Hypotheses, theories, speculations, and guesses, are NOT the same as a belief. If it is, then the sentences "I believe in a God" and "I guess there is a God" or "I speculate there is a God" are the same thing, but they are not.
They are hypotheses, not beliefs. Just because we have vastly underdeveloped technology to test things by reproducible experiment -which is the hallmark of science- does not qualify them as "beliefs," like some God of the gaps. In the 1700's no one could dream of things like the HST or LHC to understand the universe better.
This is a debate about empiricism, phrased 'faith vs science!' ANYTHING.. no matter how profound, scientific sounding, or strongly believed is faith, if it has no empirical proof, testing, or observation. You can call them theories, beliefs, hypotheses, guesses, speculations, or opinions.. if there is no scientific methodology to verify them, or empirical evidence to compel an exclusive conclusion, they can only be beliefs, or matters of faith. If something has no empirical verification, how can it be considered 'fact!', except by assertion? It is a belief, only. Those who cannot differentiate between their beliefs and empirical fact have been part of the human experience since the first man used reason.
You're just playing semantics. Hypotheses aren't faith because you already don't know if they're true or not.
This is evidence, IMO, of the conflict in the human animal between faith and science.. the empirical and theoretical, fact and belief. It is also evidence of the dumbing down of our culture, and using Orwellian redefinitions and wordsmithing to obscure truth, rather than reveal it. ALL of these things are religio/philosophical beliefs or opinions.. NONE of them have any empirical proof. Yet the atheistic naturalism worldview is presented as 'science!', while anything else is 'religion!' It is just human religious bigotry on display, nothing else.
Yes, I can believe something is simply just a hypothesis. Doesn't mean I have faith the hypothesis is true.
So I added my opinions in red. Science is anything that can be verified or disproved. Faith is anything that cannot be verified or disproved or has been disproved, but people still believe in it. An example would be a well defined God that can be disproved (science), versus the general concept of a god that cannot (faith).
A theory or hypotheses is not a fact. If a theory or hypotheses cannot be verified or disproved, then it is not science.
Science IS a naturalistic world view! That's the whole point of science. It does away with mythology and superstition and says "give me evidence". It is the antithesis of religion.
Faith and science don't conflict. It's religion and science that can conflict. As others have noted, they each operate in different realms. Carl Sagan, a well-known atheist, saw spirituality a bit differently than I do. He did write extensively on the conflict between religion and science as noted in the link below. He also wrote the book Contact and the story outline for the movie, which was oddly very spiritual in many ways. I also like this scene with the religious Palmer Joss to scientist Ellie Arroway: Palmer Joss: [Ellie challenges Palmer to prove the existence of God] Did you love your father? Ellie Arroway: What? Palmer Joss: Your dad. Did you love him? Ellie Arroway: Yes, very much. Palmer Joss: Prove it. https://www.brainpickings.org/2013/06/12/carl-sagan-on-science-and-spirituality/ Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality.
'Some'.. naturalistic views are empirical AND 'science,' as defined in this thread. But not ALL naturalistic beliefs are empirical or science, as defined here. You need to keep the definitions constant, and not shift them to fit a narrative or talking point. Epistemology is what we are attempting here, not validation of echo chamber talking points. For example. I know you believe in universal common descent, or the molecule to man theory of origins. But there is no empirical evidence that it is true. It is a belief/theory/hypothesis that may very well be wrong, as more information becomes available. Others believe in man made global warming, with apocalyptic predictions of impending doom. This is also a belief/theory/hypothesis. One is not compelled, rationally, to embrace the conclusions of either of these belief/theory/hypotheses. The data is not conclusive, or it is ambiguous, or incomplete, yet many people believe strongly in these belief/theory/hypotheses. From a pure knowledge perspective, these are faith.. matters of belief that cannot be proven empirically. This is not a pejorative, as so many seem to think, but an observation of the human knowledge base. Everyone uses faith AND science, whether they realize it or not.
You are just changing the definitions to fit your narratives. You are not following the reasoning in this discussion. Faith does not equal 'God!', in this thread. Science does not equal, 'anything against God!', as the militant atheists like to portray. Don't get stuck in narrow echo chamber talking points, but let the concepts bloom, away from the narratives, and bring enlightened awareness of our epistemology. I have already pointed out the ambiguity of the terms. I posted Merriam's definitions, and highlighted the usage in this thread, and have consistently used the terms as defined. I knew the multiple ways the terminology CAN be used would make clear communication difficult, and i have repeatedly reminded everyone of the original definitions, as used in this thread. This is NOT another 'Atheists vs Christians!' flame war, but an examination of the different aspects of human knowledge.. specifically, empirical vs theoretical, a priori vs a posteriori, or science vs faith. I know it SOUNDS like a juicy battle against ideological enemies, but that was just the title teaser, and a play on words.
Actually, i don't see a conflict between religion and science. Many different people of scientific renown have had a wide diversity of religious beliefs. They did not conflict. The PROBLEM, is 'religion vs religion'! Conflicting philosophical beliefs and worldviews have been a constant source of conflict, disputes, divisions, and war, throughout human history. So the conflict is not, 'science vs religion!', but 'Atheistic naturalism vs Christianity!', in the modern discourse. Science is as indifferent to the beliefs of atheists as it is to beliefs of theists. The religious beliefs, about the nature of the universe, is the issue, not any scientific facts or methodology. Science was born in an atmosphere of inquiry, by mostly men of religious faith. Understanding the natural world does not require atheism as a belief. That is the phony, revisionist narrative that agenda driven propagandists promote.
You do realize that in the book Contact, Sagan makes the case that the universe was created by an advanced alien species, right?
So, if 'religion vs religion' is the main problem then maybe we would be better off getting rid of religion. Either that, or outlaw all other religions but Buddhism.
Perfect solution! Mandate only ONE belief, and kill any outliers! You do realize, that the 'religion vs religion' conflict that i described was atheistic naturalism vs Christianity, don't you? Why not try the reformation rooted, Enlightenment expanded, and American tested, concept of 'freedom of conscience?' We could have different beliefs, yet live in peace and acceptance of others. Too old fashioned? Mandated conformity is the New Thing?
I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be cornered in with your limited definitions. Here is the definition of science that I use. It is from the Science Council, an organization of scientists. "Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence." Did you notice the word natural? Also, I didn't say faith equals God. I said "Faith is anything that cannot be verified or disproved or has been disproved, but people still believe in it." Do you believe that statement to be wrong? If so, what part and why? I also did not say science is equal to 'anything against God'. I said 'Science is anything that can be verified or disproved'. In my example I included when God is part of science and when God is part of faith. If a God can be defined in a way that allows God to be verified then science would accept God, however if God cannot be defined in a way that allows Him to be verified or disproved, then science cannot make a judgement on such a God and any belief in that God would be considered faith.
Yeah, I was being sarcastic. Also, I didn't realize the conflict you described was 'atheistic naturalism vs Christianity' because atheistic naturalism is not a religion.
Of course it is. It is your religio/philosophical worldview, and it makes you just like everyone else: a person of faith. Atheistic naturalism is not something empirical, that you can prove via scientific methodology. It is a belief, only. I don't know why this obvious reality irks some atheists.. snowflake effect?
There is a whole string of valid definitions for these terms. For this debate, i have selected the ones in the OP to highlight the differences between our empirical knowledge, and our beliefs, without empirical corroboration. God and religion are not really the central topic, just examples of faith. You seem to want to choose your own definitions, or change them on the fly to promote a narrative.
In light of James 2:19, would you then say the devil has faith? On the contrary, a truthful answer to the question exposes that meaning or sentiment as intellectually bankrupt.
From the devil's perspective, there would be actual interaction with God, and he would have empirical, observational evidence for God. How could there be any question of God's existence, if we posit a being with interaction with God? Regarding james 2:19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder. This is to instruct the faithful that mental assent of God's existence is NOT the definition of 'faith', as we are using it here. This kind of faith is inadequate for salvation, according to James.
