Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
They are, but that hasn't stooped people from mixing them. Trying to use science to support their faith. And science using faith to believe in concepts that have not yet been proven.
Faith isn't necessarily "who". For example, I can have 'faith' that the medicine will work, or not buy insurance and have 'faith' that my house will not be flooded.
I agree with your analogy on substituting faith for science, just disagreeing a little that faith has to be the "who". It is simply a strongly held reasoned belief or idea arrived at without empirical proof. They are opposites in that one requires proof and the other has no proof.
...is a shortcut statement to contrast faith in God with science. I could say I have faith that there is another earth like planet where humans could live and could "prove" it with probability theory, but if you don't believe in probability theory, I have no proof. I have the same problem with belief in God. The proofs I have are accepted by the vast majority of people, but Atheists do not believe in the proofs and so deny that God exists. The faith you mentioned is actually an opinion based on science.
So, it's helpful to say we know the Who by faith, and the how by science.
India
I think that Aristotelian (two value) logic is very limiting, and not terribly useful.
The world is not composed of pairs of opposing values.
They are, but that hasn't stooped people from mixing them. Trying to use science to support their faith. And science using faith to believe in concepts that have not yet been proven.
Substituting faith for science is like substituting running for a shoe. It is apparently related but makes no sense.
Faith is the "Who."
Science is the "how."
They are not opposite at all.
Faith isn't necessarily "who". For example, I can have 'faith' that the medicine will work, or not buy insurance and have 'faith' that my house will not be flooded.
I agree with your analogy on substituting faith for science, just disagreeing a little that faith has to be the "who". It is simply a strongly held reasoned belief or idea arrived at without empirical proof. They are opposites in that one requires proof and the other has no proof.
RE: Faith is the "Who."
...is a shortcut statement to contrast faith in God with science. I could say I have faith that there is another earth like planet where humans could live and could "prove" it with probability theory, but if you don't believe in probability theory, I have no proof. I have the same problem with belief in God. The proofs I have are accepted by the vast majority of people, but Atheists do not believe in the proofs and so deny that God exists. The faith you mentioned is actually an opinion based on science.
So, it's helpful to say we know the Who by faith, and the how by science.