Question:
Just wondering about the views ane belifs on this. The question are you a man (or women) of Science or Faith?

Choices:
Science
Faith

 

I voted science btw

I voted science (am studying degree level physics I guess I had better).

Oh I would say in the world as a whole there are 'dualists'. Some scientists making huge discoveries have been men of the church. Men of faith that require no hard proof that God exists in order to believe in him, paving the way to prooving how the world works!!

hmmm, I would consider myself to be a bit of both really - I support the use of a lot of modern science/technology, for without it our quality of life would be severly limited.

But in some respects having faith also gives you great quality of life - if you can't believe in and trust something that isn't tangible, then, in my opinion, you are not living as fully as you could (indeed even should). I think it's good to take leaps of faith every now and again, whether it be with people or something bigger like God etc - I think there is more to life/the universe than what we have been exposed to, and I think it's a happier way to live your life when you have faith that something will work out for the best.
I also have faith (to an extent) in science, so in the end I voted 'faith.'

Sayid manages to be both science and faith, so I plan to sit on the fence with him. Let's look at the dangers of veering too far to either side...

Jack (all science): with only logic as the basis for his morality, Jack has already compromised himself severely. Whilst Sayid can be somewhat excused for torturing Sawyer (since, at the time, he was convinced Sawyer had attacked him and sabotaged the triangulation attempt), it is harder to excuse Jack, who allowed himself to be talked into it on an "ends justify the means" basis. It could well be argued that had Jack possessed either faith or, at any rate, a sense of innate morality (rather than merely law-abiding, or convenient), he would never have even considered the torture plan.
He also lacks imagination, particularly in supposing that, at worst, the hatch could be empty, or, at best, supplies. He allows rationality to blind him to the truly surreal nature of their situation.
There are also strong hints that his pride and determined self-sufficiency have been factors in the ruination of his relationship with his father.

Locke (all faith): sort of speaks for itself, but still... Locke's fanatical mysticism has been the death of one islander. His unconditional trust has allowed him to be shockingly manipulated both in his past and on the island. He attempts to read obvious signs of danger and malevolence (i.e. Boone's death) in terms of a "greater good". Attempting to compensate for the disappointments and betrayals he has suffered, he strives both for acceptance and for the reflected glory of an almost messianic role. Wrapped up in his own world, his ability to empathise is next to non-existent (Note his extreme awkwardness in "The Greater Good", not to mention his disturbing but unfunny attempts at humour). He is totally dependent, and betrayal reduces him to despair.

So at present, I don't think the series has declared a firm allegiance for either party, although the general level-headedness and endurance of Sayid, and the optimism of the strangely-absent Rose might suggest some sort of compromise is the best solution.

Again I was on the fence but when pushed I had to say Faith as I'm open minded until proved wrong. I think the fact that we all have so many theories makes us believers of faith as most of us say I think or believe. I don't think I've seen a posting which says "I know". Which says to me that all of us believe in what we consider, rather than exact proof. Any scientists out there SORRY, I also have a lot of faith in science too

I would say i am bang in the middle. It kind of depends on the situation. But whoevers seem terminator 2 remember the saying! 'No fate but what we make.'

I'm going to abstain as I'm not convinced that the two are different things.

This is a bit of a pet topic of mine actually - I did a short Philosophy of Science course when I was at Uni and it's a really interesting area to investigate.

One thing we looked at was whether or not there are criteria for distinguishing Science from pseudo-science, for example - Why is physics science, but astrology not? Although many philosophers came up with ways of distinguising the two, all of the ideas can be refuted or chalenged (well, that's philosophy for you!!).

Anywho, if you can't say definitively why astrology isn't science, it sort of makes sense that you can't say definitively why physics is (otherwise you would say astrology isn't because it doesn't meet the reasons that physics meets).

So it can be argued that Jack is actually a man of faith. It's just that his faith is in something different to Locke's.

Eep. Hope all of that made sense!!!

Yeah that makes sense Cherry B.

I go along with the fact that I am a little of both. A woman of science as to believe in things they need to be tangible for me. I'm into analysing and breaking things down to find the truth. However, I am also an optimist. Have faith in the future and that 'it will turn out for the best'. I like to believe in Karma too and I tend to go along the lines of Que Sera Sera.

I voted for Science though, as I believe that is stronger in me.

Maybe that is why they open the same eye in opening sequence D-Roc? When we did a recap of the eye shots I am sure Locke and Jack opened the same eye....leading me to believe that they are essentially one and the same.

although i know very little about the actual scienes (ie physics, chemistry etc) i would always pick science over faith. especially over religion!

I'd like to think that I could put faith in things [and I probably can], but in the way Locke is? Probably not! That's a bit too much on the 'side' of 'blind faith', and I don't think I could do that. When it come's down to it, "I need to see it to believe it!!" - So a bit of both!