Comments on: Is science faith-based? http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/ I am an astronomer, writer, and skeptic. I likes reality the way it is, and I aims to keep it that way. My real name is Phil Plait, and I run the Bad Astronomy blog. Tue, 24 Nov 2009 12:55:23 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: lamp http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-10/#comment-225683 lamp Thu, 12 Nov 2009 20:21:47 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-225683 I am. a firm believer an science. Yet I am also a believer in religion. Simply cannot see how adhering to one precludes adherence to another. They are not mutually exclusive. I recall that some of the outstanding scientists are recorded to have been very religious people. In my case, science brings me closer to God. The article rightly points out that the main assumption behind science is that there are rules which are universal. I am of the firm opinion that rules (and very rigid ones) are only a product of intelligence. It is most astonishing that we should live in a universe where very rigid rules render it comprehensible. Hence I understand why Einstein is reported to have one remarked that "the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". I am. a firm believer an science. Yet I am also a believer in religion.
Simply cannot see how adhering to one precludes adherence to another. They are not mutually exclusive. I recall that some of the outstanding scientists are recorded to have been very religious people.

In my case, science brings me closer to God. The article rightly points out that the main assumption behind science is that there are rules which are universal. I am of the firm opinion that rules (and very rigid ones) are only a product of intelligence. It is most astonishing that we should live in a universe where very rigid rules render it comprehensible. Hence I understand why Einstein is reported to have one remarked that “the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible”.

]]> By: friedegg http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-10/#comment-223384 friedegg Fri, 30 Oct 2009 04:28:25 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-223384 To Phil: Your arrogance is so admiring! Do you hear it coming?... Wait for it...wait for it... Oops there it is...Dogma. Isn't that what they say about religious zealots? And did you not actually reference your own article to counter my comment in another thread?...Hmmm I wonder how the NIH would feel about your source? Have you had a bowel movement today, Phil?...Thank God! To Phil:

Your arrogance is so admiring!
Do you hear it coming?…

Wait for it…wait for it…

Oops there it is…Dogma.

Isn’t that what they say about religious zealots?
And did you not actually reference your own article to counter my comment in another thread?…Hmmm I wonder how the NIH would feel about your source?

Have you had a bowel movement today, Phil?…Thank God!

]]> By: Help please - how to deal with moon hoax conspirators - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-10/#comment-201588 Help please - how to deal with moon hoax conspirators - Page 2 - PPRuNe Forums Thu, 23 Jul 2009 17:21:00 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-201588 [...] Your assumption that science is faith based it the first logical error in the slow descent into the mental chaos and delusion that is Creationism. I am not trying to rob life of beauty and meaning, it is so palpably awesome but do yourself a favour and do a little real scientific reading and thinking on this stuff. By all means stick to your religion if it gives your life something extra but please don't corrupt science with logical fallacies. I point to Bad Astronomy as an interesting start in debating yourself on these vexed issues. Is science faith-based? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine [...] [...] Your assumption that science is faith based it the first logical error in the slow descent into the mental chaos and delusion that is Creationism. I am not trying to rob life of beauty and meaning, it is so palpably awesome but do yourself a favour and do a little real scientific reading and thinking on this stuff. By all means stick to your religion if it gives your life something extra but please don’t corrupt science with logical fallacies. I point to Bad Astronomy as an interesting start in debating yourself on these vexed issues. Is science faith-based? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine [...]

]]> By: Hmmmm http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-10/#comment-168334 Hmmmm Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:15:18 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-168334 It seems to me that declaring science above faith goes too far. Human beings are imperfect, you said so yourself. So we can observe changes, we can make measurements, we can tabulate information: all these acts require inherent faith-based beliefs in the human condition. Our eyes work, the world is as we perceive it, our minds are capable of comprehending the universe... the list goes on. This article toes the line between your usually excellent standard of scientific writing and philosophy. That's a line you shouldn't cross. It seems to me that declaring science above faith goes too far. Human beings are imperfect, you said so yourself. So we can observe changes, we can make measurements, we can tabulate information: all these acts require inherent faith-based beliefs in the human condition. Our eyes work, the world is as we perceive it, our minds are capable of comprehending the universe… the list goes on. This article toes the line between your usually excellent standard of scientific writing and philosophy. That’s a line you shouldn’t cross.

]]> By: Florida: jumping off the cliff of reality with Texas | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-10/#comment-168246 Florida: jumping off the cliff of reality with Texas | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:30:12 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-168246 [...] (no, it’s a theory and a fact), and "Science is faith-based too!" (no, it’s not), and "You hate Christians" (no, I don’t, and I don’t even hate creationists, [...] [...] (no, it’s a theory and a fact), and "Science is faith-based too!" (no, it’s not), and "You hate Christians" (no, I don’t, and I don’t even hate creationists, [...]

]]> By: Mary A. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-9/#comment-167221 Mary A. Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:24:58 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-167221 I agree with this blog because faith itself is beleiving without seeing and trusting in it. Science needs proof and tangible explanations. But for the questions that do not have any answers for example "what was here before the universe was born about 14 billion years ago?" I beleive that the answer IS God. I agree with this blog because faith itself is beleiving without seeing and trusting in it. Science needs proof and tangible explanations. But for the questions that do not have any answers for example “what was here before the universe was born about 14 billion years ago?” I beleive that the answer IS God.

]]> By: Chris from NYC http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/comment-page-9/#comment-165818 Chris from NYC Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:15:20 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/02/18/is-science-faith-based/#comment-165818 What nonsense. The author trots out the same tired horse (or ass) atheists usually produce in these discussions: we only believe what can be proved by the scientific method. And THAT is where many atheists' faith beliefs stem from. They believe nothing of the sort. Science would have to trash many of its most cherished beliefs (and I use the word with intent) if they only assented to what has been proven by the scientific method. The Big Bang for starters, followed closely by Darwinism. I know that will cause the usual spittle-flecked rants, and smug, condescending charges that I've obviously never heard of the COBE findings or looked at researches done in baleen whale skeletons. None of those prove the theories by the scientific method. They are certainly scientific evidence, but they remain theories, unlikely to be ever proven-- and yet so many of you operate as if they are fundamental truths. They may be true (I am not a Creationsist, at least not in the sense that so many of you would deride), but they are not proven by the scientific method. What nonsense. The author trots out the same tired horse (or ass) atheists usually produce in these discussions: we only believe what can be proved by the scientific method. And THAT is where many atheists’ faith beliefs stem from. They believe nothing of the sort. Science would have to trash many of its most cherished beliefs (and I use the word with intent) if they only assented to what has been proven by the scientific method. The Big Bang for starters, followed closely by Darwinism. I know that will cause the usual spittle-flecked rants, and smug, condescending charges that I’ve obviously never heard of the COBE findings or looked at researches done in baleen whale skeletons. None of those prove the theories by the scientific method. They are certainly scientific evidence, but they remain theories, unlikely to be ever proven– and yet so many of you operate as if they are fundamental truths. They may be true (I am not a Creationsist, at least not in the sense that so many of you would deride), but they are not proven by the scientific method.

]]>