Faith in science

Originally posted by @dj2becker
If you want to ignore the dictionary definition I gave you, and still insist that your use of the word faith is the only correct use be my guest.

Do you have 'faith' in your own judgement? Is this 'faith' only spiritual? Surely you can see how absurd your position is?

Just rewrite your question using your definition 😉

Originally posted by @divegeester
Just rewrite your question using your definition 😉

You seem be lacking faith in your judgement of the word faith.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
You seem be lacking faith in your judgement of the word faith.

I’m not invested in your silly games fetchmybecker.
Either use your definition of the word faith or don’t.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you accept the conclusions offered by the Miller-Urey experiment?

“Do you accept the conclusions offered by the Miller-Urey experiment?”

Let us tke this as a reasonable Wikipedia’s account:

“ The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. The experiment supported Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment investigating abiogenesis, it was conducted in 1952[3] by Stanley Miller, with assistance from Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.[4][5][6]

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life.[7] More-recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.[8]”

Do you accept the stated conclusions:
“putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.”?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Atheists put their faith in science. Do you agree or disagree?

Atheists don't believe in gods. That is the only thing they hold in common.

Originally posted by @eladar
If no one has ever seen it happen, yet the claim is made, then it must be taken by faith.

Of course trying to convince a true believer that his faith isn't simply the truth is impossible.

Wrong. Faith needs no evidence. Scientific beliefs do.

Originally posted by @divegeester
I’m not invested in your silly games fetchmybecker.
Either use your definition of the word faith or don’t.

Its the dictionary definition not mine. I have already indicated which meaning of the word 'faith' I am referring to. My use of the word 'faith' is correct according to the dictionary. You are just too proud to admit that the word faith can be used in a non spiritual sense.

Originally posted by @vivify
Wrong. Faith needs no evidence. Scientific beliefs do.

Do you or do you not have complete trust or confidence in the scientific method?

Originally posted by @js357
“Do you accept the conclusions offered by the Miller-Urey experiment?”

Let us tke this as a reasonable Wikipedia’s account:

“ The Miller–Urey experiment[1] (or Miller experiment)[2] was a chemical experiment that simulated the conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested the chemical origin of life under those conditions. ...[text shortened]... l reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.”?

Sure. Do you believe that the Urey-Miller experiment proves abiogenesis theory?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Do you or do you not have complete trust or confidence in the scientific method?

Evidence has shown it to be trustworthy. Keyword: evidence.

Originally posted by @vivify
Evidence has shown it to be trustworthy. Keyword: evidence.

You think people who believe in God do so without a trace of what they believe to be evidence ?

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Sure. Do you believe that the Urey-Miller experiment proves abiogenesis theory?

No, but I think that its conclusions were much less grand.

The stated conclusions: “putative conditions on the primitive Earth favoured chemical reactions that synthesized more complex organic compounds from simpler inorganic precursors.”

The “proof” of abiogenesis theory will take a lot more work and imo will not attract much in the way of funding.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Atheists accuse Christians of blind faith but scientists rely on the rational intelligibility of the universe; the concept that the universe is rational is not proper science it's an assumption that requires faith - indeed based on atheism science in general would be impossible.
Because even if, through observation, we can establish that the universe is ...[text shortened]... possible for scientists to predict anything.

Don't tell me that scientists don't have faith.

It is your particular brand of ignorance that forces you to want to foist on the science community that they only have faith.

They have confidence, plus or minus some window. That is what they have. If someone shows them something outside that window, they mostly at first will refuse to believe it but if the experiment in question is repeated with the same result a few times the tide turns and the science community learns something new, also plus or minus some window.

Your faith has no such plus or minus window.

Your god is your god PERIOD, JC died on the cross and came back to life 3 days later. PERIOD, no room for doubt. You doubt, you get kicked out of the club.

A scientist is PAID to doubt. That is how they discover new things, by doubting the old paradigms like when a LOT of people a thousand years ago were CERTAIN Earth was the center of the universe and if you tried to say otherwise, you could be executed or tortured and THEN executed. That BS died out long ago except for the flat Earther nut faction. The real world has gone on past that nonsense. They thought pennicillin was the greatest gift to humanity till the ugly head of antibiotic resistance kicked up and then new anti's came out that led to THAT drug finding antibiotic resistance. So how much 'faith' do you think scientists have in that discipline?

Show me a science discipline based on 'faith'. Faith in what?

Your religion forces you to NEVER change your religion POV.

Scientists change their POV all the time when new evidence shows up.

Then they have confidence, plus or minus some window (which is really an acknowledgement that they can be wrong) till the next genius sees the problem with paradigm A and starts up paradigm B. That is not faith. That is recurrent and persistent work in some field of science. It is WORK that makes science, whether a math dude writing down equations or a rocket scientist proving out a new motor. There is for sure, hope, that the thing will work, or the equations will show something new but they won't know till their work has been vetted by independent study. This is as far from faith as you can get. This is persistence and patient and sometimes dull work.

Originally posted by @dj2becker
Its the dictionary definition not mine. I have already indicated which meaning of the word 'faith' I am referring to. My use of the word 'faith' is correct according to the dictionary. You are just too proud to admit that the word faith can be used in a non spiritual sense.

Are you going to rewrite your question? 😵

Originally posted by @divegeester
Are you going to rewrite your question? 😵

Do atheists have faith (complete trust or confidence) in the scientific method?