Science and religion are near opposites. Why you ask? Because of the way they work. In science, Evidence is found, and is followed by a theory. In Religion, An idea was stated, followed by the creation of evidence to prove the theory. So in a way, religion is only true because it was made true.
On another note, I would like to challenge the bible in a few ways. Firstly, When Noah created his ark and the world flooded, he saved 2 of each animals. However, genes show that reproduction from 2 animals cannot create for more than several generations, due to the fact that it would cause genetic mishaps. This would apply to Adam and Eve as well. And what about plants? Animals need to eat something. Some may say that Instead of the world being flooded, only HIS world was flooded, meaning as far as he could see. But if that is the case, how did he get 2 of ALL the animals?
The evidence is confounded by a need to get funded and to establish their careers. If they don't get the money they can't do the science, so their data is skewed to reflect their selfish desires. Hawking skewed his data to reflect his own faith in what he thought about the world around him. His
mistakes form a pattern of hidden assumptions which may extend elsewhere in the science and technology community, resulting in holding back progress which NASA now recognizes needs more imaginative solutions.
All those hidden assumptions are called "Matters of FAITH". And they have infected other areas in the science and technology community.
FAITH, make-believe, fantasy. That makes a lot of science that you all think is concrete. It isn't. It takes money to research and whatever you read in the papers is all about whether the researcher can pay his bills or not. Hawking must have had a lot of bills to pay for his wheelchair expenses!! http://express-press-release.net/2/HAWKING%20WRONG%20AGAIN,%20RESEARCHER%20TELLS%20MARS%20CONFERENCE.php
The evidence is confounded by a need to get funded and to establish their careers. If they don't get the money they can't do the science, so their data is skewed to reflect their selfish desires. Hawking skewed his data to reflect his own faith in what he thought about the world around him.
Oh, and you're making this wild statement with no evidence at all and expect us to believe it. Riiiiiiight . . . .
Besides, all humans are going to be biased in their data. Bias in science doesn't make it faith-based.
Just because some scientists skew some data doesn't make all of science completely faith-based. You're making a forest out of a blade of grass.
you have just stated that the earth does not revolve around the EARTH.
I meant it like that. If she says that science is faith believed then that would mean that the earth revolving round the sun would have no proof and we would have to say it's not true.
The evidence is confounded by a need to get funded and to establish their careers. If they don't get the money they can't do the science, so their data is skewed to reflect their selfish desires. Hawking skewed his data to reflect his own faith in what he thought about the world around him.
Scientists could then make up the craziest things. I mean if you are doubting that scientists can be trusted then how the hell can you believe in religion as it is purely faith. You know how we know that scientists are not lying? Because if you had the equipment you would end up with the EXACT same results. That is how we know water is created and what not.
Honestly can you stop being an idiot? Wheelchairs don't cost massive amounts. He doesn't make that stuff up. He uses his brain. Something you yourself don't seem to be doing. I'm gonna put you down as the Creationist sheep. Just follow the crowd and don't think for yourself.
Faith is confident belief in something with no support at all
Thats arguable just as much as the definition of religion. Here are a few definitions that could make the argument that theories are partially faith based.
confidence or trust in a person or thing
Confidence or trust that the theories are true.
belief that is not based on proof
Now this one is a bit more arguable, but the thing is that it says proof. A theory while typically widely accepted, is taught(at least in where I live) to be impossible to prove, and if it is proven then it is called a law instead. So while it is a belief based on evidence, it is not based on proof and is not concrete.
So going by these two more broad definitions(most others are directly linked to one particular religion or another) I would say that an argument that theories in science can be based on faith is possible.
Though I'm sure you would probably disagree anyways.
Now this one is a bit more arguable, but the thing is that it says proof. A theory while typically widely accepted, is taught(at least in where I live) to be impossible to prove, and if it is proven then it is called a law instead. So while it is a belief based on evidence, it is not based on proof and is not concrete.
True. However gravity and the earth revolving around the sun are both theories. So many things are theories. They are widely believed to be true though. I'd rather believe in theories than purely faith.
I meant it like that. If she says that science is faith believed then that would mean that the earth revolving round the sun would have no proof and we would have to say it's not true.
Oh, I get it now.
Confidence or trust that the theories are true.
When an idea reaches the theory stage, it's based on opinion rather than faith, because a theory has significant evidence behind it to be considered a theory. Faith would apply to hypotheses, and even then only a little bit.
The 2nd definition doesn't seem like it would apply. Science is based on people looking at data they've gathered and drawing a conclusion from it - not believing something is true despite the lack of evidence.
The story was about the human race outside of a select family being wiped out. If it flooded the known world that would be where a majority of the human race exists wouldn't it? I would consider that significant.
True, true, but please consider the human race was already smirked over a large part of the globe before we actually had enough building technology to make such an ark. Also, if it wiped out the human race outside of a select family, the argument of inbreed comes up again. It would have to wipe out 'a large part' of the human race, for there must be other humans (as likewise as animals) to prevent inbreeding. For they would wipe out after due to genetic combination of lethal/ seriously malfunctioning genes.
So going by these two more broad definitions(most others are directly linked to one particular religion or another) I would say that an argument that theories in science can be based on faith is possible.
True again, though in this case more or less irrelevant. Like that you can partially say that belief in theories in science are based on faith, just like belief in (a specific) religion, but then you wouldn't be applying the same definition to both kinds of faith.
My head isn't clear enough at the moment to define the 'faith' in religion, but it's certainly not just about 'confidence' or 'no proof'.
