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: 5586

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

@ G;

You say: "...they are now convinced Earth is about to turn into a desert. ..."

Who are "they"?

Your implied conclusion of the consensus of opinion amongst climate scientists is incorrect and inflammatory. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The beauty of the Scientific Method is it's simplicity and self-correcting structure, it uncovers the truth about nature, and that is why it works and is relied upon by all intelligent people.

I don't "believe" scientific peer consensus, I accept it to my personal level of understanding.

Belief is foolish, acceptance is practical.

Science isn't a religion. Its applied questions and answers. You have a question.  you take you question to next step. Formulation of a answer. Gain answer. double check answer to make sure it's correct. If not start over. If it is shiny. Religion is consists of I have a question. Read the book. Accept answer. Do not question farther.  

I've tried four times to join in this discussion but my computer chooses to delete my contribution.  Religion  is bullshit.  I recently read "The Healing Power of Neuralfeedback" by Stephen Larsen.  I've met someone whose daughter went into remission of severe epilepsy due to this therapy.  I'm now trying this for my daughter.  Conventional medicine has no more to offer.  I realised a few years' ago after much suffering that the sky fairy was a con and a great disservice to mankind.

I'm a strong atheist but always tolerant.  Now I've lost my tolerance, and could have lost a treasured friend after ranting at her and her belief in dog.  She refused to be offended by my rave and offered me love and support.  I'm so grateful for that.  I've had a terrible week after my daughter suffered another debilitating fall.

My trust in science and not in bullshit is based on my need to give science a go.  

This site is amazing and has led me on a path to learning and self discovery.

Thank you all so very much.

Good luck with your daughter, best wishes.

Gregg

LOL now wish i had the list of seventh day adventist that used to come by my door.

The best thing about the Scientific Method is that it doesn't trust people.

No one can make a claim of authority, it doesn't matter who I am nor what titles I have, the Scientific Method doesn't give a shit.

In the last 4 hundred years the body of human knowledge has grown so exponentially that we now fire bullets into comets.

If we don't kill ourselves off, the next 4 hundred years will be out-fucking-standing.

But that's the beauty of science, it's not afraid to be wrong, and not ashamed to correct earlier errors.\

Show a Fundie that the Bible says a rabbit chews its cud, then ask if it's possible the Bible could be wrong, and see what kind of answer you get.

However, there is almost unlimited scientific evidence suggesting that humans have imagined and concocted thousands or possibly even hundreds of thousand of gods over many millennia, and the dozens of remaining non-discarded gods are likely no more real than the thousands or hundreds of thousand discarded gods.

There is almost unlimited evidence that humans have imagined and concocted thousands or possibly hundreds of thousands of theories of how the physical world works over many millennia, most claiming to be "scientific", at least in the terminology of the day.

Does it then follow that the remaining current scientific theories are no more real than the thousands or hundreds of thousands of discarded theories?

Of course not.

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 through experience, evidence, or argumentation.

If there really were/are gods, then who, really, told humans about them?

If there really are leptons, then who, really, told humans about them?

Why, other humans of course.  Most of us learned about them in textbooks, and we trusted and referred to those texts and those more learned than we were.  A very small set of us perhaps had some direct experience with leptons through access to experimental apparatus (well, at least ways of measuring the indirect effects of lepton interaction), the we described those experiences to others.

Both science and theology are human endeavors, and they proceed in the ways that most human development and transmittal of knowledge happen.  We should not accord science any magical status.

LoL!  Well, going forward, I would suggest not putting very much trust in your analytical skills.  ;-)

You of course are always free to ignore me, I don't mind.

Prof Bob! Good to hear from you again! I trust your visit here will be far less tumultuous than last time --

RSS

Events

Services we love!

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service