"No, science isn't just a matter of faith. In fact, it is a systematic methodology to move away from faith."
If everyone is honest, it is actually a systematic methodology to AFFIRM, REFUTE, or CORRECT one's faith (what you trust in).
I do agree that bias should be excluded from the scientific process. But once the data is collected and interpreted everyone comes to a personal conclusion about what the results mean for themselves.
Even for the atheist scientist, there is an ongoing unproven faith about how this world works which the scientific method affirms or refutes. Until you have all the answers to everything science will be motivated by personal faith. How many times do scientists go through the method and find themselves unsatisfied with the conclusion?
I would argue that the continuous use of the scientific method is DRIVEN by personal faith.
Why do people equate faith to blindness and belief without justification? The definition of "faith" IS "trust".
Every time you go to sit in a chair you believe it will support your weight. You trust that it will. You have faith that it will. These terms are synonyms.
AND you do so, why?, because you or someone else has sat in a chair before. Your trust is not blind. It is justified based on experience.
Is anyone else disgusted by the fact that since the beginning of mankind (whatever the source) the natural fact of life is that it takes one man and one woman to procreate? and now a couple scientists want to re-engineer that core principle of life. If you believe God created man, this is wrong. If you believe evolution governs life, this is wrong.
We still have nothing but week inferences about how the super computer in a living cell work or how the instructions on a DNA strand actually produce a full body. And yet here we are trying to negate all gender value.
Cure all the genetic diseases and cancers plaguing the world and THEN we can talk about altering core principles that govern life.
Why is education in any subject important? -because education IS LIFE. Life IS learning to live.
The vast majority of students WILL live life, and WILL have the opportunity to reinforce the information they learn about living life.
If education is important to live life then then the real question is, "Why do we continue to let public education graduate students who are content learning, remembering and caring about nothing?"
Choosing a God to follow is not like a lottery where you are guessing and later win or lose. If you are genuinely seeking truth then you will constantly dig into what this world offers and distinguish truth from trash. Yes there are a variety of religions who need to wake up and question what they are doing. Those who don't are caught up in efficient religion not faith-based religion. But even when historically a religion screws up and goes off the deep end like the crusades -yes, the church was screwing up as a whole driven by worldly greed not biblical principles -it's unfortunate that we have to wade through man's foolishness corruption to find real truth.
Pascal's wager: You are right that following a religion can be pretty messed up. Religion is what you do on Sunday. It's the checklist of rules and traditions you decide to abide to. What you are supposed to do is find a "faith" that is a solid place to stand. Then you can go looking for an institution (aka "religion") that tries their best to live that faith in a concrete way. Not everyone that believes the Bible to be true does what it says. But if the Bible is truth that is where you start, and find your daily footing.
Regarding Pascal's Wager, he states that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I fear that you might be nitpicking about what Pascal considered valuable. I think he is saying that anything worth having, anything of high honor, of high praise of high joy that this world offers is more likely to be gained on the path of believing in God.
Believing in God often yields strong communities, common goals, positive thoughts, good advice, outward/selfless actions, etc.
When he says you have nothing to lose he doesn't mean you won't lose anything. He just means of all the things you will lose they are in fact worth losing.
By Pascal's thinking, whatever you DO lose won't remotely compare to the value of what you gain by believing there is a God
So if you are concerned about pork and whiskey Pascal would tell you that there are far better prizes to be had and that you should forget those things for what you will yet gain.
What will you gain? He doesn't say, but for some reason he recommends wagering your life on it. And who risks their life on a wager that doesn't have an incredibly better prize?
I personally believe in God and the hope in Christ for 30 years. May not mean much, but I'd testify to Pascal's Wager being the most rewarding bet you can make.
Slashdot Mirror
"No, science isn't just a matter of faith. In fact, it is a systematic methodology to move away from faith."
If everyone is honest, it is actually a systematic methodology to AFFIRM, REFUTE, or CORRECT one's faith (what you trust in).
I do agree that bias should be excluded from the scientific process. But once the data is collected and interpreted everyone comes to a personal conclusion about what the results mean for themselves.
Even for the atheist scientist, there is an ongoing unproven faith about how this world works which the scientific method affirms or refutes. Until you have all the answers to everything science will be motivated by personal faith. How many times do scientists go through the method and find themselves unsatisfied with the conclusion?
I would argue that the continuous use of the scientific method is DRIVEN by personal faith.
Why do people equate faith to blindness and belief without justification? The definition of "faith" IS "trust".
Every time you go to sit in a chair you believe it will support your weight. You trust that it will. You have faith that it will. These terms are synonyms. AND you do so, why?, because you or someone else has sat in a chair before. Your trust is not blind. It is justified based on experience.
Is anyone else disgusted by the fact that since the beginning of mankind (whatever the source) the natural fact of life is that it takes one man and one woman to procreate? and now a couple scientists want to re-engineer that core principle of life. If you believe God created man, this is wrong. If you believe evolution governs life, this is wrong.
We still have nothing but week inferences about how the super computer in a living cell work or how the instructions on a DNA strand actually produce a full body. And yet here we are trying to negate all gender value.
Cure all the genetic diseases and cancers plaguing the world and THEN we can talk about altering core principles that govern life.
The vast majority of students WILL live life, and WILL have the opportunity to reinforce the information they learn about living life.
If education is important to live life then then the real question is, "Why do we continue to let public education graduate students who are content learning, remembering and caring about nothing?"
Pascal's wager: You are right that following a religion can be pretty messed up. Religion is what you do on Sunday. It's the checklist of rules and traditions you decide to abide to. What you are supposed to do is find a "faith" that is a solid place to stand. Then you can go looking for an institution (aka "religion") that tries their best to live that faith in a concrete way. Not everyone that believes the Bible to be true does what it says. But if the Bible is truth that is where you start, and find your daily footing.
Regarding Pascal's Wager, he states that you have everything to gain and nothing to lose. I fear that you might be nitpicking about what Pascal considered valuable. I think he is saying that anything worth having, anything of high honor, of high praise of high joy that this world offers is more likely to be gained on the path of believing in God.
Believing in God often yields strong communities, common goals, positive thoughts, good advice, outward/selfless actions, etc.
When he says you have nothing to lose he doesn't mean you won't lose anything. He just means of all the things you will lose they are in fact worth losing.
By Pascal's thinking, whatever you DO lose won't remotely compare to the value of what you gain by believing there is a God
So if you are concerned about pork and whiskey Pascal would tell you that there are far better prizes to be had and that you should forget those things for what you will yet gain.
What will you gain? He doesn't say, but for some reason he recommends wagering your life on it. And who risks their life on a wager that doesn't have an incredibly better prize?
I personally believe in God and the hope in Christ for 30 years. May not mean much, but I'd testify to Pascal's Wager being the most rewarding bet you can make.