No, their belief in cause and effect is a direct result of the observed universal consistency of the concept. Faith and observed facts are two entirely different things as the OP has laid out. Yes, science can actual observe and explain first effects - in fact that is exactly what they are doing. As to first cause, there isn't a scientist alive that thinks that understanding first cause is anything other than "natural philosophy" . They are all keenly aware that science, so far, can only hypothesize and imagine it.
There are indicators that make life outside Earth very likely if not definite but anything beyond that is speculation. Faith requires belief which is NOT speculation but mental acceptance as real. No one knows the reality but a few believe it regardless.
You can't actually hypothesize and imagine what happened before the natural world. That's conceptually impossible. All science can say is there was Nothing - not even physical laws, time or mathematics. And getting from that point to here involves a miracle as the universe can't be "caused" by anything. Another fallacy is that religion fails to explain. Truth be told, it doesn't really try to explain. Yes, the bible said that God sent rain and other phenomena, but that's like saying the sun rises in the morning when in fact the earth is rotating - both statement are correct. As Galileo put, the bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Someone called faith and science the "Non overlapping Magisteriad"
Yes you can. You can hypothesize about the origin of the effect (big bang) thru mathematics. You can postulate and imagine which is why such hypotheses as the multiverse are really natural philosophy and NOT science. That is not correct. It not "conceptually" impossible as the multiverse hypothesis clearly demonstrates. But you seem to think that its actual science - its a hypothesis supported by some very sophisticated mathematics. But for what its worth, its still just a wild arsed stab in the dark. The difference is that in science it is accepted that what came before is beyond our understanding (including the multiverse in all its glory) Religion categorically does explain for those that believe. One statement is correct in observation, and one is correct in presumptive belief. One is definitely true, the other unprovable. I don't buy Gould' thesis. I agree that religion and science provide vastly differing motivations and bias, but a jesuit priest first proffered the big bang. The Catholic Church has even accepted Evolution which directly contradicts the literal bible, claiming the bible is metaphorical and not to be taken literally in areas of non-spirituality.
good/evil, good/bad, positive/negative, cognizance/ignorance, light/dark... Education helped me see the light about some mysteries of the cosmos that I was ignorant of before.
Uh no. Science is a tool and a process in terms of evaluating what can be evaluated. People might have faith in science (though faith based upon past events isn't faith at all), but science doesn't require faith at all. Science has no opinion on the reason or purpose for things, if there is one. Speaking philosophically, there is no reason that there needs to be a unifying purpose for the universe. Some things just exist because they can. Purpose is an invention of sapient beings.
That's incorrect. Many if not most scientists believe it is likely there are extraterrestrial species based upon what we know about life, and what we know about the existence of other planets in the universe. But it's more a hypothesis than anything, and a hypothesis we don't have the tools to fully test yet. Faith is belief without or in spite of evidence, there is neither belief nor lack of evidence here. We have evidence of other planets, and know they could have the same elements that Earth has and the same conditions. So it seems likely, based upon that, that life exists elsewhere.
Well, theoretically, no. There are mathematical models: https://www.google.com/search?q=string+theory+before+big+bang&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab but they may require a cyclotron with the circumference greater than the solar system to test their predictions, but are still taught as theoretical physics.
Yes. We just don't have quantum neurology. Maybe, it's sublimated libido, the need to procreate, but we realize we are stronger as a species by working together.
So as far as you're concerned, my knowledge that it's wrong to shoot a man just to watch him die is moonshine. Have I got that right?
I like your point. I am a scientist at heart. But science gets abused. One lecturer railed against superstition and baseless beliefs at the start of his lecture. That warmed me up - but then as he progressed he ridiculed the idea of God. Wait a minute, what was that about baseless belief? You can't say there is no God, you can say you don't believe there's a God. And someone saying of the biblical King David "He did not exist, he is myth" instead of saying, "There's no evidence of King David" As it turned out - there is evidence, so there appears this inconsistencies in people's thinking.
That's certainly a bold lecturer to get up in front of a bunch of young strangers and say that. And probably not an effective approach unless he prefaced it with a lot of explanation. I think the god of abraham and the derivative religions can be explained away based upon problems with internal logic or consistency, but this would not imply that there cannot be a higher power, just a lack of evidence for that. I think the biggest problem with abrahamic religions is the idea that faith is this really important thing that you need in order to be a good person according to god. The notion that believing things without evidence is somehow virtuous is, extremely illogical. The only way to make that logical is to see that religion was being used as a tool to manipulate people, rather than an actual reflection of some kind of supernatural reality. Combine that with just the illogical morals of the time being reflected in these books, e.g. stoning people to death for silly offenses, and you see that these holy books are a reflection of the thoughts of the people from the bronze age, and nothing more.
A theory is "a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.". A hypothesis is a "proposed explanation for a phenomenon". Hmm... nothing about faith here. So are we all caught up now?
You can say that there is no evidence of a God. If you think that is wrong, please supply me with some evidence. I would love to believe there is a God.
Yes, in its properly applied domain this is 100% true, they seem to cross that line very often however in practice. For this discussion people only need understand one word. Hmmm..... Please tell us what a 99.999% fact is? Seems you have that backwards, its not me with 'fuzzy' thinking, I am not trying to claim there is such a thing a as 99.999% fact. science cannot assess anything with regard to value or conscience, which includes good and evil, on any level for any reason. Science cant touch those, and it depends in what sense you are using that. Who says its based on probability? Science is based on probability, or its supposed to be, you faith does not require probability, only trust. Could even be be trust in probability for you.
Here is your statement: " its faith anytime its not 100% fact and you believe it regardless of your reasons for believing it." Makes nonsense whatdoever unless of course you can explain exactly what is a 100% fact. What is a 99.99% fact. Perhaps stop drinking long enough to explain your statement.
Given that the OP chose THIS forum it LIMITS the discussion of science to the PHILOSOPHY of science on which there is not a great deal of consensus. When we explore metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology we discover that they branch out into realms where the fundamental principles of science no longer apply. The philosophy of science is separate and distinct from science and can be treated like any other philosophy having both adherents and detractors. Science is about establishing what can be deemed to be factual by reason of not being falsifiable. Philosophies can be about everything that science does not address. There is no one VERSUS the other since they deal with entirely difference concepts. The OP title is INCORRECT because what it should stipulate is the Philosophy of Faith vs the Philosophy of Science.
