The difference between science and religion is that one manages the moment when explanations fail through faith in the process.
The Science Thread
- Thread starter Louanne Learning
- Start date
Wow, this sentence is bursting with food for thought!
First of all, I notice you didn't indicate which one "manages the moment when explanations fail through faith in the process."
Process implies science, but faith implies religion.
So - that begs the question - Do scientists have "faith" in the scientific process?
But the scientific reaction to the moment when "explanations fail" contradicts the religious reaction to that moment.
Religion will turn to faith, and maybe ancient scriptures. But science will turn to more experimentation and investigation.
This does not require faith.
So, whose process is it?
Last edited:
Scientists encounter something they cannot explain, they have faith that experimentation and investigation will explain the mystery even if it fails at this moment.
Religious devotees encounter something they cannot explain, they have faith that their divine will explain the mystery even if it fails at this moment.
Go far enough into the origins of anything/everything and, at some point, there's a leap of faith involved.
Faith works in the absence of evidence, but there are loads and loads of evidence that the scientific process works.
Science does not depend on faith, but observations of the physical world.
Maybe just faith in the existence of reality?
It could be argued that you're speaking of a narrow definition of faith and, as a separate point, religious devotees will say they do observe validations of their faith.
I'm not sure that there can be more than one way to define it.
I assume you mean faith in God. Unless they have evidence for a direct cause-and-effect relationship, whatever they observe does not validate the faith. On top of that, once we've got evidence, it departs from the realm of faith.
Really? Faith is a belief in something not demonstrably proven, which may or may not involve a divine entity. I have faith that the people packing my tin of beans aren't homicidal nutjobs (free the beans!). It can be proven that the beans are safe to eat, but not by me and not in the time between opening the can and eating them, That's pushing the idea, but each day we continuously extend faith that those who purify our water, or check our foods, or administer our medicines are competent and/or sufficiently uncorrupt to make it safe (enough), and, because of the faith invested in authorities and watchdogs, those things, in which we typically hold no expertise, will do what we expect them to.
For both theists and atheists there are mysteries that, currently, defy understanding. One group believes god(s) hold the answer, the other extends a very similar article of faith that science can provide the explanation. Neither can demonstably prove their assertions, in my opinion, and both rely on the integrity of their belief systems, which amounts to faith.
It may not validate it to you and I might scratch my head, but I do know people who find that validation, evidence if you will, in many things that science may view otherwise. Whatever my opinion, there are people who have spoken to god and to whom god has spoken, people who have been visited by angels, people to point to inexplicable outcomes (miracles) that prove the existence of an interventionist god. Different eyes will view the evidence differently.
This is an assumption, not faith. It's based on many, many people safely delivering beans in the past.
Faith is only required for those things that we cannot collect evidence for.
Science can provide answers, based on observations. No faith required.
Here's where my faith - or lack of it - comes into play. I don't believe God has spoken to any of us, I don't believe angels have visited, I don't believe in an interventionist god. These are beliefs of a subject, and subjective belief cannot be applied to the whole.
One person's subjective belief provides no evidence that God speaks to people, or angels visit, or that God intervenes in our lives.
What it does provide evidence of is the spectacular capacity of the human mind to create stories.
Maybe. I wouldn't know where to start. I could look it up, providing I had faith in the integrity of the sources telling me how to test the beans.
Putting the beans aside, they weren't the best example to start with. I'll guess that you have more faith in humanity than I do. You can point to evidence for your position. I can do the same for mine. I don't know there's a definitively correct answer to such things.
I have a little piece in a story about a son reflecting on his father, thinking about how he inherited his faith from his father, but not the religion his father observed. It goes like this:
These he rejected. He could not remember them making sense at any point in his life. Yet, it was from his father that he learned the ways of things, inculcating a faith that hard work would be rewarded, that integrity was its own reward and the world would hold to an impervious set of principles, much like the laws of physics directing the path of a river.
That's what I'm getting at when speaking of faith being much broader than spiritual or religious devotion.
That's fine and I'm not suggesting you should change your position. I probably share much of those views. But, my opinion is just that. There are billions of people on our rock that view it differently. I may not agree with them, but I'd not say they were wrong.
Science does provide some answers, posits others and suggests where it might be worth looking for others. They're not always the answers to the questions some people are asking, for one. Secondly, and more relevant to this issue, there are many many things that science cannot explain relating to the origins of the universe, Big Bangs and all that. That might be met with "yet". I'd argue that "yet" is a leap of faith because there may well be limits to our capacity to fully understand the nature of existence, a bridge that our scientific probing cannot ever cross. You may believe that "yet" is sturdy because the expansion of scientific knowledge pushes at any such limits. You may say body of scientific knowledge is evidence that science can provide answers beyond limit. I'd still argue that contention is unproved, thereby a position of faith.
Zmar
New Member
Yes, I think that science and faith are completely compatible (and equally insufficient) when it comes to the big questions of the nature of being, the purpose (or lack of) of the universe or creation.
Both the theologian and the scientist can try to push back the membrane of ignorance, although it does seem like our laws of physics put a hard cap on what can possibly be known or tested.
But this too is based on careful observation. That the vast majority of people are good people, to me, cannot be disputed. In some instances, corrupt and amoral people gain power, but they are the exception, not the rule, to the human condition.
That's lovely. But still, it was based on past evidence, and therefore not faith-based.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression that faith only applied to spiritual or religious devotion. That's not where my mind was at.
But this discussion has got me thinking about the notion of “having faith in yourself.” I’ve always believed this is probably the biggest motivator in a life. But our discussion has got me examining what this means.
Having faith in yourself means you believe you can “do it” – whatever “it” is. A task is set for you, and going forward with it requires you believe you can do it. I remember telling my students, “If you say you can’t, you probably can’t – but if you say you can, you probably can.” Self-talk has impact.
But I am not convinced this is about faith. It’s about effort, for sure. Is it faith that makes us put in the effort, or something else?
I keep going back to the narrow definition of faith. Believing in the absence of any evidence. But maybe you were successful in the past? Maybe that’s what tells you that you can “do it” – whatever “it” is.
So, does whether or not you have “faith in yourself” depend on what your past experiences were?
I'm not sure it is a question of right or wrong, but rather objective vs. subjective perspective.
For sure, they don't have all the answer yet.
This is a very interesting observation. But it's not the way I see science happening. I don't think there are scientists out there saying, "We're going to figure it all out!" Rather, each scientist is working on their own little piece of the puzzle and hope it contributes somehow to the overall picture. I really don't think they are operating on faith.
I find you use of the word "limits" interesting. I think science understands its limits. We are limited by our senses. Anything beyond that is a matter of faith.
You need to have scientific definition of what "good" means to apply observable science to it. Otherwise, it's faith based.
Thank you for the opportunity to expand on this.
The question of what is "good" has plagued philosophy since the first human beings asked it!
But, in my estimation, I'm referring to the ability to live peaceably and generously in a group. The fact that we can co-exist in dense populations, for example, testifies to the human capacity for the "good." (I mentioned once before - take our closest relatives the chimpanzees and put them into towns and cities like we live in and they would all kill one another before long.)
I suppose what this really means is what is "good" for the group. We are a highly social species and so much of our behavior is geared towards being accepted by the group. But - I don't think "good" is only something externally put on us, but something we are born with, too. I really believe that compassion is the default position for humanity. Not that it comes from some supernatural force, but as a result of our evolution. Those individuals better able to live in a group enjoyed evolutionary advantage.
But all of this, I suppose, depends on basic needs being met.
