Is Faith Reasonable?

[EntilZha]

WorldBreakerHulk said:

EntilZha said:

 

ALL theories are guesses. The tests are performed to try and determine if there is any supporting evidence for the guess. Sometimes there is, sometimes not. If there is insufficient evidence to support a theory (at this time), but you continue to believe in the theory and continue to study it to find more evidence, by definition, you have Faith in your theory. That is just as valid for Science as it is for Religion.

Example: There is a theory that God created all life, and there is a theory that life created itself. Both are guesses to try and explain where we came from. Neither has irrefutable proof and thus neither is a known fact. Therefore, you have to put your Faith in one or the other.

 

EntilZha said:

 

I guess part of the issue here is if Faith is being considered strictly as a religious idea that has no application anywhere else. I took this thread to be making the statement, all Faith is not reasonable, including non-religious examples.

Section 2b is my point as well. Strong belief in something (a theory) for which there is no proof is the definition of Faith.

PS

I do enjoy having calm, rational, discussions like this. I learn from them, and sometimes even change my opinion. 

A theory with no proof? Theories are composed of facts and strong hypothesis.

From my understanding, Hypothesis are "educated" guesses that can be tested. Theories come from "tested and scrutinized" hypothesis. So I don't agree that theories are just guesses with no proof.

http://notjustatheory.com/

'll Copy paste some of the highlighted stuff.

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.

In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

A theory never becomes a law. In fact, if there was a hierarchy of science, theories would be higher than laws. There is nothing higher, or better, than a theory.

Just because it's called a theory of gravity, doesn't mean that it's just a guess. It's been tested. All our observations are supported by it, as well as its predictions that we've tested.

 

Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law by it's ok to be smart

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lqk3TKuGNBA

I do mostly agree with what you are saying, and perhaps I do not have strong enough understanding of Theory vs Hypothesis vs Law, but let me try and explain my point and see what you think. Since you mentioned gravity, let me use that as an example.

Newton developed his theory of gravity in 1687, including the value of G, the gravitational constant.  Newton's theory that gravity was a force was widely accepted and used to correctly predict the existance of Neptune. I am sure that I studied his inverse-square law of universal gravitation in school, and that it is accurate enough to still be used form many calculations even today.

However, Newton's theory did not accurately explain certain things, such as the orbit of Mercury, which showed slight variations. 

Along comes Einstein and his theory of general relativity where he describes gravity as an effect of space-time curvature ratther than a force. This seems to be more accurate and corrects some of the discrepancies seen in Newton's theory. However, it was then discovered that the theory of general relativity is not compatible with quantum mechanics. And so it goes on. 

My point being that a theory is a way of trying to explain what is happening based on our observations. However, even when a theory seems to adequately explain something, make correct predictions, and have much supporting evidence, it can still be "wrong" (or at least very incomplete). 

Do you see what I am trying to say?