What I mean is this: how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot? Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology. Just as a Christian trusts his priest to tell him what he believes, an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe. But how many times have the scientists turned out to be wrong? I only ask this because it seems this is central to the problem that most atheists have. They are repulsed by the phrase “believe” – they are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told? I would like to remind you that in the 1970′s the scientists of the day were seriously concerned that we were about to enter an ice age, and less than 30 years later they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert.
Unless you’ve observed something yourself, or observed and interpreted the evidence yourself and drew your own conclusions, you are just as guilty as faith as any religious person.
Most of those questions aren't particularly good. It's a dude trying to throw some 'gotcha' questions out there in hopes of making some people feel stupid and insecure about their lack of belief, which is an odd tactic as it lends not one iota of credibility to theism.
And they kind of miss the point, which is that the only 100% for sure common factor uniting all atheists is summed up in our name. We are atheists. In other words we don't believe in God. An atheist can be an atheist and still believe there are problems with evolution theory. And you can believe there are problems with evolution theory without affirming theism.
G, thank you for just posting one question from there! That's a terribly long blog page. I'm thinking now that the usefulness of a blog page is probably inversely proportional to the square of the size of the original post.
You are certainly a "cut & paste" expert as indicated by your ability to plagiarize from someone else's blog.
As to the "10 questions for all intelligent atheists to deal with" I must remind you that anyone who dons the atheist 'cap' is exhibiting a high form of intelligence, and reasoning. [sarcasm]
The 10 questions are really not that problematic for an atheist to offer a reply. The fact is that the majority of the questions do not involve the core issue with all atheists. We have no extraordinary evidence, and it needs to be extraordinary when we discuss the possibility of invisible supernatural beings, that has been offered by anyone that is credible, verifiable, testable, and repeatable. Ancient texts (Koran, Bible) simply don't meet the criteria.
If an individual chooses to accept the proposition that there are supernatural beings in our midst then they should do so based on results obtained from the scientific method as opposed to the blind acceptance of mythologies and unsubstantiated fairy tales. It's okay to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa as a child but one needs to grow up at some point in time and accept the realities of our universe.
I don't know. I find it, at least with science, we can trust scientists more and are not going by some acaint rules in a book. You do not have to be a scientist your self to understand the basic ideas. and to learn from them. Science is just what you observe around you. so for the most part, you can trust it, and if ya, we get something wrong.. we learn, and we improve. unlike the bible. same story, different day.
in some ways, I agree, and other ways I disagree. but great post G, makes you think.
We skeptics have kind of faith in the scientific method, but our faith isn't based on a book we never question or a prophet from 2000 or more years ago. Rather, it's based on the method's proven ability not just to provide answers we can prove true, but to make adjustments based on new information.
"W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together. "
I believe in science the same way I believe in my little brother. I know they both exist, and occasionally he punches me in the head... but I get over it and learn a little bit about my brother and how to deal with him.
I have two university degrees in science---chemistry and geology. I consider myself reasonably informed on those two subjects.
I have no illusions that that I understand theoretical physics, cosmology or a host of other scientific fields. However, I think that a person who has devoted his life and career to a particular discipline does have a degree of credibility. When I read discussions of the big bang, while I certainly do not pretend to have the deep knowledge of it, I do tend to listen to those who do.
I am well aware that the same argument could be made concerning a priest or a pastor, or an imam, etc.--that they have a deep knowledge whereof they speak. However, I can't accept the premise from which they come---the existence of a supernatural being with no evidence of such.
Scientific pronouncements are made with some amount of evidence, but if contradictory evidence is found not one reputable scientist will not change his or her mind.
So yes, I do have a trust in science--notice that I did not say belief. The evidence that science works is found in every facet of our lives. So to answer your original question, yes I "trust" science. I do not equate that trust with the faith required to accept religion and all its forms.
Trust is generally another word for having faith in something. If you trust an employee to drop off the day's proceeds to the bank on his way home, that is a kind of faith, but it's not a vicious kind of faith because it is probably based on experience and is not unshakable, The morning you discover that he never made the deposit, your faith is shaken or even lost. This is unlike religious faith. The religiously faithful will invent reasons to maintain their faith in God.