Science requires "faith".

This was just one of those loose ends that needed to be tied up.

Original CSE video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeTM4jkmZQU

Clips used according to US Copyright Act, Title 17 512 regarding comments and criticism.

Intro music by Incompetech.com
http://incompetech.com/m/c/royalty-free/index.html?keywords=Pure+Attitude

Category:

Education

Tags:

• science
• faith
• evolution
• radiometric
• geology
• galelieo
• astronomy
• dawkins
• hitchens

[Theophage]

I think you missed Eric Hovind's point: He has faith in those things too, but what he is saying is that having faith is okay; that it is a normal way to hold things to be true.

A better rebuttal to his point would have been to point out the very large difference between trusting what can be verified (even if you haven't verified it yourself) and what cannot be verified, i.e. religious faith.

[Venaloid]

@Theophage - Well that's the thing: I BELIEVE it can be verified that the Earth orbits the sun, but I'll probably never see it verified myself. The first examples of my house and my doctor are, I agree, a little off the mark.

[bassmanco]

Look up the word,

1.

confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.

2.

belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

This distinction is important.

[TheMrgoku1985]

@Venaloid

Actually you are confusing faith with trust.

You trust the scientific method becouse they can walk you thru it, no faith required. He has faith in the bible becouse he cant walk you thru the creation process or walk you thru the miracles brought forth by his bible he just wants you to assume it is true based on circular reasoning.

Faith vs trust.

[paskal007r]

@MayonR Why should greek be more appropriate? I just needed to prove that it's not "just 200 years"... Also latin people recognized this difference and gospels confirm that a man of faith does not need evidence or doubt in john 20.

that's all.

[MayonR]

@paskal007r [[there is no other kind of faith than blind faith, since no evidence exists for faith ]] The evidence for faith is faith itself. Or maybe you mean what we have faith in? Thats debatable.

[MayonR]

@paskal007r Right, good catch. But i was referring to the Greek etymology, which would be more appropriate. The Greek lexicon does list "trusty" in it. If you see how it is applied in Hebrews 11 you see that it is akin to trustworthiness. In fact any look at a middle English dictionary or any good research dictionary will reveal that it has meant this until assumptions about what it meant has been for 200 years or so.

[paskal007r]

@MayonR

1) maybe you mean "Etymology" of the word

2) Even in it's latin origin the word for trust, "fiducia, -ae" is different from the word for faith "fides, -ĕi"

3) there is no other kind of faith than blind faith, since no evidence exists for faith and every single moment of god not telling "you're wrong" is evidence against it.

[akylae101]

If they really think radiometric dating gives numbers a million times too big I've got a whole city to sell them right near Chernobyl. Half-lives are half lives. It ain't about faith.

[akylae101]

@paskal007r

Ramen!

[paskal007r]

I would point out that in fact we do not have "faith" in science, but we do TRUST it.

How is that different? If I have "faith" in something I will not question it, even if I do see evidence against it. If I "trust" something I will question it, but only if something raises my suspicion.

As an example: suppose your doctor says "and eat rotten meat every lunch!".

If you have FAITH in him, you will eat it. No matter what.

If you just trusted him, you will answer "are you insane?".