In another thread, @ Reg posts:
What is the best tool we have to get answers? Science is. Science does not care for the truth. It does not seek to assert that an idea is right. It first tries to destroy it. If it cannot be destroyed then it can be considered to be worthy of further consideration...
One of my struggles with much of what gets written here is that there are so many mythological views of science, many of which like @Reg's are anthropomorphic in their language.
Not only is Science the way of knowing, Science is a bearded, lab-coated deity of sorts.
Now I've probably spoiled things by that introduction, but I am really curious... What do folks really think of science here? What is it, how does it work in your point of view?
If you like, consider the following questions:
1. After scientists have developed a theory (e.g., atomic theory, kinetic molecular theory, cell theory), does the theory ever change? If you believe that scientific theories do not change, explain why and defend your answer with examples. If you believe that theories do change: (a) Explain why. (b) Explain why we bother to teach and learn scientific theories. Defend your answer with examples.
2. Science textbooks often represent the atom as a central nucleus composed of positively charged particles (protons) and neutral particles (neutrons) with negatively charged particles (electrons) orbiting the nucleus. How certain are scientists about the structure of the atom? What specific evidence do you think scientists used to determine the structure of the atom?
3. Is there a difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law? Give an example to illustrate your answer.
4. How are science and art similar? How are they different?
5. Scientists perform experiments/investigations when trying to solve problems. Other than in the stage of planning and design, do scientists use their creativity and imagination in the process of performing these experiments/investigations? Please explain your answer and provide appropriate examples.
6. In the recent past, astronomers differed greatly in their predictions of the ultimate fate of the universe. Some astronomers believed that the universe is expanding while others believed that it is shrinking, still others believed that the universe is in a static state without any expansion or shrinkage. How were these different conclusions possible if the astronomers were all looking at the same experiments and data?
As if you would answer the question anyways. I'm pretty sure the content of these beliefs are built on such an insecure and shallow foundation...it's only natural to avoid questions and not submit them to any critique. After all...why else avoid answering anyone's questions other than the fear to not be able to defend them? Isn't that what ducking and dodging is all about?
Was there a question in there that I missed?
This is absolutely hopeless and iredeemable. Dr. duck and dodge, I have no desire to bother any more. You have no problem babeling about how uninteresting or shallow or hateful atheism is and then make grandoise claims about religion...refuse to back up any of your claims answering questions and then get impatient when we won't answer yours. It's so hipocrytical and intelectually repulsive...there is nothing to learn or gain from interacting with Dr. duck and dodge anymore.
I have enjoyed the discussions involving Dr. Bob's 'duck and dodge', though I admit it's mildly annoying that these posts make it more difficult to find the meatier discussions on TA. Still, the responses to Dr. Bob make me proud to be an Atheist as Dr. Bob is giving his level-best attempt at sounding logical while refuting Atheism, even if this means avoiding answering questions asked of him.
The responses, however, have been educational. As I try such logic in a Christian forum, I am roundly condemned. The responses on TA are universally reasoned, and kind. I'll saying it again, TA makes me proud to be an Atheist.
There's no attempt on refuting atheism, @dataguy. Atheism can't be disproven any more than theism can, especially since it's just not believing in god(s) and makes no predictions and offers no guidance itself. Besides, refuting atheism or evangelizing what I believe wouldn't be appropriate for me as a guest here.
I've limited myself solely to trying to correct errors in understanding theism and (Catholic) Christianity, and occasionally errors in understanding science. Those should help you make better and more mature arguments, or at least I would hope that. There's a lot to criticize about religion, and atheism is an important voice in society. I just think that it should be an intelligent and well-informed voice.
Science is a method or a way of knowing. Beyond that, you can google it Bob.
1. The theory gets modified. Example is Newtonian physics and general relativity for example.
2. They prayed.
3. Yes, one is Law and one is theory. For example theory of gravity and law of gravity. This was easy.
4. Art imitates life. Science explains it.
5. Bob, you ask for too much in the name of evidence. You have never, if I recall correctly, given any to support your god or your beliefs.
6. Some people prayed that tsunamis should end and others that they should have food but they died from floods or starvation but they prayed to the same god, how could this be?
Bob- "Not only is Science the way of knowing, Science is a bearded, lab-coated deity of sorts."
Science as a deity? You're quite full of irony among other things.
You ask our forum members to chime in on their perception of science and it's application to our understanding of the world around us. That is not asking too much I suppose. Certainly no more than our futile attempts to persuade you to explain the god you believe in. I have never understood your persistent aversion to put into words your perception of the supernatural diety you profess to worship. If you choose to be forthright with us I believe your concept of god will be quite different from the ideology of other Abrahamic theists. We promise to be civil in responding to your revelation.
I can't wait to read his deflection response to the above
That was why I commented that his "concept of god will be quite different from the ideology of other Abrahamic theists." He does strike me as someone, who if they "fell off the fence," would probably land on the atheist side of things.
No, sorry Ed. There's nothing in atheism that I find at all worthwhile myself, though I think doubt and skepticism are important voices to keep us all honest. I think intelligent, well-informed, thoughtful atheism is an important voice in society. Demagogic anti-theism, not so much.
If I weren't Catholic I'd be Orthodox, which is really the same thing with a bit more eastern pomp. If the whole of the Catholic communion were off the table I'd be Jewish.
Now, how about your thoughts on science?