I don't think statements are in themselves just categorisable into faith or science. Let's take the statement 200+200=400. I could believe it based on faith, a teacher could have told me that, and I might believe it (it'd even be moderately sensible for me to do so). I could also perform the experiment, get 400 of something, divide them into two counted groups, add them and count again. Most likely, I would use reasoning, in this case, maths. I would learn how maths works, starting empirically (or however they start teaching children maths), and then developing a reasoning framework, and finally apply it to my statement. These are all possible ways of thinking about 200+200=400, I don't think each statement is necessarily associated with only one of these. Faith can be applied to basically anything at all. Science are technically able to answer most things, but in practice, it might not be possible. Science also requires specific definitions. "Man is evil/good", is technically a statement which could be assessed by science if we had a strict definition of what makes things good or bad. Making such a definition is in itself dubious (not quite because it's based in faith, but it is subjective) but if we were able to do it, then science would theoretically have no problem with the question.
It has been stated that the only absolute, the only incontestable fact for a person, is that he/she is conscious. To quote H. L. Mencken, "We are here and it is now. Further than that, all human knowledge is moonshine."
They can and do. It's religious fundamentalists and science which often have problems. For example, we know the approximate age of the Universe and the Earth, yet those who take the Bible literally believe it was all created in 6 days and about 6000 years ago. IMO, God created the heavens and the Earth along with all the laws of physics within it. Therefore, studying and understanding the Universe through science is divine.
Although you are correct about "value or conscious judgments by definition", he made an "if" statement so it's not false. It can just never happen for the reason you mentioned.
M.a.y.b.e.... human knowledge means we can create fire from our finger tips and fly like birds. So it aint moonshine. Maybe the theories about how to do these things is moonshine.
By that logic, belief in "God" is a function of probability since the Big Bang was obviously caused by something. Add to this the revelation that our Universe is not only expanding but accelerating so it won't oscillate. It will expand forever into "the Big Chill". A one shot universe. The "unique to earth" comment is a religious statement, not a matter of faith in general since not all religions believe as you described.
And there we again see opinion being presented as fact. This is at the core of the issue as it dismisses the fundamental belief in science that saying "We Don't Know" is not only acceptable but often required. We do not know what was before the Big Bang so we keep looking, we Do not know how the Universe will end so we keep speculating. What we DO KNOW is that the Earth and humankind were not "Created" as the Christian Bibles state any more than the Earth is a giant Turtle shell or the Coyote God barked us into being.
Agreed....just like the opinion that there is life elsewhere in the Universe. Good thing you understand now.
There is no conflict between faith and science, or the empirical interface with life, and abstract beliefs. Some people lean more to one over the other, but both are there, in our being. Most of the time, our abstract beliefs about the universe are irrelevant in our daily lives. Our beliefs about God, origins, or eternity do not come into play when we start the car and drive to the grocery store, or reboot our computers to type opinions on forums. We have a blend of empirical knowledge and faith, in most of our interactions with the world we are in. Our knowledge base consists of experiential knowledge, observational belief, and abstract faith. Most of our faith in the things of this world have an empirical basis. There IS a scientific reason for these things, whether we know it or not. But there are some things we believe that are outside of empirical knowledge. These are matters of faith, or abstract belief, based on a number of factors. We have nothing objective to verify our opinions or beliefs, but we believe them anyway. Perhaps there are subjective or intuitive reasons for our beliefs, but they lack the objectivity to call them 'empirical.' Examples of abstract faith: Belief about a Deity. Any belief about origins, of matter, life, or the universe. Aliens, or life on other planets. Demons, angels, or a spiritual dimension. Belief in a text, person, or message as imparting abstract Truth. It is my observation, and logical conclusion, that every human being has elements of all these factors in them, regarding their knowledge of their universe: 1. Experiential knowledge 2. Imparted knowledge 3. Abstract knowledge. Experiential is based on empirical, verified facts. Imparted is what was learned, indoctrinated, or sourced somehow by someone else's influence. Abstract is unprovable by empiricism. This knowledge base can consist of factual truth, misconceptions, deceptions, half-truths, and blatant lies. The difficulty we have is distinguishing the things in our lives that are true, from things that are not. Truth seekers for millennia have grappled with this dilemma. The more you know, the more you know you don't know. ~Aristotle
No one I am aware of make such claims except Ancient Aliens conspiracy theorists or UFO abductees. Science instead speculates and searches with instruments.
Yes. So anyone who says there is other life in the Universe is just voicing a belief, a matter of faith.
Yep. And we really have no concept of what time is to God. Six days could mean anything, its a descriptive term we use to try and build context, its not meant to be exact. We know that people did not live to be 600 years old back then because science tells us its impossible. So when that happens we shouldn't say science is wrong but we should use science to help us better understand the Bible. Obviously our interpretation of what 600 years is wrong. Science is a wonderful thing when applied to the Bible because it helps to clarify what is written in it.
I would say, 'religious dogmatists', from whatever philosophical belief they come from. There are Christian, Buddhist, atheist, new age, and agnostics, that can be dogmatic about their beliefs, when they have no basis in empirical fact. They are theories or opinions, about the nature of the universe, only. Sure, its easy to pick out Christian fundamentalists, but religious dogmatism AND bigotry are common to man, and have examples in every belief. It is not something unique to christendom. It is a human thing. This thread is about that distinction. ..the beliefs or 'knowledge' we have. Some are empirical and experiential. Some are empirical AND faith. Some are abstract, with no empirical evidence.
There are 3 ways to look at stories of supernatural events: 1. They are false, since we cannot empirically verify any such events. 2. They are true, and are examples of occasional supernatural intervention in the world. 3. They are misunderstood or mistranslated. They have a mystical interpretation, only. Any story from any time can be disputed for accuracy. The supernatural events in religious texts are matters of faith. They cannot be verified empirically, but that is just the nature of empiricism. No ancient historical event can be 'proved'. We only have evidence for the veracity and integrity of the manuscripts. Beliefs about them, either positive or negative, are beliefs.
I think they did happen just not in the way we think they did. I believe history channel did a documentary on this and explained the parting of the red sea. Apparently it wasn't the Sea that was split in two but there happened to be some marshes in that area at the time and it was God who led them through the correct dry path while those chasing them got bogged down. Or something like that. And that's ok because it isn't the story that matters, its the point that is behind the story which we should be paying attention to. And in my experience its usually the people who dislike God which stick most closely to the supernatural events while most Christians simply shrug them off because we know they are just there for context, to make the point more palatable.
Another factor, in the division of faith and science: Many polls have levels of opinion for the answers. 1. Strongly agree 2. Somewhat agree 3. Neither agree or disagree 4. Somewhat disagree 5. Strongly disagree These depend on different factors in the individual: 1. The level or intensity of their instruction/indoctrination. 2. Their personal experience or verification about the question. 3. Personality and level of dogmatism and/or religious bigotry. Those who are indoctrinated the most usually answer in the extremes, in my experience. Everything is 'strongly!', whether it is something they have real experience with or not. The more intelligent and enlightened person is not so certain about most things, but entertains doubt, or at least introspection in their opinions, and expresses them accordingly.
I don't have a problem with miracles or supernatural intervention in the world. I already posit an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent Creator, Who is outside the limitations of time and space. Why would an actual intervention be a problem? Does this mean i believe EVERY story of supernatural intervention? Of course not. Humans are mistaken, deceptive, and wrong, in many of their perceptions, so tolerant skepticism is usually the best response for any claims.
I've no issue with them either, I've seen plenty of things on a personal level to indicate to me that there is supernatural out there. But I don't rely on them, my gift will come to me eventually and that's good enough for me. In my opinion they are best used in places like Sunday School for the children to help them realize the concept of God. I believe God works mostly in the realm of physics and natural laws to accomplish His works which in a way, is ironic because He created physics and natural laws to work the way they do. That in itself is a supernatural feat the other side uses as their argument.
A really stupid response that something is faith if it isn't 100% fact. What if it is 99.9999% fact. Same moronic thought processes that allow the clueless to dismiss all science that disagrees with their preconceived stupidities since they can always argue that nothing is ever proven 100% What if we just accept your post for the example of your fuzzy thinking that it actually represents.
That's what I said. Science can only assess them insofar that we provide a criteria for good/evil from elsewhere.
