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: 5441

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

We are not talking about poverty, and we, being well fed, and have never been raped, could not even begin comparing the two, to see which one is worse???????

There are all kinds of ways to measure that, in terms of the long-term outcomes for children.  It's also worth remembering that rape, and child abuse more generally, are highly correlated with poverty.

Priests in these countries will also be abundant, as they will have a better lifestyle, with a car and driver, a cook and a cleaner, a lovely place to live, plenty of food, and get trips to the vatican, and stay in an apartment worth millions.

LOL.  That's too funny.  I guess you've never spent any time with priests or religious in 3rd world countries.  I have.   Would you like to borrow my Pinocchio clothing?

That is the result of people like you, Bob, not getting involved in a change of the catholic stance of celibacy

Ah, celibacy now is the cause of pedophilia.  Really?   I suppose you have evidence of that?  Nah.

Where what is accepted - homosexuality or pedophilia.

Either or both.  I was raising the ancient Greek example, where such "mentoring" was normative, before us repressive Catholics got involved and changed the social norms. 

Kids under 16 not all that long ago were considered adults.  Old enough to marry, with all the penis that involves, old enough to be apprenticed out to a trade and not live at home any more.  Some things are cultural.  What aboriginal people do around the world after "coming of age" would be considered child abuse/endangerment here in the U.S.   Some judgments are really just cultural.  I personally don't think all are, but then I believe in a God and universal law.  My question is how you can make any claim, when norms, and perhaps "harm", may just be cultural.  

Once again, ask the people that this affects their lives, their families lives

I'm sorry, I thought you might be asking me a serious question that you wanted an answer to, not that you were just looking to rant about.   Should you want a serious answer, you'll have to answer my questions.  By which adults?  What sort of contraception?  Do they have any prior medical conditions?  For what purpose?

how much do you actually know about the science most atheists parrot?

If experimental results are reproducible on demand, it's science. Being able to parrot can be useful skill for learning things, but skepticism is even more highly esteemed in science, unlike in faith.

Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology.

True, in terms of percentage of what there is to know, and that percentage is decreasing daily. Meanwhile, the body of scientific knowledge is growing exponentially, unlike in theology. We couldn't have detected earth-like planets in other solar systems without first knowing and applying Newtonian science. No scientist knows all science, yet we can put scientists and engineers together and build MRI scanners to diagnose diseases, while other scientists and engineers figure out how to produce surgery an medicines for cures. Compared to faith and/or prayer, there's no question about which method is most effective.

an atheist trusts scientists with a Ph.D. tacked to their name to tell them what they believe.

As mentioned in above paragraphs: 1) skepticism is essential to the scientific process; 2) a PhD usually means highly educated and should be listened to; 3) the body of scientific knowledge grows exponentially. The advantage science has over faith here is that we can read what PhDs publish, weigh the different opinions and evidence, and learn how dependable their methods and results are compared to other PhDs (and non-PhDs), and a myriad of other, separate, scientific institutions. And we have an explosion in the body of knowledge that we can access. We're already curing some cancers, and additional future cures are a scientific certainty. (Note that cancer is just one, relatively "tiny" example of daily life that science addresses.)

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.

The strength of science comes not only from skepticism, but by learning from unpredicted or inconsistent results of tests. The fact that science is testable and self-correcting makes it radically different from faith.

 are addicted instead to the phrase “know”. But honestly, do you really know, or are you just believing what you’re told?

Using this logic alone, how do we "know" that the earth is round? For you, is this really just a matter of "faith"? For most of us, it's a matter of reasonably evaluating the preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, the preponderance of evidence is collaborated across many, different sources of scientific evidence. It does not require a rocket scientist to understand this, nor does it require a leap of faith.

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.

This story is also complicated by the effect that humans have had on the earth's greenhouse gases, and possible runaway warming (as ocean and land biomatter release even more gases). Meanwhile, faith's answer to the question of climate change is either non-existent, or based on various, ancient mythology.

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.

Does this mean to you that the earth might be flat? Can you even be sure that oxygen exists, since it's invisible?

Is my trust based on faith?  Faith is believing something without evidence, science is the seeking of evidence.  I trust that if you seek answers you will find them, they may not be the ones you expected but you will find out something you did not know.
Faith is not bothering to seek (some do of course) but just accepting the answers you are given.
Asking if my trust in science is based on faith is like asking if my trust in math is based on the rolling of dice.
You do not need to know about science to trust it, now, the people DOING the science, well, that's another matter. But the basic concept of science as done honestly should be trusted and does not ask for nor require faith.

@Strega - It is so nice of you to want to extend Bob's education - as it seems to have a very big gap, regarding ethics, morals right and wrong. So, Bravo you in taking this time to help. :) and let us hope, that this time he doesn't take a hissy fit, and refuse to add this knowledge to his morally bankrupt education.

@Bob- Because children have been raped by catholic priests in unprecedented numbers, I think it would be prudent for all priests to wear chastity belts - but who would be The Keeper of the Keys - mmm....who can one really trust????

@Bob - By which adults?  What sort of contraception?  Do they have any prior medical conditions?  For what purpose?

An adult, is an adult, is an adult! Of legal age in their respective countries, to give consent, to vote, to drive, etc. etc.

What sort of contraception - As an Adult, it is their choice, not the dogma of a particular, in this case, the catholic church, of an unmarried pope, who does not bare the cost of either having a child, or feeding a child. In the meantime, third world countries are having more children than they can feed, and clothe. Forget education, that doesn't even come into the equation.

Do they have any prior medical conditions?  - Last time I looked, one doesn't need to go to a doctor for condoms- which the catholic church bans.

For what purpose? To have the children they can feed, clothe and educate. It is an adults choice to use contraception - for whatever reason they see fit for their family - nobody elses.

It's also worth remembering that rape, and child abuse more generally, are highly correlated with poverty.

Not in Australia - the majority of children who were raped were from wealthy white families, boarding schools, away on camps, after lessons, in the priests private rooms, when everybody is asleep.

Third world countries have yet to be hit to the extent that white countries were hit by these dregs of humanity - now that pedophile priests have to move out of white societies, 'cause white societies are now aware of the extent of these crimes, and how they were hidden and covered up, they will go to third world countries, for example, Ethiopia - where the families are poor, and to be able to go to heaven, they have to give the church part of the money from their crops - which goes to the priest, who also has a cook, a cleaner, a house and a driver, as people come real cheap in these countries. I have a Filipino friend, an ex priest who is now an Atheist - he was in a poor area - but still had the accruements befitting a man of the 'stature of a priest' - he left the priesthood to marry.

Ah, celibacy now is the cause of pedophilia.  Really?   I suppose you have evidence of that?  Nah.

There are two meanings of celibacy - In the catholic cult, celibacy is taken for granted that it only means no sex, when in fact, the other meaning is not to marry. The demons of the catholic church are women - those bloody sirens tempting these poor naive men - a priest is told not to left alone in a room with a woman, not to be enticed by a woman, to keep propriety when dealing with women etc. etc. because sex outside of marriage is a sin - therefore he must remain chaste.

There are many gay priests in the hierarchy of the catholic church, but this isn't a bother, they are doing no harm, adult with adult. Gay priests are balanced, and do really good work, as they have empathy, are in relationships, have human contact, all the things the average human needs.

Successive popes have known about the prelates in The Curia that are Gay, and did not and have not, as yet, done anything about it. Too many to just what, sack, and then it would actually be out in the open, denigrate Gays wanting to marry, etc by fobbing it off 'We don't hate Gays, we just don't like what they do", when it is exactly this, that has been going on in the Vatican. Gays went into the priesthood, hoping they would 'be cured' by praying to be cured, often by their families, and when that didn't work, they found themselves with many other Gays. Sad that they thought they may be 'cured' but Hallelujah , they found their niche, as they also, didn't want to be with women.

So, many heterosexual males go into the priesthood, and are turned into a stunted, inadequate, lonely male, by a system who will not have women in the hierarchy, who are told of the 'enticements of women', these men are heterosexual, so who is next on the list, who is an easy target that they can put 'The Fear of God' and will and can be forced to never speak about it - children. It is not JUST about the abuse of children, it was the systematic cover up, spending millions, if the priest was eventually forced to go to court, it is the systematic destruction of any and all incriminating papers after ten years.

But, after saying that, there are certainly priests who have affairs - and with those bloody women, no less. Hypocritical, yes, but at least they have a healthy attitude towards sex.

Certainly, there are pedophiles in other groups, they are also stunted, inadequate males who prey on children - the difference being, the catholic church breeds them, then covers up the crimes. So, while you naysay about celibacy - it will continue. Klonk.

The following statement is from "The Roman Catholic Faithful -

http://www.rcf.org/docs/celibacy.htm

Mr. Y, a homosexual man, can only become a priest if he makes a vow of celibacy - if he vows to remain unmarried to a woman.
He does not vow to remain unmarried to a man because, according to his Catholic faith, he can never marry a man - he cannot vow to give up what he cannot have in the first place.
Therefore, Mr. Y's priestly vow of celibacy is an easy, ludicrous and utterly pointless promise for him to make since he does not want to be married to a woman. (It wasn't so easy, ludicrous or utterly pointless, however, for Mr. X.)
With his priestly vow of celibacy per se he does not, as is frequently believed and wrongly reported, make a vow to refrain from sex. He makes a vow to remain unmarried. But since he has vowed to remain unmarried to a woman, and since he cannot validly “marry” another man, he is required by his Catholic faith to remain perpetually chaste - he can never have sex.
My question is how you can make any claim, when norms, and perhaps "harm" may be cultural - Are you saying the rape and abuse of children by catholic priests is 'cultural'?

We are talking about America - I am talking about Australia - ask the parents of these children if they consider the raping and abuse of their child is cultural - ask the children how the rape and abuse has affected them - ask the children what it is to be called a liar, ask the children if they think that "Jesus loves them, and will protect them.'

Klonk.

RSS

Blog Posts

What do you do with the anger?

Posted by dataguy on September 20, 2014 at 5:12pm 3 Comments

Aftermath

Posted by Belle Rose on September 20, 2014 at 2:42am 5 Comments

Ads

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