Certainly by the vast majority of people who have religious belief, as well as the detractors, like Tyson and Dawkins. They're two different realms and as long as the metaphysical is left where it belongs, I have no issue with it.
This thread is about differentiating between items in our knowledge base. Some are empirical facts, aka 'science,' and some are beliefs or opinions, aka 'faith'.. those are the terms used, and defined, for this thread. This is similar to the 'a posteriori vs a priori', knowledge definitions. We are not addressing the facts themselves, or examples.. but those would be very helpful. Assigning a percentage of probability for a fact is also not the goal here, but recognizing 'empirical facts', as commonly known and accepted 'facts' in the human knowledge base.
For this definition, it is. b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof. We are not defining 'faith' with exclusively religious connotations. So don't be offended at the term. It is not a smear word, but a descriptor for some of the things in our knowledge base that are not empirical. It is a human thing, and not unique to any one philosophical worldview.
Not sure where you got that definition but normally it is belief in somethig for which there is no evidence. And the issue is the difference between faith and theory which is what Max seemed to equate.
Breaking this down it is very simple if we allow it to be: Science= the pursuit of knowledge through experiment and observation relying entirely on verified evidence of accuracy. Religion= the practice or worship or belief in a form of spiritual or supernatural force/entity. The two have no overlap or similarity and thus cannot be addressed when combined.
Re read the definitions. That is not the definition of faith, here, nor science. This is an examination comparing the empirical vs the non empirical. The factual vs the theoretical. We are analyzing the data in our knowledge base, to see if it is based on opinion, inferred reasoning, a priori knowledge, etc, VS empirical, scientifically verified, a posteriori knowledge. Both are called 'knowledge!', but some of that knowledge is just opinion. How can you tell the difference?
Religious beliefs vary as do those who believe them. There is a wide gap between the beliefs of a religious fundamentalist of an Abrahamic religion and that of a astrophysicist who is also an Episcopalian. That doesn't address other religions like Zen Buddhism, Hinduism and the Bahá'í Faith. Agreed the study of the natural universe and study of a spiritual nature are different. One is quantifiable, the other is not. As you posted, 'two different realms". As I posted previously, apples and oranges.
This is not an 'Atheist vs Christian!' flame thread, but an examination of epistemology.. the study of our knowledge. How do you distinguish between those things that are empirical vs theoretical? Or do you make a distinction of those things? 'Religion!', is not the topic, here, except as an example of faith, or non empirical belief. How do your religious beliefs compare, in this analysis? I provided definitions for these very fluid, loaded terms, in the OP. You can change the definitions, but they no longer address the points in the OP, but are tangents.
I would not say, 'no evidence.' I would say, 'no empirical evidence.' Testimony is evidence. Circumstances are evidence. Other things give support to a theory of Divine Possibility.. we just have little empirical evidence to support it.
..and as such, they are beliefs, not empirical facts. The fall under 'faith', in this dichotomy. 'Faith vs Science!', is how the thread is titled, to frame the argument in typical polemical fashion, but the actual debate is much more mundane, comparing what we believe, vs what is known, empirically.
Like the "firm belief" that extraterrestrials exist even though there is no evidence of it? Time until the militant atheists come prancing out of the woodwork: 10....9....8....
Agreed, it's a nonsense comparison and is usually raised by those who want to put religion and metaphysical belief on the same pedestal science is on. It's fictitious nonsense.
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof I have provided the definitions, to delineate between empirical and opinion.. a priori vs a posteri.. faith vs science, as defined here. Any hypotheses, theory, speculation, assumption, surmise, guess, assertion, or belief falls under the definition of faith, as used in this thread. It is a loaded term, as is 'science!', which is why i used them. By stripping away the connotations and imagery in these terms, we can discover truth about our knowledge base.
I knock down all the pedestals. We deal in reason here, and reverence for man's institutions has no place, for the empiricist. Be they scientific, religious, academic, political, or entertainment, ALL of the human institutions must give way to skeptical scrutiny, and NONE of their decrees accepted on faith. Otherwise, there is only groupthink loyalty, and truth is the casualty.
tHEN THE THREAD TITLE AND op SHOULD HAV Nothing in my post was remotely bashing and the OP should be reworded to what you claim...relax the persecution complex dude.
Reason is only half of what we are, specifically our Left Brain. It's logical, the seat of linear thought, language and math. Our Right Brain is non-verbal, more holistic and the seat of ideas, it's language is images and feelings. If you walk down a dark alley and get an instinctive feeling something is wrong, that's Right Brain thinking. Science is logic. It's verifiable. Tangible. Faith, or spirituality, is intangible. It deals with a human characteristic that is not quantifiable, not measurable nor can it be touched, seen or smelled. It may exist or it may be a figment of our imaginations. There is no way to tell. While people are moving away from fundamentalist religions, they are not stopping their search for spiritual fulfillment. As noted in the link below, many of those who claim to be atheists have spiritual beliefs, a non sequitur. http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-now-say-theyre-spiritual-but-not-religious/ Who makes up this rapidly rising, “spiritual but not religious” segment of American adults? While many of them (37%) are religiously unaffiliated (describing their religious identity as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular”), most actually do identify with a religious group, including 35% who say they are Protestant, 14% who are Catholic and 11% who are members of others faiths, such as Judaism, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism.
There is no problem between faith and science, unless you do one or both wrong. Science is a description of the natural world. Faith is belief in the supernatural. The two do not intercept.
I have phrased it as 'empirical vs hypothetical,' but the meaning is the same. Faith is not always, 'belief in the supernatural,' but can be 'belief in something without empirical evidence'. That is how 'faith' is used here. We do not HAVE to view the term through a filter of religious connotation. Nor does 'science', HAVE to be used as 'non religious'. Those are the pop definitions, especially in the forums, but it should be enlightening to cut through the narratives and imagery of the terms, and get to the meat of our epistemology. Examine what you believe. There are many areas where they cross from the empirical to the theoretical, or from science to faith. That is the point, here, and getting the terms defined clearly, with examples would help in communicating this distinction. From a logical basis, i agree, the 2 do not intercept. But from a human standpoint, they definitely do. Many people cannot distinguish between their beliefs and empirical fact. They see others as having beliefs or faith, but they see themselves as purely empirical, when it is obvious that many of their beliefs and opinions are just faith.. no empiricism there, at all. Is that an indicator of indoctrination? Dogmatism? Religious bigotry? I don't know. But fervent belief in one's opinions, when there is no objective empiricism to justify it, is common in the human animal, and seems to span all philosophical opinions.
I'll tackle the list of examples in the OP, and categorize them as faith or science, according to the definitions used here. Human beings are rational creatures, and can consider abstract reasoning without emotion and defensiveness. This is a lame attempt at humor, and a self deprecating jab at philosophers. I see the statement as faith, with an inclusive fact. Humans ARE "rational creatures", but they are not exclusively rational, and their emotions, beliefs, ego, and other factors override their reason, at times. There is a God. Faith There is no God. Faith Gravity is a fact. Science Man is evil. Science Man is good. Science Morality is absolute/relative. Faith Everyone uses faith. Science Everyone uses science. Science Some Humans are purely empirical. Faith 2+2=4 Science. (Assuming base 10!) Human beings can separate their faith based beliefs from scientific facts. Faith The origins of life and the universe are known, empirically. Faith Life exists throughout the universe. Faith The earth is billions of years old. Faith The earth is thousands of years old. Faith Man evolved from simpler life forms. Faith Man was created complete and is unchanged. Faith Human activity is destroying the earth's climate balance. Faith I'm sure there are other opinions about this list, and other things that can be considered fact vs opinion. But this is a rational assessment, given the definitions.
