SCIENTIST DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH. let's end this fallacy ONCE and FOR ALL. OP Edited.

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: yllus
The real answer is simply not to discuss such things on AnandTech, because we clearly don't have the level of intellectuals needed for a meaningful discussion on the subject. Where the hell do you think we're going to come up with an intelligent debater on the side of Creationism?

I'm sure I can do reasonably well debating for the creationism POV, I attended a Rabbinical Seminary for about 8 years. But I refuse to be drawn into a debate. I am comfortablewith my beliefs, it doesn't bother me that other people do not believe the way I do. As far as I can tell, absolutely no purpose would be served by debating something on an internet forum that has been argued about by people greater than you and I for thousands of years.

 

[glenn1]

Scientist DO NOT REQUIRE FAITH to postulate or to make assumptions in their theories.

for a christian to argue that those assumptions are the equivalence of "faith" denies their own religion.

it is the WORST type of arguement, so once and for all, let's QUIT with this WEAK WEAK argument that comes up EVERY time there is a christianity vs atheism thread.

Science and religion deal with different questions, using different language and underlying assumptions, and with different objectives. Sorta like the "how did life come about" question, the scientist doesn't really care what the religious explanation is, and the religious person isn't going to change his mind because of what the scientific answer says.

Just think of it this way.... just as men aren't designed to understand women, scientists aren't designed to understand why religious people believe the way they do. It's just the way it is, accept it and move on.

 

[AreaCode707]

Plat, you can't make a general statement about science like that. Some portions of science involve inarguable proofs, others involve certain amounts of conjecture, which require some fashion of faith to pursue and some fashion of belief to settle with. If science didn't involve faith, and sometimes flawed faith, then past theories would never be overturned. Lesson being: don't overgeneralize.

 

[XZeroII]

It's ironic how you offer no evidence whatsoever in your post. Based on the title of this thread, I would assume that you are a scientist, or at least aspire to be one. If that were the case, you would prove your point by actually providing some sort of tangible evidence to back up your claim. Instead, you just make an assertion, claim that anyone who thinks differently is wrong, then act like your position is superior. Am I missing something here?

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: yllus
The real answer is simply not to discuss such things on AnandTech, because we clearly don't have the level of intellectuals needed for a meaningful discussion on the subject. Where the hell do you think we're going to come up with an intelligent debater on the side of Creationism?

I'm sure I can do reasonably well debating for the creationism POV, I attended a Rabbinical Seminary for about 8 years. But I refuse to be drawn into a debate. I am comfortablewith my beliefs, it doesn't bother me that other people do not believe the way I do. As far as I can tell, absolutely no purpose would be served by debating something on an internet forum that has been argued about by people greater than you and I for thousands of years.

I agree. I do not enter those threads because I know that it's like whistling in a hurricane.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: HotChic
Plat, you can't make a general statement about science like that. Some portions of science involve inarguable proofs, others involve certain amounts of conjecture, which require some fashion of faith to pursue an thd some fashion of belief to settle with. If science didn't involve faith, and sometimes flawed faith, then past theories would never be overturned. Lesson being: don't overgeneralize.

i didn't overgeneralize.

read some of my other posts in this thread regarding "faith".

the word that the NT uses for Faith is Pistos, Pistos is Usually reserved to describe mans position with gods (not God as in christian God). the bible writers picked up on the theistic applications of the word pistos.

it gets translated to "Faith" in english which has multiple applications and hence the confusion we have today regarding the word faith.

some christians invoke it as if the word has some kind of magical powers. other christians take the word and try to apply it to scientist.

my own "faith" has me convinced that it is more than just the word "faith" as we understand it.

 

[KarenMarie]

There is a HUGE difference between faith and blind faith. Scientists can have the former and it does not equate to the latter.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
It's ironic how you offer no evidence whatsoever in your post. Based on the title of this thread, I would assume that you are a scientist, or at least aspire to be one. If that were the case, you would prove your point by actually providing some sort of tangible evidence to back up your claim. Instead, you just make an assertion, claim that anyone who thinks differently is wrong, then act like your position is superior. Am I missing something here?

it's a logical argument not a factual one.

i don't agree with the logic of the word. i'll agree that my OP wasn't a complete post. i do explain myself a bit more in several other posts in this thread.

btw, it's not from a scientific point of view, but from a christian POV.

 

[stormbv]

Don't people have faith that science will find a cure for cancer, pain, death, etc? I mean, we ARE going to colonize space, aren't we?

 

[Wheatmaster]

Solution to all your problems

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: XZeroII
It's ironic how you offer no evidence whatsoever in your post. Based on the title of this thread, I would assume that you are a scientist, or at least aspire to be one. If that were the case, you would prove your point by actually providing some sort of tangible evidence to back up your claim. Instead, you just make an assertion, claim that anyone who thinks differently is wrong, then act like your position is superior. Am I missing something here?

it's a logical argument not a factual one.

i don't agree with the logic of the word. i'll agree that my OP wasn't a complete post. i do explain myself a bit more in several other posts in this thread.

btw, it's not from a scientific point of view, but from a christian POV.

I didn't read a single post in this thread. I am only looking for a response to my own post (which is how I found this one).

Your post is no better than any other religious post. What are you trying to convince people? Faith is faith.

FROM DICTIONARY.COM
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.

Now, what is the problem?

 

[imported_Papi]

What nourishes me also destroys me

 

[LAUST]

theories/idea's = progression/improvment

faith/belief = wars

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: LAUST
theories/idea's = progression/improvment

faith/belief = wars

and greed, jealousy and hatred have nothing to do with wars.

just because someone CLAIMS to do it in the name of faith does not mean that they are indeed doing it because of faith.

XZeroII.

in my edited OP i specifically outlined what i believe to be faith in reference to God. it is a unique and personal connection that can ONLY be initiated by God.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: LAUST
theories/idea's = progression/improvment

faith/belief = wars

and greed, jealousy and hatred have nothing to do with wars.

just because someone CLAIMS to do it in the name of faith does not mean that they are indeed doing it because of faith.

XZeroII.

in my edited OP i specifically outlined what i believe to be faith in reference to God. it is a unique and personal connection that can ONLY be initiated by God.

Being that I'm not Christian, I have no idea what Jesus meant when he said "only those born of the spirit". However, if God is the one initiating the connection as you say, then it is not faith. It is KNOWLEDGE. Faith is belief. I don't BELIEVE I have a dollar in my pocket, I KNOW I do. So If God calls me on the phone one day and initiates the connection, I don't have faith, I have knowledge. I no longer need to believe because I now know.
I probably completely misunderstood you.

 

[LAUST]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: LAUST
theories/idea's = progression/improvment

faith/belief = wars

and greed, jealousy and hatred have nothing to do with wars.

just because someone CLAIMS to do it in the name of faith does not mean that they are indeed doing it because of faith.

XZeroII.

in my edited OP i specifically outlined what i believe to be faith in reference to God. it is a unique and personal connection that can ONLY be initiated by God.

sorry man, I MUST go with history on this one, Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, Northern Ireland, WTC and the Middle East just to name a few of many problems belief has caused.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: LAUST
theories/idea's = progression/improvment

faith/belief = wars

and greed, jealousy and hatred have nothing to do with wars.

just because someone CLAIMS to do it in the name of faith does not mean that they are indeed doing it because of faith.

XZeroII.

in my edited OP i specifically outlined what i believe to be faith in reference to God. it is a unique and personal connection that can ONLY be initiated by God.

Being that I'm not Christian, I have no idea what Jesus meant when he said "only those born of the spirit". However, if God is the one initiating the connection as you say, then it is not faith. It is KNOWLEDGE. Faith is belief. I don't BELIEVE I have a dollar in my pocket, I KNOW I do. So If God calls me on the phone one day and initiates the connection, I don't have faith, I have knowledge. I no longer need to believe because I now know.
I probably completely misunderstood you.

i use the word faith because that's how "pistos" has been used.

for me tho it is much more than just a tentative belief. in Acts, Paul meets Jesus on the road to damascus, he is blinded by the exprience, God INITIATED that contact and yet, Paul continues to refer to it as Faith and not Knowledge. i dont' have a problem with it on multiple levels, just because i answered the phone i only have "knowledge" of the voice of the person on the other end, i know nothing about what he/she looks like, acts like, smells like . . . there is still quite a bit of faith.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

I completely agree with you, for completely different reasons, but i do agree with you.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

I completely agree with you, for completely different reasons, but i do agree with you.

Out of curiosity, for what reasons, exactly, do you agree?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

Having a doctorate in biology and having done research I think I have some grasp of what the scientific method is. I was making a general statement, and not a rigorous, formal argument. I was going beyond the obvious, to relate what I have seen, and how humans use the scientific method. I have seen people mad enough to spit wooden nickels when competiting scientists come up with alternative theories which were backed by experimental data as well. People cling to their beliefs in science as well as those who practice religion. If you think scientists are less human than others in their belief in the "facts" you havent been around when grant money was being doled out.

BTW, the OP title is "scientist" not scientific method.

Also, I see a lack of sense in many scientists who ought to know better. They talk of "when" we understand the Universe and such. Well, I know a thing or two about physics and other diciplines and I see no evidence that we can understand how everything works, which was contextually what they were saying. People are limited beings, and as such there are truths which cannot be known. That was demonstrated years ago. These of which I speak have great faith in science indeed.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

I completely agree with you, for completely different reasons, but i do agree with you.

Out of curiosity, for what reasons, exactly, do you agree?

i agree because most christians underestimate God and christianity. i think his logic is poor. i believe that science does what it does and does it well.

i also agree that the concept of "faith" has NOTHING to do with science.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

I completely agree with you, for completely different reasons, but i do agree with you.

Out of curiosity, for what reasons, exactly, do you agree?

i agree because most christians underestimate God and christianity. i think his logic is poor. i believe that science does what it does and does it well.

i also agree that the concept of "faith" has NOTHING to do with science.

There is a difference between Faith and faith, however as I stated in my last post, the belief in a thing affects it. People put faith in God, however there are those who put faith in science. It may not be "required" but it is there in this sense. Also, I maintain that a scientist has faith in his abilities, his methods, and sometimes these are at odd with how things are. A look at the history of science will show that. Does science move forward itself? Yes, but I am talking people and faith, and some of those are scientists. You have edited the original post, so this may not apply to your argument, but I was responding to a substantially different one.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

I completely agree with you, for completely different reasons, but i do agree with you.

Out of curiosity, for what reasons, exactly, do you agree?

i agree because most christians underestimate God and christianity. i think his logic is poor. i believe that science does what it does and does it well.

i also agree that the concept of "faith" has NOTHING to do with science.

There is a difference between Faith and faith, however as I stated in my last post, the belief in a thing affects it. People put faith in God, however there are those who put faith in science. It may not be "required" but it is there in this sense. Also, I maintain that a scientist has faith in his abilities, his methods, and sometimes these are at odd with how things are. A look at the history of science will show that. Does science move forward itself? Yes, but I am talking people and faith, and some of those are scientists. You have edited the original post, so this may not apply to your argument, but I was responding to a substantially different one.

my initial post was lacking. i didn't clarify my position.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Well, if scientists did not have faith in what they were doing, they would not do it. They believe what they are doing is explaining the world as it is. The problem is that the observer and the observation are linked, and that interpretation must take place. The scientist believes that he or she is making the correct one before submitting for publication. That belief, or faith in ones results or interpretation thereof may be flawed. Yet one must believe, or else nothing is put forward.

Faith is more complicated than some would choose to believe.

You present a piss-poor argument. Science is not a thing, nor is it a monolithic belief system. It is a process, as described by the scientific method:

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature (more on the concepts of hypothesis, model, theory and law below). If the experiments do not bear out the hypothesis, it must be rejected or modified. What is key in the description of the scientific method just given is the predictive power (the ability to get more out of the theory than you put in; see Barrow, 1991) of the hypothesis or theory, as tested by experiment. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved. There is always the possibility that a new observation or a new experiment will conflict with a long-standing theory.

The concept of "faith" does not play into this. Theories are not immutable; they are always subject to either modification, or to being thrown out altogether in the face of new and conflicting data. Scientists do not place faith in some black magic voodoo they practice; they observe, experiment, and formulate hypotheses and theories in an attempt to rationally explain their observation.

I completely agree with you, for completely different reasons, but i do agree with you.

Out of curiosity, for what reasons, exactly, do you agree?

i agree because most christians underestimate God and christianity. i think his logic is poor. i believe that science does what it does and does it well.

i also agree that the concept of "faith" has NOTHING to do with science.

There is a difference between Faith and faith, however as I stated in my last post, the belief in a thing affects it. People put faith in God, however there are those who put faith in science. It may not be "required" but it is there in this sense. Also, I maintain that a scientist has faith in his abilities, his methods, and sometimes these are at odd with how things are. A look at the history of science will show that. Does science move forward itself? Yes, but I am talking people and faith, and some of those are scientists. You have edited the original post, so this may not apply to your argument, but I was responding to a substantially different one.

my initial post was lacking. i didn't clarify my position.

But then you did, and it's all good

Edit.. I screwed up a whole poll a little while ago
Unfortunately they are impossible to correct completely