Do Scientist's have Faith in what they do?
Yes, of course they do.....It's just that they don't call it "faith" they can't bring themselves to admit that they have the same natural faith as religiousness does.
It's called something else, like "testing" or "probability" or "reliability" all word games and slight of hand, yet it is the exact same thing as false Religious faith. Until God's Kind of Faith reaches down and touches our natural human propensity for belief, NOTHING CAN CHANGE!
NOT BIBLICAL FAITH!
Yet faith underlies all phenomenon that can be measured by a scientific instrument, otherwise how do you explain the "trust, allegiance to duty, firm belief in something, complete trust, something that is believed especially with strong conviction" in science that scientist's show.
THIS IS A NATURAL FAITH IN SCIENCE!
There is or was a mind WE CALL GOD that believed in everything a scientist can measure. But their faith will not allow them PAST A CERTAIN POINT of belief, that's why a Scientist who is a true Christian can go farther and connect with God's Faith. The scientist must be part of that belief structure or he will not be able to experience what the bible reveals.
"The statement 'there is no God' is quite different from the claim that there can't be a god. The latter makes a claim regarding possibility; the former is an actuality or existential claim.
I doubt that there are many theologians or Christian apologists who would claim that all their faith amounts to is a belief in the possibility of this or that. One can believe there is no God because there can't be a god, but one might also disbelieve in God while admitting the possibility of the Judeo-Christian or any other god.
Disbelief in God is analogous to disbelief in Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Santa Claus, or the Easter Bunny.
Yet, those who believe in Bigfoot and Nessie, for example, aren't known for claiming they believe out of faith. To say you have faith in Bigfoot or faith in Nessie sounds ludicrous.
Believers in Bigfoot think there is good evidence for their belief. Disbelievers argue that the evidence is not strong at all and does not deserve assent to the proposition that Bigfoot exists. Disbelievers in Bigfoot do not disbelieve as an act of faith; they disbelieve because the evidence is not persuasive.
Belief in God, on the other hand, could be either an act of faith or a belief based on conclusions from evidence and argument. If the theistic belief is an act of faith then the one holding the belief either thinks the evidence against belief outweighs or equals the evidence for belief, or the belief is held without regard for evidence at all. Otherwise, the belief is not an act of faith but of belief that the evidence is stronger for belief than against."
The above argument is interesting but unrelated at the same time simply because he assumes to much and thus over-inflates his point! Believer's in anything have NATURAL FAITH, its the simple bottom-line he misses in his extended boring explanations. The evidence spoken of here is circumstantial at best but that doesn't prove they don't hold faith in that little evidence.
A whole lot of double talk later his point is lost in a mess of words like "Faith, Belief, Evidence" my point is clear here, Natural Faith is Natural Faith whether or not a big-footer or a Scientist holds it, its a simple matter of what your Faith is in not how you Redefine what human faith is!
...science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified. ("Taking Science on Faith," New York Times, Nov. 24, 2007)
"The claim that the assumptions of science are of the same kind as the belief in the Trinity, the Virgin birth, or the existence of God is as wrong as Dr. Spencer's belief that the claim that 'everything evolved from natural processes' is an act of faith."
I'm not sure why he cannot clearly see that what he is denying is really there but it must be a cloud of thick demonic blindness. He has worded himself into a corner so many times already I'm amazed he doesn't have claustrophobia. All kidding aside, this is so silly an argument its painful to listen to if you have the least bit of knowledge about God and Faith. But that is the kind of dishonest coverage true Faith gets from dishonest science.
Everything evolving from the natural is a common belief in Science but it would take much more faith than any religion could muster, natural processes CANNOT be shown in the problem of D.N.A.
How could the information in D.N.A. required for life, ever evolve over Millions of years if ALL the information is needed from the beginning in order for life to exist?
This is an impossible question to answer as science stands today, there's nothing to explain this missing link in common sense among scientist's except FAITH to believe the impossible without evidence to prove their position.
"If the only alternatives are that everything evolved from either supernatural or natural forces, and one is unconvinced by the arguments and evidence presented by those who believe in supernatural forces, then logically the only reasonable belief is that everything evolved from natural forces. Only if the evidence supporting a supernatural being were superior or equal to the evidence and arguments against such a belief, would belief that everything evolved from natural forces be a matter of faith."
My answer to this is "It is superior and it is a matter of faith on both fronts except my Faith belongs to God", the evidence is mounting daily against the natural beginning of anything, creation is shinning brightly with the real answer and science is taking notice slowly but surely! If you could pull apart the double helix, you would see the exposed ends of four different chemicals waving in the air. Those four chemicals, called bases carry the information used to make a body and to keep it running.
Scientists named each of the four bases with a letter, G, A, T or C. All of the letters in one cell make up the human genome, a complete set of instructions for making a person, but how could our D.N.A. evolve a little at a time? It had to be intact completely or human life could not exist, so how did D.N.A.'S information evolve from soup to ape to human?
Scientists named each of the four bases with a letter, G, A, T or C. All of the letters in one cell make up the human genome, a complete set of instructions for making a person, but how could our D.N.A. evolve a little at a time? It had to be intact completely or human life could not exist, so how did D.N.A.'S information evolve from soup to ape to human?
"Thus, our disbelief in a supernatural creator is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists. However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that science is faith-based or that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith."
Wow, this guy is a "double talk freak" first he isn't then he is now he isn't kind of guy, he said all that stuff just to say what they always say, "we don't have faith you do" hogwash at its best!
