What about Baha'i, who as a strict part of their faith believe in learning more about the world through science?
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
AIDS Cure Found?
- Thread starter MrIndigo
- Start date
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.
Thanks Lanturn, and to all those who responded to my question. I think I get it now (better), all very cool even if it is a method with very limited application.
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.
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.
To spell it out for you plainly, people like me and those in the Baha'i faith believe in evolution because its scientifically proven through the rules YOU support. That may astonish you, but that's the cold hard fact of the matter and I know it just blows your mind that you can't write us off as easily as you try to. You're displaying a blatant "you are with me or against me" attitude. Just like in saying that everything or nothing in the bible is good, you yourself have to agree that either murder is good and slavery is bad or vice versa because by your own words you can't pick and choose.
Damn near everything you've said runs along the lines of "you're not a radical baptist, ergo you a radical atheist". It's either an ignorant worldview on your part or a shallow attempt at making me doubt my faith. The only moral absolutist I see here is you.
faith is belief without evidence. Science demands evidence and is a process. They are therefore incompatible at the most basic and fundamental level. End of discussion on that front. It is possible for the faithful to get on board with the fruits of sciences labor, but to contribute to the process with faith is a corruption of what science is.
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.
EDIT: And again you misunderstand entirely. If you follow a religion with a set of rules and one of those rules is, "Support the sciences, even if they contradict your beliefs", then faith has already contributed beneficially to your science and adamantly insisting otherwise sounds like you're trying to accuse me of heresy. Granted, this precludes the notion of scientifically proving that science is not worth supporting (thus invalidating itself), but I have faith that that is a fairly absurd thought experiment.
EDIT: And again you misunderstand entirely. If you follow a religion with a set of rules and one of those rules is, "Support the sciences, even if they contradict your beliefs", then faith has already contributed beneficially to your science and adamantly insisting otherwise sounds like you're trying to accuse me of heresy. Granted, this precludes the notion of scientifically proving that science is not worth supporting (thus invalidating itself), but I have faith that that is a fairly absurd thought experiment.
Dictionary.com has 8 definitions of faith and only one supports your claim (and its not even #1).
Whereas 3 of them support mine.
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)
I believe that through science we can learn more about the nature of the world, and through those facts and peer reviewed evidence I have new things to celebrate and appreciate. Again, through the process of the rules that YOU support.
Whereas 3 of them support mine.
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)
I believe that through science we can learn more about the nature of the world, and through those facts and peer reviewed evidence I have new things to celebrate and appreciate. Again, through the process of the rules that YOU support.
I don't think you truly understand even the one definition of faith you cling to.
You're being rather liberal with your interpretations.
If your religion taught you to "observe science", you might need to check if it's a religion. Science is the belief in what can be demonstrated and held up to experiment, so "faith in a religion that says to use science" would be self-destructive because religion and science would clash.
Scientific ethics and standards are not science themselves. Just putting the word Science in front of it doesn't change the word faith to apply to science. Faith there is defined in the firm belief of a set of morals, ethics, etc. You can have faith in the Scientific Method, but having "faith in science" is saying you have a firm belief that demonstrably true things are true, which is reflexive.
I'm just saying that I'm not the first person, by even about 200 years, to think this way. You want to get even more liberal, faith is uplifting. I see no good reason why atheists scientists can't feel the same way I do, but I do see many that don't. Except maybe Carl Sagan.
Religion is a combination of interest in "how did I get here?" and a philosophical moral code. I have both, and they are a huge part of my life. Am I not religious? Who is to say I'm not? Why do I have to believe what other religious people believe to have belief? Again, you make it sound as if you think I'm an atheist (I mean I must be, as I'm not a homophobic anti-science redneck).
As far as science and religion clashing, I'll tell you when that happens.
Finally, shouldn't everyone have a firm belief that demonstrably true things are true? Why shouldn't I have faith in something that has proven itself time and time again? Even dictionary.com is a little puzzling in its example of the second definition of faith, He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. Well it sounds to me like he didn't have much faith at all.
EDIT: Nevermind, Sagan wasn't even an atheist, just agnostic.
Religion is a combination of interest in "how did I get here?" and a philosophical moral code. I have both, and they are a huge part of my life. Am I not religious? Who is to say I'm not? Why do I have to believe what other religious people believe to have belief? Again, you make it sound as if you think I'm an atheist (I mean I must be, as I'm not a homophobic anti-science redneck).
As far as science and religion clashing, I'll tell you when that happens.
Finally, shouldn't everyone have a firm belief that demonstrably true things are true? Why shouldn't I have faith in something that has proven itself time and time again? Even dictionary.com is a little puzzling in its example of the second definition of faith, He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. Well it sounds to me like he didn't have much faith at all.
EDIT: Nevermind, Sagan wasn't even an atheist, just agnostic.
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?
I don't think you can have faith in a set of morals, because to me "faith" implies believing in something objective (however "believing" is defined), and morals are subjective. I can't have faith in an ethical system, any more than I can have faith in the idea that blue is the best color. You can have faith in the existence of objective morality, I guess, but that's different. There's a difference between outlandish claims and subjective claims.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking something unimportant out of your post, I dunno.
Maybe I'm just nitpicking something unimportant out of your post, I dunno.
If you can't have faith in 2=2, what can you have faith in?
Your definition of faith is wormy and flexible. You haven't even defined its parameters solidly. The reasoning for this, I'm guessing, is to be able to back peddle to a stalemate.
I clearly understand it, I distill it to its most basic form in order to be precise and NOT allow flexibility to move the goalposts. I repeat: belief without evidence.
I clearly understand it, I distill it to its most basic form in order to be precise and NOT allow flexibility to move the goalposts. I repeat: belief without evidence.
My definition is listed in the dictionary just as much as yours is. Don't tell me I'm trying to stalemate things when you repeatedly do nothing but accuse me of back peddling and insist your black and white morality is absolute.
You're being as much of a moral absolutist as J-Man.
You're being as much of a moral absolutist as J-Man.
this has nothing to do with morality, it has to do with a fixed meaning of a word distilled to its simplest form. Why the fuck would morality even be a measure of anything in a debate like this? I am not accusing you of anything, I am merely observing that you haven't defined a rigid definition yet which leaves the door open for back peddling.
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?
It's moral absolutism because only YOUR worldview is right and people are either atheist or stupid. 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.
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?
It's moral absolutism because only YOUR worldview is right and people are either atheist or stupid. 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.
wikipedia said:
later in the same article said:
a link for your convenience.
I don't think there is such a thing as faith in another person based on the definition I put forward- you always need a reason to trust someone, minuscule as it is. It seems we are arguing two different things, I am using an absolute definition that faith in a supreme being is belief without evidence meanwhile you are spouting off about people. Two completely different things and I personally don't like applying the word faith to anything human related.
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.
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.
your own early underhanded volley used against you said:
I left you with a dictionary definition, which is far more credible than a Wikipedia link (I mean jesus tits), and a feeling that I had argued well, not that everything I said was infallible. But if it helps you sleep at night, you were right about everything. Everything you ever said ever is true because you are logical and binary.
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).
I am an atheist; I have faith.
Personally I don't see whats the problem. If a person said to the doctor right now and says "I don't want to die... please," and if that person is about to spend craploads of money for a cure I don't see the problem.