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: 5926

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Not criticizing you at all.  I am agreeing, I am just pointing out that what you say about theists is a general rule. 

This aside, you have every right to be critical of theists because of their lack of understanding language.  Words can and do have different meanings.  Context is important - especially in the languages I mention above.  One words can have multiple meanings, and it depends on the context you use it in both spoken and written word.  So you are absolutely right.

Most atheists know as little science as most Christians know as little theology

I guess those of us who have degrees in Science have no clue about science then. I guess I wasted all that money in college tuition to get a degree.

G: Whoever wrote that blog has no clue about what they are saying.

Scientific laws and theories are explained by actual materialistic and empirical evidence. Yes at times they can be wrong, but that is the great thing about Science. It will admit its wrong and then go on to find the new evidence to the problem, instead of ignoring it, like religion does

First of all, scientists did not predict an ice age in the 70ies. Secondly, I don't have to believe in science because it demonstrably works. If it doesn't work, it isn't science.

It really is that simple once you scrape away all the verbosity which can be added to the point.

Try to build an airplane from the physics of The Bible. LOL


G: Allow me to introduce you to an atheist who DOES have deep scientific knowledge: ME!  You, on the other hand demonstrate clearly that you have zero understanding of science.

I don’t put “faith” in scientists.  But I absolutely do trust that the scientific method is more likely to give me the truth than any process yet devised by mankind.

There is no equivalency between the “truths” of science and religion.  Science has nothing whatever to do with belief; it is a way of organizing the thought process in order to most efficiently search for the truth.  Religion invents a “truth” out of nothing and mandates that it be accepted on faith alone.

Occasionally, scientists reach an incorrect conclusion, but that is rare.  And, to the extent that mistakes are made, it is science that discovers and corrects the mistakes, not the preachers in their pulpits, or the crackpots at the Discovery Institute.  When the two so-called scientists at the Univerity of Utah announced they had produced cold fusion, the media jumped all over it as a monumental discovery.  It was soon exposed, however, as a hoax.  Was it revealed as such by the nearby Mormons?  No, it was revealed as a fraud by real scientists.    When religion produces an incorrect conclusion, which is often, it makes no effort to correct the mistake; it denies that it is a  mistake.   

Many Christian denominations say the earth is 6,000 years old. Science uncovers evidence that indicates that it must be more on the order of  5 billion years old, give or take.  For me to lean towards the latter estimate does not take faith; it takes logic and an appraisal of the empirical evidence presented.  People who accept the young earth conjecture are doing so on nothing more than faith in pure mythology.  These are the people who watch “The Bible” on the History Channel and accept it as just that - history.

G’s scientific illiteracy is most obvious in the effort to compare ice age predictions with global warming observations and conclude that they are logically incompatible.  G does not have the education or intelligence to realize that both things can be true, because they are not related in any way.  Ice age predictions are based on studying the natural cycles of the planet over the span of millions of years, as revealed in the sciences of geology, paleontology, archeology, climatology, and others that produce a solid consensus that another ice age is highly likely.  The current global warming crisis has nothing to do with the natural cycles of the earth.  It has to do with the current effects observed in both volcanology and biology, as well as man's careless technology.  They operate over more constricted time scales than does the cooling of the planet.  In other words, while the earth may be headed for a gradual cooling cycle over the next 30,000 years or so, it is warming VERY rapidly right now, before our eyes.  Long before we freeze to death, assuming we do not become extinct first in our existential battle against microbes, we will have to deal with temperatures that are rising far faster than at any time in Earth’s history.  

And that is not based on “faith” in “Ph.D’s,” it is based on the statisitical data being gathered and analyzed all over the world by dedicated scientists.  Furthermore,  predictions of an impending ice age are not presented as settled fact; they are presented as showing an apparent trend, based on past observation.  Global warming is, however, FACT, as supported by overwhelming empirical evidence.  The FACT that 2012 is the warmest year over the last several thousand years; and the FACT that the 12 hottest years, globally, over the past century occurred in the last 14 years cannot be coincidence.    Global warming deniers are of two kinds: oil company mouthpieces like James Imhofe, who have a financial agenda in protecting their political donors; and religious folks who figure God will wave His magic wand and make everything come out okay in the end. That is pure FAITH!  Science does not expect people to have faith in its conclusions - only in the process it uses to try to reach the best conclusions.

If I put faith in every claim made by scientists, I would accept the efficacy of SETI, Carl Sagan’s lifelong obsession with finding intelligent, technology-based life elsewhere in the universe.  There is widespread, though far from unanimous agreement among scientists that intelligent life probably exists elsewhere in the universe besides Earth.  I don’t have faith that that is true, because the evidence has thus far been sparse and highly speculative.    In fact, my own scientific process tells me that intelligent life anywhere but here is unlikely.  I could be wrong, but I don’t put my faith in scientists; instead, I trust that the scientific method will yield the best chance for the truth to emerge. 

As to whether atheists know a lot about science, I wouldn’t hazard an opinion.  But one thing for sure: religionists and G don’t know diddly about it. 

G has yet to make an informed reply on this thread. His dealing with the responses of Gallup's Mirror and Dale will be interesting but I doubt he bothers. He's up to his ass in alligators and the swamp ain't draining......

And they kind of miss the point, which is that the only 100% for sure common factor uniting all atheists is summed up in our name. We are atheists. In other words we don't believe in God. An atheist can be an atheist and still believe there are problems with evolution theory. And you can believe there are problems with evolution theory without affirming theism.

G, thank you for just posting one question from there! That's a terribly long blog page. I'm thinking now that the usefulness of a blog page is probably inversely proportional to the square of the size of the original post.


You are certainly a "cut & paste" expert as indicated by your ability to plagiarize from someone else's blog.

As to the "10 questions for all intelligent atheists to deal with" I must remind you that anyone who dons the atheist 'cap' is exhibiting a high form of intelligence, and reasoning. [sarcasm]

The 10 questions are really not that problematic for an atheist to offer a reply. The fact is that the majority of the questions do not involve the core issue with all atheists. We have no extraordinary evidence, and it needs to be extraordinary when we discuss the possibility of invisible supernatural beings, that has been offered by anyone that is credible, verifiable, testable, and repeatable. Ancient texts (Koran, Bible) simply don't meet the criteria.

If an individual chooses to accept the proposition that there are supernatural beings in our midst then they should do so based on results obtained from the scientific method as opposed to the blind acceptance of mythologies and unsubstantiated fairy tales. It's okay to believe in the tooth fairy and Santa as a child but one needs to grow up at some point in time and accept the realities of our universe.

I don't know. I find it, at least with science, we can trust scientists more and are not going by some acaint rules in a book.  You do not have to be a scientist your self to understand the basic ideas.  and to learn from them.  Science is just what you observe around you. so for the most part, you can trust it, and if ya, we get something wrong.. we learn, and we improve.  unlike the bible.  same story, different day.


© 2018   Created by Rebel.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service