It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Your Theories Backed by Science or Faith?

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:10 AM
link   
As we can see, there is more then one way to look at something. In a futile attempt to divide people into two camps, i think it's fair to claim that where the roots of a theory are planted will determine the validity/accuracy of an inquiry/speculation.

I challenge every single ATSer of every forum to step back and take a long hard honest look at themselves, as to where they stand in relation to their convictions;

Is science, faith or a mix of both giving direction to your theories
and the preferences that govern your embrace or rejection of others?


(reference this chart in your assessment)

Through this basic essential understanding, we can collectively raise the bar across the board.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by The All Seeing I]




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:12 AM
link   
BOTH.

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.'
- Einstein.

I believe in the FACT of the etherial and I'm not myopic enough to believe that only that which can be proven - AT THIS TIME - is real.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:15 AM
link   
Whats the difference? Is belief that science is right not faith in science?

Isn't disbelief in god, not in itself a belief about god?

I put my faith in truth, where ever it is expressed. I see it expressed in science, and I see it expressed in religion/philosophy. I am a huge fan of quantum physics, which I think in many ways combines both science and religion in a meaningful way.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 



Are Your Theories Backed by Science or Faith?


LOL, you ask this on ATS?

Fully 99% of all the ideas, posts and "theories" here on ATS are completely "faith" based.
Note: I do not mean "religion" based faith (as I suspect you do), but "faith" in the sense that there is no sceintific proof.. kind of "faith".

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea

Seriously I think this is a thinly veiled attempt to discredit religious folk (of which I am not) but it reeks of a fellow atheist with an axe to grind.

I would HOPE you meant general "faith" the way I explained it above and not religion vs. sceince, but I am probably right in my asumption that this is an attack.

Is it?



Originally posted by badmedia
Isn't disbelief in god, not in itself a belief about god?


what?? what?
what the hell did that mean?


[edit on 31-10-2008 by gormly]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   
Sure even science to a large degree requires faith. Faith in the competence and honesty of the researchers. Faith in the methods and procedures used to collect accurate data... and faith in our ever evolving ability to interpret the data properly. With this said, it's mostly "faith" as you state... but to dilute the subject like this misses my point entirely.

As for me having some atheist agenda, that again is missing the my point entirely, but i think that's the point, to miss the point entirely. Facing oneself is a hard thing to do for many... cope-out-detours are par-for-the-course.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I remember them laughing at us saying global warming was rubbish, and guess what the sun pops up and proves us right.

Those scientists should not be even in work, and how algore got the nobel prize, for telling rubbish is beyond me.

I heard rothchild on a jones radio, i wonder what he says now, and his brain power must be overwelmed with all this global warming. Its amazing they never even considered that the sun, may reverse there bull.

So what good is science, when the public version is bull. Thats my point. Science went big for global warming, and now it is just a load of cr*p.

So is science right, lol.

I just listen to myself, and not bother mostly with stuff they say, i know we are being lied to.

School work, so is just there to show you can learn cr*p, does not have to be true cr*p. Science accpets they do not know what gravity is, but they teach us at school, a version of it, that is pure bull.

Alot of the stuff you learn, is just there to show you can learn, in certain ways.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 10:23 AM
link   
reply to post by The All Seeing I
 


Nope. That's what 'peer-reviewed' means - that peers have not found flaws in the published results. Objectivity in science also insists that experiments can be, and are reproduced at will by anyone who wants to perform them.

Science requires no faith. It is objectivity expressed as a methodology. Science is the antithesis of faith.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Nope. That's what 'peer-reviewed' means - that peers have not found flaws in the published results. Objectivity in science also insists that experiments can be, and are reproduced at will by anyone who wants to perform them.

Science requires no faith. It is objectivity expressed as a methodology. Science is the antithesis of faith.


The only advantage Science has is that it is always changing. Where as religion is kept in it's dogmatic views. I'm religious and I don't believe the earth is only 6,000 years old, nor do I have any problems with Science.

But there are many questions science doesn't answer, and completely ignores. Especially when it comes to things like consciousness. What does it mean to "be" etc. Science is limited to simply actions and reactions. When things do not follow simple action and reaction expressions, it breaks down. As that is the point when being able to reproduce it at will is no longer possible.

I like science. I don't watch much TV anymore, but I love the science and history channels and watch them more than anything(until they start repeating the episodes). I even taught a physical science class for a day my freshman year in highschool - at the request of the other kids as our teacher was gone the entire hour. It's good stuff.

It's like catching a baseball when you are a kid. You don't need science and have to calculate everything in physics in order to catch the baseball. You can with just an understanding of how the ball is going to act in general catch it. However, there surely is a scientific way of showing where it will travel in science.

So I see religion as a way of general understanding how to catch the ball, and science is the detailed description of why the ball follows the path it does.

The problem as I see it, is people try to put religion as being the science, and the science as being the religion. Like I have no problem with the universe being billions of years old. That doesn't IMO prove the bible wrong. IMO, it's more clarity. I don't see a literal 1 day(24 hours) when I read it. I see a time period. The overall order of the time periods seems to pretty much match what science has learned. I don't think evolution proves the bible wrong either. New things are created, what does the bible says comes before man? What does science say comes before man? Same thing.

The only problem I have with evolution is they leave the consciousness part of it at the door. I'm a programmer and I use parts of previous programs I've written all the time. I keep a library of code that is nothing more than functions and things I've used previously that I can continue to use. That library even carries code the programs I write itself no longer use. Junk code(DNA). And over time, that programming and the libraries evolve into better things(usually more complex as well, as I can spend my time writing new things, rather than having to rewrite the same code as before).




[edit on 31-10-2008 by badmedia]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


Of course science isn't going to answer philosophical questions.

What science has answered, though, is that our consciousness is rooted firmly in the bundles of nerves around our body. That is it.

Religion, seeing as it is not based on fact, is nothing more than a guess. In your analogy, it's general understanding of a group of people's understanding of how to catch a ball, even though they have never demonstrated that they can catch a ball. Science, in this analogy, has detailed what the ball is and indeed how to catch it.

Science is not religion. It is skepticism. It is objectivity. It is rationality. Religion is the complete opposite.

Evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. That's why it's not in there. Ham sandwiches are also not mentioned in the theory of evolution, btw.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
Of course science isn't going to answer philosophical questions.

What science has answered, though, is that our consciousness is rooted firmly in the bundles of nerves around our body. That is it.


Where it is rooted, and what it is are 2 different things.



Religion, seeing as it is not based on fact, is nothing more than a guess. In your analogy, it's general understanding of a group of people's understanding of how to catch a ball, even though they have never demonstrated that they can catch a ball. Science, in this analogy, has detailed what the ball is and indeed how to catch it.

Science is not religion. It is skepticism. It is objectivity. It is rationality. Religion is the complete opposite.


I disagree here. I have experienced things well beyond science that are talked about in religion. And I experienced these things while not even being religious myself at the time. I seen what I learned repeated in religion. I do not believe in organized religion however.

I understand you do not have the same experience, and you are skeptical for that reason. I was also the same way.

Now, as for Science is not religion and all that Jazz. Lets be blunt here. Science is a religion for some. Some people are irrational about it, some people have no objectivity outside that which science proves. Religion is the same way. I can explain things in the bible in a logical, objective way that doesn't require just believing. However, there is no doubt a good majority of people who are exactly as you say.

As you can have both examples in each, and vice versa - is it not a safe assumption that it's not the religion or the science that causes it, but the way people embrace, defend and block out things that go against it?



Evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. That's why it's not in there. Ham sandwiches are also not mentioned in the theory of evolution, btw.


Evolution has everything to do with consciousness. Darwin is totally misrepresented in his theory. Suddenly in science we are allowed for things to happen randomly? That randomly a mutation just happens to happen? Tons and tons of each individual species and it doesn't hit them at all. But just randomly one day a mutation of sorts just kicks off randomly for no apparent reason? And then it's just luck of the draw on if it's beneficial or not? Do we have physics experiments that just randomly don't work?



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:55 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


OK, want to get technical? Your consciousness is how you perceive the on-going chain reaction of electrical impulses traveling through the pathways in these various nervous systems. That's it. You seem to have elevated it to something mythical and magical because you don't understand what it is.

Science, by its very definition, is not a religion. If some call it that and claim they follow it, then they are not following science. Just like if I call myself a Christian and knife a homeless guy in the throat, I'm not a Christian, regardless of what I call myself or how I perceive myself.

Evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. Clearly you don't understand the theory if you claim it is. Please do yourself (and this thread) a favour and read up on it on wikipedia or something. Genetic mutations do happen in random ways. Some are beneficial. Some are not. The beneficial ones are more likely to be passed on to the offspring, furthering said trait in the species. Where does consciousness come into that? Or is that your staggeringly egotistical androcentric view of the animal kingdom? Considering that other great apes can communicate, have societies, have culture, can build tools, can empathise, etc. etc. seems to mean nothing to you. We are far from special - it's just some of us think we are special, for no apparent reason other than ego.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
OK, want to get technical? Your consciousness is how you perceive the on-going chain reaction of electrical impulses traveling through the pathways in these various nervous systems. That's it. You seem to have elevated it to something mythical and magical because you don't understand what it is.


To what is the perception presented to? Ok, so the electrical impulses travel through a pathway in my nervous system. A picture and senses are then presented to create our perception of this reality. Again, to whom and what is this perception being presented to?



Science, by its very definition, is not a religion. If some call it that and claim they follow it, then they are not following science. Just like if I call myself a Christian and knife a homeless guy in the throat, I'm not a Christian, regardless of what I call myself or how I perceive myself.


So it's the people that make it bad and we are in agreement.



Evolution has nothing to do with consciousness. Clearly you don't understand the theory if you claim it is. Please do yourself (and this thread) a favour and read up on it on wikipedia or something. Genetic mutations do happen in random ways. Some are beneficial. Some are not. The beneficial ones are more likely to be passed on to the offspring, furthering said trait in the species. Where does consciousness come into that? Or is that your staggeringly egotistical androcentric view of the animal kingdom? Considering that other great apes can communicate, have societies, have culture, can build tools, can empathise, etc. etc. seems to mean nothing to you. We are far from special - it's just some of us think we are special, for no apparent reason other than ego.


No, I understand the theory. I just don't think it's quite so random. Sure not everything that sounds good turns out good, but doesn't mean it's all random.

You said science is based on things you can repeat. But if what happens is random, then how is it repeatable? Seems to me that the randomness of evolution is out of step with what you claimed Science to be.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:02 PM
link   
Well mine are backed by both. But what is faith, believing in something that there is no evidence for, or believing in something that from maybe one instance of evidence makes the personal scientific case for it?

In my opinion, it is a grave mistake to only believe in empirical evidence like fossils, and not also personal experience evidence.

Because we don't really know it all would you agree? And that being the case, why not could there be something so indefinably extraordinary that only a select few have been witness to, yet many more have not been witness to it, therefore to them it lacks any kind of scientific substance, and as such is considered a fable.



posted on Nov, 1 2008 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.'
- Einstein.


Quote mining. You can find the whole quote here. An excerpt:



Now, even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exist between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies. Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.

I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

[......]

The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.


In other words, Einstein is saying that Religion (with a personal God) is the "God of the gaps" in our scientific knowledge. ie. "God did [ whatever we lack sufficient knowlege about ]" and when science learns about it, the religion (usually) updates and moves on to another "gap" in our knowledge to find "god". Regarding the underlines "faith" regarding scientists (immediately preceding your quote), he simply means that Scientists work on the presumption that everything in the universe has a rational explanation - not that they believe in a personal God.

Furthermore, when Einstein used the word religion/God he doesn't mean what you mean - he mocked the idea of a personal God. Here are some quotes:



"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion."


"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."


"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

Source (scroll down to see what actual religious contemporaries thought of him)



"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Source


Please check quotes before posting them to avoid quote mining. Thanks



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 09:57 PM
link   
I think we could all agree ...

that through science and our faith in science that we create something out of nothing...

could it be that we are gods having faith in our ourselves... our own abilities...

or that god could be found in science and we have faith that god will show us the way... that through science we find ourselves and/or the god within (god-like abilities)?

so in sum, such theories made from either perspectives are backed by science and faith... maybe in such cases the lines are blurred?



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 10:07 PM
link   
God to me is Causality... which is separate from the gods that changed us... which were aliens.

My God is provable because it is the natural flow of the universe. i also use faith because even though i dont know how the first lifeforms or DNA was produced i havefaith that in CAUSALITY it is possible... faith in GOD.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
I think we could all agree ...

that through science and our faith in science that we create something out of nothing...


The only thing that creates something out of nothing are thoughts.



could it be that we are gods having faith in our ourselves... our own abilities...


The bible says we are all gods. I've been to the bottom of the "rabbit hole", and the 1st understanding I was given is that I am god, and that I am arguing with myself(thus all are god). If you have consciousness - IE: I think, therefore I am, then you are in part God. Thus why when you break commandments in religion, it's called a sin against God. If you kill someone, it's a sin against god because you have killed a part of god. So basically, you are saying what the bible says.



or that god could be found in science and we have faith that god will show us the way... that through science we find ourselves and/or the god within (god-like abilities)?


Looking for the creator in the creation itself is somewhat foolish. You don't look for Bill Gates, or people who work for microsoft in your windows PC. Creation is built off of logic. It is built off laws, and things like action and reaction. The common thing science looks over is consciousness. There is no logic for consciousness. How does science even pretend that action and reaction can build up into consciousness? How in the world do chemicals and a brain account for being able to observe? These things are just senseless. There is no logic which can account for these things. Not even a computer can generate random numbers that aren't predictable, but consciousness can.



so in sum, such theories made from either perspectives are backed by science and faith... maybe in such cases the lines are blurred?


I personally think it's a matter of putting things in their proper place. Religion(Philosophy) and Science are not the same thing, and to have one without the other is foolish. Science is great at understanding the creation. It is great at understanding logic's and ways to make things like technology work. But people have to realize it's limits. It is not going to be able to break beyond the action and reaction, repeat things in the lab. People forget that it is the scientists who use science, they are not science itself.

Action and Reaction = Science.
Reason and Understanding = Religion(philosophy).

Your body = Science.
Your consciousness = Religion(philosophy).

Gotta keep them in the proper roles. Those who reject 1 or the other keep themselves from better understanding.



posted on Jan, 2 2009 @ 10:45 PM
link   
Even religion is apart of cauusality..... wouldnt it be a logical progression for people to collect moral principals.... and bind them in a book.

isnt it logical for people to look for explinations to things they cannot explain..



posted on Jan, 3 2009 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Well put my amigos, basically we are all on the same page or chapter here. The collective effort we all embrace in this life and on this planet is to understand the world within and all around us... just as well science and god (creativity) are within and all around us. The opportunities in discovery are infinite in this venture.

When i look at my motorola razor i can't help but think of the very first episodes of star trek. The idea of such a device at that time was very much an idea/theory that was based on faith and science. Faith in our ability to apply science in such a direction... to manifest something out of nothing.

Where i think we find ourselves derailed is when we attempt to explain life with the wrong perspective/approach.

Now for instance Intelligent Design as a theory makes no contribution to the study of science... and yet you could say that the theory is based on faith and science. Where as Evolution as a theory is based solely on science... faith does not factor into the equation... and as a result Evolution makes more sense.

We can also similar dynamics at play in 911 research. Science is used to support the "official story" as well as the conspiracy theory, but where they head in different directions is where faith is introduced. Those who have faith in the government gravitate towards the OS and parrot it's claims versus those who don't have faith in the government do their own research and thus theories are based on scientific claims that make more sense.

[edit on 3-1-2009 by The All Seeing I]



posted on Jan, 4 2009 @ 02:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by The All Seeing I
Now for instance Intelligent Design as a theory makes no contribution to the study of science... and yet you could say that the theory is based on faith and science. Where as Evolution as a theory is based solely on science... faith does not factor into the equation... and as a result Evolution makes more sense.


Doesn't science kind of replace god as "randomness" and use that in the same way religious people do?

How are things in evolution allowed to randomly happen over time? Where does this randomness come from, in a universe which is all action and reaction? How can randomness be proven in a lab? Doesn't it completely go against the rules of Science to have random things happen?

How is consciousness and the state of being an observer of things possible from a universe which has neither of those? That state of "I think, therefore I am"? These things evolution doesn't really account for.

I'm not god created the world 6000 years ago, and dinosaurs are here to test my faith creationist person. I can see things evolve around me all the time. I understand and believe survival of the fittest. But there are a few things about the way evolution is presented that just kind of erk me.




top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join