Comments on: Is science faith-based?

By: Hmmmm

Hmmmm — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 20:15:18 +0000

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

Fri, 27 Mar 2009 18:30:12 +0000

[…] (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.

Mary A. — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:24:58 +0000

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

Chris from NYC — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 01:15:20 +0000

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.

By: timur

timur — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:13:11 +0000

- Is science faith-based?

- No, because there are many religious but great scientists, as religious people claim.

By: Is Canada’s Science Minister a creationist? | Bad Astronomy | Discover Magazine

Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:17:08 +0000

[…] me get this clear: science is not faith-based. Evolution is science, and science is not religion. Therefore, being asked about evolution is not […]

By: Gareth

Gareth — Tue, 17 Feb 2009 08:45:38 +0000

I recommend this book

http://www.amazon.com/Physics-As-Metaphor-Roger-Jones/dp/0816619166

I read it at university and it blew me away.

I am quoting from the reviews but

“Physics As Metaphor demonstrates in precise, readable, logical terms why the four cardinal metaphors of physics, number, space, time, and measure, are only human, self-referential devices.”

and

“scientists themselves, have forgotten the essential truth that the tools science uses are only metaphors of reality, man-made systems designed to bring order and understanding to the world”