The Instigator
religionkills
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
Rational_Thinker9119
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Faith and Science Are Not Compatible

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/16/2015 Category: Religion
Updated: 1 year ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 473 times Debate No: 77725
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (6)
Votes (1)

 

religionkills

Pro

I will be arguing that faith and science are not compatible. The Con will be arguing faith and science are compatible.

Debate Structure

Round 1:
Acceptance
Round 2: Introduction of arguments
Round 3: Rebuttals
Round 4: Conclusions (new arguments are not permitted)

I look foreward to an interesting debate!
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

I accept.
Debate Round No. 1
religionkills

Pro

Definitions

Faith: (1) belief that is not based on proof

Science: (2) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation


The definitions of faith and science blatantly indicate compatibility between the two is impossible and irrational. Faith is belief not based on proof. Science is the obtention of knowledge through proof. How could one argue that faith and science are compatible if the definitions determine opposition?


The scientific method (3), a body of techniques used to acquire all the knowledge we possess of our universe, is not adhered to by faith. Conclusions made without empirical or measurable evidence is irrational. Imagine if science adhered to the same fallacious irrationality; “Hmm, I believe the Earth revolves around the Sun. I don’t know why, I just have faith that it does.” Now that would be an obvious problem, wouldn’t it? So why is science (and opinion making) held to the standard of providing evidence but faith/religion isn’t?


One cannot simultaneously have faith and acknowledge science as truth without lying to one’s self about the irrationality of faith.


(1) http://dictionary.reference.com...

(2) http://dictionary.reference.com...

Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Definition Of Faith

My opponent's source mentions many definitions for the word "faith". He has given no reason why we should accept his cherry picked definition. The very first definition and main definition of the word "faith" (according to my opponent's own source) is:

"Confidence or trust in a person or thing." [1]

Everyone who practices science or accepts the conclusions of science clearly has confidence or trust in science. This presupposes that faith and science are compatible because the very act of practicing science or accepting its conclusions implies faith in science itself! Therefore, we have good reason to believe that faith and science are compatible; the resolution has been negated with respect to this definition of "faith".

Conclusion

Neither me or my opponent agreed to a definition of "faith" before the debate started so both of our definitions are technically valid. This means that we are at a standstill until the rebuttal round. In the next round, I will show that even if we do accept my opponent's definition; his argument still fails.


Source

[1] http://dictionary.reference.com...
Debate Round No. 2
religionkills

Pro

religionkills forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
religionkills

Pro

religionkills forfeited this round.
Rational_Thinker9119

Con

Rational_Thinker9119 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
6 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
Rational_Thinker9119
"con side says that we all trust in science like they trust in the bible"

Please, can you quote me where I said this? I didn't say anything about The Bible. I'm not Christian (or religious)... So there is no reason why I should lose this debate based on that reason.
Posted by steffon66 1 year ago
steffon66
i think the pro side could have used better arguments but probably wont lose as his opponent has nothing supporting his conclusion. the con side says that we all trust in science like they trust in the bible. well thats incorrect. the science here in america is the same elsewhere and thats because they can prove their theories to the scientific community who can also do experiments and prove them right. and no one is arguing against science because anyone who tries finds that what they say is proven is provable. science is always based on evidence and the facts are provable. religion on the other hand is speculation with no evidence whatsoever and the religions here in america contradict those of every other country so virtually all of them have to be false. science is much more trustworthy source of knowledge than religion and that is an irrefutable fact.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
The Oxford Concise English Dictionary, gives two distinct meanings for faith:
"1) complete trust or confidence, and 2) strong belief in a religion based on spiritual conviction rather than proof."
A scientist's "faith" is built on experimental proof. The two meanings of the word "faith," therefore, are not only different, they are exact opposites.
Posted by Rational_Thinker9119 1 year ago
Rational_Thinker9119
The two are completely compatible, I'll show that in the debate.
Posted by missmedic 1 year ago
missmedic
Look at the definition of the words, not only are they not compatible there complete opposites. Faith sometimes uses science to prove some point, however science never uses faith. The tools science uses to find knowledge would discredit faith.
Science has done far more to both explain the world around us and help us improve our condition than millennia of religion.
Posted by vi_spex 1 year ago
vi_spex
faith=belief=science
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by TheJuniorVarsityNovice 1 year ago
TheJuniorVarsityNovice
religionkillsRational_Thinker9119Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: the round was too short to pick a winner, no valid conclusions could be made. Its a tie on every level.