Leap of faith - religion or science?

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

I have to go universal. Since there is no such thing as perfect knowledge, all decisions are made with incomplete data.

At some point a "Leaf of Faith" must occur in order to initiate action. Whether you system is based on a metaphysical foundation or a mechanical one, you cannot escape the Leap.

HammerDown · Jul 28, 2021

Instead of "religion" you should have probably gone with "faith" or "spirituality."

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
I have to go universal. Since there is no such thing as perfect knowledge, all decisions are made with incomplete data.

At some point a "Leaf of Faith" must occur in order to initiate action. Whether you system is based on a metaphysical foundation or a mechanical one, you cannot escape the Leap.

I reject your premise.

Religion involves a static doctrine.

Science involves an evolving method per evidence.

Faith is useless.

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
I reject your premise.

Religion involves a static doctrine.

Science involves an evolving method per evidence.

Faith is useless.

Are you saying that science has perfect knowledge and science bases decisions on that?

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

HammerDown said:
Instead of "religion" you should have probably gone with "faith" or "spirituality."

Corrected in 1st post. But, thanks.

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
Are you saying that science has perfect knowledge and science bases decisions on that?

No. "Science" (we) has evolving knowledge as new evidence is presented.

Voltaire · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
I have to go universal. Since there is no such thing as perfect knowledge, all decisions are made with incomplete data.

At some point a "Leaf of Faith" must occur in order to initiate action. Whether you system is based on a metaphysical foundation or a mechanical one, you cannot escape the Leap.

Good question ... My Faith or Spirituality is based on Science (which is imperfect and I am not as educated in Science as I should be). So I will be sleepiness thinking about this tonight.

HammerDown said:
Instead of "religion" you should have probably gone with "faith" or "spirituality."

Tank you ... I used your terminology!!!

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
No. "Science" (we) has evolving knowledge as new evidence is presented.

That is only saying that your decisions can change. Admitting to imperfect data means there is a "Leap of Faith". Not faith in a religious sense, maybe more a faith in the system?

HammerDown · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
Are you saying that science has perfect knowledge and science bases decisions on that?

Oh gawd, he's everywhere.

Peace out.

Rex Racer · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
I reject your premise.

Religion involves a static doctrine.

Science involves an evolving method per evidence.

Faith is useless.

Right. The science of global warming and the science of gender fluidity and the science of homosexuality don't revolve around a static dogma at all :rolleyes2:

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
That is only saying that your decisions can change. Admitting to imperfect data means there is a "Leap of Faith". Not faith in a religious sense, maybe more a faith in the system?

Yes

No

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Rex Racer said:
Right. The science of global warming and the science of gender fluidity and the science of homosexuality don't revolve around a static dogma at all

Correct.

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
No

Explain, please.

Mofo · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
I reject your premise.

Religion involves a static doctrine.

Science involves an evolving method per evidence.

Faith is useless.

True. Three different things: science, faith and religion. Science admits weakness in its quest to uncover answers, but does so in a slow, objective manner. Faith is a scab that is put in place in a knowingly wrong premise, in substitution for the truth. Religion capitalizes upon the faith of those who rely on it for survival to enrich themselves with power or wealth.

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
Explain, please.

There is no "faith" in accepting new data as it arrives. That would be more akin to "acceptance."

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
There is no "faith" in accepting new data as it arrives. That would be more akin to "acceptance."

It is not about the data but what happens after the data. "Leap of Faith" is what happens after the data is assimilated and there is still no certainty.

If a theory has 99.98% certainty "leap of faith" is the other 0.02%

Rex Racer · Jul 28, 2021

Mofo said:
True. Three different things: science, faith and religion. Science admits weakness in its quest to uncover answers, but does so in a slow, objective manner. Faith is a scab that is put in place in a knowingly wrong premise, in substitution for the truth. Religion capitalizes upon the faith of those who rely on it for survival to enrich themselves with power or wealth.

No.

Too much of what passes for science (re: climate and gender) today is a sham that plays the scientific method backwards. I threw our resident water head a bone a couple of hours ago to see if he could admit that a lot of modern science has been corrupted by politics, but he is not too bright and he failed miserably as he usually does.

Consider that the origins of modern science are rooted in the theologians and without the intellectuals that the church educated science as we know would have been set back several hundred years or more. I'm not a religious guy, but I can't sit here and deny the obvious. No one that takes a pragmatic view of modern science has an issue with the contributions of the "church" nor do they just discount faith out of hand as if it is witchcraft.

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
It is not about the data but what happens after the data. "Leap of Faith" is what happens after the data is assimilated and there is still no certainty.

If a theory has 99.98% certainty "leap of faith" is the other 0.02%

That renders the term "leap of faith" meaningless.

"Faith" is hollow. Acceptance of new information is paramount.

Kburjr · Jul 28, 2021

PackJason said:
That renders the term "leap of faith" meaningless.

"Faith" is hollow. Acceptance of new information is paramount.

Tough to talk when we don't even use the same definition. One has "faith" that the sun will rise in the morning. But you don't have the data yet to prove it.

Since science will state that "The sun will rise in the morning". It has taken that "leap of faith". All predictive science makes the leap that the data will repeat.

PackJason · Jul 28, 2021

Kburjr said:
Tough to talk when we don't even use the same definition. One has "faith" that the sun will rise in the morning. But you don't have the data yet to prove it.

Now, I see this line of logic as ridiculous. We have no reason to think the Earth will suddenly refuse to rotate. That doesn't need faith. Faith would be the opposite. We already know from evidence that the world will keep spinning.

Kburjr said:
Since will state that "The sun will rise in the morning". It has taken that "leap of faith". All predictive science makes the leap that the data will repeat.

No. I need no faith, just understanding. If something HUGE happens that could make the Earth stop rotating, we'd all be dead before we could ponder the question.