And the king spake unto Ashpenaz the master of his eunuchs, that he should bring certain of the children of Israel, and of the king’s seed, and of the princes; Children in whom was no blemish, but well favoured, and skilful in all wisdom, and cunning in knowledge, and understanding science, and such as had ability in them to stand in the king’s palace, and whom they might teach the learning and the tongue of the Chaldeans.(Daniel 1:3-4) KJV
The science vs. faith debate is smoke and mirrors because the words “science” and “faith” are poorly understood. The problem is that the words, as used, have definitions which don’t fit the usage.
Science, for instance. The word is presently used to refer to a mixture truth and error. “Science” can refer to beneficial technology like the iPhone but also to a false narrative of godless existence at the same time. This is why we have to make a distinction and refer to the pseudoscientific narrative as popular science (SciPop).
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.– Matty’s Razor
We’re going to retain the use of the word science to refer to facts because we have a Biblical precedent to do so. However, a fact can only be a fact if’s true regardless of what you believe about science or the Bible, therefore it’s necessary to make a distinction between the true science in technology and the pseudoscience in false narratives.
A fact is a : something that has actual existence, b : an actual occurrence.– Fact, definition (Merriam-Webster)
Faith, as we’ve seen, is also poorly understood. Current propaganda is that faith is belief without evidence, but we all have the same evidence, so the propaganda definition is based on a failure to understand what evidence is and how it’s used.
Faith is belief without evidence.– SciPop propaganda
Name anything at all that you consider to be evidence for your paradigm, and we’ll show you how it can be evidence for our paradigm. This is an epistemological tool known as Matty’s razor: Evidence is neutral and we all have access to it. The real definition of faith we get from Paul’s letter to the Hebrews. As such, faith is believing in something that you can’t see, because of the evidence.
Faith is believing in something that you can’t see, because of evidence.– Faith, definition
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.(Hebrews 11:1) KJV
The error in science, SciPop, requires faith, so the debate is over, because SciPop = faith. Most people will protest this and say that there’s no faith in SciPop. This is another case of misdirection and issue can be traced to how SciPop describes faith.
Faith, Example 1
- We believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ:
- because we have multiple first hand eyewitness accounts and,
- the record of history as to what happened as a result.
- That’s evidence.
We can show you how the same physical evidence, empirical observations and data used in the SciPop paradigm may be harmonized perfectly with the truth of the Bible.
Faith, Example 2
- We believe in Noah’s flood:
- because the stratigraphic column, Cambrian through Quaternary, are vast sedimentary deposits with worldwide distribution which is the expected result of a worldwide flood.
- That’s evidence.
Belief is Paradigm-dependent
- IF there are things which we all believe which transcend paradigm (facts, knowledge),
- but our choice of paradigm causes us to have different opinions (belief),
- THEN beliefs are paradigm-dependent,
- and anything which is only true in one paradigm isn’t knowledge or factual.
2 Replies to “Science vs. Faith”