On the concept of Faith

[NUSerenity]

Well, first of, hey all!

Just stumbled on this website after having run into a few videos from some of the more hypocritical members of the atheist communities, doing a good job of making themselves look like morons.. so I will share a thought out here and see what peoples opinions on the matter are.

So, there are many atheists out there who do not have the first clue of science or mathematics, or have at best a high school knowledge of it.

Now these very same atheists then go paraying around how they have a world view or have opinions that are NOT based on pure faith but on recreatable proven evidence and scientific facts, and ridicule the notion of others believing what they were told by others (churches parents bibles) without having really questioned it themselves.

Am I the only one who has to DROWN in freaking Irony at that? These very same people build a world view based on scientific conclusions, and quote these as facts.. without actually having the slightest idea behind the origins of the theory or how the ocnclusion was reached, nor in most cases the true mathematical formulation of the theory. Its just yeah... i read on wikipedia that scientists this and that.

In essence what they do is no less than basing their opinions and world view on a FAITH that the scientific cocnlusion they have read is a fact. This faith originates in a faith that the source is correct and that the scientific community has done the scrutinizing for them. They are no less unthinking drones than religious people, only they chose to place their trust and faith per say in another source.

But then again, at the end of the day everyone will build their views on the basis of faith somewhere. Even the most ardent sceptic and the greatest scientific genius will take many things as facts and truth on a faith in that it is a sufficiently scrutinized truth and on the faith that experts in other areas were honest and inter-regulated in enough to place trust in their findings.

So I would say the views of anyone are ultimatly based on trust and faith somewhere, yet clearly there are varying degrees of it and how heavily one relies on the truth of other statements as opposed to having gone through the proof oneself.

But when it comes to scientific facts being quoted without any understanding of the origin or deduction of that fact by people who then proceed to mock others for their religious believes..... Well, I guess those people need not look further than their own following of a law that they do not understand, and which they take to be a truth because it is written in a seemingly to them reputable place and bears the trademark of truth because of what ultimately boils down to nothing more than their conviction that it is.

 

[Prolescum]

Welcome.

I've noticed a fair few fuckwits trolling youtube who call themselves atheists and use wikipedia and Thunderf00t as their bibles. Honestly, so what? They're only embarrassing themselves.

Most of humanity is a disappointment, to my ever itchy chagrin; I don't expect atheists to be anything other than people, with all that entails.

I'm sure someone else will pick up other points you've mentioned.

 

[lrkun]

Welcome to the forums.

I disagree. The difference between faith based and science based is simple. Science is tried, tested, and it works; so, it is not wrong to trust and believe in science.

True, there are atheists who don't know a thing about science or religion, but what matters is they live their lives knowing that they can rely upon facts gathered from tested evidence.

If a person is faced with a choice between the two, then faith in science holds water. Else, he's just another deluded fool.

 

[Andiferous]

I pretty much agree with you that anyone who worships science is guilty of faith; but science is not constructed for worship, and those guilty of doing so are somewhat guilty of anything between ignorance and hypocrisy.

Trust in science and the scientific method guarantees that any who works within its framework must always allow for skepticism and a margin of error. There is only faith where there is perceived truth. The word 'truth' in science is absurd and the perception of such becomes a matter of semantics.

 

[borrofburi]

In essence what they do is no less than basing their opinions and world view on a FAITH that the scientific cocnlusion they have read is a fact.

So you're saying that belief in the results of the scientific process (carried out by scientists) without understanding the minutiae of the scientific reasoning is exactly the same as belief in the flying spaghetti monster?

 

[Aught3]

Yeah I suppose there is a certain amount of due diligence that you need to do in order to avoid falling into this trap. I think the key is to first understand how science is supposed to work and then constantly question everything you read to see how well it lives up to this ideal. It's probably impossible to track the evolution and development of every scientific idea but having some idea of the basics is a good start.

 

[Sparky]

My rule of thumb is that I can trust a scientific theory if I can buy technology that uses it. For example the computer in front of me is good evidence that our understanding of electromagnetics, atomic theory and quantum mechanics (among many others that I can't think of off the top of my head) are correct or at least are very accurate in explaining our observations - if they weren't, it wouldn't work!

Sort of like this:
http://xkcd.com/808/

 

[Talono]

So I would say the views of anyone are ultimatly based on trust and faith somewhere, yet clearly there are varying degrees of it and how heavily one relies on the truth of other statements as opposed to having gone through the proof oneself.

But when it comes to scientific facts being quoted without any understanding of the origin or deduction of that fact by people who then proceed to mock others for their religious believes..... Well, I guess those people need not look further than their own following of a law that they do not understand, and which they take to be a truth because it is written in a seemingly to them reputable place and bears the trademark of truth because of what ultimately boils down to nothing more than their conviction that it is.

But is complete understanding behind an idea and how one arrived to that conclusion necessary to justify having a small amount of faith that that idea is accurate? I think the application of the sciences to daily life as well as the history of the scientific community's ability to find the most accurate viewpoints of the natural world are evidence enough to distinguish trust in the scientific community from faith in religion.

 

[RichardMNixon]

It's impossible for one person to know everything about everything, you have to have some measure of trust in the people who came before you. The difference is thusly:

Science: You accept the findings of a long line of educated people who base their claims on results they have been able to reproduce. If you severely doubt these findings, you could attempt to reproduce them or study them yourself, though you're of course limited in your time and resources and thus can't do this for all claims.

Religion: You accept the findings of millenia old desert nomads who were themselves only accepting what someone told them about divine contact which they will never be able to reproduce.

You could denigrate accepting science as accepting hearsay, though I think this would be dishonest. But that makes religion hearsay of hearsay.

 

[aMarshall]

But when it comes to {medical science} being quoted without any understanding of the origin or deduction of that fact by people who then proceed to mock others for their religious believes..... Well, I guess those people need not look further than their own following of {scientifically backed medical treatments} that they do not understand, and which they take to be a truth because it is written in a seemingly to them reputable place and bears the trademark of truth because of what ultimately boils down to nothing more than their conviction that it is.

Just a small change.

The only things required to take on 'faith' for someone to accept the methodology of science (and hence any theory that is currently best able to describe something) are a few basic assumptions about the nature of reality. People do this in different ways (most just unconsciously), but generally you can assume that:
-- We can only determine reality through our senses.
-- Our senses give us, for the most part, independently verifiable data.

From there you have the fact that science reports the data that any theory is based on openly, so that ideally it can be retested by any individual. If you choose to repeat an experiment, you've entered the scientific method and will add new data to the collective as well as colloquially proving or disproving a theory to yourself. That or you'll add nothing due to improper testing methods and possibly deceive yourself instead.

For those who don't wish or can't test a result or theory, then the practical reasons for accepting them are:
-- The trust built up by previous results being accurate with one's own perceived reality.
-- Technological advancement made possible by science.

Reasons for disagreeing with a current best-regarded theory for explaining something could be:
-- Having a sufficient scientific education in the specific subject and having reasons why it is wrong (Generally these people are/were either correct and go on to show as such, or incompetent deniers of evidence).
-- Ideological/emotional reasons, based on some preconceived, dogmatic notion (this includes blind atheism described in the first post).
-- Illuminati