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: 5642

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Actually, the pope was never considered God's representative on Earth, and the infallibility thing mostly came out of  Vatican I in the late 1800s. 

I'm curious what evidence you have of criminal coverups by actual popes.  Actionable evidence, not just the never-ending conspiracy stuff.  Certainly, there have been Vatican "coverups" at times, if by that you mean efforts to handle things internally rather than turn to the Italian courts. 

Now, by all accounts the Vatican hierarchy in Rome is a swamp that needs to be drained.  Too many bureaucrats currying favor and positions.  We all have some hope for Francis in that role, though it's tougher with Benedict hanging around.  Aside from your personal bias, though, how is that any different from any governing bureaucracy anywhere?  They all fall into stuff and need to be swept out from time to time.  Fewer get jail time than they should, but at least few of ours walk away independently wealthy.

No, that's just where things get interesting to try to figure out!   You should challenge your catechism teacher!  Ask questions, dig deeply, be skeptical. 

If only - I asked the teacher who was a nun, by the way, shrouded in black with hijab. At least that has changed. One didn't question - or one was told to leave and never come back - which is exactly what happened - they were the days.

Every human work has mistakes and contradictions -

The bible is made up from fiction and plagiarised myths.

No mistakes as such, outlandish impossible claims, yes, wickedness and evil, yes, told to believe, yes. I just couldn't believe these as fact of history or how I should lead my life, as the whole shebang, in this case, was to worship a a blood thirsty, punishing god.

Why on earth anyone would want to revere this myth, worship this myth, accept the millions that were killed (supposedly) as fact, is beyond me.

Why would you expect theology to be any different? -

I don't - that is the beauty of coming to conclusions about any religious book - all just made up by men, out of their own little heads - It is only the fact that this superstitious tripe is followed by unthinking, scared people, or perpetuated by people, to make money - that is where I draw the line, and that goes for any religion, it is just that yours in the western world, is the most wealthy.

Once again, I don't care what people want to believe in, there are groups of people that still believe Thor is alive and well, in spirit of course, I don't care, they aren't doing harm, but your lot, along with muslims of course, are doing great harm, great damage.

Atheists have only the most superficial understanding of the Bible -

Do tell, oh, great teacher, where have I gone wrong, what don't I understand?

Never engaged more deeply -

And that is your biggest mistake - analysed the bible, you better believe it, I have come to different conclusions than you.

That's what you sometimes look like to us. - Once again, I don't care what Atheists look like to you - it is only when Atheists are attacked that we will answer back.

A person, supposedly as smart as you, should understand, at the very least, if you were born in an Arabic country, you would now be a muslim saying allah akbar five times a day.

Seeing the light, in that the bible is superstitious hogwash, was in fact, no big deal for me. I could say to my parents, this is evil, why are so many people getting killed by a supposedly good god.

Yaay, no more Catechism, no more church, no more getting depressed when reading this shite, no more questions to be had. That simple.

So, could you give me your thoughts on, I'll keep it simple, say Noah's Ark?

What has your particular version of god, done for humanity in the last 2,000 years.

You are a run of the mill theist, who diverts. Who cares what Tea Party do or don't understand.

Get back to what the heads of your religion are actually doing. I am assuming you didn't read the article on Vatican Fraud - these are your leaders, are they not. If they aren't, why call yourself a catholic, if you do call yourself a catholic, you are also in league with these hypocrites, and they just love people like you, who are the sheep in their cause, the pillars propping up this business, raking in the millions, and that is all it is.

If one has studied the different cults attached to the catholic church, like Legions of Jesus and the loony tune violent, manipulative Opus Dai away from you.

Why didn't the Vatican expose them. Why doesn't the Vatican excommunicate them.

Too many people involved, spread across the world, bringing in too much money.

Why hide the thousands of pedophile priests, because they don't give a shite about children - they had to protect the brand, and rake in money, keep heir lifestyle, travel the world - brilliant fraud.

If your church actually did no harm, it would all be good. Once again, this hierarchy absolutely needs people just like you, to obfuscate, make excuses for, divert attention away from what is really going on. Top of the heap as far as fraud is concerned.

You live in a bubble of a wonderful life - good for you - in the meantime families are struggling in third world countries waiting on word from the pope, even though he lost status, and is no longer god's representative. Even the vatican knew that was a stretch, so is now all humble. This works for the sheep of the church.

I think, Bob, that you should team up with Warren Jeffs - he has a direct link to Jesus.

A person, supposedly as smart as you, should understand, at the very least, if you were born in an Arabic country, you would now be a muslim saying allah akbar five times a day.

If I were born in an Arabic country, I would understand the Koran and Islamic culture much better than I do, to be able to make a less biased observation.   I would still have a choice.   Yes, people grow up in places and learn initially what their parents teach them, but at some point we all choose.

You grew up in a Christian family in a predominantly Christian nation, but have made a choice not to believe.  As a person, a scientist, an educator I made the same choice, except that mine was to be a Catholic Christian.  In both cases, they were choices.  Neither of us was bound by our upbringing or our culture.

If one has studied the different cults attached to the catholic church, like Legions of Jesus and the loony tune violent, manipulative Opus Dai away from you.  Why didn't the Vatican expose them. Why doesn't the Vatican excommunicate them.

I'm reminded of the caretaker in Harry Potter.  "I want to see some PUNISHMENT!!"

I've known a few Opus Dei members.  They're a group of folks that meets occasionally to talk about how to live a Christian life in the world.  How to be faithful to family, how to be good researchers, good accountants, etc.  The one I know best is an eastern European immigrant who fled communist Czechoslovakia with nearly nothing, and who has a delightful family.  He's an engineer.  Why do you want us to shun him?

The Legionaries of Christ (not Legions of Jesus) are a religious order that was founded by a Mexican pedophile.  He was eventually stripped of his title and positions and sentenced to a life term under house arrest by Pope Benedict, who also sent a team to do a massive housecleaning of the order.  That housecleaning is still going on.   Personally, I agree with you, the order should just be suppressed entirely.  At the same time, there are still a lot of good, well-meaning men who took up a vocation there.  They're a bit conservative, but that's not a crime.  Why do you want us to shun them all, rather than just deal with the real problems and re-assign the rest?  Guilt by association?  Punish the whole group for the crimes of a few?

What has my church done for humanity?  Here in the U.S. there are now over 6,800 Catholic schools (5% of the national total); 630 hospitals (11%) plus a similar number of smaller health facilities; and 244 colleges and universities. Many of these institutions are known for excellence: seven of the leading 25 part-time law school programmes in America are Catholic (five are run by Jesuits). A quarter of the 100 top-ranked hospitals are Catholic.

Worldwide the numbers are even higher, because we operate in many nations that don't have well-developed education or health care systems.  The Catholic Church manages 26 percent of health care facilities in the world - 117,000 health care facilities, including hospitals, clinics, orphanages as well as 18,000 pharmacies and 512 centers for the care of those with leprosy.  Worldwide we run 93,315 elementary schools, 42,234 secondary schools, and our second- and third- world education outreach has resulted in a 28% increase in enrollment over ten years, particularly among girls.  One thousand three hundred fifty eight colleges & universities.

The Vatican itself takes in about 250 million Euros a year, with matching expenses.  That money has to maintain diplomatic offices throughout the world, a number of museums, collections, and historical buildings around Rome, as well as the central organization serving 1.2 billion people.  By contrast, the U.S. State Department operational expenses alone come to around $15 billion, to serve only 300 million people.  Who is raking in the money?

If you really care about the children, and the sick in Africa and all the rest, why aren't you there?  We are.

If I were born in an Arabic country, I would understand the Koran and Islamic culture much better than I do, to be able to make a less biased observation.   I would still have a choice.   Yes, people grow up in places and learn initially what their parents teach them, but at some point we all choose.

The vast majority "choose" to conform.

The vast majority of those who are taught science choose to understand and "believe" it. 

Sometimes they would even be shunned or made fun of by peers and atheists if they didn't.

Does that make science wrong?

The vast majority of those who are taught science choose to understand and "believe" it.

Because science yields consistent results around the world, unlike religion around the world. Scientists don't even have to communicate with each other or read the same books to come up with answers that they'd precisely verify and agree on if they were to meet.

In fact, schools don't even have to use the same science books or authors, yet they're able to independently present consistent conclusions, no matter who the publishers are here or there, or this year or next.

Sometimes they would even be shunned or made fun of by peers and atheists if they didn't.

I've been to places where the first question a stranger asks you is "What church do you go to?". Scientists and atheists do not go around asking people what they believe, or provide weekly services based on thousand year old texts. Science upgrades its own knowledge every fricken day, consistently, and the whole world can say "Yeah, that's right, my own experiments and observations confirm it! Thanks for the new knowledge!".

@Pope, the majority of people don't go out and conduct experiments to verify what science teachers in their culture have told them.  They just choose to conform.

That's the only point I'm making. 

My religion, of course, is very consistent around the world. ;-)

Well, I "choose to conform" to what can be independently realized by independent paths, all around the world. Different forms or points of view of science exist in individual fields of study, but they eventually support each other in describing one, consistent reality. Your religion may be consistent within itself, but it's not consistent--nor is its priority to be consistent--with other religions.

It's quite clear how scientific culture "chooses" to rely on reproducible evidence regardless of origin, versus people who "choose" religion based mostly on their cultural origins.

Religion and science require very different thought processes, burdens of proof, and repeatedly inevitable, universal agreement.

Comparing science and religion that way is nonsensical.  Of course people's lack of belief in science would not make it wrong, but that does not imply that religious tenets are right or wrong based on whether or not people believe them.

Science has testable theories, while religion calls for faith.  They are also not mutually exclusive. Many people have faith in a divine being AND understand how science works.  I personally can test some scientific theories and not prove them false.  I predict if I drop my shoe 10 times it will fall to the ground 100% of the time, provided I am on the surface of the Earth.  I would not call that faith - I call that knowledge.

Of course some people might blindly think everything produced by "science" is real and true but that would be a mistake too.  One has to have a rational approach to science.  That is the beauty of it - science calls for theories to stand up to rigorous scrutiny while religion does not.  

Whether or not a person believes it, gravity, for instance, will have its effect on objects in the ways it has been proven to do so 100% of the time.  If it doesn't, then the theory has to change.  I guess you could say people believe in science, but that belief is based on facts which speak for themselves.  It is not so for religion.

I know you know all of this but I apparently needed to say it anyway.

I predict if I drop my shoe 10 times it will fall to the ground 100% of the time, provided I am on the surface of the Earth.  I would not call that faith - I call that knowledge.

Actually, @Diane, I would argue that it's both.

We have knowledge of previous observations and a theory that fairly reliably predicts those observations.

We also have faith that the universe is predictable; that the shoe does not have the ability to do something different.  One of the "faith" elements of science is that there are natural laws and that they are discernible.  Even the small violation of the assumption of predictability is what gave Einstein fits about quantum mechanics, because in some ways the shoe really can just do something different! 

Honestly, once you move away from the fundamentalists, religion is very much the same.  There are a few things which are taken on "faith", but most things are the accumulation of experience with the world, with people, and with divinity.  We have theories that we trust well enough to rely on them and teach them to our children, but they have been slowly modified over time or reinterpreted.  Many have been rejected along the way, or simply ignored as no longer being relevant.   Sometimes people cling to them perhaps when they shouldn't, the way Einstein argued with Bohr. 

Both science and religion are human endeavors, trying honestly to understand things that are much bigger than humans.

Hi Bob - I think you are misrepresenting the word “faith” in the shoe analogy. We don’t have faith that it will fall to the ground. We have an “expectation” that it will based on previous experience. If it falls to the ground the first 9 times then we have an expectation that it will fall on the tenth occasion based on previous evidence (similar falsifiable experiments).


Faith in the religious context is not based on any evidential based objective experience. You have the Hope that what you believe through faith is true. It is not the same thing.


If we want to look at quantum predictability (your area of expertise?) then one day the cat might be in the box but do the math and the odds are so enormous as to make it meaningless. Maybe one day God will be in the box. The odds are the same.

I wrote a lengthy reply having to to with the creative use of the words 'faith' and 'evidence' but I realized it is a futile effort.  You know these things already.

What I want to know is what is the point  you are getting at?  To get us to admit we have faith in science?  Or is it to show us that we have faith in something?  Either way, you're comparing apples to oranges.  I suppose I can admit that I believe some things without direct evidence.  I don't have a lot of faith though.  I have faith that time will pass and things will happen - that is the extent of my faith.  This is something I have experienced directly but it is in the future so I don't know for certain.  Time could go backwards and things could un-happen for all I know.  


And what if someone says he or she does have faith in science?  That still wouldn't prove anything, would it?

RSS

© 2016   Created by umar.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service