Faith is believing in something despite evidence to the contrary not because of it. So, there really is a conflict.

People are not robots they can accept ideas in conflict to both be true. That does not mean faith has no cost.

EX: So as not to offend anyone. If you believe that god's true name is 'Zual' and that she wants you to do a handstand on your 20th birthday. And you agree there is no evidence that this is the case, well without evidence the default assumption is for a less complex world without that requirement.

PS: No, that chain of logic does not disprove the idea. But it does mean picking 'Zual' over 'Zuam' or 'Zuak' ... without evidence is less likely to be true than false.

That's not at all what faith is. There are some definitions of faith that include "belief not based on proof", but that is still far removed from "belief despite evidence to the contrary".

Suppose someone said I am going to roll a fair six sided dice. So, 1,2,3,4,5,6.

I will give you a 50/50 bet. You can write down a number 1,2,3,4,5, or 6 and then chose if it will be that number or will be another number. AKA pick 2 and say it will be 2 or will not be 2.

Baring any evidence the first choice is random, but the second is that number or is not that number should not be random.

Logically faith is the same thing. It's picking a very specific result and saying baring any evidence I will pick a small set of outcomes and say this more likely true instead of not true.

Now, having evidence changes things. If you can show the dice is biased for 4, then picking not 6 is a better choice than not 4.

PS: Now if you believe picking is that number is a better option in my game, then I would be happy to play this game with you.

> Logically faith is the same thing.

According to you.

Do you have a logical counter argument?

> growing intolerance for scientists to hold opinions of faith or conservative ideals

Conservative ideals and science don't have any inherent conflict, but uhm, that other thing...

Some of the greatest scientific discoveries in history were made by people thinking they were glorifying god by doing their work.

Faith and science go together just fine, and I say this as a hard atheist.

Doesn't that depend on the religion though? Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation. I think most people will accept the evidence as long as it doesn't go against some of their core beliefs (which can be expanded beyond religion). It's just that for a lot of scientific discoveries there is at least one group that refuses to accept it.

> Like evangelicals don't think human made global warming is real because humans can't alter gods creation

Certain types of Christian denominations tend to strongly profess biblical literalism, which encourages this type of thinking, but this isn't representative of the entire group. This type of thinking is what enforces the problem I mentioned. I am an Orthodox Christian, and I have yet to find some type of scientific discovery incompatible with my faith -- how silly would this be regardless. If science is true observation of God's earth, and God is indeed the creator of all, the contradictions only arise when we use flawed logic or reasoning (for example -- biblical literalism and mis-interpretation). The problem is, as I mentioned, when we use science as political tools, or to draw vague conclusions or hasty generalizations.

Side note: evangelicalism, while being the loudest and most representative form of Christianity in the states, doesn't even crack the top 10 of largest denomination of Christians in the world. Catholic is first, Eastern Orthodoxy is second, then the various Protestant denominations are all after.

not even top 10? there are 280 million pentecostals alone in the world and roughly the same number of eastern orthodox christians: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...

Pentecostalism is as about as a specific term as "christianity" or "monotheism" or "paganism" comes when it comes down to actual beliefs, practice of worship, doctrines, etc. The largest of those groups, "Assemblies of God" defer in key areas of doctrine, faith, and worship from the next 8 or so on that list. You may argue the differences aren't worth the seperation, but consider even in the American Protestant landscape -- even the Presbyterian Church, which is a specific kind of Protestant is heavily fractured between it's more liberal wing, the PC-USA, and it's more conservative group, the PCA. Baptists not apart of the Southern Baptist Convention differ heavily from those not a part of the SBC. Methodists and Lutherans face similar key distinctions. If all of these groups were united in belief, practice, doctrine, and key tenants of the faith, I would agree with your statement, however this is not the case.

Even then, I think an evangelical scientist likely wouldn't bother working on an experiment/in a field that strongly disagrees with some of their faith. They may try to craft an experiment to prove their faith, but that's fine with me as we should have reproduction of experimental results and other scientists reviewing.

I really don't see a problem there as far as religious scientists.

Growing up, I was a practicing Evangelical. I won't go into it here, you can find some more info in my posting history, but in the 1970s, for my area and in my churches, that wasn't a bad thing. It was a generally healthy and positive mindset for me and most of the people around me. In short, it didn't much resemble the 'Evangelical' many people think of today, even though I believe that particular belief system is a loud minority.

I no longer practice evangelism, but a part of me is still walks in the same faith I had growing up, not because it's scientifically sound, but because it's a useful and positive thought model and world view for me.

To my point: looking here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelicalism

"Evangelicalism, Evangelical Christianity, or Evangelical Protestantism is a worldwide, transdenominational movement within Protestant Christianity maintaining that the essence of the gospel consists in the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ's atonement."

That's nicely spells out the kind of 'Evangelical' I was and am.

Those who believe the Bible says that humans can't alter God's creation, at least among the protestant community with which I am most familiar, are pretty rare and they're reaching long and wide to come up with scriptural justification for that belief. I've only run into one or two people who held this belief.

However, quite a few self-identified Evangelicals don't think that humans can change God's creation, but they don't take that as a religious teaching. This disparity, I believe, comes from the decades of politicization of various Protestant sects in the United States and elsewhere.

Indeed, up until the election last week, they were, by and large, a direct arm of the Republican party.

The problem isn't faith, it's narrow-mindedness about how the divine interacts with the world. God is bigger than you and doesn't hew to your preconceptions of them.

I can agree with this 100% as an Orthodox Christian. One of the core tenants in understanding Orthodox Theology is human, created logic does not apply or cannot happen to even hope to describe God in his entirety, this is indeed the root of many of the early heretical teachings about Christ, such as he wasn't actually a man, but just a divine apparition (Docetism), or he wasn't fully divine (Arianism). We merely have words for the attributes He has decided to reveal to us, even using the word "He" when describing him with caution.