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.
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.
This is not my post in any shape. Anyways, I'm glad to hear that you don't have faith in science.
Having faith in science is different from having faith in the scientific method. The one is fallible, the other is not. There's nothing wrong with having faith in something as long as you can change your mind. Who would say, "I don't trust the scientific method?" If you can't imagine yourself saying that, then that is a kind of faith.
R-22 boils at -41.44 degrees Fahrenheit.
And I am just thrilled that some Scientist figured that out! Right now I'm doing somersaults about that fact.
Because Refrigerant 22 boils at -41.44 degrees Fahrenheit I am gainfully employed, own a house, two cars, and a Harley. My home is kept at a constant 71 degrees fahrenheit during days when the temperature outside exceeds 90 degrees fahrenheit.
I love Science. Science was directly responsible for comfort cooling. It's the effect you feel when it's hot as balls outside and cool inside. Love scientist! Love scientist more than I love priest, medicine men, and shaman's.
Yep, it's why I am an Atheist. Science, what a concept.
Trollin', trollin', trollin-keep those doggies trollin'…. LOL...
my trust in science is based on the fact that it works every time, not when it is convenient. it makes sense all the time, not in just some occasionalcircumstances.
You say: "...they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert. ..."
Who are "they"?
Your implied conclusion of the consensus of opinion amongst climate scientists is incorrect and inflammatory.
The beauty of the Scientific Method is it's simplicity and self-correcting structure, it uncovers the truth about nature, and that is why it works and is relied upon by all intelligent people.
I don't "believe" scientific peer consensus, I accept it to my personal level of understanding.
Belief is foolish, acceptance is practical.