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: 5928

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Well, as I hope I made clear last time, as far as I'm concerned, you are always welcome here.

That's odd, they let me in whenever I like, but then, I'm adorable.

But you're right, it's much more fun over here. Posting on the other site is kind of like going to college and rooming with Canadians, polite, antiseptic, but not exactly anyone you'd want to slip out to a dingy bar and grab a beer with.

Except for maybe Heather, but then I can't imagine she's exactly a typical Canadian (or a typical anything, for that matter!) --

I'm curious to know which new theories about God, or of the physical world, have been advanced by experience, evidence, and argumentation in the field of religion (especially by evidence). What's the breaking news in the peer-reviewed theological journals these days? Did we discover that God thinks homosexuality is okay after all, or anything?

We presume, with some degree of confidence, that the theories which the community continues to find useful are more valid and worth passing along than the ones which people have been convinced to discard

Islam is proving to be extremely useful, then, I presume. It must have a lot of validity.


A few decades ago, I had a large, 10 pound, bound scientific encyclopedia. Such an encyclopedia today would probably have to be a hundred times larger. And no single version of it could go much deeper than surface-level summary.

I think you are confusing an argument from Authority with positions that are purposely refutable.

It is a mistake to assume that credentials are the important thing here.  The PHD doesn't mean nearly so much as you seem to think it is what the PHD represents...that this person is knowledgeable in their field AND, more importantly, that they use the scientific method to support their claims and evaluate their methodology and conclusions.  The scientific method is based on repeatable experiments that can produce repeatable consistent results.

So it isn't so much that an Astrophysicist tells me a thing and I say, he is an Authority and so he must be right!  It is that he and so many others like him have all used the same method to come to the same conclusions and are actually so adamant about this process that they are more than willing to be WRONG.  YES, the Science can tell you if you are right and if you are wrong.  

You are comparing Apples and Oranges here because one group of people say they can't be wrong and so no alternative evidence is even examined...while the other group of people actually tries to be wrong and so they examine every avenue of approach. 

I wear a pair of Smartwool socks labeled "PhD" I walk on PhD's all day long...hmmmm.

Wasn't that the little bald guy who used to chase Bugs Bunny? Elmer Phd?


Uhm, if you know that Lorentz Contractions are observable, have been observed, and that the observations correlate with the mathematical prediction for given velocities - how exactly is it that you do not 'believe in' Lorentz Contractions?

The Lorentz contractions do not provide the change in mass due to velocity.  The reason you can't go faster than light, through the vacuum of space, is that your clock stops.  That's time dilation - another result of high velocity not specified by Lortentz contractions.  You are mixing terms here - but at least that makes it clear how you can have some knowledge of the observations without believing them; you just don't clearly understand them.

RE: "Einstein was not always right." - according to Heisenberg, we can't be certain about that.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service