By what standards might we determine that faith in science is reasonable, but that faith in God is not?

There is also a very great difference regarding perceptions of religious faith and catechesis regarding it. While most people must be thoroughly educated to learn a scientific discipline, many do not apply such a vigor to learn about religion. Thus adherents and critics alike are often at odds because neither may be as well educated in religious subjects as they perceive themselves to be.

Case in point, there are no "new" challenges to religion on the Yahoo! Answers site nor are there significant arguments in favor of religion to those who challenge it either. When encountering those who are debating about issues, the subjects of the debates are nothing new. Unless you've studied apologetic history, you are unlikely to discover this and will likely believe that either the challenge you offer or your reply to a challenge will be something never before heard of or incapable of being matched. But the reality of the matter is that they all have been used and are hoary with age, both sides of the issues included.

It is often challenged that religious faith requires mere credulity on behalf of the one who makes claim to it. Indeed, there are many who pride themselves in having such type of faith. Therefore it should not be a surprise when someone challenges the reasonableness of this ideology.

While a debate or presentation of arguments for or against both sides of the issue are likely to emerge in a forum such as this, the time is actually wasted by all parties involved due to the fact that neither side has a correct view of what comprises religious faith (if we are speaking of the Judeo-Christian model, which is usually the type being discussed here).

Without taking a moment to consider any actual dogmas, doctrines, or tenets of "faith," stop and consider if religious faith can and does exist without reliance upon a sum of evidence. The Jewish Testament, for example, is filled with what are called countless "prophecies" that the promised Messiah must fulfill in order to be properly identified--a criteria must be met, in other words. The Christian Testament, mainly their gospel accounts, are filled with mention after mention of this criteria being fulfilled. If the religious are to base their faith on credulity, why offer "evidence"? Such would not be necessary is faith was contrary to and unrelated to an examination of evidence.

In fact, from its very birth, evidence was always required to inspire religious faith. The Biblical character of Moses refuses to obey God at the burning bush when God tells him to demand that the pharaoh of Egypt release the Israelite slaves--he refuses to do so unless he is given "signs" to "prove" the validity of his message. Several are granted him. Why? Obviously, regardless if this narrative is historical or fictional, the rule of these religious texts is that faith is a response to some type of "proof," the outcome after some type of an examination of "evidence," the believer's reaction to some form of testimony.

So without dragging this out further, this should be sufficient enough to demonstrate that such inquiries as yours have at least some questionable foundations. Is "religious faith" really what people think it is? If I am religious, do I really understand the theological implications of what I have adopted to accurately illustrate the point? If I am non-religious, do I have an understanding of the religious tenet of "faith" based on a thorough examination of the theology, thorough enough to teach it as well as deny it? One cannot say they have thoroughly adopted or dismissed a philosophy on the basis of an enlightened mind if that mind was not first enlightened to know exactly what it was that it decided to adopt or dismiss in the first place.

While there is far more information to present regarding this than space or time allows that will further demonstrate the point, the truth is that such questions and attempts to argue for or against such a definition of religious faith do not prove to be efficacious because they are based on a mistaken presumption of what "religious faith" actually entails to begin with.

I agree with Deke666. Faith in science doesn't exist, it merely depends on whether you a) understand fully the subject in question, eg evolution and b) can make a rational and informed decision whether or not you think the theory is true. I can see that faith in God and opinion of science can't really be compared, but I still think that, in this day and age, if you're willing to go against your logic and what everyone else is telling you then you don't deserve to be regarded as an intelligent human being.

No, particularly the conttrary. that's mankind who contradict God with the aid of technological know-how. each little thing we learn and could by no potential learn with regard to the worldwide we are residing in and previous - is of God, first and maximum suitable. he's the source of All. there's no longer something that got here into 'being' with out Him. i've got self assurance that's the historic previous of existence till now mankind, the place those contradictions look to happen. we've no way (to this element) to understand all that replaced into till now mankind and, almost each little thing technological know-how has been able to bare is speculative thought. some issues we can by no potential understand... Peace and advantages

Faith in science is an oxymoron. Or maybe just a moronic statement. In science, there are data to support an hypothesis or there are not. Faith has nothing to do with it.

Continuously repeatable outcomes might be a good start.

By the standards of satan of course.

science doesnt run on faith, it runs on logic