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: 5514

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

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 --

Sometimes [the pomp and circumstance of the catholic religion] is quite moving.

Seated, standing, kneeling -- it moved me for a few years.

How does it move you?

Rome's moving most slowly and most cautiously can be a blessing which keeps us away from fads of the day (like the modern worldwide trend toward [Protestant] fundamentalism).

Catholic fundamentalism? The Latin mass?

I once found it interesting that Catholic fundamentalistism went back only to when papal infallibility began, when Catholic opposition to abortion began, etc.

"Seated, standing, kneeling" - sounds like a human yo-yo.

I once found it interesting that Catholic fundamentalistism went back only to when papal infallibility began, when Catholic opposition to abortion began, etc.

Yes, that's sort of true.  That's why it doesn't get as much traction.

Not just Protestant fundamentalism, though.   Islamic fundamentalism is very real; so is Jewish fundamentalism, particularly in Israel/Palestine.  This is a worldwide phenomenon affecting multiple religions.

I like to satirize conservatism with "It takes people back no further than to the first use of dental anesthesia."

 We also preserve quite a lot of art from pagan ancient Rome. 

Using the rules laid down by the Council of Trent, Pope Paul IV mandated the use of concealing fig leaves, promulgating the church’s attack on nudity in art in a papal bull dated 1557.

Most of the fig leaves that we see were put in place on the personal initiative of Pope Innocent X (1644-1655). Pope Clement XIII (1693 –1769)... (source)

LOL.  I hadn't heard that one.  It's pretty funny.  Shades of John Ashcroft putting clothes on Lady Justice.

The Vatican Museum and many of the Church's holdings in Italy are probably the largest collections of preserved Roman art.

RSS

Forum

The Elephant in the Room...

Started by Belle Rose in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 2 hours ago. 3 Replies

Ear-piercing a baby

Started by Simon Mathews in Atheist Parenting. Last reply by Erock68la 7 hours ago. 25 Replies

My Grandpa died last week

Started by Physeter in Small Talk. Last reply by Pope Beanie 8 hours ago. 9 Replies

Torture Report release today

Started by Unseen in Ethics & Morals. Last reply by Pope Beanie 10 hours ago. 134 Replies

Is There Any Ex-Mennonites or Ex-Amish On This Site?

Started by Jessica Miller in Advice. Last reply by Belle Rose 17 hours ago. 27 Replies

Blog Posts

How did that happen?

Posted by Belle Rose on December 19, 2014 at 4:36am 6 Comments

Pabst Blue Ribbon to the rescue!

Posted by Ed on December 15, 2014 at 9:33pm 0 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service