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: 5542

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It's very difficult for anyone to think outside the paradigms that they work in, so that's quite understandable.

What you have to explain is why the western concept of empirical science wasn't developed by any other culture (China?  India? Japan?), many of whom had more resources, more stability, and more human capital than middle-ages Europe.   If it is so self-evident, that is.

For several centuries, we even named major scientific theories "Laws".  Newton's Laws, etc.   That historical artifact we still maintain today as the term for any successful theory from the early age of science when people were looking for Natural Law.

More silliness. Assuming that "That's just how things are" basically IS understanding that there are natural laws. You are confusing the later development of scientific methods with the belief in natural law which amounts to little more than remembering the regularity holding between similar actions and results which came very early on. 

When I say "early on," I mean very early on. Long before man came along, creatures learned how the world worked, even though they didn't consciously conduct experiments, write down the results of their work, or even develop fancy theories to test. This is not the province of higher beings. Observe your dog or cat and you'll notice their intuitive knowledge of natural law and their ability to learn from experience totally without experiementation of theorizing.

The problem, @unseen, is that science IS theorizing.

Simply learning not to touch a hot stove is learning of a sort, but it's not science.  Coming up with a theory of heat which applies to new circumstances or predicts other outcomes is science.

Science IS theorizing? That's the long and short of it? So, there's no empirical aspect to science? No drawing of firm conclusions? Scientists just theorize? They don't actually DO anything?

Hmm... Did not know that. 

Bob seems to be skipping the whole 'testing' phase associated with the theorizing aspect. 

Not skipping any parts, just responding to the issue at hand.  Science isn't only testing.  One has to have a theory to test.  The two go hand in hand.  Theory without some form of observation is not science.  Observation without developing theories is also not science.

Dr. Ricky Bobby says:

...Science isn't only testing.  One has to have a theory to test.

(chuckle) Theory first??? (chuckle)

One has to believe in stable natural law before one goes to look for it.

You started off by saying Christianity/Catholicism requires evidence as a "core idea". Then you exempted God from evidence, the God on which all of Christianity/Catholicism depends.

Presumably you are asserting that God's "natural law"-- on which you claim all evidence-based science depends-- is also exempt from evidence as well. (If not, provide the evidence for this "immutable natural law/truth".)

In other words, it is a Christian/Catholic notion that God, "natural law" and "natural truth" are subject to evidence, until that evidence is requested, in which case they are not.

Priceless, Robert.

What is written in the bible is near impossible to observe (miracles, living to over 100 easily etc.) Yet all I have to do is look at a photograph that was taken anywhere any time and I see the proof of all images are created by light. Look up at the skies and I see a Moon and Stars that are there every night. I jump from a tree I hit the ground. So yeah I don't have faith in science as such because I can see proof of science in every day things and for what it's worth I like the idea of not having all the answers  having new things to look for we can still have the great explorers and adventurers just in a different construct.
Peace be the Journey.

@ Professor Bob

Would you be willing to admit that the scientific studies conducted through the auspices of the Vatican seem to be more inclined to favor research that supports the writings of your holy book? The Catholic Church seems very slow, or even reluctant, at times to acknowledge scientific data that goes 'against the grain' of it's own findings. The church is evolving at a snails pace though; one day they might even allow women an equal footing.

I shall never forget walking the halls of the massive St Peters in Rome. The gaudy structure was capped off with a huge obelisk behind the ceremonial area that is direct symbolism to the Egyptian sun god Ra. I would think the church would attempt to purify itself a tad by removing these references to pagan gods. The pomp and circumstance of the catholic religion has to be somewhat embarrassing to a person of your educated standing. I've never understood the excessive use of ritualism in their services; trying to impress their flock I gather.

Would you be willing to admit that the scientific studies conducted through the auspices of the Vatican seem to be more inclined to favor research that supports the writings of your holy book?

Again, we're not fundamentalists.  The Catholic position would be that God reveals himself through Creation, as well as through his interactions with humanity, and that God gave us a brain so that we may use it to try to discern his revelation in each.  The Bible (along with other texts) largely chronicles His interactions with humanity, as viewed by humans of different ages; science looks at his revelation through the created universe; lots of writings and commentaries by lots of people attempt to apply reason to both and build understanding.

To the extent that there is clear evidence of a scientific conclusion on a matter, our interpretation of other religious notions must humbly yield to that evidence.  We don't get to tell God what the Bible means; He tells us.  If His universe is telling us we got it wrong, then we got it wrong. 

To my knowledge, the scientific research that the Vatican funds directly through the Vatican Observatory or other arms has all been good science.  Certainly they are well respected and well published in the scientific community.  That's not to say that politics won't interfere occasionally or that individual researchers won't have their own biases, but that's true of all science.

I would think the church would attempt to purify itself a tad by removing these references to pagan gods.

Why? It's good art.  Part of the mission of the Vatican Museum is to preserve art and learning over the centuries for all humanity.   We also preserve quite a lot of art from pagan ancient Rome. 

The pomp and circumstance of the catholic religion has to be somewhat embarrassing to a person of your educated standing.

Sometimes.  Sometimes it's quite moving.

I do object to the conservatives in the modern church who seem to want to re-introduce over-the-top ritual.  I call it the Multiplication of Meaningless Ritual.  Vatican II and the Holy Spirit I think are taking us away from that, because in the modern world it is no longer necessary.  Some ritual remains valuable, for sure, but not quite all that pomp.  However, as with many things, the reforms generated a bit of a backlash which we're taking time to work through.    That's humanity. 

You are correct, though.  Of all the original 5 patriarchates, Rome has always moved the slowest and most cautiously.  That can be a blessing which keeps us away from fads of the day (like the modern worldwide trend toward fundamentalism), but also a disadvantage in some ways.  I think overall it's probably a good thing, but it's a close call.   We've sidelined or even murdered more than a few saints along the way who we had to acknowledge later on were right.

"Would you be willing to admit that the scientific studies conducted through the auspices of the Vatican seem to be more inclined to favor research that supports the writings of your holy book?"

Hey, I know Ed - let's ask Galileo - oh, that's right, he's out back, watching the sun revolve around the earth --

RSS

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service