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: 5445

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

It IS an old tradition, Papi, but we can outgrow it.

Hello @terrence,

I confess I'm not sure what this thread is about any more.  It seems every thread gets turned into a discussion of pedophilia whenever I'm around.   <:(   So I'm not sure what exactly you're responding to.

Do science and religion go "hand in hand"?  Well, I suppose that depends on what you mean by "hand in hand".  I would agree that they are not mutually exclusive worldviews.  I'm perfectly happy being a scientist and a Catholic, as are quite a lot of people now and throughout history.  I would go further and say that they are complementary, and share some essential epistemological features that likely can be traced back to Judaism.

If you really think that science follows a "formal process", then the anthropologists of science are going to have a good chuckle.  That "scientific method" that you learned in elementary school is largely a fiction, when you look at the observational evidence from the actual practice of science.   From my own experience, the process by which my church develops teachings and the process which happens in science are remarkably similar.   That's no surprise, as western universities in general along with western science arose from my religious tradition.

"Christinsanity" - I like the phrase you've coined, Terrance, welcome to the monkey house!

Welcome, Terrence.

again, I press upon you to describe to me by what process you discern the explanatory value of one religious claim from the next.

That's a little preview, Terrence. Robert is a religious crackpot of mundane variety, but of unusual persistence. He'll state, but when called out, generally won't support, describe, or explain. Or it'll be fabrication, evasion, fallacy, and intellectual dishonesty of every kind. Pressing upon him only produces more of the same.

Usually the nutjobs appear, howl a bit, then disappear, but ol' Robert keeps coming back for more. Most times he'll cut and run, or lay on the mat with his face a bloody mess, and afterwards either claim victory or amnesia.

He's one of the best posters on here for sheer entertainment value. Stick around and enjoy! I hope he never leaves!

Next, I recommend you read all about Robert's latest two inventions (just as soon as he gets around to describing them): Atheist states and Atheist philosophy!

I disagree that they are complementary...they share only a superficial similarity

So that's a claim.  Explain that a bit.  Again, I don't think the anthropologists of science who actually like to pay attention to this sort of thing would concur.  They see the practice of science as being quite similar to other human forms of social interaction and development of knowledge.  There's no particular evidence to show that it is "resilient", though I suppose it depends on what you actually mean by that term.  One might argue that Christendom is the most "resilient" philosophical systems because it has persisted and thrived across so many varied peoples for such a long period of time.

The core ideas of Christendom - 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, that some understandings of that Truth we hold tenuously, others more firmly, others more absolutely, but never completely,  that the Truth is advanced by argumentation and discussion and common enterprise with others, that new ideas and discoveries can change centuries-old understandings or practices, and should be tested, that one's own notions should be held with humility and subject to evidence and argument... those are Catholic/Christian notions.

One might argue that Christendom is the most "resilient" philosophical systems ...

Christendom is not a philosophy, Professor, it is a religion. You are sounding like Bill O'Rilley.

Here, hopefully this blurb will help you see the difference between the two.

"One of the major differences between religion and philosophy is the need for rituals. While almost all the religions in the world have certain set of rituals which are to be followed by the followers of the respective religions, philosophy does not have any sort of rituals, as it is only a way of thinking. So, while a person can be philosophical without having to do any sort of practices or rituals, it is almost impossible for him to be religious without doing any sort of rituals or practices stated in that particular religion. This is one big difference which makes people say that religion and philosophy are mutually exclusive and cannot co-exist.

Yet another difference between religion and philosophy is the concept of belief. While almost all the philosophies do not accept the concept of belief, religion tends to bring in the belief angle quite a few times. In philosophy, something is considered true only if it is completely proven true on a long term basis by means of various forms of reasoning. If it is not, then it will not be considered the ultimate truth. However, in case of religion, a lot of things are supernatural, superstitious, and incredulous in nature that only the concept of belief can make people stand by those things. This is the reason why a lot of philosophers were against organized religions." - Not written by me.

The core ideas of Christendom - 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.

that some understandings of that Truth we hold tenuously, others more firmly, others more absolutely, but never completely, 

Which is decided by whom exactly? Oh, yeah... the rest of society, to which your religion conforms the best it can in an attempt to stay relevant in a world that needs it less and less.

that the Truth is advanced by argumentation and discussion and common enterprise with others,

... 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.

that new ideas and discoveries can change centuries-old understandings or practices,

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

and should be tested, that one's own notions should be held with humility and subject to evidence and argument...

And that one should never present any evidence for his notions, and ignore all evidence contrary to one's own notions.

those are Catholic/Christian notions.

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.

I think you are one of the Mel Gibson style Catholics (minus the racism, I hope), Professor... The sect that doesn't consider the pope as god's interpreter and all that jazz.

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 core ideas of Christendom -

Are comprised of these, Robert:

1. Belief in God the Father, Jesus Christ as the Son of God and the Holy Spirit
  2. The death, descent into hell, resurrection, and ascension of Christ
  3. The holiness of the Church and the communion of saints
4. Christ's second coming, the Day of Judgement and salvation of the faithful

The core notion of Catholicism goes like this, Robert:

The Profession of Faith

I believe in one God, the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven,
[bow during the next two lines:]
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

Amen.

Really, Robert. You make it sound like Catholics stand up in church every Sunday and recite your "core ideas of Christiandom" instead: 

The Profession of Faith

I believe....

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
   [bow during the next two lines]
that some understandings
of that Truth we hold tenuously
others more firmly,
others more absolutely,
but never completely
that the Truth is advanced
by argumentation and discussion
and common enterprise with others,
that new ideas and discoveries
can change centuries-old understandings
or practices, and should be tested,
that one's own notions should
be held with humility and
subject to evidence and argument.

Amen.

those are Catholic/Christian notions.

None of that bears the slightest resemblance to any Christian gospel or catechism of the Catholic Church that I've ever read (and I've read them).

Now that last part about being subject to evidence is a surprise, although I know it's crap (because it's always crap) but I'll take you up on it anyway.

Let's see the evidence for your notion that there is a God.

And now silence will reign, or bullshit will reign, or evasion will reign; anything but the evidence. Because those are the real Catholic/Christian notions.

RSS

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