Mor(m)ons

[Woodruff]

Which part of his work in the monasterial gardens was based on faith? Which part of his work in the monasterial gardens was based on science? I would suggest to you that it was all part of the scientific method. Were you going to point out for me how his work in genetics had anything to do with "faith"?

The part where he wanted to find out about God's creation.

Define "faith" for me. Then point out to me which part of his work in genetics didn't use the scientific method.

Thanks!

[Woodruff]

Look, Woody, the main area of my knowledge is 16th and 17th Century history. I deal a lot with people like John Dee, or Francis Bacon, for whom the exploration of scientific knowledge was no different than gaining knowledge through faith based studies like reading the Bible in Hebrew, or Greek.

I don't think there has to be a separation. Bacon is often considered one of the founders of the scientific method, but much of his drive was deeply religious. Protestantism was, for him, equated with science against (for him) a superstitious Catholic past. Dee advanced navigation while drawing on medieval religious thinkers like Roger Bacon (no relation to Francis).

I think you're perhaps ignoring the boundaries of what might motivate someone. Scientists can find something intangible in their research- the beauty of a mathematical proof, say. And religious people can find God in science.

Poor science and poor faith seem to me to be the things you find problematic.

What I find problematic is poor definitions, which is what seem to be at use here. I am not at all talking about motivations. I am talking about actions/activities.

[Woodruff]

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

OK, first you are shifting the debate slightly, because the original discussion was religion, not faith.

The hell I am. The whole arm of the thread resulted from that chart I posted, which explicitly stated "faith".

Faith is both a general term roughly equivalent to the term "religion", but it is also a specific term that means a specific mode of thinking that is not scientific... i.e. "blind faith".

So? I am speaking of "faith" as in "does not require proof", which SHOULD have been evident to you throughout this entire discussion.

BUT... religion and the more general term "faith" do not imply "blind faith". I am refering to that definition, not the more specific one.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, because YOU'RE the one changing the discussion now. If you want to continue trying to convince me that faith isn't distinctly different from science, let me know.

Faith and logic are BOTH very much a part of BOTH science and religion, belief in God and ideas about science. They differ in what they consider to be evidence, in the kinds of data and observations they admit as evidence.

You keep changing terms. I am speaking specifically of "science" and "faith". I am not speaking of logic, and I am not speaking about religion. This is a very basic definition-oriented statement. Science and faith do not at all use similar processes or systems. They are disparate. Again, reference the chart I posted without the bumfuckery of assuming it must be referring to religion or God or whatever else you immediately become defensive about.

[kentington]

Look, Woody, the main area of my knowledge is 16th and 17th Century history. I deal a lot with people like John Dee, or Francis Bacon, for whom the exploration of scientific knowledge was no different than gaining knowledge through faith based studies like reading the Bible in Hebrew, or Greek.

I don't think there has to be a separation. Bacon is often considered one of the founders of the scientific method, but much of his drive was deeply religious. Protestantism was, for him, equated with science against (for him) a superstitious Catholic past. Dee advanced navigation while drawing on medieval religious thinkers like Roger Bacon (no relation to Francis).

I think you're perhaps ignoring the boundaries of what might motivate someone. Scientists can find something intangible in their research- the beauty of a mathematical proof, say. And religious people can find God in science.

Poor science and poor faith seem to me to be the things you find problematic.

What I find problematic is poor definitions, which is what seem to be at use here. I am not at all talking about motivations. I am talking about actions/activities.

This may be an agree to disagree point.
You already showed how they are separate. Faith can motivate someone to science, but it can not be science. You can interpret things in science differently based on faith, but it still does not change the results of science. You can get ideas from religion, but religion is not science.
I don't understand the complication. Faith can motivate one to keep searching for an answer but it is not science.

[PLAYER57832]

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

OK, first you are shifting the debate slightly, because the original discussion was religion, not faith.

The hell I am. The whole arm of the thread resulted from that chart I posted, which explicitly stated "faith".

Faith is both a general term roughly equivalent to the term "religion", but it is also a specific term that means a specific mode of thinking that is not scientific... i.e. "blind faith".

So? I am speaking of "faith" as in "does not require proof", which SHOULD have been evident to you throughout this entire discussion.

BUT... religion and the more general term "faith" do not imply "blind faith". I am refering to that definition, not the more specific one.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, because YOU'RE the one changing the discussion now. If you want to continue trying to convince me that faith isn't distinctly different from science, let me know.

Faith and logic are BOTH very much a part of BOTH science and religion, belief in God and ideas about science. They differ in what they consider to be evidence, in the kinds of data and observations they admit as evidence.

You keep changing terms. I am speaking specifically of "science" and "faith". I am not speaking of logic, and I am not speaking about religion. This is a very basic definition-oriented statement. Science and faith do not at all use similar processes or systems. They are disparate. Again, reference the chart I posted without the bumfuckery of assuming it must be referring to religion or God or whatever else you immediately become defensive about.

Well, I have been pretty tired and I may have confused the many debates on this with you, greenspwn, natty, etc.

If so, I apologize.

I do maintain that faith itself has a basis in logic, though... and that science to be carried out, requires faith. It really doesn't matter if the logic is that "I saw this vision and believe it, therefore...." or "I have been taught xyz and therefore...". Its still logical thinking.

Per science, most discoveries require going well beyond what is absolutely proven already. For the greatest discoveries, this is essential. I go back to the gentlemen who just got the nobel prize for discovering that bacteria caused ulcers. At least one other scientist had begun the research, but had to quit. The two who persisted even did acknowledge the first. Still, it took a great deal fo faith for them to have continued on with their research. That is why they got the big prize.

[Woodruff]

Perhaps you can point out for me how the concept of "faith" endears itself toward "thinking and questioning".

OK, first you are shifting the debate slightly, because the original discussion was religion, not faith.

The hell I am. The whole arm of the thread resulted from that chart I posted, which explicitly stated "faith".

Faith is both a general term roughly equivalent to the term "religion", but it is also a specific term that means a specific mode of thinking that is not scientific... i.e. "blind faith".

So? I am speaking of "faith" as in "does not require proof", which SHOULD have been evident to you throughout this entire discussion.

BUT... religion and the more general term "faith" do not imply "blind faith". I am refering to that definition, not the more specific one.

Then we have nothing further to discuss, because YOU'RE the one changing the discussion now. If you want to continue trying to convince me that faith isn't distinctly different from science, let me know.

Faith and logic are BOTH very much a part of BOTH science and religion, belief in God and ideas about science. They differ in what they consider to be evidence, in the kinds of data and observations they admit as evidence.

You keep changing terms. I am speaking specifically of "science" and "faith". I am not speaking of logic, and I am not speaking about religion. This is a very basic definition-oriented statement. Science and faith do not at all use similar processes or systems. They are disparate. Again, reference the chart I posted without the bumfuckery of assuming it must be referring to religion or God or whatever else you immediately become defensive about.

Well, I have been pretty tired and I may have confused the many debates on this with you, greenspwn, natty, etc.
If so, I apologize.
I do maintain that faith itself has a basis in logic, though... and that science to be carried out, requires faith. It really doesn't matter if the logic is that "I saw this vision and believe it, therefore...." or "I have been taught xyz and therefore...". Its still logical thinking.

Irrelevant.

Per science, most discoveries require going well beyond what is absolutely proven already. For the greatest discoveries, this is essential. I go back to the gentlemen who just got the nobel prize for discovering that bacteria caused ulcers. At least one other scientist had begun the research, but had to quit. The two who persisted even did acknowledge the first. Still, it took a great deal fo faith for them to have continued on with their research. That is why they got the big prize.

Also irrelevant.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yeah, still waiting on PLAYER's exact definition of "faith" and "science."

"faith" = "has a basis in logic," doesn't mean much...

"predictions made by tea leaves" = has a basis in logic. How does that compare to science?


Faith != creating a hypothesis and then testing it through scientific means. That seems to be the opposite of what PLAYER has been stating. Do you think so, Woodruff?

[john9blue]

i think part of the problem is that "faith" is used interchangeably with "religion", despite the fact that religion has a spot in the scientific domain as well, whereas faith is by definition the absence of evidence (which is fundamental to science)

[Woodruff]

Faith != creating a hypothesis and then testing it through scientific means. That seems to be the opposite of what PLAYER has been stating. Do you think so, Woodruff?

PLAYER seems to be trying very hard to tie the idea of faith and science together, if that's what you're getting at, yes.

[Woodruff]

i think part of the problem is that "faith" is used interchangeably with "religion", despite the fact that religion has a spot in the scientific domain as well, whereas faith is by definition the absence of evidence (which is fundamental to science)

Probably true. I am using the strict definition of "faith", which does not at all require the presence of religion. Yet I have been quite explicitly clear about that, and still there seems to be disagreement, so perhaps not.