Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hardy

Faith -vs- Science

66 posts in this topic

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are always going to interact, but do not necessarily have to be at odds with one another.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to add that most people do not understand how science works. When people make statements like "science has never proven the age of the universe" they are missing the whole point. Or you will see comments like " science is just working from assumptions"...and you want to go "well no duh, that is what all science does". If people better understood science there would be less conflict.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello, I kind of don't understand this forum subtitle.

 

Is faith and science in competition?

 

To me they cover two different aspects or disciplines of our human experience, no different then English and Math are two different disciplines of education.

 

One is the study of the natural world; the other is the understanding of human condition given the supernatural.

 

I am not sure why the perception of competition when both function within their lanes of life just fine?

 

Science and faith are not in competition.  Science actualy operates from a measure of faith, actually.  Scientists are not rational automotons.  They are human beings with beliefs, which they hold to often as passionately as anyone else.

 

They refer to Evolution as a "theory."  But a theory is something that has been empirically proven. Evolution cannot be subjected to the emprical investivative process of a labratory because scientists can't replicate it.   Evolution is an untestable hypothesis, not a theory in the scientific definition of that term. 

 

Scientists work from a lot of assumptions that are not questioned and are not allowed to be questioned.  Evolution also fits into category of assumption as does a number of things like "the big bang, the notion that the earth is 15 billion years old, and so on.  None of these things are empirically proven and cannot be.  They are assumptions and nothing more.  But to challenge those assumptions is to bring down ridicule on one's self.  You are supposed to just toe the line and shut up and accept what scientists decree, no questions asked. 

 

Science is not at odds with the Bible.  The claims of fallible little men, are often at odds with the Bible.  The Bible is often written off by scientists and skeptics as an archaic, irrelevant book written by a bunch of dumb shepherds who knew nothing about the world and how it works.   

 

It  is that view leveled by the scientific world that is at odds with the Bible and with our faith.  But the actual work of science is a marvelous way of understanding the scope of God's creation.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post above is why their is a conflict between the two, many people do not understand one or the other.

A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.

Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science. Those assumptions form the foundation from which hypothesis and theory build from.

If people who do not understand one side or the other would stick to what they know there would be much less conflict

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The post above is why their is a conflict between the two, many people do not understand one or the other.

A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.

Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science. Those assumptions form the foundation from which hypothesis and theory build from.

If people who do not understand one side or the other would stick to what they know there would be much less conflict

 

I concur.

 

I do think the misunderstanding of what science is, how science defines things, and how the scientific model works is perhaps the root of the problem.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A scientific theory is not something that has been proven, a scientific theory is an explanation or a model based on observation, experimentation and reasoning. When people mischaracterize something like a theory the result is conflict.

 

 

Not so.  Even I have had university level chem and biology classes.

 

In the scientific method, you observe a phenomenon, you develop a hypothesis to explain it.   You then design a test to falisify that hypothesis.   That is important.  Science is not about proving an hypothesis, but designs tests to disprove it.

 

You make a prediction and then test and test and test and then test some more.  You may conduct hundreds of tests in an attempt to falsify the hypothesis. The data is examined and the hypothesis is either accepted, rejected or modified and retested based on data.   

 

The data is examined after all testing has been done and a theory is developed based on the resulting data.  

 

The problems we run into with things like Evolution and the age of the earth is that neither can actually be called a "theory."   A theory is the product of empirical testing, none of which can be done where evolution or the age of the earth is concerned.

 

Further, all science works from assumptions, this is the very basis of science.

 

No, REAL science doesn't work from assumptions. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just ran across an even better definition of a scientific theory....

It is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved. A theory can never be proven, just disproven.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh, your two post contradict each other. In your first you say a theory has been proven. In your second you state science is not about proving.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shiloh, your two post contradict each other. In your first you say a theory has been proven. In your second you state science is not about proving.

An hypothesis is "proven" by the process of falsification.  Science is about testing an hypothesis to disprove it.  If it cannot be falsified, it stands by default as proven and it graduates to the level of a theory.

 

There is no contradiction no matter how bad you want to manufacture one out of what I said. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0