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: 5540

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I confess I know almost nothing about Magdalene Laundries, @Dave G.  I do know that Catholics of all sorts have committed every variety of heinous crime throughout the centuries, just as humans of all sorts and every group have done.   We're human.

Blacks/African Americans here in the U.S. have committed all sorts of terrible rape and murder.  Statistically more than the general population if we look at conviction rate.   However, it would be nonsensical to say that Blacks/African Americans abuse women.

Scientists, too, have done all kinds of terrible things.  Built (and are still building) weapons of mass destruction, conducted experiments with deadly diseases on unsuspecting poor black people, committed research fraud, supported eugenics.   Yet it would be nonsensical to say that Science or the scientific community is corrupt and inhumane.

It's true that you will find people who will collect anecdotes of all the bad things blacks/African Americans have done over 50 years and point with alarm at them.  Every time you deny their claim they will find another case of blacks/African Americans committing crimes, as if just one more case will be enough to prove their point.  Often enough they will be willing to convict blacks/African Americans even when they are innocent. 

I'm sure we both know people who do the same thing with Science, collecting every report from every source about scientific fraud or overreach or bad behavior, to justify denying what is really good science.

So yep, Catholics have done all sorts of vile, evil things.  You can point to cases from 20 centuries.  Do it often enough and you'll start to imagine that we were executing everyone with a Greek bible for a thousand years.  That's how prejudice works.

As an aside, I'm curious what you think about how the U.S. is handling this particular societal problem of poor, lost women who become prostitutes and drug addicts and petty criminals?  Here we actually incarcerate them in real prisons, by the drove, where there is plenty of real abuse that enjoys considerable legal protection.  In fact, we're the most incarcerated nation in the history of the world.  Do you honestly think that secular democratic solution is better?

Prof here is a post on the laundries for your education.

Do you really not understand the difference between black people and the Catholic Church in the context?

One of those organizations has an established hierarchy and organizational structure, dogma and doctrine, espoused moral precepts, scriptural basis, and voluntary association.  

The other organization is NOT AN ORGANIZATION. It's an involuntary classification with no official organizational structure, authority or philosophy.

Scientists, perhaps, fit a middle ground; however it should be noted that the ethical aspects of science are questioned quite frequently. Laws are set in place to regulate the activity of scientists across various jurisdictions, and most of us would drop our support for any specific research institution which had serious breaches of ethics. There's no double standard if that is what you are fishing for.

Ah, the famous, "We're not the only ones --" defense!

@Arch - clinically, it's called 'deflection'

Ah, the famous, "We're not the only ones --" defense!

AKA "So's your old man."

Nice deflection attempt, Bob. That you are unable to distinguish between an organization and a group of people whose only unifying connection is their skin color creates grave doubts about your reasoning capability.

Your dishonesty is getting very wearying.

"Yet, perhaps, maybe, Newton's ideas might still be useful?"

Could you mean Newton's laws of motion, or his notes on alchemy, which he pursued for much of the later days of his virgin life? (He believed women were nasty!)

We are nasty!

Vive la "nasty!"

Could you mean Newton's laws of motion, or his notes on alchemy

A very good point, arch. his laws of motion (and calculus!) are still useful as they have been verified repeatedly. His ideas on alchemy (and God), not so much so. 

Once in awhile, I catch a break --

I'm still scratching my head over a comment you made in another post, it began: "Quite so" - somehow, I just can't equate a dude in a cowboy hat with saying, "Quite so." You're a dichotomy, Dave - or a schizophrenic --


Blog Posts

Out of the fog

Posted by Belle Rose on March 1, 2015 at 6:27pm 1 Comment

Kids Logic

Posted by Mai on February 28, 2015 at 5:33am 7 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service