Faith vs. Science

I’ve been putting up a few posts lately, about religion and non religion and stuff. People have all types of definitions of what they are and what they are not. Some even breaking out the dictionary.

Here are two I came across lately. (Not from this site.)

Faith is not belief without proof, but trust without reservations. Elton Trueblood.

Science is nothing but perception. Plato (Or one of the other two guys.)

I appreciate everybody who commented in the other posts.

Both nonsense. Faith is belief without evidence at best, and usually belief against the evidence.

And science works. “Perceptions” have nothing to do with it. You can close your eyes and science and its creations will work just fine.

And Plato is both long dead and lived long before what we call science existed. He didn’t know what he was talking about.

And what is the question you would like to debate?

on ‘faith’ - it really depends on what definition you are using - “Religous Faith” - I agree with you - but faith can also be used as a synonym for “trust”, and just because one person might have a quote like the OP is using, does not speak for the more common definition. Beyond that, the OPs attempt is just as absurd to try and deny the more common connotation of Faith- which is “belief without evidence” (or religious faith, as you are stating).

As for “science” - quoting Plato’s view of it in a modern context is absurd beyond belief.

Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?

Man in Black: Yes.

Vizzini: Morons.

Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure: “So-crates!”

I think both of those statements have a certain amount of truth to them, but are easily twisted to be misleading.

Sure, faith can be “trust without reservations.” But continuing to trust without reservations in the face of contradictory evidence is foolishness.

In essence, science is about perception. Perception is about collecting evidence, and about applying logic to that evidence to find knowledge. Saying it’s “nothing but perception” as a way to hand-wave away evidence when it contradicts your faith is another form of foolishness.

Where are you getting that alleged Plato quote from?

Googling turns it up, but as an isolated quote without any source. The closest I could find was a bit in the Theaetetus where Plato has Socrates refer to perception as a form of knowledge. The concept of science in the modern sense did not arise until centuries after Plato lived.

I would suggest reading up on William of Occam (and good lord, not just the Wiki). He was this monk guy. And at the time there was some controversy over the relationship between faith and reason, and he thought they were compatible. In fact he thought faith was necessary to productive reason, what we would now call science.

“Science adjusts its views based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” - Tim Minchin.

Faith is very similar to trust, except that trust is usually earned. I trust my bank, because they have a long record of fidelity that I can examine.

Science is the absence of trust. Science is the ultimate citizen of Missouri. “Show me.” A scientific result has to be reproduced independently before it will be accepted. Science advances by open criticism, and scientific ideas only survive if they can withstand that criticism. It’s the ultimate in cage-match wrestling. The last theory standing is the winner.

Two very piercing, earially accurate quotes, but I would not say faith vs science as they are separable and many people have faith in science.

To me faith (as taken in your context) is trust beyond what we know (in short), and leads us to solutions beyond our ability to understand, science is what we do know and leads us to solutions we are capable of understanding. Faith leads to help from our angelic parents who have solutions far advanced from us - for we are just a young child to them. Science is what they have taught us and given to us and expect us to use as a parent expects their child to use a educational toy. To them our most advanced technology is but a child’s toy, but it is a toy that is meant for us to learn from and grow. But for things that science can not answer they are there to help us in ways we can’t understand yet do to our age and development level compared to theirs.

Again, I’ll point out the OP sets up a false opposition between faith and science, and one that appears, at first glance, to be based on the equivalence of “faith” with US style conservative Christianity.

There’s no contradiction in accepting both, no matter the misguided stereotypes people accept.

I would also like to know what the OP wishes to debate or discuss. This is the ? 5th? or so thread on basically the same topic(s) with the OP basically disappearing from each thread and providing nearly zero feedback.

One has faith in one’s spouse. But if said spouse comes home at 5 am missing underwear and says she went shopping, faith soon becomes stupidity.

This statement is wrong in so many ways as to be incredible. First, as noted, Plato probably didn’t even say it. Even if he did, Plato said little about science. His student Aristotle at least talked about the physical world and made observations. So his science is perception, but if you read Aristotle the reasoning he did based on his observations had a lot of problems. In any case what they and the Roman and Greek natural philosophers did has nothing to do with science today, which is all about experimentation.
A scientist who has faith in a hypothesis is a bad scientist. (They exist.) You should doubt your hypothesis and do everything you can think of to falsify it. If you fail, then you might have something. If however you select for supporting data you’re a quack.
And won’t get anything published in a reputable journal.
Any scientist who hasn’t seen one his cherished ideas shot down by an experiment hasn’t been trying hard enough.

Faith in Christianity means Jesus was the son of God.
Faith in Judaism means Jesus was not the son of God.
Which religion do you ‘trust’?

Science predicts eclipses to the nearest second, decades ahead.
Science is how you’re reading this message.
Science works.


You have developed this habit of starting threads in Great Debate with minimal content and then not participating in the minimal discussion (I hate to call it debate) that ensues. This is not what Great Debates is for.

If you wish to participate in Great Debates I am - going forward - going to require you to actually participate in the threads you start. As it is now, it simply appears you’re not interested in discussion and debate and that’s counter to our mission.

Any further threads started by you with minimal content will be closed and earn you a warning. Rack up a number of those and your posting privileges will be reviewed.