Is your trust in science based on faith or based on science?

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.

Views: 5586

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Christendom is not a philosophy, Professor, it is a religion.

No, Roman Catholicism is a religion.  There's no such religion as "Christian".  Christianity is a worldview/philosophy/belief system/descriptor.

that there is an external Truth, that the external truth is immutable / governed by law, that the external truth is knowable through learning and observation,... of a bronze age collection of myths and fables, ignoring any contradictory evidence presented by any other group.

We science types believe that there's an external reality that we're trying to figure out through theory and observation.  I'm not sure why you feel that's a bronze age collection of myths.  Are you a science denier?

Which is decided by whom exactly?

By our community.  In exactly the way the scientific community or any community does.

who share the exact same belief, otherwise you are to condemn them, treat them with false kindness, and in the past torture and kill them.

Well, no.  But in some ways yes, I suppose.  The scientific community does occasionally condemn or dismiss pseudo-science, in the same way that any community does try to define the limits of the community.  You certainly seem comfortable condemning us because we have a different belief.  Does that make you uncomfortable?

Like evolution changed the Adam and Eve story? Or Noah's Ark?

Sure.

I'm pretty sure that the celibate, old, male virgins in dresses and funny hats that live in that palace which controls the teachings and tenants of Catholicism would disagree with you.

It's always interesting to me that when you have no real argument to make you resort to name calling and ridicule based on surface features.  Is that really what passes for free thinking in your circles?  Isn't that somewhat embarrassing to associate yourself with?

Besides, I'm not sure that Catholicism has an tenants left.   Not on farms.  Maybe in some of the guest houses or rental properties in Rome. ;-)

No, Roman Catholicism is a religion.  There's no such religion as "Christian".  Christianity is a worldview/philosophy/belief system/descriptor.

No, Roman Catholicism is a sect of Christianity, the religion. Nice try.

We science types believe that there's an external reality that we're trying to figure out through theory and observation.  I'm not sure why you feel that's a bronze age collection of myths.  Are you a science denier?

Nice try, Professor. Interpreting my words to suit your needs... Sorry to inform you, but what I type is not the Bible, so please, don't "interpret". I was clearly referring to the bronze age mythological book that your religion worships, or are you a Bible denier?

By our community.  In exactly the way the scientific community or any community does.

So, if the rules are determined by the Christian community, what good is god, or Jesus or the bible then? Seems kinda pointless.

Well, no.  But in some ways yes, I suppose.  The scientific community does occasionally condemn or dismiss pseudo-science, in the same way that any community does try to define the limits of the community.

Because pseudo-science is not science, Professor. As a science type, I'd expect you of all would know the difference. Do you know what they call pseudo-science that has been proven? Science.

You certainly seem comfortable condemning us because we have a different belief.  Does that make you uncomfortable?

I don't condemn you at all. I have nothing against you as a human being. I condemn any belief that has caused, and continues to cause as much harm to the species as religion does, and still has the audacity to call itself "good".

Sure.

I'm glad we agree that the main point of the bible (original sin) is just a fable, thus having no need for Jesus, thus showing how sadistic and cruel god really is if he existed.

's always interesting to me that when you have no real argument to make you resort to name calling and ridicule based on surface features.  Is that really what passes for free thinking in your circles?  Isn't that somewhat embarrassing to associate yourself with?

No real argument to make? I guess the links that we post that come from Catholic sources, that disprove your stance are no argument... Yeah... Whatever helps you sleep at night.

Besides, I'm not sure that Catholicism has an tenants left.   Not on farms.  Maybe in some of the guest houses or rental properties in Rome. ;-)

Apologies, English is not my first language... Actually it's not even my second, or third. Sorry if it is a bit off at times. You might want to double check the double spaces in your sentences if we're gonna be picky. :)

I think it's well past time that Humanity stopped concerning itself with what rituals to discard, came to the realization that there IS no baby in the bathwater, and just threw the whole thing out.

No, Roman Catholicism is a sect of Christianity, the religion. Nice try.

No, you're quite wrong.  There is no religion called "Christianity".  No rituals that are universal, no adherents.   To the extent we have "generic" Christian services we call them "interfaith services".  Even then, many find those to be anathema.

I was clearly referring to the bronze age mythological book that your religion worships

The book is real, not mythological; you can buy one in the store.  We don't worship it, we read it.  And it was compiled well into the iron age, not the bronze age.  In fact, we didn't finalize our version until the Council of Trent.

So, if the rules are determined by the Christian community, what good is god, or Jesus or the bible then?

So, if the rules are determined by the scientific community, what good is science, or theories, or experiment, or textbooks then? 

Because pseudo-science is not science, Professor.

Just as heresies aren't religion.  They're odd or incorrect notions.

I'm glad we agree that the main point of the bible (original sin) is just a fable, thus having no need for Jesus, thus showing how sadistic and cruel god really is if he existed.

What was that about interpreting words to suit needs?  First off, original sin is not the main point of the Bible.  Secondly, original sin as a concept or theory is independent of the metaphors we use to try to describe it.  For someone who doesn't believe in God, though, you certainly seem to have a deep-seated need to try to label him as cruel and sadistic.  ;-)

I guess the links that we post that come from Catholic sources, that disprove your stance are no argument...

No, they're really not, because they don't disprove my stance in the least, just your lack of understanding of the context.  I am amused, though, that you believe that matters can be decided by out-of-context quotes from what you believe to be authoritative text.   Are you a fundamentalist?

Either way, the name-calling and ridicule based on what clothes people wear would be petty nonsense.

There is no religion called "Christianity".

Christianity (from the Ancient Greek: Χριστιανός Christianos and the Latin suffix -itas) is a monotheistic and Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ as presented in canonical gospels and other New Testament writings as well as the Old Testament.

The book is real, not mythological; you can buy one in the store.  We don't worship it, we read it.  And it was compiled well into the iron age, not the bronze age.  In fact, we didn't finalize our version until the Council of Trent.

The book is real, but the stories are just that. Myth and fable. Once again dancing and twisting, Professor. You don't worship it? Go to your church and tear a page out. See what happens.Compiled in the iron age, from stories from the bronze age, your point being?

So, if the rules are determined by the scientific community, what good is science, or theories, or experiment, or textbooks then?

Science changes its views based on what is observed, Professor. Religion ignores evidence in order to preserve the core belief. To use an old cliche, science flies us to the moon, religion flies us into buildings.

Just as heresies aren't religion.  They're odd or incorrect notions.

But heresies are determined by religion, without any proof for that religion being true or its teachings correct in any way. Saying, for example, that the Earth revolves around the Sun was considered heresy at one time, and it took a very long time for religion to accept proven fact, and even then, it just chose to pretend it was like that all along.

Believing in any god but Yahweh/Yeshua/Ghost Pal was also considered heresy, or have you not read the Malleus Maleficarum? Is believing in another god incorrect or and odd notion?

First off, original sin is not the main point of the Bible.

Then what is the point of the bible? If the point of the bible is not that Jesus came to absolve us of sin (original sin) then what is? What was the point of Jesus dying if not original sin? Fun? Torture fetish?

For someone who doesn't believe in God, though, you certainly seem to have a deep-seated need to try to label him as cruel and sadistic.  ;-)

I'll just assume you missed the part where I said "if he were real".

No, they're really not, because they don't disprove my stance in the least, just your lack of understanding of the context.

Ah, here we go again. The perfect understanding of "context" that every Christian claims exclusively for themselves. Do enlighten us, Professor, you are here to teach after all.

I am amused, though, that you believe that matters can be decided by out-of-context quotes from what you believe to be authoritative text.

The Catholic Church believes that it is guided by the Holy Spirit, and that it is protected from teaching error or matters of faith and morals. According to the church, the Holy Spirit reveals God's truth through Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition consists of those beliefs handed down through the church since the time of the Apostles. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are collectively known as the deposit of faith. This is in turn interpreted by the Magisterium, or the teaching authority of the Church. The Magisterium includes those pronouncements of the pope that are considered infallible, as well as the pronouncements of ecumenical councils and those of the college of bishops in union with the pope when they condemn false interpretations of scripture or define truths.

Sounds pretty authoritative and fundamentalist to me.

Either way, the name-calling and ridicule based on what clothes people wear would be petty nonsense.

Name calling and ridicule of people who dress like pimps and live in a palace, and preach humility and helping the poor, while their most devoted followers live in squalor is not only necessary, but deserved.

Ridiculing men who have sworn a life of celibacy, yet think they are the authority when it comes to sex and marriage is definitely deserved.

Like I said before, Professor, the moment religion stops demanding special rights, accepts equality and stops condemning everyone who disagrees, I will be the first to stop making fun of them. Until that happens, ridicule and humour is all I have. I don't have "god on my side", so I would never even consider doing anything more radical, like a holy war for example.

The creeds are core beliefs, and your short summary at the top gets the emphases wrong.  The structure of the creeds is belief in Father, Son, Holy Spirit and Church, as four essential points.

The philosophy I described is the outgrowth of, and intimately entwined with, those beliefs.  Accepting that there is one God, creator of all things visible and invisible necessarily means that there is an external, immutable truth, that God is revealed in His creation, that the creation is not God himself and therefore is governed by laws, and that God made man "in his own image" means that we humans can come to understand that creation through operation of our natural, God-given faculties.

Yes, including being subject to evidence and argument, which is a bit different than being dependent on evidence and argument.  Like science, Catholicism believes in falsification.  It is possible to learn either from observation or from rigorous argument that something is wrong.   That's why conciliar proclamations are traditionally only done in the negative; it's possible to say what is not, but it's not generally possible to say perfectly what is.  God is too big to be knowable in that sort of definitive way. 

The notion of falsification in Catholic conciliar theology predates the notion of falsification in modern science.  I don't know that anyone has done any scholarship with respect to the connection.  Quite possibly both derive from Jewish rabbinical literature, though certainly there are echoes in other philosophical writings, like the Socratic dialogs.

And of course, we - the sane and rational - believe that Man made god "in His own image."

The T-shirt's not bad either --

I do remember Pons and Fleischmann.  In fact, like many of us, I was part of a group that immediately tried to replicate the work (and was enormously annoyed that insufficient details were forthcoming).  In some ways it was good that the thing didn't work, because we were all being a bit sloppy about neutron shielding.

What you're not really understanding is that the appearance of Mary to a French peasant girl is not really a change-the-world-forever sort of claim.  In fact, it's not in any way central to our faith.   We do dispatch investigators to such things, including scientists and psychologists, because in most cases it's just people being nutters.  There is a need for skeptics, for what we jokingly call devil's advocates. 

Where I think you're running off the rails a bit is in your desire to compare things with experimental physical science.   Experimental physical science and its techniques answer a very limited set of questions, just because most phenomenon aren't easily isolated in a laboratory.   We're closer to ecology or geology or astrophysics or the social sciences.  The interesting stuff we have to puzzle out from observations where we don't have the ability to replicate or experiment, and where effects occur in longer time scales than subatomic interactions.

Hinduism and Judaism are both older religions, but I was speaking of some things that were somewhat unique to Catholicism.   That's a weak claim, though; the early Church and rabbinic Judaism had an awful lot in common.

RE: "the early Church and rabbinic Judaism had an awful lot in common." - I've little doubt that's true, with controlling the populace and pocketing as much of their money as possible, positioned quite near the top of their common agenda lists.

RE: "There is a need for skeptics, for what we jokingly call devil's advocates." - we tend to jokingly call them rational people.

No, rationality is an orthogonal construct.  The Devil's Advocate is a role or a job.

But being rational people can BE a role or a job, but thank you for the input, Mr. Webster --

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service