Quote:
Originally Posted by Dadhawk
Having faith in something is not necessarily tied to religion. It's believing something to be true, but not being able to 100% prove it through whatever method.
Scientists have theories that based on their observations seem to be true, but cannot be proven 100%. There is a level of "faith" in that. The Big Bang Theory is an example of what I would consider "faith" to some extent. You can use other words for it, but there is a belief this happened based on observable, recorded facts.
Many scientific "facts" based on assumptions, have been proven wrong.
Perhaps "faith" isn't the word scientists would prefer, but to me it is the same. Others will see if differently I'm sure.
To me, its like the word "creationist". Something or someone set the universe on the path to it's present state. Regardless of how it got there, there was a creation. So, in essence, every explanation of the universe is indeed "creationism".
Also, @ NoHHaveMSG, not trying to defend @ Unplugem but while he is a conspiracy theory "enthusiast" I'm not sure I see where he is a creationist in the definition you intended, unless I missed his references to a supreme being. |
You use the word belief, but scientists don't use this word. They have ideas about things. The things they have ideas about are objective and subject to change based on new evidence. People with religious beliefs don't modify their beliefs or base their beliefs on things that are objective.
The type of faith you are describing can be attributed vaguely to anything where someone says they have a confidence of, idea of, probability of, etc, but while being related, it is a stark contrast to how religious people use the word. Religious people value the strength of someone's conviction in their beliefs--the strength of their faith. Many religious people will associate their salvation based on the strength of their faith. If a scientist claimed something was more true or was given more credibility or recognition for the strength of his convictions that his theory is true, despite a proportional probability and propriety of evidence, this not only wouldn't be celebrated, it would be ridiculed in the community.
You said science depends on faith, but it doesn't. Testing an idea is not testing someone's beliefs. Faith isn't the same as a theory. And scientists definitely don't have "complete trust in someone or something", which is a soft definition unrelated to religion. In fact, as a body (not individual exceptions), they have the opposite where they try to hold as much humility and impartiality and maintain an open mind. Big Theories, not hypothesis/theories, are well established with mountains of evidence. While it is possible things could get modified, as Newton's Theory gave way to Einstein's, building on Newton, big Theories don't require faith either.
The Big Bang Theory is observable. You can watch these two short videos and call this belief and faith, but what is going on here is far removed from what religious people do or how they would describe their beliefs and faith. What is disingenuous (often) about people who draw a comparison and say they are the same, "both require faith", is that these people are often suggesting that science requires a leap of faith, and given the choice, they will keep leaping in their faith like how they stick to their faith over other religions. Trying to put things on the same level, so people will ignore science like they also ignore other faiths and denominations.
Creationism is well defined, so I don't know why you are performing mental gymnastics to make it fit everything, as if that is necessary to be inclusive. It is the belief that the universe has a divine origin and not a natural origin. A young earth creationist, which is what I believe Unplugem to be, is someone who is a biblical literalist who believes the earth is 6k-10k years old. These people are often flat earthers because of the Bible's passages and because biblical apologists and historians have sequenced the events to coincide with a 6k-10k creation window of time. If he is not a young, earth creationist, I'll be shocked.