faith rather than treatment (faith healing)

With regard to definition #1: no good scientist should have complete trust in a theory or idea. Scientific beliefs should always be held tentatively, although they may be very strong when evidence is overwhelming.
With regard to definition #2: I think that no intelligent person should hold a belief without logical proof or material evidence. If a person does hold such a belief, then they should not pretend to be a scientist.
With regard to definition #3: this is an extremely broad and vague definition, but notice in part 3c the reference again to lack of evidence or proof.
Definition #4 is a specialized usage that doesn't directly apply to belief systems.
Definition #5 is a specialized usage that refers particularly to a practice that has been utterly discredited by science.

So, according to the world's most highly regarded English dictionary, all common definitions of the word "faith" refer to holding a belief inappropriately.

From the AHD: faith n. 1. A confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance (keeping faith) 4a. Belief or trust in God. b. Religious conviction. 5. A system of religious beliefs. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

So here we have a significantly fuzzier group of definitions, but the gist remains.
I can also report, from my everyday experience, that the word faith is usually used to mean belief without evidence. Or at least, that's what I usually understand it to mean. I think my trip to dictionaryland largely supports that interpretation.

So Mung: I don't think you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I think you trustthat it will rise because you have very good reasons, both empirical and logical, for having that trust. The difference is enormous.
Therefore, I refuse to associate science with the word faith, because I think "faith" is misleading in that context. It is much more accurate and useful to actually describe why scientists hold beliefs: empirical evidence and logical conclusions lead us to tentative beliefs. I urge everyone to be very clear when discussing this topic. If you tell a non-scientist that science operates on faith, they will most likely think you are saying that scientists hold beliefs in absence of evidence or logic.

Top
#12592 - 08/25/05 03:25 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/21/05
Posts: 127
Loc: does it really matter?
Finchbeak-

I was not using the term "faith" in the religious sense, rather, only in the terms that I defined it in. Raising discussion was my objective; knowing that I was being facetious.
I am impressed with your time taken and your steadfast conviction. I did not say that science lacks evidence or logic; rather I know that science cherishes these principles. I think the definitions between faith and trust are closely tied. But I do understand what you mean by the two words having very different sense.
Believe me, I am not preaching LOL. I am not a creationist. I do not practice religion. I am interested in belief systems, how they originate and how people choose to pursue them. I meant not to knock science at all, or the people who are scientists. I have tremendous respect for those who seek knowledge and are open to ideas. This forum has helped me to restructure my beliefs because of thoughtful contructive criticism such as yours. As I am new to forums, I look forward to learning as much as possible in this construct and also to abide by it's etiquette. My understanding of a forum was "information exchange".
If I am incorrect then I am in the wrong place. Sincerely
_________________________
"My God, it's full of stars!" -2010

Top
#12593 - 08/25/05 04:16 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Anonymous
Unregistered


I don't think you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. I think you trustthat it will rise because you have very good reasons, both empirical and logical, for having that trust. The difference is enormous.
REP: Faith was reached only after going through the logical and empirical acceptance of the known(or standard) experience as understood under the logical framework of a religion.Few mastered it and others followed the masters on their path to relgious salvation.In science few become Einstein rest all believe what he says.

The framework of religion is different from that of science and therefore it appears as faith to the science.
=====================================
Therefore, I refuse to associate science with the word faith, because I think "faith" is misleading in that context.
REP: Fine. But I am afraid ,going by the definition,using faith for anything will be unacceptable.
======================================
It is much more accurate and useful to actually describe why scientists hold beliefs: empirical evidence and logical conclusions lead us to tentative beliefs. I urge everyone to be very clear when discussing this topic.
REP: Everyone is clear.I hope.
======================================
If you tell a non-scientist that science operates on faith, they will most likely think you are saying that scientists hold beliefs in absence of evidence or logic.
REP: They argue using their own accepted principles.
I consider my self a sceintist(without degree) and a religous man(without bible).

Top
#12594 - 08/25/05 05:54 AM Re: Creationist advertisements??
Anonymous
Unregistered


My last statement was not meant to encourage unsystematic approach towards knowledge learning or religious learning.
There is no magic here. I know what I know because others told me and I have just added few more words to it.

Top
#12595 - 08/25/05 05:30 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
Mung -
By all means, I am happy that you brought the point up. I didn't intend to come across as contentious; I apologize if that was the case. I certainly didn't get the impression that you had any creationist leanings.
The reason for my lengthy reply was to illustrate the importance of careful term definition. I think it's a very instructive example; to define "faith", you must examine your own belief system carefully. That's never a wasted effort.

Top
#12596 - 08/25/05 05:46 PM Re: Creationist advertisements??
finchbeak Offline
Member

Registered: 07/29/05
Posts: 50
Loc: m=ρd
dkv - I suspect there may be an interesting language gap at work. I am guessing that you're not a native speaker of English - and I mean no offense in that, it's merely an observation, based largely on your sentence structure and usage. If that's true, I wonder whether your experiences with other languages give you a distinctly different sense of the concept of faith. Or perhaps you are a native speaker of an "Indian-style" English dialect. In that case, I wonder what cultural influences are present in your English that are unfamiliar to American/British/Canadian/Australian speakers.
To be more succinct, I wonder what is lost in translation.
I appreciate your more complex definition, but I can say quite confidently that if you say the word "faith" to an American, he/she will understand you to mean "belief in the absence of empirical evidence or logic". Based on the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary, I assert that a Briton will likely have the same interpretation. Perhaps we Americans and Britons (and Canadians and Australians) are too literal.

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.