Something I think bares reading.

[Ghel]

I can't speak for Collins, but I do not consider faith and science to be mutually exclusive.

GK, I mostly agree with you, except for this point.

Faith is believing something to be true despite lack of evidence or, sometimes, evidence to the contrary.

Science is the opposite. In science, a theory (claim) is not considered to be true until evidence has been collect, it's been peer reviewed, retested (found to be repeatable), and peer reviewed again. Only then will the theory be stated as truth. And even then, if new evidence comes along that is contrary to the theory, it will either be revised to include the new evidence or discarded in favor of a theory that better fits the evidence.

Now, let's look at one of the most common religious claims: "God exists." The first hurdle is defining the words "God" and "exists." Some people want to define "God" as the universe. Well, why not just say "universe," then? Some people want to define "God" as the forces that were in existence at the beginning of the universe. In that case, "God" no longer exists. There's no way to get from these definitions to the Christian God or the Muslim Allah or any other "God" that human beings have worshiped over the millenia.

Additionally, many people will define their God as existing in such a way that it either cannot be detected or doesn't interact with our universe. Again, this definition does not describe a God that wants or needs to be worshiped.

On the other hand, if one's God answers prayers, for example, it interacts with the universe, and should be detectable using the scientific method. The fact that such claims have been tested and found to be lacking evidence shows that claims of a God that interacts with humans are false.

[Gravekeeper]

GK, I mostly agree with you, except for this point.

Faith is believing something to be true despite lack of evidence or, sometimes, evidence to the contrary.

This does not make them mutually exclusive. You are, again, using generic Christianity as a benchmark for everything. Faith is merely a belief that something is true. It need not even be "religious" in nature. Lack of evidence however, does not negate faith. I, personally, believe lack of evidence should drive faith toward to find said evidence. With science.

Also, scientifically speaking, the forces that existed at the beginning of the universe are still technically present and driving the universe forward. ;p

[Andara Bledin]

Again, this definition does not describe a God that wants or needs to be worshiped.

Obviously people need something above them to look up towards, whether it be for guidance, worship, or just to blame when things go wrong. People, in the aggregate, are irrational, superstitious folk, and that is never going to change.

Also, scientifically speaking, the forces that existed at the beginning of the universe are still technically present and driving the universe forward. ;p

Conservation of energy: Everything that was there is still there, just not necessarily in the same form.

^-.-^

[Hyena Dandy]

People, in the aggregate, are irrational, superstitious folk,

Or more accurately

Criminals.

Are a cowardly and superstitious lot.

[Ghel]

This does not make them mutually exclusive.

Maybe not. They could overlap a bit. However, it does show that faith doesn't require evidence, and science does.

You are, again, using generic Christianity as a benchmark for everything.

You keep saying this, but I don't see it. My statements about faith and science apply just as well to the claims "Thor makes thunder," "reincarnation occurs," "ghosts haunt houses," "homeopathy works," "astrology is accurate," "people have souls," "the Earth is hollow," "alien abductions occur," "unicorns once existed," etc.

Faith is merely a belief that something is true. It need not even be "religious" in nature.

I agree. As in the examples I listed above, faith is also prevalent in pseudoscience, and probably other fields as well.

Lack of evidence however, does not negate faith.

Obviously not. People frequently cling to their faith even when they're shown that there is no evidence for what they believe.

I, personally, believe lack of evidence should drive faith toward to find said evidence. With science.

Sounds good, as long as the person is willing to modify or even abandon their faith if they discover that the evidence disagrees with their faith. To do otherwise would be dishonest. Too often, the faithful will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs.

Also, scientifically speaking, the forces that existed at the beginning of the universe are still technically present and driving the universe forward. ;p

You are correct, of course.

Obviously people need something above them to look up towards, whether it be for guidance, worship, or just to blame when things go wrong.

So you think that the belief in a god has some benefit(s) to the believer, and it doesn't matter whether the belief is true.

[Andara Bledin]

So you think that the belief in a god has some benefit(s) to the believer, and it doesn't matter whether the belief is true.

I do.


This study appears to support that. It's worth noting that it's belief itself that's beneficial, and it can have harmful effects as well.

This study focuses on luck superstition and finds that people do better when they think they have an extra dose of "luck."

^-.-^

[Ghel]

I guess I could have phrased that better. It looks like you're saying that it doesn't matter whether a god exists, only that people believe that a god exists. Is it more important to you that the belief has some beneficial effects on the believer, or is it more important that the belief in a god is accurate?

[Andara Bledin]

There are far too many variables for me to even begin to answer that question.

But I do think that there are times when being accurate isn't the same as being "right."

^-.-^

[Gravekeeper]

Maybe not. They could overlap a bit. However, it does show that faith doesn't require evidence, and science does.

Well yes, the very defintion of faith is basically to believe in something or someone without having a way to confirm your belief. That wasn't the point though. The point was simply that they are not mutually exclusively. I would argue that science even requires faith ( of a different sort ) to help move it forward.

You keep saying this, but I don't see it.

The majority of your examples are centered around western religious concepts. -.-

My statements about faith and science apply just as well to the claims "Thor makes thunder," "reincarnation occurs," "ghosts haunt houses," "homeopathy works," "astrology is accurate," "people have souls," "the Earth is hollow," "alien abductions occur," "unicorns once existed," etc.

The majority of those examples have clear scientific answers, thus I do not honestly see them as matters of faith. There is a difference between faith and ignorance. Though the lines quite assuredly get blurred with more than a few people. >.>

Sounds good, as long as the person is willing to modify or even abandon their faith if they discover that the evidence disagrees with their faith. To do otherwise would be dishonest. Too often, the faithful will ignore evidence that is contrary to their beliefs.

At which point it is no longer faith, but rather stupidity or willful ignorance.

It looks like you're saying that it doesn't matter whether a god exists, only that people believe that a god exists.

I say this is clearly an individual need. Some people need the belief more than the proof, others the proof more than the belief. That's kind of the entire discussion, ehe.

[Ghel]

There are far too many variables for me to even begin to answer that question.

Oh, come on. It's not that difficult. If you found irrefutable evidence that there is no god, would you still believe because it made you feel good? Do you think others should do the same? It's a matter of integrity. Is it more important to know the truth or to live in blissful ignorance?

I would argue that science even requires faith ( of a different sort ) to help move it forward.

Please explain. I have heard of scientists talking about being "spiritual" when they clearly state that they don't believe in a god or anything else supernatural, so that's not faith. It may also be true that it takes some steadfastness to continue working on difficult research, but I don't see that it should be described as "faith."

The majority of those examples have clear scientific answers, thus I do not honestly see them as matters of faith. There is a difference between faith and ignorance. Though the lines quite assuredly get blurred with more than a few people. >.>

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Even with clear scientific answers, people frequently believe what they want to, ignoring the evidence. My point is that, even where there is no evidence to the contrary, people still shouldn't believe something for which there is no evidence.

[Andara Bledin]

You asked, "Is it more important to you that the belief has some beneficial effects on the believer, or is it more important that the belief in a god is accurate?"

My answer is still, "It depends." There are so many other variables at play, including the people themselves, that there is no right answer. And that goes for your "truth vs ignorance" question, as well.

As for faith, at it's most basic, a person must have faith in himself before he can succeed at nearly any task. Even you have faith - you have faith that there is no God, and that your mockery of those who believe is justified.

Now, based on your final statement, nobody should believe that religion causes me harm, due to there being no evidence to support such a conclusion.

^-.-^

[Ghel]

My answer is still, "It depends." There are so many other variables at play, including the people themselves, that there is no right answer. And that goes for your "truth vs ignorance" question, as well.

I, on the other hand, value the truth of a claim above all else. In my view, if a claim cannot be demonstrated to true, it doesn't matter how good it makes one feel. I want to believe as many true things and as few false things as possible. I am constantly comparing my beliefs to reality and asking "does this mesh?" If I discover that my beliefs don't mesh with reality, I change my beliefs.

As for faith, at it's most basic, a person must have faith in himself before he can succeed at nearly any task.

That's equivocation. Faith in oneself (confidence or trust) is not the same as faith in something supernatural (belief not based on evidence).

Even you have faith - you have faith that there is no God...

Um, no. That is an informed opinion, not faith. If I were to discover convincing evidence that a god exists, I would have to believe.

[Boozy]

My point is that, even where there is no evidence to the contrary, people still shouldn't believe something for which there is no evidence.

I disagree with this.

A good example is the placebo effect. It's a very real thing, and it doesn't just cause the patient to "feel" better. In many cases, sugar pills and a patient's faith in them can actually cause the body to heal. This is a well-documented phenomena, and it's why placebo groups are used in most double-blind pharmaceutical studies.

[Gravekeeper]

Please explain. I have heard of scientists talking about being "spiritual" when they clearly state that they don't believe in a god or anything else supernatural, so that's not faith. It may also be true that it takes some steadfastness to continue working on difficult research, but I don't see that it should be described as "faith."

You are defining faith solely in the Christian religious sense when that is but one of several definitions and not even the primary one.

My point is that, even where there is no evidence to the contrary, people still shouldn't believe something for which there is no evidence.

In all frank honesty, I think that would put a serious crimp in the advancement of civilization.

[Ghel]

I disagree with this.

A good example is the placebo effect. It's a very real thing, and it doesn't just cause the patient to "feel" better. In many cases, sugar pills and a patient's faith in them can actually cause the body to heal. This is a well-documented phenomena, and it's why placebo groups are used in most double-blind pharmaceutical studies.

I have two thoughts on the placebo effect. First, it is evidence of the mind's control over the body that someone can, effectively, will themselves to be healed of certain conditions. Second, in pharmaceutical studies, the placebo effect becomes a false positive, which is exactly why new medicines must be shown to be more effective than a placebo. It is things like the placebo effect that make scientists test and retest scientific findings to make sure that the findings are accurate.

You are defining faith solely in the Christian religious sense when that is but one of several definitions and not even the primary one.

I have been quite clear, over several posts, to state that the definition of faith that I'm using is "a belief not based on evidence." This is not solely found in Christianity. If you think that there is a better definition for faith, or that it's better used in some other religion, pleas explain. Examples might help.

In all frank honesty, I think that would put a serious crimp in the advancement of civilization.

How? How does believing something that is not true or has not been demonstrated to be true help advance civilization?