Are faith and science diametrically opposed?

[Stunt]

I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

The bolded part is not a true statement. Most everything we have in that regard was developed by inventors, and most of those inventors of 100+ years ago were not scientists. Edison was not a scientist. Neither was Watt. Nor Otto, nor Daimler, nor Ford, nor the Wright Bros., nor Curtiss, nor Colt... I could go on and on.

 

[jjzelinski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

The bolded part is not a true statement. Most everything we have in that regard was developed by inventors, and most of those inventors of 100+ years ago were not scientists. Edison was not a scientist. Neither was Watt. Nor Otto, nor Daimler, nor Ford, nor the Wright Bros., nor Curtiss, nor Colt... I could go on and on.

Wouldn't you agree they applied scientific principles to develope their inventions? I don't think divine intervention had a whole lot to do with it.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

The bolded part is not a true statement. Most everything we have in that regard was developed by inventors, and most of those inventors of 100+ years ago were not scientists. Edison was not a scientist. Neither was Watt. Nor Otto, nor Daimler, nor Ford, nor the Wright Bros., nor Curtiss, nor Colt... I could go on and on.

Name a product people use today not developed by scientists/engineers.
Unless these people are driving around in Ford model T's or earlier...they are indeed hypocrits. Even then, science was used to develop this...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

The bolded part is not a true statement. Most everything we have in that regard was developed by inventors, and most of those inventors of 100+ years ago were not scientists. Edison was not a scientist. Neither was Watt. Nor Otto, nor Daimler, nor Ford, nor the Wright Bros., nor Curtiss, nor Colt... I could go on and on.

Name a product people use today not developed by scientists/engineers.
Unless these people are driving around in Ford model T's or earlier...they are indeed hypocrits.

Well, considering just about everything made today involves plastics, stainless steel, paper products, etc., it's hard to find anything made today that's not a product of some technological advance.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

The bolded part is not a true statement. Most everything we have in that regard was developed by inventors, and most of those inventors of 100+ years ago were not scientists. Edison was not a scientist. Neither was Watt. Nor Otto, nor Daimler, nor Ford, nor the Wright Bros., nor Curtiss, nor Colt... I could go on and on.

Name a product people use today not developed by scientists/engineers.
Unless these people are driving around in Ford model T's or earlier...they are indeed hypocrits.

Well, considering just about everything made today involves plastics, stainless steel, paper products, etc., it's hard to find anything made today that's not a product of some technological advance.

Yup...not only engineered alloys, but all electronics, manufacturing methods, genetically modified food (we consume tons of this) - very few eat organic...and they tend to be on the other side of the spectrum

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: ArmchairAthlete

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: homercles337
I have oft made the claim that one can not have faith in a god and accept scientific findings simultaneously. This is a simple contradiction in a philosophical versus empirical view of "information gathering," for lack of a better term. On the one hand you have a perspective that vehemently seeks to disprove itself, and on the other you have a philosophy that ignores anything and everything that contradicts it. How is it possible that these two diametrically opposed perspectives exist in the same space?

You're not from the South are you?

If you were down here you would hear "Don't give me any of that Man to Monkey nonsense".

This is what is taught in the schools.

I graduated from a public high school in the south in '04, evolution was taught and not creationism.

Kansas latest State to Ban Evolution from being taught. Now up to 3 States with 17 others looking to Ban Evolution this year.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: yllus
You have a point, but your claim is slightly fallacious. The refusal to require the scientific test on a Maker does not completely zero out a person's ability to accept scientific findings completely.

Some believers may also feel that we may one day be able to test for the presence or absence of a god, we just currently lack the technological expertise to do so. Agnosticism is the only scientifically safe route of belief, while athiesm and theism equally dispute the scientific method.

How does Atheism dispute the scientific method, exactly? Please, enlighten us.

Jason

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: yllus
You have a point, but your claim is slightly fallacious. The refusal to require the scientific test on a Maker does not completely zero out a person's ability to accept scientific findings completely.

Some believers may also feel that we may one day be able to test for the presence or absence of a god, we just currently lack the technological expertise to do so. Agnosticism is the only scientifically safe route of belief, while athiesm and theism equally dispute the scientific method.

How does Atheism dispute the scientific method, exactly? Please, enlighten us.

Jason

Thiesm is by definition an absolute belief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

Athiesm is by definition an absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

We currently are unable to satisfactorily test for the presence of that omnipotent being. Therefore, you cannot logically disbelieve in that being, just as equally as you cannot logically believe in it. Where's your evidence of an absence of God?

I really don't want to get wrapped up in this argument again. Maybe if I stay quiet for now on, Vic can handle answering for me...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: yllus
You have a point, but your claim is slightly fallacious. The refusal to require the scientific test on a Maker does not completely zero out a person's ability to accept scientific findings completely.

Some believers may also feel that we may one day be able to test for the presence or absence of a god, we just currently lack the technological expertise to do so. Agnosticism is the only scientifically safe route of belief, while athiesm and theism equally dispute the scientific method.

How does Atheism dispute the scientific method, exactly? Please, enlighten us.

Jason

Thiesm is by definition an absolute belief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

Athiesm is by definition an absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

We currently are unable to satisfactorily test for the presence of that omnipotent being. Therefore, you cannot logically disbelieve in that being, just as equally as you cannot logically believe in it. Where's your evidence of an absence of God?

I really don't want to get wrapped up in this argument again. Maybe if I stay quiet for now on, Vic can handle answering for me...

Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't know how anyone in today's world can oppose science. I mean there are some theories that may not coinside with beliefs...but everything we use, consume, produce is derived from science. Anyone who actively advocates against religion is the biggest hypocrite ever...Especially if they are using a computer/media to promote it

The bolded part is not a true statement. Most everything we have in that regard was developed by inventors, and most of those inventors of 100+ years ago were not scientists. Edison was not a scientist. Neither was Watt. Nor Otto, nor Daimler, nor Ford, nor the Wright Bros., nor Curtiss, nor Colt... I could go on and on.

Name a product people use today not developed by scientists/engineers.
Unless these people are driving around in Ford model T's or earlier...they are indeed hypocrits. Even then, science was used to develop this...

If you are saying the inventions were refined by science, then I would agree. If you are saying they were invented by science, then I would disagree, as they were not.

Plastics, steel, and paper also were not invented by science. Plastic was invented by scientists (to clarify) but not using the scientific method, as the discovery itself was the result of an accident.

yllus, I'm done fighting the faith of the faithful here. Sorry.

 

[yllus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus
Thiesm is by definition an absolute belief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

Athiesm is by definition an absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

We currently are unable to satisfactorily test for the presence of that omnipotent being. Therefore, you cannot logically disbelieve in that being, just as equally as you cannot logically believe in it. Where's your evidence of an absence of God?

I really don't want to get wrapped up in this argument again. Maybe if I stay quiet for now on, Vic can handle answering for me...

Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Not illogical in the least. You cannot disbelieve in the existence of something without proof as to why you disbelieve in it. Ditto the other way around. The only logical answer today is, "I don't know." The rest is faith.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Sigh... wrong. It is not a matter that you do not believe, you believe not. If no evidence exists, pro or con, then it is no more logical to believe con than to believe pro. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't believe in the existence of the flying pink unicorns circling the rings of the 4th planet of Sirius, but I don't assert a belief in their non-existence either.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Sigh... wrong. It is not a matter that you do not believe, you believe not. If no evidence exists, pro or con, then it is no more logical to believe con than to believe pro. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't believe in the existence of the flying pink unicorns circling the rings of the 4th planet of Sirius, but I don't assert a belief in their non-existence either.

"Disbelief" is a misnomer. Belief is an act of Faith, "disbelief" is the same as taking no action, in this case. It is Illogical to equate Belief in God with lack of Belief in God, since there is no evidence of God.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus
Thiesm is by definition an absolute belief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

Athiesm is by definition an absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

We currently are unable to satisfactorily test for the presence of that omnipotent being. Therefore, you cannot logically disbelieve in that being, just as equally as you cannot logically believe in it. Where's your evidence of an absence of God?

I really don't want to get wrapped up in this argument again. Maybe if I stay quiet for now on, Vic can handle answering for me...

Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Not illogical in the least. You cannot disbelieve in the existence of something without proof as to why you disbelieve in it. Ditto the other way around. The only logical answer today is, "I don't know." The rest is faith.

You don't need "proof" when there is a lack of "proof" of the opposite.

edit: clarity

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Sigh... wrong. It is not a matter that you do not believe, you believe not. If no evidence exists, pro or con, then it is no more logical to believe con than to believe pro. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't believe in the existence of the flying pink unicorns circling the rings of the 4th planet of Sirius, but I don't assert a belief in their non-existence either.

"Disbelief" is a misnomer. Belief is an act of Faith, "disbelief" is the same as taking no action, in this case. It is Illogical to equate Belief in God with lack of Belief in God, since there is no evidence of God.

I don't think you understand. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an asserted belief in the non-existence of God. As there is no reliable evidence for belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God, therefore atheism is itself an expression of faith, in this case faith in the non-existence of God.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Sigh... wrong. It is not a matter that you do not believe, you believe not. If no evidence exists, pro or con, then it is no more logical to believe con than to believe pro. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't believe in the existence of the flying pink unicorns circling the rings of the 4th planet of Sirius, but I don't assert a belief in their non-existence either.

"Disbelief" is a misnomer. Belief is an act of Faith, "disbelief" is the same as taking no action, in this case. It is Illogical to equate Belief in God with lack of Belief in God, since there is no evidence of God.

I don't think you understand. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an asserted belief in the non-existence of God. As there is no reliable evidence for belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God, therefore atheism is itself an expression of faith, in this case faith in the non-existence of God.

It is a lack of belief. The Atheist doesn't have to construct an alternate reality/existance, the Believer does. The Atheist needs no further investigation than Science to see there is no God, the believer acts on their Faith despite the lack of evidence of God's existance.

The Atheist doesn't have to assert anything, it merely can point to the facts and as such doesn't have "faith" in the non-existance of God as there is no Evidence to the existance of God. You have erred by equating Atheism with Religion, they are not just opposites of the same coin.

 

[artikk]

Not always. Einstein believed in God and he was a scientist.
Atheism-believes there is no God
Christians, etc-opposite. Plain and simple. No need to display our superiority by using big words that signify nothing. These kinds of discussions don't move anywhere. This is philosophy more or less.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: russianpower
Not always. Einstein believed in God and he was a scientist.
Atheism-believes there is no God
Christians, etc-opposite. Plain and simple. No need to display our superiority by using big words that signify nothing. These kinds of discussions don't move anywhere. This is philosophy more or less.

As the thread title asks and as I answered, Religion and Science are not diametrically opposed. Whether Einstein believed in God or not is quite Moot to it. Scientists can believe in god or not, but Atheism is not the opposite of Religious Belief in God.

 

[StormRider]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: StormRider
They are not diametrically opposed. If you read some biographies of scientists and mathematicians, you will find that a lot of them have a belief in a God of some sort. Not the bible thumping, take everything in it literally but more of a spiritual belief or "feeling" that something exists out there.

This is what i would call hypocrisy.

@yllus, good point in showing the logical shortcomings of faith-folk. By your reasoning, i should "believe" (even though this is a horrible word to use in empirical reasoning) in pink unicorns because we dont have the technology to "see" them yet? :roll:

I don't think you really understand the scientific philosophy/method. The scientists, mathematicians, and physicists that I speak of are not some obscure scientists that nobody has ever heard of -- but rather some of the greatest minds to have ever lived.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Sigh... wrong. It is not a matter that you do not believe, you believe not. If no evidence exists, pro or con, then it is no more logical to believe con than to believe pro. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't believe in the existence of the flying pink unicorns circling the rings of the 4th planet of Sirius, but I don't assert a belief in their non-existence either.

"Disbelief" is a misnomer. Belief is an act of Faith, "disbelief" is the same as taking no action, in this case. It is Illogical to equate Belief in God with lack of Belief in God, since there is no evidence of God.

I don't think you understand. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an asserted belief in the non-existence of God. As there is no reliable evidence for belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God, therefore atheism is itself an expression of faith, in this case faith in the non-existence of God.

It is a lack of belief. The Atheist doesn't have to construct an alternate reality/existance, the Believer does. The Atheist needs no further investigation than Science to see there is no God, the believer acts on their Faith despite the lack of evidence of God's existance.

The Atheist doesn't have to assert anything, it merely can point to the facts and as such doesn't have "faith" in the non-existance of God as there is no Evidence to the existance of God. You have erred by equating Atheism with Religion, they are not just opposites of the same coin.

No, you have erred by confusing atheism with agnosticism. Atheism is defined (by virtually every dictionary in the English language) as a belief that God (or gods) does not exist. The atheist does make an assertion. He says, "I believe that God does not exist", much the same way a theist says, "I believe that God does exist". Atheism and theism are indeed opposite sides of the same coin. Agnosticism is the lack of belief.
This is simple logic and has been discussed *infinity here.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: yllus
You have a point, but your claim is slightly fallacious. The refusal to require the scientific test on a Maker does not completely zero out a person's ability to accept scientific findings completely.

Some believers may also feel that we may one day be able to test for the presence or absence of a god, we just currently lack the technological expertise to do so. Agnosticism is the only scientifically safe route of belief, while athiesm and theism equally dispute the scientific method.

How does Atheism dispute the scientific method, exactly? Please, enlighten us.

Jason

Thiesm is by definition an absolute belief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

Athiesm is by definition an absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

We currently are unable to satisfactorily test for the presence of that omnipotent being. Therefore, you cannot logically disbelieve in that being, just as equally as you cannot logically believe in it. Where's your evidence of an absence of God?

I really don't want to get wrapped up in this argument again. Maybe if I stay quiet for now on, Vic can handle answering for me...

Atheism is NOT an "Absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being." By DEFINITION, Atheism is:

a·the·ism Audio pronunciation of "atheism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-zm)
n.

1.
1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.
2. Godlessness; immorality.

This in no way implies any absolute anything. An Atheist simply doesn't believe in GOd-that's a LACK of belief, it isn't a *positive*, and it's basis is purely rooted in the fact that no empirical evidence exists to cause one to believe that there in fact *is* a God.

Atheism doesn't *reject* the scientific method at all, as it merely requires that empirical evidence exist before granting credibility to the concept, which is exactly true of the scientific method.

Now, you DO have those rabid, psycho Atheists who reject the scientific method, and these are evidence by, as an example, those who write endless books, papers, etc. trying to "prove" that God *doesn't* exist (which is an abdication of logic, one cannot provide a positive proof of the non-existence of something or someone). These people, definitely watch out for, as they are the atheist equivelent of your typical Fundie.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: yllus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: yllus
Thiesm is by definition an absolute belief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

Athiesm is by definition an absolute disbelief of the presence of an omnipotent being.

We currently are unable to satisfactorily test for the presence of that omnipotent being. Therefore, you cannot logically disbelieve in that being, just as equally as you cannot logically believe in it. Where's your evidence of an absence of God?

I really don't want to get wrapped up in this argument again. Maybe if I stay quiet for now on, Vic can handle answering for me...

Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Not illogical in the least. You cannot disbelieve in the existence of something without proof as to why you disbelieve in it. Ditto the other way around. The only logical answer today is, "I don't know." The rest is faith.

You clearly don't understand how logic or the scientific method works. Lack of belief is a negative--it means you don't have a belief. What you are trying to claim, in error, is that *disbelief* is a positive action that requires evidence. The only Positives possible in this scenario are *belief* and *knowledge*. A person who *believes* in God does so outside of the scientific method because he holds his view in *spite* of the fact that there is no evidence. A person who does not believe in God, however, has that viewpoing *because* there is no evidence. If there WERE evidence of God's existence you would abdicate *belief* because it would be replaced by *knowledge*. In that case those who would be acting outside the scientific method would be those who held to their disbelief *in spite of* the existence of empirical data.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski
Illogical. It's not a matter of "disbelief" to not believe in something for which no evidence exists.

Sigh... wrong. It is not a matter that you do not believe, you believe not. If no evidence exists, pro or con, then it is no more logical to believe con than to believe pro. Why is this so hard to understand?
I don't believe in the existence of the flying pink unicorns circling the rings of the 4th planet of Sirius, but I don't assert a belief in their non-existence either.

"Disbelief" is a misnomer. Belief is an act of Faith, "disbelief" is the same as taking no action, in this case. It is Illogical to equate Belief in God with lack of Belief in God, since there is no evidence of God.

I don't think you understand. Atheism is not a lack of belief in God, it is an asserted belief in the non-existence of God. As there is no reliable evidence for belief in either the existence or the non-existence of God, therefore atheism is itself an expression of faith, in this case faith in the non-existence of God.

Your definition of Atheism is inaccurate and is likely the source of your error.

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: russianpower
Not always. Einstein believed in God and he was a scientist.
Atheism-believes there is no God
Christians, etc-opposite. Plain and simple. No need to display our superiority by using big words that signify nothing. These kinds of discussions don't move anywhere. This is philosophy more or less.

Except that you're wrong, of course. Yes, Einstein BELIEVED in God; he didn't find or provide *evidence* for God. Atheism doesn't "Believe there is no God", Atheism "doesn't believe in God". The difference is IMPORTANT, as one asserts a postiive action whereas the other does not.

Jason