Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?

[KingandPriest]

In a separate thread, I suggested the following:

This is why most apologist say you need more faith to be an atheist than to believe in God

To this, an agnostic replied:

Yeah, I heard that silly slander before.. I read a book with a title like that, too.
That book was a HUGE disappointment, by the way.

Frank isn't very respected by outsiders to the faith.
Even the title of the book is messed up.

How many atheists have you EVER heard saying that they have "faith in their atheism"?

Would that be many or few?

To this I now ask:

1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?

[KingandPriest]

[Replying to post 70 by Divine Insight]

You haven't provided any support for your opinions at all. In fact, you seem to be totally ignoring the overwhelming importance that scientists interpret data. And it is this data in which they place their trust.

We are only 7 pages into this thread, and you seem to have already forgotten what was presented, and your own comments about what was presented.

Lets take a stroll down memory lane to a few posts in this thread. I wrote about a generally accepted theory, age of the sun:

Really, can you provide the empirical evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt the composition of the earths core is mostly iron.

Do you have empirical evidence that can prove this beyond reasonable doubt?

What about empirical evidence that proves the age of the sun is exactly 4.6 billion years old? There is empirical evidence that supports the age of the sun being 4.6 billion years old ± 1-5% margin of error depending on the method used. Using the most conservative margin of error, this means the sun could be as old as 4.646 billion years old or as young as 4.554 years old. This date range has a problem because it includes the possibility that the Earth is older than the sun. The date range of the earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).

Age of Sun between 4.554 - 4.646 billion years old
Age of Earth between 4.49 - 4.59 billion years old

There is overlap between these two dates. The older date for the sun was chosen because it was assumed that the sun came first. There is no empirical evidence to support that the sun was formed first. Just an assumption made by cosmologist.

Re: Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?:Post 17


I also presented evidence of a generally accepted theory of the composition of the earths core:

Based on the relative prevalence of various chemical elements in the Solar System, the theory of planetary formation, and constraints imposed or implied by the chemistry of the rest of the Earth's volume, the inner core is believed to consist primarily of a nickel-iron alloy. The iron-nickel alloy under core pressure is denser than the core, implying the presence of light elements in the core (e.g. silicon, oxygen, sulfur).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inner_core#Composition

I then refuted your argument that the nebular hypothesis is a confirmed "Nebular theory in Re: Do nonbelievers or non-theists have faith?:Post 34

All of this was to point out that some theories are assumed or presumed to be correct based on indirect data. Claiming a theory is true on the basis of empirical evidence is different than saying it should be accepted on the basis of data. If this were the case, then people could argue that nature and the cosmos are data which support the existence of God. Basing a theory on data alone and not empirical evidence can lead to a false conclusion. A mathematical calculation is data. Does a mathematical calculation prove a theory is correct. A mathematical calculations gives us data, but not empirical evidence.

The problem with theological faith is that there is no data to support it. To the contrary all that exists are ancient stories that are extremely self-contradictory, and even utterly absurd. For example, these stories claim to be about an all-wise intelligent creator, yet these stories have this creator behaving in extremely ignorant, unintelligent and immature ways. The Biblical creator is even described as being jealous, vengeful, and is quick to harm anyone who refuses to obey his ultimate authority. That's actually an extreme contradiction in character to the idea of a supposedly intelligent, sane, loving "fatherly" type of God.

So there isn't even any comparison at all between the faith/trust that scientists give to the data they can observe and measure, versus the faith/trust that theists give to ancient absurd and extremely contradictory fables for which there is no supporting data at all.

There is still vast amounts of data today about various miracles, prophecies and casting out of demons.

All of these are different data points to which a follower of Jesus Christ can point to.

By no other name has an evil spirit ever been cast out of a person. Only by the name of Jesus Christ, the son of the living God. There is documented data of evil spirits possessing people. Since you are a self proclaimed witch, I am sure you would attest to the validity of spiritual beings inhabiting people.

So I would suggest that you equivalency of these two types of faith/trust, is either based on extreme denial on your behalf, or it is an outright attempt to play semantic games in order to bring science down to the meaningless level of theology.

And again, how would that help theology anyway? All your argument attempts to do is to say that science is just as meaningless as theology. And that they both stand on precisely equal ground in terms of faith/trust, which is clearly false anyway.

Using faith and trust as synonyms does not require extreme denial. It actually requires a simple acknowledgement of the English language.

Use any thesaurus and look up the word faith. The word trust will be one of the top responses. Do all of the thesauruses around the world have extreme denial as well?

My goal is not to "help theology" but to point out that to be an atheist requires more faith than to be theist. This was my only point in the OP. I wanted to confirm this statement by showing the amount of faith used outside of a religious context by atheists and other non-theists.

The key here is that only some scientific "theories" are not supported by direct empirical evidence. And I'll be the first to open admit (and even scold the scientific community itself) that they use the term "theory" far too loosely, often times when they should be using the term "Hypothesis" instead. A perfect example is "String Theory". No scientist actually believes that String Theory has been scientifically confirmed to be true, or that there even exists any direct evidence observable to confirm String Theory. Therefore they should be calling it "String Hypothesis" instead.

However, there is a reason they do this. Science doesn't claim that every "Theory" in science is backed up by observable evidence. They use the term "theory" to simply mean "explanation" and they feel that String Theory offers many explanations for things even though there is no observable evidence to back these explanations up yet. So many of them do indeed have a "religious type of faith" that String Theory may someday be demonstrated to be true based upon actual observable evidence.

So you agree that some scientific theories are not back up by empirical evidence.

No one ever claimed scientist have a "religious type of faith". All I claim is that these theories which are generally accepted despite empirical evidence are done by faith. I then contrast that to claims made by the bible which are generally accepted despite a lack of empirical evidence. Both are claims/theories that lack empirical evidence and are generally accepted as true. I gave 2 examples of generally accepted scientific theories that fall into this category: age of the sun, and composition of the core of the Earth.

But the KEY here is that science in general does not proclaim that String Theory has been confirmed, nor do they claim that this represents scientific "Truth".

However, in the generally accepted scientific theories such as the theory of Evolution, and Special Relativity, and even the Big Bang, the observable evidence is overwhelming, these "theories" could today be called "Physical Laws" actually they are that well confirmed by actual observable evidence.

So you are wrong to suggest that scientific theories are based on the same lack of evidence that theology is based on.

That's just flat out wrong. It's a misrepresentation of what science actually knows to be true.

I never claimed string theory or physical laws fall into this category. I gave two specific examples of generally accepted theories. I only claimed that some generally accepted scientific theories lack empirical evidence just like some generally accepted spiritual claims in the bible lack supporting empirical evidence.

String theory is not a generally accepted theory, so I am not even sure why you bring this into the debate.

I have studied Christianity and related Biblical religions for decades. I hold that there is no "foundation" to Christianity. There is absolutely no good reason to believe that these Hebrew fables are true.

If you truly want to discuss "The Foundation for Belief in the Hebrew Bible", I suggest you start a thread on that topic and present the evidence you believe constitutes that foundation. I will gladly reply to that topic with my explanations for why I find your reasons to be unconvincing. And I'm certain that I will find them to be unconvincing.

Nice try in changing the topic. I wrote about faith being the foundation for Christianity and you want to change that to "The Foundation for Belief in the Hebrew Bible". Two different topics.

All spiritual claims are built upon the concepts behind the word faith.

But instead of addressing that topic (which you know would be extremely problematic, you have chosen to instead try to argue that the scientists have no better reasons to believe what they believe than theists do, and that argument is simply false.

Science is based on DATA (measurable, observable data)

Theology is based on ancient stories that have no credibility at all, they can even be shown to be extremely self-contradictory. And their supposedly all-wise supreme creator behaves more like the male-chauvinistic barbarians who wrote those stories. It's totally unconvincing and has not meaningful foundation at all.

Not all DATA is the same. I can present DATA of a person who was healed of an affliction after being prayed for or after a fellow Christian laid hands on the sick person. The data of how quickly the person recovers from the affliction may be measured and observed, but this will still not prove to some that God was the cause of the miracle.

So not all data is equal.

Scientists place faith in observable measurable data.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me. Even if this faith may actually be misplaced, it is still faith.

Theologians place their faith in ancient barbaric self-contradictory tales of an imagined jealous God character for which there exists no evidence for at all.

How can you claim that these two types of "faith" are in any way equivalent?

Your opinion of what theologians place their faith in does not match reality. Theologians place their faith in recorded history, observable data and in some cases measurable data.

Observable data may be in the form of observing miracles take place in the lives of people around them or observed miracles during a missions trip to an oppressed region around the world.

Measurable data can come in the form of measuring individuals cliams of answered vs unanswered prayers. Measurable data can also come in the form of documented cases like that of George Muller who founded and built multiple orphanages by prayer alone. It was documented that he did not ask for money, food or help from other people but only prayed to God. Food was provided, supplies for buildings and repairs were donated without any solicitation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_M%C3%BCller

Observed and measurable data.

I suggest that you are wrong about scientific theories that are generally accepted that have no direct empirical evidence. You are probably thinking about scientific "theories" that are NOT generally accepted to be TRUE. Like String Theory for example. It may appear to have been generally accepted, but its actually being accepted as a promising hypothesis not as a proven scientific theory.

And if you argue that the generally accepted theories of science, such as Evolution, Special Relativity, and the Big Bang are not based on direct evidence than I would argue with you on that claim wholeheartedly.

Notice I never argued against Special relativity or the Big Bang theory. There are enough people debating evolution on this forum, so I don't feel the need to make that argument here.

I presented two generally accepted theories which you wish to ignore. Fine. Just don't say I didn't back my claims up with evidence. You just want to ignore the evidence because you cannot dispute it.

I would agree with your last statement, but I have a feeling most if not all atheist would not. Belief that God is, is on the same rational grounds as belief that God does not exist. Most atheist would argue that they do not "believe" God does not exist. They would assert they lack belief in the existence of God. Since they claim a lack of belief, the two are no longer on the same rational ground. If atheists claimed to believe that God does not exist, this would place their beliefs on the same level as a person who does believe in God. It is the lack of belief which separates the two positions.

Actually I disagree. Believing that a God does not exist is quite rational. If there is no evidence that a God exists, then believing that it doesn't exist is rational.

On the other hand believing that a God exists when the is no evidence to support that belief is irrational. And to continue to believe that a very specific God exist when the evidence against it is overwhelming is even more irrational.

In the case of the Biblical God that evidence against that particular God is overwhelming.

So let me get this straight. I agree with you. And then you disagree with me agreeing with you. Does that mean you disagree with yourself?

You certainly haven't convinced me of your foundation.

You need to explain to me why I should place the same "faith" in ancient barbaric rumors of a jealous God as I would place in things I can actually observe and measure to be real.

Would you like to address this challenge?

You have a false conclusion like many on this forum that my responsibilty is to convince you of something. My only responsibility is to proclaim and explain. Whether you are convinced or not, is not my burden.

If I make a claim, and then provide supporting evidence, my job is done. If you dispute my evidence, then I must either provide additional evidence or convince you that the evidence is genuine. The only challenge to the evidence I presented was when you claimed the nebular hypothesis was a confirmed nebular theory. I provided links showing this to be an error on your part, and you dropped your assertion that the nebular hypothesis is a confirmed theory.

I can't explain why you should place faith in a faulty opinion about the bible or why you should place faith in scientific theories which have not been proven correct.

[Bust Nak]

So by the standard of empiricism, my claim is validated.

There are many theories which are supported by faith and faith alone.

Was that ever in question? I granted you that much all the way back on page 2. Where we disagree is whether scientific claims like "age of the sun vs age of the earth" are statement of faith.

I showed how nebular hypothesis is not supported by direct empirical evidence (not sufficient as defined by empiricism) and is thus considered faith even by your definition.

That's clearly false. It is not a faith statement because it is sufficient as defined by empiricism. You've already concede that when you stated it was the scientific consensus.

[JLB32168]

They have faith in the belief that man is able to be moral and good w/o any supernatural influence.

[FinalEnigma]

I would like to add my concurrence to a point that was made much earlier in this thread, and to elaborate upon that point.

The point was made that equating faith in science to faith in God is perhaps-unintentional equivocation, though there are some underlying equivalencies.

If you google 'faith definition' and look at the google-provided result, I believe it could be useful to elucidate the distinction.

noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Regarding the charge of equivocation: When an atheist says that a Christian has faith, he/she is referring to definition 2, and I would believe this to be something upon which the Christian would agree.

However, when the Christian responds by saying that the atheist also has faith, the atheist denies it. What they mean by this denial is that they do not have faith which would fit definition 2. They do not mean that they lack faith which would fit definition 1. I believe this assessment to be correct.



One could quite reasonably say 'I have faith in science', without invoking the second meaning (even if you assume a more general application of the second meaning which could theoretically apply to science). In fact, in order to establish a more concrete position, I will do so:

I have faith in science.

But I would like to break down the meaning of that statement, in order that I not be misunderstood. When I say 'faith', I mean explicitly the first of the above definitions for faith. That is, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." and I mean it in reference to a couple of aspects of the word science.

1) I mean that I have trust that the scientific process is an effective model for improving our understanding of the universe.

2) I mean that I have trust that the assembled knowledge of the greatest human minds which have endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process is more accurate than my, or any neophyte, knowledge and understanding of the same. (putting aside for the moment any instance where I would consider myself to be an expert in the given field)

These are both wholly rational positions. This takes us now to the heart of the subject at hand; Why do I believe those two things? and how does that method of coming to a conclusion on the matter relate to faith?

as to my statement 1). It would be undeniably foolish to refuse this position. It is evidenced in every aspect of our lives and at all times.
If science was not an effective model for improving our understanding of the universe, it would not allow us to make effective predictions, and it would not allow us to develop new technologies.
The clothes that I put on every day are only able to be manufactured because individuals employing the process of science discovered the properties of the materials, the methods of producing said materials, and the steps of the manufacturing process which allowed it's creation.
The same is true for the computer upon which I type this very sentence, for the automobile within which I drove to work this morning, and the plastic cup from which I just sipped water.
You see omnipresent evidence of statement 1 hundreds or thousands of times per day every day of your life.

In short,
"It works, bitches."
-Richard Dawkins


As for statement 2, "that the assembled knowledge of the greatest human minds which have endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process is more accurate than my, or any neophyte, knowledge and understanding of the same." that is simply a matter of reason and humility.
Reason in that it would seem to me to be self-evident than the assembled knowledge and learning of individuals who have extensively studied a subject would exceed the knowledge on an individual who has not.
Humility in that I do not believe that I can exceed the knowledge and understanding of these individuals upon a subject matter which they have studied extensively and I have not, and humility also in admitting that there are very few subjects on which I would consider myself a foremost expert.



All of this being said, I believe that it is rational for an atheist to state to a Christian, "You have faith, and I do not," because the atheist is undoubtedly referring to the definition 2 of faith, as quoted above.

[KingandPriest]

First off, I want to say I appreciate your well reasoned argument, and the civility in which you present your reasoning.

I would like to add my concurrence to a point that was made much earlier in this thread, and to elaborate upon that point.

The point was made that equating faith in science to faith in God is perhaps-unintentional equivocation, though there are some underlying equivalencies.

If you google 'faith definition' and look at the google-provided result, I believe it could be useful to elucidate the distinction.

noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Regarding the charge of equivocation: When an atheist says that a Christian has faith, he/she is referring to definition 2, and I would believe this to be something upon which the Christian would agree.

To this point, I would disagree. There are various claims of faith made by Christians which adhere to definition 2 as presented above, and there are also claims of faith which adhere to definition 1. Having faith in the historicity of the bible and Hebrew people would fall more in line with definition 1 than 2. We have extra-biblical records that support much of the historical timeline of the Jewish people. The extra-biblical record of Canaanite migration into Egypt and then out of Egypt, the record of captivity by Babylon/Assyria, the rebuilding of the temple after years in captivity, the rule of Rome in Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and resulting scatter of the Jewish people. All of these are examples which allows a person to have faith (definition 1) in the historicity of the bible.

However, when the Christian responds by saying that the atheist also has faith, the atheist denies it. What they mean by this denial is that they do not have faith which would fit definition 2. They do not mean that they lack faith which would fit definition 1. I believe this assessment to be correct.

Agreed, atheist does not claim to have faith according to definition 2, only according to definition 1.

One could quite reasonably say 'I have faith in science', without invoking the second meaning (even if you assume a more general application of the second meaning which could theoretically apply to science). In fact, in order to establish a more concrete position, I will do so:

I have faith in science.

The underlying question is what is your faith based upon. Definition 1 does not state the basis for one's complete confidence. I can make a statement that I have complete trust or confidence that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world. I could also say I have faith that chocolate ice cream is the best ice cream in the world. Without sufficient basis for this claim, it could be regarded as nothing more than opinion or conjecture.

So when an atheist claims to have faith in science, are they espousing complete trust or confidence on the basis of incomplete information?

But I would like to break down the meaning of that statement, in order that I not be misunderstood. When I say 'faith', I mean explicitly the first of the above definitions for faith. That is, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." and I mean it in reference to a couple of aspects of the word science.

1) I mean that I have trust that the scientific process is an effective model for improving our understanding of the universe.

In your case, you have made a clear distinction between having faith in science (complete trust with no defined basis) and the scientific process/method. Your statement above clarifies that your complete trust is based on the scientific method. I have no qualms with this clarification, but to be clear, science (as a whole) is not the scientific method. Not all generally accepted theories strictly adhere to the scientific method. The most outlandish theories are held to a higher standard and go through more scrutiny than others. This is why I have attempted to demonstrate that the faith (definition 1) used to support some generally accepted scientific theories is the same faith (definition 1) used by Christians to trust the bible.

2) I mean that I have trust that the assembled knowledge of the greatest human minds which have endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process is more accurate than my, or any neophyte, knowledge and understanding of the same. (putting aside for the moment any instance where I would consider myself to be an expert in the given field)

Is the trust placed in archaeologist, historians and biblical scholars similar to the trust placed in those who have "endeavored to study and understand a given field"?

Or is your trust limited to those who use the scientific process outlined above?

These are both wholly rational positions. This takes us now to the heart of the subject at hand; Why do I believe those two things? and how does that method of coming to a conclusion on the matter relate to faith?

as to my statement 1). It would be undeniably foolish to refuse this position. It is evidenced in every aspect of our lives and at all times.
If science was not an effective model for improving our understanding of the universe, it would not allow us to make effective predictions, and it would not allow us to develop new technologies.

I am in no way arguing against the notion that the knowledge gained through study of various phenomenon with the scientific method, is an effective tool for improving our understanding of the universe. As a whole, science is a systematic approach to studying and gaining knowledge about a particular subject. We depend on the knowledge gained from these systematic studies to further our understanding and develop new ways of solving problems.

I don't think most Christians would argue with the above statement. There are even passages in the bible that support a persons desire to gain knowledge and to gain wisdom.

Proverbs 4:5 "Get wisdom! Get an understanding!"
Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is of utmost importance, therefore get wisdom, and with all your effort work to acquire understanding."

The clothes that I put on every day are only able to be manufactured because individuals employing the process of science discovered the properties of the materials, the methods of producing said materials, and the steps of the manufacturing process which allowed it's creation.

Humans have been manufacturing clothes long before "the process of science" discovered the properties of the materials. Not the best example you could have used here.

The same is true for the computer upon which I type this very sentence, for the automobile within which I drove to work this morning, and the plastic cup from which I just sipped water.

These are far better examples than manufacturing clothes.

You see omnipresent evidence of statement 1 hundreds or thousands of times per day every day of your life.

In short,
"It works, bitches."
-Richard Dawkins

I disagree that we see omnipresent evidence of the scientific method. If so we would see omnipresent evidence of the failures as well as the successes of the method.

What we see omnipresent evidence of is only the claims the scientific method can validate as correct. To see evidence of the scientific method in our every day lives we would need to see both sides of the coin, not just the ones we got right.

Does the scientific method work? Yes. It works quite well at answering questions about how a phenomenon occurred. The method is very good and filtering out poor or evidence explanations for how something occurred. The scientific method is not as robust at answering questions related to why. In some cases, the question of why is strictly rejected as unimportant. With some observations of natural phenomenon, the question of why is not important and is fairly neglected.

For example, if the scientific method can tell us how water evaporates and forms clouds that later produce rain, it need not concern itself with questions about why evaporation works the way it does.

In contrast, when the scientific method is used to describe how a person is formed or how the universe is formed, the question of why becomes a question that is just as vital to the question of how. Neglecting the question of why here shows that the scientific method is limited. So yes it works as Dawkins wrote, but only in a limited capacity. For those questions the scientific method cannot or refuses to answer, humans use faith.

As for statement 2, "that the assembled knowledge of the greatest human minds which have endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process is more accurate than my, or any neophyte, knowledge and understanding of the same." that is simply a matter of reason and humility.
Reason in that it would seem to me to be self-evident than the assembled knowledge and learning of individuals who have extensively studied a subject would exceed the knowledge on an individual who has not.
Humility in that I do not believe that I can exceed the knowledge and understanding of these individuals upon a subject matter which they have studied extensively and I have not, and humility also in admitting that there are very few subjects on which I would consider myself a foremost expert.

Can Christians demonstrate the same humility and rely on those who endeavored to study and understand claims related to spirituality and the immaterial world?

Since modern science is focused on the material world with the aid of the scientific method, can we rely on those who study the immaterial world?

All of this being said, I believe that it is rational for an atheist to state to a Christian, "You have faith, and I do not," because the atheist is undoubtedly referring to the definition 2 of faith, as quoted above.

I believe I have agreed above that atheist do not proclaim to have faith in accordance with definition 2.

[FinalEnigma]

First off, I want to say I appreciate your well reasoned argument, and the civility in which you present your reasoning.

I would like to add my concurrence to a point that was made much earlier in this thread, and to elaborate upon that point.

The point was made that equating faith in science to faith in God is perhaps-unintentional equivocation, though there are some underlying equivalencies.

If you google 'faith definition' and look at the google-provided result, I believe it could be useful to elucidate the distinction.

noun
noun: faith

1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More
optimism, hopefulness, hope
"he justified his boss's faith in him"
antonyms: mistrust
2.
strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine
"she gave her life for her faith"

Regarding the charge of equivocation: When an atheist says that a Christian has faith, he/she is referring to definition 2, and I would believe this to be something upon which the Christian would agree.

To this point, I would disagree. There are various claims of faith made by Christians which adhere to definition 2 as presented above, and there are also claims of faith which adhere to definition 1. Having faith in the historicity of the bible and Hebrew people would fall more in line with definition 1 than 2. We have extra-biblical records that support much of the historical timeline of the Jewish people. The extra-biblical record of Canaanite migration into Egypt and then out of Egypt, the record of captivity by Babylon/Assyria, the rebuilding of the temple after years in captivity, the rule of Rome in Jerusalem, the destruction of the temple and resulting scatter of the Jewish people. All of these are examples which allows a person to have faith (definition 1) in the historicity of the bible.

Allow me to clarify. I did not say, nor was I referring to an atheist making the claim that a Christian ONLY has faith fitting definition 2. The more complete statement regarding the claim of the atheist would be that a Christian has faith which fits definitions 1, and also faith which fits definition 2, while an atheist only has faith which fits definition 1.

One could quite reasonably say 'I have faith in science', without invoking the second meaning (even if you assume a more general application of the second meaning which could theoretically apply to science). In fact, in order to establish a more concrete position, I will do so:

I have faith in science.

The underlying question is what is your faith based upon. Definition 1 does not state the basis for one's complete confidence.

No, it does not, though to be fair, it is implied by distinction from definition 2 that it relates to proof. But that it does not is why I explained that aspect below.

But I would like to break down the meaning of that statement, in order that I not be misunderstood. When I say 'faith', I mean explicitly the first of the above definitions for faith. That is, "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." and I mean it in reference to a couple of aspects of the word science.

1) I mean that I have trust that the scientific process is an effective model for improving our understanding of the universe.

In your case, you have made a clear distinction between having faith in science (complete trust with no defined basis) and the scientific process/method.

No, I've made no distinction there. I explained that when I make the statement 'I have faith in science' it's an incomplete explanation, and requires the further explanation which I went on to give in order to be complete.

Your statement above clarifies that your complete trust is based on the scientific method. I have no qualms with this clarification, but to be clear, science (as a whole) is not the scientific method.

Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I specifically said 'scientific process' rather than 'scientific method'.

Not all generally accepted theories strictly adhere to the scientific method. The most outlandish theories are held to a higher standard and go through more scrutiny than others. This is why I have attempted to demonstrate that the faith (definition 1) used to support some generally accepted scientific theories is the same faith (definition 1) used by Christians to trust the bible.

Mmmm. I don't believe you've succeeded, but I will explain further down, as something else you say relates (1).

Incidentally, could you give a few examples of generally accepted scientific theories which do not adhere to the scientific method? More as a question of curiosity than argument on my part - I do not assert that you are incorrect, but I would like to see evidence.

2) I mean that I have trust that the assembled knowledge of the greatest human minds which have endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process is more accurate than my, or any neophyte, knowledge and understanding of the same. (putting aside for the moment any instance where I would consider myself to be an expert in the given field)

Is the trust placed in archaeologist, historians and biblical scholars similar to the trust placed in those who have "endeavored to study and understand a given field"?

Or is your trust limited to those who use the scientific process outlined above?

to be sure, I did say "endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process". I feel that your incomplete quote could lead to misunderstandings.

To respond to your question, the further a field moves from the hard sciences and toward soft sciences, the less implicit trust I have in it's findings.

as such, a few fields could be placed on distinct levels of trust as follows based on my assessment of what I know of the processes and reliability of findings:

Level 1
Physics. Chemistry.

Level 2
Biology. Medicine. (The complexity, variance, and indeterminacy of biological organisms leads to great difficulty in reaching higher levels of certainty, particularly with regards to function.)

Level 3
Archeology (lack of data can lead some individuals to unwarranted conclusions)

Level 4
History (Same as archaeology - lack of data can lead to unwarranted assumptions. Also fraught with bias)

Level 5
Biblical scholastics (same as history, with perhaps more severe issues of bias. also attempts to address issues which are outside the scope of it's evidences)

These are both wholly rational positions. This takes us now to the heart of the subject at hand; Why do I believe those two things? and how does that method of coming to a conclusion on the matter relate to faith?

as to my statement 1). It would be undeniably foolish to refuse this position. It is evidenced in every aspect of our lives and at all times.
If science was not an effective model for improving our understanding of the universe, it would not allow us to make effective predictions, and it would not allow us to develop new technologies.

I am in no way arguing against the notion that the knowledge gained through study of various phenomenon with the scientific method, is an effective tool for improving our understanding of the universe. As a whole, science is a systematic approach to studying and gaining knowledge about a particular subject. We depend on the knowledge gained from these systematic studies to further our understanding and develop new ways of solving problems.

I don't think most Christians would argue with the above statement. There are even passages in the bible that support a persons desire to gain knowledge and to gain wisdom.

Proverbs 4:5 "Get wisdom! Get an understanding!"
Proverbs 4:7 "Wisdom is of utmost importance, therefore get wisdom, and with all your effort work to acquire understanding."

Certainly! I did not mean to imply that you or anyone else holds anti-scientific positions. I apologize if I did so. I was merely presenting an argument to show how overwhelmingly strong is the evidence for the efficacy of science - to the point where the rational decision is to allow a model such great and proven efficacy to inform your behavior and understanding of the universe.

The clothes that I put on every day are only able to be manufactured because individuals employing the process of science discovered the properties of the materials, the methods of producing said materials, and the steps of the manufacturing process which allowed it's creation.

Humans have been manufacturing clothes long before "the process of science" discovered the properties of the materials.

Sure, but the clothes I am wearing are most likely (I'm not stripping at work to check the tags :p ) of composite materials, including some which were not part of initial human clothing manufacture, and were most certainly manufactured with a process which was technologically impossible before the advent of science.
But this is a minor point. It was only an example.

The same is true for the computer upon which I type this very sentence, for the automobile within which I drove to work this morning, and the plastic cup from which I just sipped water.

These are far better examples than manufacturing clothes.

You see omnipresent evidence of statement 1 hundreds or thousands of times per day every day of your life.

In short,
"It works, bitches."
-Richard Dawkins

I disagree that we see omnipresent evidence of the scientific method. If so we would see omnipresent evidence of the failures as well as the successes of the method.

My statement was that we see omnipresent evidence for the efficacy of the scientific method.

We do not need to see the failures of a method to determine it's ability to generate successful results. If it generates successful results, then clearly it is capable of doing so.

What we see omnipresent evidence of is only the claims the scientific method can validate as correct. To see evidence of the scientific method in our every day lives we would need to see both sides of the coin, not just the ones we got right.

Ahh. Here is a point of note.

Science is self-correcting, and does not make truth claims. In that sense, if you wish to be pedantic, science is never factually incorrect.

Science produces models which attempt to explain aspects of the universe. At any given time, the accepted model to explain a phenomenon is the model for which we have the most evidence. Science produces models, it does not make truth claims. When a better model is devised to explain a phenomenon, the previous model is discarded.

Does the scientific method work? Yes. It works quite well at answering questions about how a phenomenon occurred. The method is very good and filtering out poor or evidence explanations for how something occurred. The scientific method is not as robust at answering questions related to why. In some cases, the question of why is strictly rejected as unimportant. With some observations of natural phenomenon, the question of why is not important and is fairly neglected.

For example, if the scientific method can tell us how water evaporates and forms clouds that later produce rain, it need not concern itself with questions about why evaporation works the way it does.

In contrast, when the scientific method is used to describe how a person is formed or how the universe is formed, the question of why becomes a question that is just as vital to the question of how. Neglecting the question of why here shows that the scientific method is limited. So yes it works as Dawkins wrote, but only in a limited capacity. For those questions the scientific method cannot or refuses to answer, humans use faith.

There are some questions which are within the scope of scientific inquiry, and some which are not.

It is true that there are questions which science cannot address for which there are other methods of attempting to answer. However, the legitimacy of these other methods can be called into question.

It is a different thing to base your understanding on the findings of science than to base your understanding on things which are not science.

these other methods which you can use to attempt to address questions are non-evidentiary. To believe in something which is non-evidentiary is quite different from believing in something which is evidentiary.

As for statement 2, "that the assembled knowledge of the greatest human minds which have endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process is more accurate than my, or any neophyte, knowledge and understanding of the same." that is simply a matter of reason and humility.
Reason in that it would seem to me to be self-evident than the assembled knowledge and learning of individuals who have extensively studied a subject would exceed the knowledge on an individual who has not.
Humility in that I do not believe that I can exceed the knowledge and understanding of these individuals upon a subject matter which they have studied extensively and I have not, and humility also in admitting that there are very few subjects on which I would consider myself a foremost expert.

Can Christians demonstrate the same humility and rely on those who endeavored to study and understand claims related to spirituality and the immaterial world?

Since modern science is focused on the material world with the aid of the scientific method, can we rely on those who study the immaterial world?

No, science is focused on the empirical world.
The difference between relying on the models created by the scientific process and relying on claims by people who study the immaterial world is that, is that science is reproducible and has predictive capability. I do not need to personally verify every scientific model because I can know that others have.

In theory, a scientist can show you a model, how it works, and that it works.

A theologian cannot.

Science works.
Theology does not. Theology simply is.

It is very much a different thing to have trust in the veracity of something which can be shown to be accurate, has been proven countless times, you can verify yourself, and which has utterly transformed every aspect of human life...than it is to simply have belief in something.

[Divine Insight]

There is still vast amounts of data today about various miracles, prophecies and casting out of demons.

Apparently this is your problem right here. You are confusing unsubstantiated hearsay rumors with "data".

There is absolutely no data at all concerning any verifiable miracles, prophecies, or the casting out of demons.

Zero, zilch, none. Period.

Ancient hearsay rumors do not qualify as "data" of what those rumors claim.

So now we know why it is that you can't differentiate between religious mythology and science. Apparently you you don't understand the difference between actual verifiable data and mere hearsay gossip that cannot be verified.

You just posted a really long post attempting to argue that science is based on "faith" no different from your religion. But the single quote at the beginning of this post demonstrates why your claims are false.

Moreover, you are also confusing faith and data. Science is actually based on verifiable data. The religious fables you are attempting to support are based on unverifiable hearsay rumors.

So if we want to speak now about who places faith in what things become much more clear.

Scientists place their faith in verifiable data.

Theists place their faith in unverifiable hearsay rumors.

Moreover, many of the claims contained within the Bible can be shown to be absolutely positively false. Not merely unverifiable, but provably false.

For example, the Bible claims that those who believe on Jesus can drink poison and it will not harm them.

If you claim to believe on Jesus would you care to step forward and drink a glass of lethal poison to demonstrate the validity of the hearsay rumors contained within your religious dogma?

If you TRUST in this "data" then you should be willing to step forward and demonstrate the truth of this "data" by drinking a glass of lethal poison to demonstrate the truth of the data in which you claim to believe and place your faith.

My guess is that you would either refuse to demonstrate the truth of the scriptures you claim to have faith in, or you would start an argument for why all the so-called "data" in your scriptures cannot be trusted and is not worthy of even your own faith. Or you would give some other excuse for not showing complete faith in the dogma you claim to support.

Or, if you genuinely have faith in these ancient scriptures you might actually drink the poison to try to prove your claim. Then what should we do after we bury your body? Should we conclude that you were right or wrong to claim that hearsay rumors qualify as "verifiable data"?

Why not face the TRUTH?

We can actually prove the Bible to be false. It's actually quite easy.

And look what you would need to do to "prove" it right. You would need to drink a glass of lethal poison and be unharmed by it.

I don't believe you have a valid argument for your position.

[KingandPriest]

Allow me to clarify. I did not say, nor was I referring to an atheist making the claim that a Christian ONLY has faith fitting definition 2. The more complete statement regarding the claim of the atheist would be that a Christian has faith which fits definitions 1, and also faith which fits definition 2, while an atheist only has faith which fits definition 1.

Thanks for the clarification. We are in agreement here.

Your statement above clarifies that your complete trust is based on the scientific method. I have no qualms with this clarification, but to be clear, science (as a whole) is not the scientific method.

Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I specifically said 'scientific process' rather than 'scientific method'.

Can you explain the difference between scientific process as opposed to scientific method?

If you meant to demonstrate a difference between the two, I apologize for making an assumption that they were one and the same. Sometimes people used the term scientific process and scientific method interchangeably. I thought you were doing the same. If I was wrong, please correct and clarify.

Not all generally accepted theories strictly adhere to the scientific method. The most outlandish theories are held to a higher standard and go through more scrutiny than others. This is why I have attempted to demonstrate that the faith (definition 1) used to support some generally accepted scientific theories is the same faith (definition 1) used by Christians to trust the bible.

Mmmm. I don't believe you've succeeded, but I will explain further down, as something else you say relates (1).

Incidentally, could you give a few examples of generally accepted scientific theories which do not adhere to the scientific method? More as a question of curiosity than argument on my part - I do not assert that you are incorrect, but I would like to see evidence.

I wrote about a generally accepted theory, age of the sun and composition of the Earth's core back in Post 17.

My argument was not that these theories did not follow the scientific method, but that they rely on the faith that the underlying assumptions are correct.

If you recall the last question in the OP was about whether or not some generally accepted scientific theories were statements of faith.

A theory can follow the scientific method and still lack direct empirical evidence that proves the theory to be correct. The theory is believed to be true or accepted because it is often the best theory we have to date.

Is the trust placed in archaeologist, historians and biblical scholars similar to the trust placed in those who have "endeavored to study and understand a given field"?

Or is your trust limited to those who use the scientific process outlined above?

to be sure, I did say "endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process". I feel that your incomplete quote could lead to misunderstandings.

To respond to your question, the further a field moves from the hard sciences and toward soft sciences, the less implicit trust I have in it's findings.

as such, a few fields could be placed on distinct levels of trust as follows based on my assessment of what I know of the processes and reliability of findings:

Level 1
Physics. Chemistry.

Level 2
Biology. Medicine. (The complexity, variance, and indeterminacy of biological organisms leads to great difficulty in reaching higher levels of certainty, particularly with regards to function.)

Level 3
Archeology (lack of data can lead some individuals to unwarranted conclusions)

Level 4
History (Same as archaeology - lack of data can lead to unwarranted assumptions. Also fraught with bias)

Level 5
Biblical scholastics (same as history, with perhaps more severe issues of bias. also attempts to address issues which are outside the scope of it's evidences)

If I follow your heirarchy of faith, you would place the highest amount of faith in the sciences of physics and chemistry, and little to no faith in biblical scholastics.

Doesn't this hierarchy validate my initial claim in the OP that one needs to have more faith or a higher level of faith to be an atheist than a believer. Even if we limited faith to the definition 1, it can then be proven that a non-theists who has faith in science will have a higher level of confidence (faith) in their position. More faith to be an atheist than a believer.

These are far better examples than manufacturing clothes.

You see omnipresent evidence of statement 1 hundreds or thousands of times per day every day of your life.

In short,
"It works, bitches."
-Richard Dawkins

I disagree that we see omnipresent evidence of the scientific method. If so we would see omnipresent evidence of the failures as well as the successes of the method.

My statement was that we see omnipresent evidence for the efficacy of the scientific method.

We do not need to see the failures of a method to determine it's ability to generate successful results. If it generates successful results, then clearly it is capable of doing so.

Ah, that changes things a bit. Arguing for the efficacy of the scientific method clears things up.

What we see omnipresent evidence of is only the claims the scientific method can validate as correct. To see evidence of the scientific method in our every day lives we would need to see both sides of the coin, not just the ones we got right.

Ahh. Here is a point of note.

Science is self-correcting, and does not make truth claims. In that sense, if you wish to be pedantic, science is never factually incorrect.

Science produces models which attempt to explain aspects of the universe. At any given time, the accepted model to explain a phenomenon is the model for which we have the most evidence. Science produces models, it does not make truth claims. When a better model is devised to explain a phenomenon, the previous model is discarded.

Wow, what a bold statement, "Science if never factually incorrect".
Lets see, science is self correcting and never factually incorrect at the same time. So what is getting corrected, if science is never factually incorrect?

Lets take the composition of earths core for example. As of today, the composition of the core of the earth is presented as mostly iron and nickel. In many books and online resources this is presented as a "fact" and not a theory. Now lets say in the future we are able to drill or sample the earths core and find out that it is composed of a new element we did not previously know of. This "fact" as recorded in books and other sources would need to be corrected.

Now if you wish to argue that the composition of the earths core is not a fact, I would agree with you. It is however a generally accepted theory which is believed to be true if you accept the underlying assumptions as correct.

Does the scientific method work? Yes. It works quite well at answering questions about how a phenomenon occurred. The method is very good and filtering out poor or evidence explanations for how something occurred. The scientific method is not as robust at answering questions related to why. In some cases, the question of why is strictly rejected as unimportant. With some observations of natural phenomenon, the question of why is not important and is fairly neglected.

For example, if the scientific method can tell us how water evaporates and forms clouds that later produce rain, it need not concern itself with questions about why evaporation works the way it does.

In contrast, when the scientific method is used to describe how a person is formed or how the universe is formed, the question of why becomes a question that is just as vital to the question of how. Neglecting the question of why here shows that the scientific method is limited. So yes it works as Dawkins wrote, but only in a limited capacity. For those questions the scientific method cannot or refuses to answer, humans use faith.

There are some questions which are within the scope of scientific inquiry, and some which are not.

It is true that there are questions which science cannot address for which there are other methods of attempting to answer. However, the legitimacy of these other methods can be called into question.

It is a different thing to base your understanding on the findings of science than to base your understanding on things which are not science.

these other methods which you can use to attempt to address questions are non-evidentiary. To believe in something which is non-evidentiary is quite different from believing in something which is evidentiary.

The next question is what is considered evidentiary? Is empirical evidence the only thing which can be called evidentiary?

Science relies strictly on empiricism as the basis for what is evidentiary. Since the natural sciences focuses on the empirical world, this makes sense.

Those questions which science does not or cannot answer typically are not limited to the empirical world. "Why questions" are not limited to the empirical world, so it doesn't make sense to limit the type of evidence to empirical evidence.

The evidence for claims about the immaterial world are going to be different than those focused solely on the empirical world. Just because some of the evidence that is presented to support the bible is not empirical, does not make it non-evidentiary.

Can Christians demonstrate the same humility and rely on those who endeavored to study and understand claims related to spirituality and the immaterial world?

Since modern science is focused on the material world with the aid of the scientific method, can we rely on those who study the immaterial world?

No, science is focused on the empirical world.
The difference between relying on the models created by the scientific process and relying on claims by people who study the immaterial world is that, is that science is reproducible and has predictive capability. I do not need to personally verify every scientific model because I can know that others have.

In theory, a scientist can show you a model, how it works, and that it works.

A theologian cannot.

Science works.
Theology does not. Theology simply is.

It is very much a different thing to have trust in the veracity of something which can be shown to be accurate, has been proven countless times, you can verify yourself, and which has utterly transformed every aspect of human life...than it is to simply have belief in something.

In correct assumptions about theology. Theology relies on a mix of empirical and non-empirical evidence. The Natural sciences are limited to only empirical evidence.

Science works.
Theology also works. Some claims of theology can be tested while others cannot because we do not have an adequate means to test them in a controlled or consistent manner.

[Divine Insight]

Science works.
Theology also works. Some claims of theology can be tested while others cannot because we do not have an adequate means to test them in a controlled or consistent manner.

The trouble is that the claims of theology that can be tested fail miserably.

Mark.16
[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
[18] They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

If you believe in Jesus you should be able to drink any deadly thing and it shall not hurt you.

Can you do that? If not, then you have proof that this theology is false.

And this is just one example of many.

In fact, in verse 18 above, you should also be able to lay your hands on the sick and they shall recover. Can you even do that?

Can you walk into a hospital and place your hands on the patients there sending them all home miraculously putting the scientific doctors out of work?

If not, then how can you claim that these theological claims cannot be demonstrated to be false?

The theology you are arguing for has already been demonstrated to be false many times over.

[FinalEnigma]

Allow me to clarify. I did not say, nor was I referring to an atheist making the claim that a Christian ONLY has faith fitting definition 2. The more complete statement regarding the claim of the atheist would be that a Christian has faith which fits definitions 1, and also faith which fits definition 2, while an atheist only has faith which fits definition 1.

Thanks for the clarification. We are in agreement here.

Are you agreeing with the statement, or agreeing that my representation of the statement is accurate, while disagreeing with the statement itself?

Your statement above clarifies that your complete trust is based on the scientific method. I have no qualms with this clarification, but to be clear, science (as a whole) is not the scientific method.

Yes, I'm aware of that, which is why I specifically said 'scientific process' rather than 'scientific method'.

Can you explain the difference between scientific process as opposed to scientific method?

If you meant to demonstrate a difference between the two, I apologize for making an assumption that they were one and the same. Sometimes people used the term scientific process and scientific method interchangeably. I thought you were doing the same. If I was wrong, please correct and clarify.

Well, I did not mean to demonstrate a difference specifically so much as mark a distinction. Unfortunately, I do not find myself able to adequately state the difference. However, if pressed, I would have to say that by scientific process, I was referring to the more general application of the scientific method and the framework which is built around it.

Not all generally accepted theories strictly adhere to the scientific method. The most outlandish theories are held to a higher standard and go through more scrutiny than others. This is why I have attempted to demonstrate that the faith (definition 1) used to support some generally accepted scientific theories is the same faith (definition 1) used by Christians to trust the bible.

Mmmm. I don't believe you've succeeded, but I will explain further down, as something else you say relates (1).

Incidentally, could you give a few examples of generally accepted scientific theories which do not adhere to the scientific method? More as a question of curiosity than argument on my part - I do not assert that you are incorrect, but I would like to see evidence.

I wrote about a generally accepted theory, age of the sun and composition of the Earth's core back in Post 17.

My argument was not that these theories did not follow the scientific method, but that they rely on the faith that the underlying assumptions are correct.

Ahh. In that case you would be incorrect. the utility of a theory or model is in it's predictive value; the underlying assumptions are irrelevant.

One does not have faith in a theory's underlying assumptions. If you have a model which is of great proven utility, yet has a known false underlying assumption, that simply means that you need to refine your assumptions, not that the theory is incorrect.

And you do not believe theories - that is not coherent. one accepts or rejects theories based upon the preponderance of evidence and the predictive capability of the theory.

A theory can follow the scientific method and still lack direct empirical evidence that proves the theory to be correct. The theory is believed to be true or accepted because it is often the best theory we have to date.

well, you can't prove a theory correct, but other than that, yes. Is this a problem?

Is the trust placed in archaeologist, historians and biblical scholars similar to the trust placed in those who have "endeavored to study and understand a given field"?

Or is your trust limited to those who use the scientific process outlined above?

to be sure, I did say "endeavored to study and understand a given field through the use of the scientific process". I feel that your incomplete quote could lead to misunderstandings.

To respond to your question, the further a field moves from the hard sciences and toward soft sciences, the less implicit trust I have in it's findings.

as such, a few fields could be placed on distinct levels of trust as follows based on my assessment of what I know of the processes and reliability of findings:

Level 1
Physics. Chemistry.

Level 2
Biology. Medicine. (The complexity, variance, and indeterminacy of biological organisms leads to great difficulty in reaching higher levels of certainty, particularly with regards to function.)

Level 3
Archeology (lack of data can lead some individuals to unwarranted conclusions)

Level 4
History (Same as archaeology - lack of data can lead to unwarranted assumptions. Also fraught with bias)

Level 5
Biblical scholastics (same as history, with perhaps more severe issues of bias. also attempts to address issues which are outside the scope of it's evidences)

If I follow your heirarchy of faith, you would place the highest amount of faith in the sciences of physics and chemistry, and little to no faith in biblical scholastics.

Doesn't this hierarchy validate my initial claim in the OP that one needs to have more faith or a higher level of faith to be an atheist than a believer. Even if we limited faith to the definition 1, it can then be proven that a non-theists who has faith in science will have a higher level of confidence (faith) in their position. More faith to be an atheist than a believer.

That is actually the exact opposite of my meaning.

The hierarchy I showed is a representation of the level of certainty that I believe one can have in the conclusions of the given subjects based on the processes employed by those subjects and the preponderance of evidence. It requires a greater amount of 'faith' of whatever sort to reach a given level of certainty in a subject which is less concretely evidenced, such as history or biblical scholastics, than in one which is more concretely evidenced, such as physics.

to reach a given level of certainty, when one does not have evidence, one makes up the deficit with faith.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. It not only requires a greater amount of faith to trust a known liar than a known truth-teller, but it also requires a different manner of faith.

To accept as likely to be true the words of a person who has a history of always telling the truth is a matter of rationally extrapolating from the evidence.
to accept as true the words of a person who has a history of frequently lying is quite a different thing.

What we see omnipresent evidence of is only the claims the scientific method can validate as correct. To see evidence of the scientific method in our every day lives we would need to see both sides of the coin, not just the ones we got right.

Ahh. Here is a point of note.

Science is self-correcting, and does not make truth claims. In that sense, if you wish to be pedantic, science is never factually incorrect.

Science produces models which attempt to explain aspects of the universe. At any given time, the accepted model to explain a phenomenon is the model for which we have the most evidence. Science produces models, it does not make truth claims. When a better model is devised to explain a phenomenon, the previous model is discarded.

Wow, what a bold statement, "Science if never factually incorrect".
Lets see, science is self correcting and never factually incorrect at the same time. So what is getting corrected, if science is never factually incorrect?

I almost didn't say that, because I was afraid you would fixate on it and get derailed as you have. I chose my words carefully, which is why I said that if you want to be pedantic, then science is never factually incorrect. You have missed the meaning of some of my statements.

I said that science does not make truth claims. You seem to have skipped this in favor of fixating on the previous.

If I were to say that the theory of gravity is our best current model to explain the phenomenon of gravity, then that is not a truth claim, and even if the theory of gravity is proven false 5 years from now, my statement was still factually correct.

However, if I were to say that the theory of gravity is the correct explanation for the phenomenon of gravity, then I have made a truth claim, and if the theory of gravity is proven false 5 years from now, then my statement was factually incorrect.


as I have said, science provides models of the greatest predictive capability. it does not make truth claims. This is because technically, science cannot prove anything absolutely.

Does the scientific method work? Yes. It works quite well at answering questions about how a phenomenon occurred. The method is very good and filtering out poor or evidence explanations for how something occurred. The scientific method is not as robust at answering questions related to why. In some cases, the question of why is strictly rejected as unimportant. With some observations of natural phenomenon, the question of why is not important and is fairly neglected.

For example, if the scientific method can tell us how water evaporates and forms clouds that later produce rain, it need not concern itself with questions about why evaporation works the way it does.

In contrast, when the scientific method is used to describe how a person is formed or how the universe is formed, the question of why becomes a question that is just as vital to the question of how. Neglecting the question of why here shows that the scientific method is limited. So yes it works as Dawkins wrote, but only in a limited capacity. For those questions the scientific method cannot or refuses to answer, humans use faith.

There are some questions which are within the scope of scientific inquiry, and some which are not.

It is true that there are questions which science cannot address for which there are other methods of attempting to answer. However, the legitimacy of these other methods can be called into question.

It is a different thing to base your understanding on the findings of science than to base your understanding on things which are not science.

these other methods which you can use to attempt to address questions are non-evidentiary. To believe in something which is non-evidentiary is quite different from believing in something which is evidentiary.

The next question is what is considered evidentiary? Is empirical evidence the only thing which can be called evidentiary?

Science relies strictly on empiricism as the basis for what is evidentiary. Since the natural sciences focuses on the empirical world, this makes sense.

Those questions which science does not or cannot answer typically are not limited to the empirical world. "Why questions" are not limited to the empirical world, so it doesn't make sense to limit the type of evidence to empirical evidence.

The evidence for claims about the immaterial world are going to be different than those focused solely on the empirical world. Just because some of the evidence that is presented to support the bible is not empirical, does not make it non-evidentiary.

Yes, it does make it non-evidentiary. you cannot generate evidence without empirical data. You can generate purely logical proofs, but you cannot generate evidence. Please give me an example of non-empirical evidence.

Can Christians demonstrate the same humility and rely on those who endeavored to study and understand claims related to spirituality and the immaterial world?

Since modern science is focused on the material world with the aid of the scientific method, can we rely on those who study the immaterial world?

No, science is focused on the empirical world.
The difference between relying on the models created by the scientific process and relying on claims by people who study the immaterial world is that, is that science is reproducible and has predictive capability. I do not need to personally verify every scientific model because I can know that others have.

In theory, a scientist can show you a model, how it works, and that it works.

A theologian cannot.

Science works.
Theology does not. Theology simply is.

It is very much a different thing to have trust in the veracity of something which can be shown to be accurate, has been proven countless times, you can verify yourself, and which has utterly transformed every aspect of human life...than it is to simply have belief in something.

In correct assumptions about theology. Theology relies on a mix of empirical and non-empirical evidence. The Natural sciences are limited to only empirical evidence.

Science works.
Theology also works. Some claims of theology can be tested while others cannot because we do not have an adequate means to test them in a controlled or consistent manner.

Bolding mine. I would like to note that with this statement, you have essentially conceded the argument. This 'non-empirical evidence' of which you speak is faith. Definition 2.