Faith vs Science

There is , in my opinion, a misconception that Science and Faith are mutually exclusive. By 'faith' I do not mean religion or belief system. I am using the word 'faith' in its basic meaning. For example , 'having faith' that we will achieve something; in other words believing in ourselves or believing that we can make something happen.

This ' believing in ourselves ' has been the basis of a lot of systems taught to people in order that they can improve their environment. In the 1960s and early 1970a we had all these 'positive thinking' books. These was followed by all the New Age books showing us how we can impact our surroundings by an act of will.

I never had a problem with Science. However when I see scientists (and atheists as well) mocking those who have some kind of blind faith in something, I really have to wonder whether some scientists are in fact taking the route of the idiot.

Even before the advent of Quantum Mechanics, it was evident to many of us that we had the ability to 'shape' our environment, to a greater or lesser degree. Now QM shows us that matter actually behaves according to the person observing and it also shows that our expectations play an important part in locating an object as well as determining how the objects behaves.

Nothing new here for students.of esoteric science. We know that there has to be two opposing forces in order for manifestation to take place. On the one side there is the faith/emotional/wisdom pillar and on the other the Scientific/analytic/dissecting pillar. These two create the conditions for manifestation.

I may have lost some of you in the last paragraph but it does not matter. My point is that Science and Faith need to inter-act. One cannot exist without the other. Indeed all great inventions and realisations were a combination of intuition and reason.

It is because they work together that people get confused. For example Sir James George Frazer (1854–1941), when he wrote 'The Golden Bough', kept saying in his book that magic does not exists. He said that when magic works , it is no longer magic but science. I think this is a very unfair comment. However it shows how the two are so closely related.

We could have a more simple example. Take the case of a successful insurance salesman. He will tell you that he is meeting 10 clients next week and that he expects to sell ten policies. Others may not have that confidence. Our intrepid salesman however goes out and actually does it. But of course for the scientist, there is no hocus pocus here. The guy just used psychology which has been scientifically proved , blah, blah, blah. What the scientist will fail to see is that the salesman had a strong expectation and a strong will .Therefore he could impose his will on the environment.

Science and Spirituality go in opposite direction along the circumsference of a circle and then meet up again. Quantum mechanics is where science meets magic/sirituality.

Those who want to be 100% scientific are missing out on an exciting world where everything is possible - or are they ? I will put it to you that both the horribly scientific and the atheists are using the same techniques of imposing their will on their environment. It is just that they are to busy with their hypotheses to realise this.











[edit on 24-7-2010 by crowdedskies]

[edit on 24-7-2010 by crowdedskies]

When everything is possible then rules do not apply. When there are no rules nothing can make sense. So there is no such thing as a world where everything is possible because nothing could exist. Logical coherence is inherent in everything as long as perception allows it.

Science requires faith.

Here is what I mean by that statement. (Some of this post I have used in another post on a different topic. It applies here also.)

Science is the generation of theories/models.

These models are said to be 'true' if, when the model is utilised to make predictions within a system, the system behaviour acts as predicted to a higher degree.

The trueness of the model (or theory) is measured by comparison of the predictions against the actual behaviour of the system (or experiment).

Science is useful for this.

We live in our heads and we think we live out there. We live in a system of theories that we think of as 'real'. They are in fact just theories that are accepted as real by us, due to the fact they are highly accurate and seem to work.

Everything is metaphor. We each make a world (models of understanding) that work within the boundaries of usefulness and practicality.

These models are abstract and crude approximations of that which stimulated them. The 'real' or the source of input for our senses. This can never be touched; only interpreted by us.

Arguments are just the comparison of differing models of understanding.

It may be in some instances meaningless to make a comparison between two or more models (arguments, concepts) even though one may not see it. We lose sight of the fact they are only theories. In fact I would say very few people accept they are just theories (albeit extremely accurate and demonstrable). Some people take the leap of faith and accept theory as 'truth'.

Originally posted by IamBoon
When everything is possible then rules do not apply. When there are no rules nothing can make sense. So there is no such thing as a world where everything is possible because nothing could exist. Logical coherence is inherent in everything as long as perception allows it.

Absolutely. The rules contain the idea (as in container). Without the rules (which has a bloking effect) there cannot be manifestation. This does not contradict what I said. The two must work together. It is a Kabbalistic notion.


[edit on 24-7-2010 by crowdedskies]

Originally posted by Pentothal
Science requires faith.

H
It may be in some instances meaningless to make a comparison between two or more models (arguments, concepts) even though one may not see it. We lose sight of the fact they are only theories. In fact I would say very few people accept they are just theories (albeit extremely accurate and demonstrable). Some people take the leap of faith and accept theory as 'truth'.

My intention here , with your response, is to substitute Truth and Theories for the words Faith and Science. Both must work together , as I mentioned in the opening post. To some it will be familiar (the two pillars)


[edit on 24-7-2010 by crowdedskies]

Rules are an illusion of our finite and ephemeral existence. If time and space are infinite than everything is possible. Just because you can't contain or fathom infinity that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Limitless world has limitless possibilities, it is only us who in our static bodies are bound to a specific point of time and space unable to observe infinity.

There's a thin (well not really) line between faith and hope. A hope is scientist believing he can fly, but smashes to the ground, like Nikola Tesla did. But faith is not that, faith is being certain in almost-impossible outcome which defies your knowledge (like some saints and prophets). But, how can you be certain if you are in a "I know nothing" state? The "know nothing" state comes from the possibility (since everything's possible) of you not really knowing it, thus nothing is certain. And that's what people like to discuss the most: "how can you have such strong faith, is that not blind?".

Well, faith is simply a strong intuition allowing you to anticipate events that are to unfold. So, for example, if you know you're going to succeed then you must be clairvoyant, but you usually "just" have strong faith. Blind faith can be defined as not discerning between pure intuition and your own blind egoistic false beliefs. We all have this innate ability which is at this time undeveloped or asleep, while some people have it "opened" by some small degree. That is what all religions [wrongly] attempt to do, to show people how to see all and know all by becoming one with the infinite [god].

This is all just my opinion, from my experience. Of course, only way you can truly know this is that you truly experience it! Taking what I just said as truth would be blind egoistic false belief. Only way is that you experience it. No book can ever tell you the truth. Or, you can simply have that innate and pure faith .

I hope all this is of some use to you, English is not my first language and I was never good at writing either anyway.

[edit on 24/7/2010 by SassyCat]

[edit on 24/7/2010 by SassyCat]

Being scientific is a lot easier than having faith, because science can be explained through facts and numbers but faith cannot. Faith is the substance of things that are not seen. That is why many people have trouble with faith and opt for the more scientific route.

Many people who don't have faith are fearful. They fear the unknown. They feel out of control and cling to their numbers and facts as a form of comfort. For many of them, their world is neat and orderly and all tied up with a nice little bow. It must be that way in order for things to make sense, in order to live.

I have seen things happen through faith that cannot be explained. These things that I have seen happen defy all laws of science and no matter how hard you try, there is no explaination. Those who are scientific will demand an answer, or their minds cannot except it, while those who have faith will not.

Originally posted by IamBoon
When everything is possible then rules do not apply. When there are no rules nothing can make sense. So there is no such thing as a world where everything is possible because nothing could exist. Logical coherence is inherent in everything as long as perception allows it.

Rules are defined by humans, and these ''rules'' are constantly being changed and broken by new phenomena that were previously unthought of.

In fact, the whole premise of the scientific method and discovery would be rendered ineligible, if scientists discounted the ''everything is possible'' philosophy.


I understand what you're saying in a deeper sense, but let's not forget that nothing is self-evident. '

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by IamBoon
When everything is possible then rules do not apply. When there are no rules nothing can make sense. So there is no such thing as a world where everything is possible because nothing could exist. Logical coherence is inherent in everything as long as perception allows it.

Rules are defined by humans, and these ''rules'' are constantly being changed and broken by new phenomena that were previously unthought of.

In fact, the whole premise of the scientific method and discovery would be rendered ineligible, if scientists discounted the ''everything is possible'' philosophy.


I understand what you're saying in a deeper sense, but let's not forget that nothing is self-evident. '

Rules are defined by humans , you are correct and what we see is subjective reality. The rules for what we perceive cannot be proven existential because of this reason. Reality without perception is defined by nothing and reality with perception is defined by subjective cognition which is defined as abstract .


Scientists do not subscribe to 100% probability for all things as a whole group. Believe it or not... that is a stereotype! Like I said , coherent logic is inherent in our perception of reality because of set definitive criteria , not because one moment is totally different in all concepts from another!

Originally posted by IamBoon
Rules are defined by humans , you are correct and what we see is subjective reality. The rules for what we perceive cannot be proven existential because of this reason. Reality without perception is defined by nothing and reality with perception is defined by subjective cognition which is defined as abstract.

I largely agree with your ethos on this matter.

All ''rules'' are defined by humans, and it's unavoidable that those rules will be subject to ''circular reasoning'', which in itself, is a logical fallacy, even so the supposed guidelines of logic are based on a certain set of human defined ''rules''.

What you also say about reality without perception is actually quite profound and largely true.

Was anything ''real'' before you or I were born ? If you or I hadn't been born, would what we consider to be ''real'', actually be real ?

Ha, it's this type of thought process that will keep us thinking, creating and studying infinitely !

Originally posted by IamBoon
Scientists do not subscribe to 100% probability for all things as a whole group. Believe it or not... that is a stereotype! Like I said , coherent logic is inherent in our perception of reality because of set definitive criteria , not because one moment is totally different in all concepts from another!

I know, man.
The best scientists are genuine sceptics with open minds...

We create all definitions and parameters of logic and reality within our own minds... As I say: nothing is self-evident.
There's no way to truly form a logically sound philosophy in life.

Originally posted by prophecywatcher
Being scientific is a lot easier than having faith, because science can be explained through facts and numbers but faith cannot. Faith is the substance of things that are not seen. That is why many people have trouble with faith and opt for the more scientific route.

Many people who don't have faith are fearful. They fear the unknown. They feel out of control and cling to their numbers and facts as a form of comfort. For many of them, their world is neat and orderly and all tied up with a nice little bow. It must be that way in order for things to make sense, in order to live.

I have seen things happen through faith that cannot be explained. These things that I have seen happen defy all laws of science and no matter how hard you try, there is no explaination. Those who are scientific will demand an answer, or their minds cannot except it, while those who have faith will not.

What you say is very true. As I said in the OP , they are not mutually exclusive. It is just a matter of taking some concept on board - even though it cannot be proven. Science and Faith must work together.

As somebody correctly mentioned in a earlier response, science is like the rules. For me rules means limitation and definition. Rules can become like a 'container' of original ideas and concepts.This then enables the idea to work. It is a very kabbalistic notion - Chokmah (faith) and Binah (reason) inter-acting.