The Instigator
melcharaz
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
WrickItRalph
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points

Is Faith In Science Adequate As A Belief?

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 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 2/27/2019 Category: Science
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 953 times Debate No: 120538
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (0)

 

melcharaz

Con


I put this in Science section to debate the concept of relying on a system. Hopefully this time I can do a round 2! I hold the position that science is not adequate to base faith upon. My reasoning in this is that it is a man made form of acquiring and spreading knowledge that is based solely on mankind's interaction with this world and space and other things beyond it. I believe that we are insufficient to observe everything in an objective manner and that the subjection's of our observations make science an unstable belief mechanism.



I would like anyone to defend the position of believing sciences as a source of dependence for mankind regarding the understanding of the universe.



WrickItRalph

Pro

Thanks for the interesting debate topic.

So I will be making the argument that science is a firm foundation for belief, Due to it's practical uses.

I will argue that beliefs formed by science are useful EVEN if we can't absolutely verify them.

I will argue that science has advanced our technology to the point that we have been able to gain a robust understanding of the universe and that we will one day have the true origins of life.
Debate Round No. 1
melcharaz

Con

well, I can't post links for some reason. . . So ill try to summarize what they suggested. Faith made science, Science and faith can agree when it comes to natural observation but disagree on supernatural observation or in observation if you will. I agree with my opponent on all counts, Faith in science shows positive results, Science has made wonderful quality of life enhancements. I agree 100%. However, The idea that faith in science yields results that are mixed. Affects its own progression in the sense of discovery. Faith may say that there was a flood 6k or more years ago, Science will often argue against it and waste efforts on belief.

I hope that can sum up what I'm trying to say. I wish I could post links. . . .
WrickItRalph

Pro

Let us pin down definitions to enhance our debate. I define faith as "Belief without justification" Justification in this case means some kind of evidence. Provide me your definition because I am aware that believers define faith differently and that will allow us to differentiate it later. Also, When you say science and faith can agree? Do you mean they can come to the same conclusions about things? I'll grant the terms supernatural and metaphysical at face value. I know what you mean when you say them. That should cover definitions. Let's do this.

So my first point is that science does not require faith. This is a common misconception that I here from believers. Faith entails that I believe it without evidence. In the scientific process. Conclusions are not reached unless the proofs for the conclusion are demonstrable. This means that I know in advance if there is compelling evidence. This does not require faith. It only requires me to provisionally accept demonstrable data. Furthermore. Science is flexible in that I am not stuck with one belief system. If a new discovery emerges, It could change the way I think about everything and I would be okay with it, Because I don't seek faith, I seek knowledge.

My second point will address adequacy. The scientific process requires that I form a hypothesis. This is basically an educated guess that attempts to predict the results of my conclusion. This is the first phase. The next phase is experimentation. My goal here is to form an experiment that will test my hypothesis in the most critical way possible. I use control groups so I can compare my results to the normal expect reactions and I repeat the experience several times until I can achieve universally consistent results. Once I have gotten the results of my experiment. It's time for the conclusion. I study the data, Compare it to my hypothesis and then the conclusion necessarily follows by virtue of logical deduction. The conclusion will either match my hypothesis and prove my guess, Or it will not match and it will either disprove my guess completely or it will prove some of my guess. All parts of the hypothesis that weren't verified get thrown out and the parts proven are kept. Now come peer review. I have to make sure that I'm not being biased. So now I have to let other people perform my experiment to see if they draw the same conclusion. After a rigorous peer review process, My conclusion either stands or falls. When it stands, A model can be created to describe the findings and my mere hypothesis graduates to the point of a theory. This is the highest honor for an idea in science. Theories are treated as facts until which time they can be disproven. The beauty of this system is twofold. First, I don't have to appeal to authority. I can take this theory and perform it in my backyard to prove it to myself. Second, Even if I'm wrong about the theory, I have verified enough of it to show repeatability. So it works the way I want. Any problems with the theory at this point would be aimed at the model itself and not the fact of it's validity. For instance. The model for gravity could be disproven, But gravity is still a theory. I just have the wrong model with which to explain it. I think with this long example of the journey of an idea, We can see that science is not the same as faith. I have to go through many trials just to get one idea through. It's like being vetted for lies. Faith only requires that I believe. Nothing more. No tests. No demonstrations. Just faith. There is no way to know if faith is justified and I can believe anything on faith. This, In my opinion, Makes the scientific process the superior method.

Science also provides proofs for it's validity in the form of technological advances. When you build a plane on science, It flies. When you build a plane on faith. . . Well, You're talking your chances to say the least, Lol.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 2
melcharaz

Con

Let us pin down definitions to enhance our debate. I define faith as "Belief without justification" Justification in this case means some kind of evidence. Provide me your definition because I am aware that believers define faith differently and that will allow us to differentiate it later.

I apologize. The better word I should have used is belief. Or mental acknowledgement of the fact/presentation.

Also, When you say science and faith can agree? Do you mean they can come to the same conclusions about things? I'll grant the terms supernatural and metaphysical at face value. I know what you mean when you say them.

They can agree on the conclusions, Yes. Or may even cause the observation to occur because of our observance of it. Again, I misused the word faith. Belief was my intention.

So my first point is that science does not require faith. This is a common misconception that I here from believers. Faith entails that I believe it without evidence. In the scientific process. Conclusions are not reached unless the proofs for the conclusion are demonstrable. This means that I know in advance if there is compelling evidence. This does not require faith. It only requires me to provisionally accept demonstrable data.

I agree. Science doesn't require belief in Gods/metaphysical concepts. Evidence is often conceptualized based on the observations of belief. A person may say that a shooting star could be a sign from a deity. A person who knows about comets, Asteroids and space debris would consider the idea pure foolishness, Because they don't regard omnipotence/omnipresence as extensive to natural observation.

Furthermore. Science is flexible in that I am not stuck with one belief system. If a new discovery emerges, It could change the way I think about everything and I would be okay with it, Because I don't seek faith, I seek knowledge.

I agree with this as well. Belief causes us to explore more than what we know because we believe there are answers to our questions.

My second point will address adequacy. The scientific process requires that I form a hypothesis. This is basically an educated guess that attempts to predict the results of my conclusion. This is the first phase. The next phase is experimentation. My goal here is to form an experiment that will test my hypothesis in the most critical way possible. I use control groups so I can compare my results to the normal expect reactions and I repeat the experience several times until I can achieve universally consistent results. Once I have gotten the results of my experiment. It's time for the conclusion. I study the data, Compare it to my hypothesis and then the conclusion necessarily follows by virtue of logical deduction. The conclusion will either match my hypothesis and prove my guess, Or it will not match and it will either disprove my guess completely or it will prove some of my guess. All parts of the hypothesis that weren't verified get thrown out and the parts proved are kept. Now come peer review. I have to make sure that I'm not being biased. So now I have to let other people perform my experiment to see if they draw the same conclusion. After a rigorous peer review process, My conclusion either stands or falls. When it stands, A model can be created to describe the findings and my mere hypothesis graduates to the point of a theory. This is the highest honor for an idea in science. Theories are treated as facts until which time they can be disproved. The beauty of this system is twofold. First, I don't have to appeal to authority. I can take this theory and perform it in my backyard to prove it to myself. Second, Even if I'm wrong about the theory, I have verified enough of it to show repeatability. So it works the way I want. Any problems with the theory at this point would be aimed at the model itself and not the fact of it's validity. For instance. The model for gravity could be disproved, But gravity is still a theory. I just have the wrong model with which to explain it. I think with this long example of the journey of an idea, We can see that science is not the same as faith. I have to go through many trials just to get one idea through. It's like being vetted for lies. Faith only requires that I believe. Nothing more. No tests. No demonstrations. Just faith. There is no way to know if faith is justified and I can believe anything on faith. This, In my opinion, Makes the scientific process the superior method.


Yes, The concept of proving what is or what is not based on repetitive observation of an event does establish our concept of its repetitively but doesn't nullify the idea that our concepts of the observation are biased because of former observations. Even when localized and shared with others. I believe that scientific method is useful to prove what belief cannot yet show.



Science also provides proofs for it's validity in the form of technological advances. When you build a plane on science, It flies. When you build a plane on faith. . . Well, You're talking your chances to say the least, Lol.

I agree. And chances are necessity whether through observation or through belief. I won't argue the semantics however.

Also I would like to point out the idealism of obtaining knowledge to show our observations as valid or to show it as invalid can and is applied to religion as well, The only exception is that people who still hold to the belief as true are simply reproved by knowledge of otherwise and not belief its self. Unless the source of the belief is in question. Same principle can be applied to our shared understanding of reality. But I will grant that all religion is based on a shared reality in some sense, Only the understanding is different.

I still hold that belief of our observations still schew our true understanding of observation and our shared reality. Basis still are retained because of belief.
WrickItRalph

Pro

So I wrote this big argument and it didn't post so I'm going to try to give you the budget model, Lol. You seem nice anyway, I'm sure we don't have to slash every wound.

So you made a comment that science come to conclusions based on passed conclusions. This is known as inductive reasoning and while it is a tool of science, It is not the way they draw conclusions. Inductive reasoning would be like the swan fallacy which looks something like the following.

P - I see a white swan
P- I see another white swan
P- I see another white swan
C- Therefore, All swans are white.

The idea is to use necessarily true premises to draw a probabilistic conclusion. Science only uses this to make a hypothesis, Not draw a conclusion. Conclusions are drawn on deductive reasoning which go as follows.

P1- Humans are mammals
P2- I am a human
C - Therefore, I am a mammal.

Now it's important to note here that the first premises need to be more broad than the conclusion. This is actually the exactly opposite of inductive reasoning and has proven much more reliable. Next point.

You made a comment that observing and experiment changes the results. This is known as the uncertainty principle and it only applies to particle physics. I'll spare the details, But the idea is that particles have a set of possible places they could be and it doesn't "choose" one of the spot until it's observed, Even if it's observed by cameras. Creepy right? So this doesn't apply to any other fields of science. Quantum physics has it's own rules for some weird reason. They're still figuring this out in the science community.

You made this comment in response to me mentioning scientists building planes. "I agree. And chances are necessity whether through observation or through belief. "

So here's my question. If I have an aircraft built by an engineer (scientist) and another built by the current pope, Which plane are you going to get on?

This is the problem with faith. It has no requirements. Science changes and grows and adapts to new developments. Faith is static and sometimes based off Abrahamic religions which puts them 2, 600 years behind science if they belief everything written in their holy book. To quote Matt D "There is no position that one cannot hold on faith. This means that a person who uses faith to discern truth would logically have to believe every claim" I don't think this is a good model for truth.

Now to address the supernatural. You dropped some hints throughout your comments that you think faith can see a side of the world that science can't. I'm going to use my favorite rebuttal to show why the supernatural is an incoherent concept. This is also my rebuttal for hard solipsism. So let's say I'm sitting in a room eating pizza and drinking milk. The act is pleasurable and it sustains my life. So let's say that in the supernatural world there are demons flying around me while I eat my pizza and they're in a war with angels and there's fire everywhere and it's burning my flesh. I don't feel any fire, I don't see any demons or angels, I don't hear a war going on and all I see is my pizza and my milk. So this kind of existence is the same as not existing from my perspective and this actually helps to show that the supernatural is probably not the case. Now I'll be fair and say that if you can provide me something supernatural that can be measured by science, Then I would believe you on the spot since you would then have evidence. Furthermore, Even if the supernatural existed, I have no reason to believe that science would be at a disadvantage to faith. As I established earlier. Faith is the most unreliable method of forming beliefs. So this would not be the best way to gauge the supernatural.

Your floor.
Debate Round No. 3
melcharaz

Con

So I wrote this big argument and it didn't post so I'm going to try to give you the budget model, Lola. You seem nice anyway, I'm sure we don't have to slash every wound.

Thank you! You seem kind and civil as well!

So you made a comment that science come to conclusions based on passed conclusions. This is known as inductive reasoning and while it is a tool of science, It is not the way they draw conclusions. Inductive reasoning would be like the swan fallacy which looks something like the following.

P - I see a white swan
P- I see another white swan
P- I see another white swan
C- Therefore, All swans are white.

The idea is to use necessarily true premises to draw a probabilistic conclusion. Science only uses this to make a hypothesis, Not draw a conclusion. Conclusions are drawn on deductive reasoning which go as follows.

P1- Humans are mammals
P2- I am a human
C - Therefore, I am a mammal.

Now it's important to note here that the first premises need to be more broad than the conclusion. This is actually the exactly opposite of inductive reasoning and has proved much more reliable.

I appreciate you reminding me of deductive and inductive reasoning. Its been a while since I looked at scientific hypothesis and discussion. However, I used this phrase

Yes, The concept of proving what is or what is not based on repetitive observation of an event does establish our concept of its repetitively but doesn't nullify the idea that our concepts of the observation are biased because of former observations. Even when localized and shared with others. I believe that scientific method is useful to prove what belief cannot yet show.

I did not specify the usage of repetitive observation as concluding observation on past observations. If I have worded it in that manner then I apologize for misunderstanding.

You made a comment that observing and experiment changes the results.

I did not, I stated belief affects the observation of said observation. Moving on.

You made this comment in response to me mentioning scientists building planes. "I agree. And chances are necessity whether through observation or through belief.

I did indeed, Chances are necessary regardless of anything done. I used that to emphasis the point of risk taking whether in faith, Science, Reasoning, Observation. Etc. Regardless of how strange a scenario that may or may not occur.

This is the problem with faith.

Not talking about faith, Talking about belief. In specific as I already said. . . . The better word I should have used is belief. Or mental acknowledgement of the fact/presentation.

Faith is static

Beautiful! I couldn't have said it better myself! However I'm debating faith, I would like to sometime. But for now ill stick with belief.

Now to address the supernatural. You dropped some hints throughout your comments that you think faith can see a side of the world that science can't. I'm going to use my favorite rebuttal to show why the supernatural is an incoherent concept. This is also my rebuttal for hard solipsism. So let's say I'm sitting in a room eating pizza and drinking milk. The act is pleasurable and it sustains my life. So let's say that in the supernatural world there are demons flying around me while I eat my pizza and they're in a war with angels and there's fire everywhere and it's burning my flesh. I don't feel any fire, I don't see any demons or angels, I don't hear a war going on and all I see is my pizza and my milk. So this kind of existence is the same as not existing from my perspective and this actually helps to show that the supernatural is probably not the case. Now I'll be fair and say that if you can provide me something supernatural that can be measured by science, Then I would believe you on the spot since you would then have evidence. Furthermore, Even if the supernatural existed, I have no reason to believe that science would be at a disadvantage to faith. As I established earlier. Faith is the most unreliable method of forming beliefs. So this would not be the best way to gauge the supernatural.

Faith does address a side that science does not. But belief addresses both sides. I'm eating Korean barbecue with potatoes and ranch, Other than that, Your analogy serves no purpose to address disbelief, Only to address the idea that devils don't burn people and that you eat pizza. As to supernatural evidence? There are many, Videos of people being healed, I myself have seen people healed when prayed over, Cancer gone the next day. Etc. Others have said they saw an arm regenerate, Fantastic in idea, But real in reality and through belief.

As I said before science proves what believe has not yet shown. If you will, Science verifies belief to an extent and belief verifies science.

and again, I'm not addressing faith, Although I would like to in another debate at some other time.

hmmm. I'm not sure what else to say or to address, Belief in science is not static, Not stable and cannot encompass the all knowingness required to observe all of the universe, Or even part of it.
WrickItRalph

Pro

So we're mostly getting our points across but I see this little false equivocation going on here and I just want to address it so it doesn't make our debate confusing to spectators. You keep saying that you're not debating faith, You're debating belief. So the thing is that faith is a form of belief. So it's only natural that it comes up to an extent. If you only talk about beliefs, That can get confusing because technically knowledge is a belief too. In fact, Anything that you hold to be true or false is a belief. So this broad term can cause conflation of definitions. The reason I bring faith up is to show why science is adequate. I'm doing a juxtaposition by placing science side by side with the competition. It's not that I want to pick on faith per se, It's just that faith is sciences biggest competitor in terms of popularity. So it as necessary to bring it up. I didn't want you to think that I was putting words in your mouth.

"The concept of proving what is or what is not based on repetitive observation of an event does establish our concept of its repetitively but doesn't nullify the idea that our concepts of the observation are biased because of former observations"

Okay, So if you weren't arguing for inductive reasoning, Then you would have to be saying that the scientists themselves have biases. Because the scientific process has no biases. So I'll say that I see your point, But then I'll also say this is why we have peer review, This keeps biased scientist from becoming guru's of their field and shutting out better ideas. So for science, This isn't really an issue.

"I apologize for misunderstanding. "

No biggie, We just had to revisit that one and get the context right. Completeness is key to well informed debates.

"I did indeed, Chances are necessary regardless of anything done. I used that to emphasis the point of risk taking whether in faith, Science, Reasoning, Observation. Etc. Regardless of how strange a scenario that may or may not occur. "

Yes, But not all risks are created equal. The risks of Faith are much higher than that of science. You can't place them on a level platform. I also noticed that you didn't tell me which plane you would get on. :) It's okay, I wouldn't get on the pope's plane either.

"Beautiful! I couldn't have said it better myself! "

I want to note for the sake of general knowledge that faith being static is not a good thing. This is exactly what we don't want out of belief system.

"Faith does address a side that science does not. But belief addresses both sides. I'm eating Korean barbecue with potatoes and ranch, Other than that, Your analogy serves no purpose to address disbelief, Only to address the idea that devils don't burn people and that you eat pizza"

It is true that this isn't 100% justification to disbelieve the supernatural, It's what a philosopher would call a strong probabilistic argument. But there's also a practical lesson in here on top of that. The other point of this analogy is to demonstrate that I have no practical reason to acknowledge the supernatural nor care about it, Because it necessarily cannot have an effect on me. If it did have an effect on me, The effect would have to defy physics for scientists to think of it as supernatural. Even then, Once they understand what they witnessed, They won't consider it supernatural anymore. It'll just be natural. I feel like supernatural is just one of those "god of the gaps" terms. It hide in the gaps of what we don't know until we shine enough light onto it and then it evaporates. I don't mean to be dismissive of this, But for a pragmatic gnostic atheist like me, This argument is a very hard sell.

I had a lot of fun debating, Let's do it again sometime.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
okay, Thank you
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
@melcharaz. Have you ever looked into epistemology? It's really useful for debates because it helps you build a set of predefined words so you can have them really rock solid. I know this seems arbitrary. But if your definition of your key words is solid, It makes it more difficult for your opponent to conflate your terms. Like when you mixed belief and faith by accident. More aggressive debaters won't tie that down like I do. They'll hop on it an try to get you to use it in the wrong sense. Check out epistemology if you're interested.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
i really should have titled it differently, Is belief in science adequate as a faith. But i do believe a static faith is the best, Human nature hasn't changed, Our technology and impact on the world is about all that has changed through out the generations. If you want to, We can debate that next!

Oh sorry. I forgot to thank you for the debate, I appreciate your efforts in setting examples and defining words that i forgot and didn't clearly address in my contexts.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
Thank you! I hope that i got this point across specifically. "Man is imperfect, Therefore man's observations are imperfect. " thats all i ask.

pizza is good though.
Posted by WrickItRalph 3 years ago
WrickItRalph
good game @melcharaz nice stress free debate the way I like them. With just a side of contention.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
@ omar

alrighty. Thank you
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
So basically do this: Make sure to check the pdf link is correct when typing that into Google.

Sources:
Google search: nature of science byron b jennings (Click the first pdf)

For the other one:
Source:
Google Search: Is Faith The Enemy Of Science? Richard MacKenzie (click the first pdf you see)

That should be enough to cover your sources since my way and URL's do not work.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
also there is another i wanted to use as a source.
Is Faith The Enemy Of Science? Richard MacKenzie Physique des particules, Universit" de Montr"alC. P. 6128, Succursale Centreville,

its a pdf file as well.
Posted by melcharaz 3 years ago
melcharaz
the nature of science by byron k Jennings
Posted by omar2345 3 years ago
omar2345
Is it Amanda B. Jennings?
No votes have been placed for this debate.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.