Atheism's Burden of Proof

[bhsmte]

So much for science needing "widespread faith in the intelligibility of reality granted by Judeo-Christian faith".

LOL

The reality is; science does not require leaning on any type of religious faith belief to do it's work, make discoveries and progress.

 

[KCfromNC]

You almost make it sound like the various 'String Theories' are already considered to be describing "real" physical entities ...

Since I never mentioned string theory I'm not sure how to correct the source of your misunderstanding.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Since I never mentioned string theory I'm not sure how to correct the source of your misunderstanding.

My bad. I should have realized that I need to stay on the path of the straight and narrow. Shame on me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

One might be because they understand the field they are experts in better than a bunch of amateurs in philosophy departments?

Also, who is claiming that science is true? I'm claiming it works and is useful, and does what it sets out to do better than the alternatives. Not sure where Truth enters into it, whatever that might be.

And that claim is a philosophical claim (stemming from pragmatism/instrumentalism). And if you're a proponent of pragmatism/instrumentalism, then you're also most likely an anti-realist. You do realize this, right? These concepts typically go hand-in-hand. Are you ok with that philosophical position?

 

[Silmarien]

The history is that they separated long ago. Science has progressed by leaps and bounds. Philosophy still can't figure out what reality is.

Science still can't figure out what a "law of nature" really is.

 

[bhsmte]

Science still can't figure out what a "law of nature" really is.

And yet, every hour of every day, you enjoy what science has figured out and figured out with a high degree of reliability.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And yet, every hour of every day, you enjoy what science has figured out and figured out with a high degree of reliability.

I don't know. Are we enjoying ourselves with everything science has figured out?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And yet, every hour of every day, you enjoy what science has figured out and figured out with a high degree of reliability.

And then..................there's always this, too. Yep, just so much fun!!! Fun, fun, fun!

 

[bhsmte]

And then..................there's always this, too. Yep, just so much fun!!! Fun, fun, fun!

Was my statement wrong?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't know. Are we enjoying ourselves with everything science has figured out?

Would you rather forgo all the conveniences and improvements to life science has discovered? Should religion be banned, because some people interpret it in a way that causes harm to others?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Was my statement wrong?

Let's not play on semantics here, bhsmte. USUALLY, the idea of "enjoyment" goes along with the idea of "safety." Only fools look for the kind of 'fun' that comes with higher risk factors for health.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Would you rather forgo all the conveniences and improvements to life science has discovered? Should religion be banned, because some people interpret it in a way that causes harm to others?

I didn't implicate that ALL of science is fraught with risk. But, let's face it. If Martin Blank is right, then most of the technological things that we are so commonly "enjoying" today are fraught with risks that most people are unaware of.

 

[bhsmte]

Let's not play on semantics here, bhsmte. USUALLY, the idea of "enjoyment" goes along with the idea of "safety." Only fools look for the kind of 'fun' that comes with higher risk factors for health.

Semantics? It was a simple question.

Higher risks for health because of science? Why don't we turn the clock back 200 years and see how people are impacted by safety and health.

 

[Silmarien]

And yet, every hour of every day, you enjoy what science has figured out and figured out with a high degree of reliability.

Doesn't mean that science gets a free pass to say that it's discovering the nature of reality when it can't even tell us what a law of nature is.

 

[bhsmte]

I didn't implicate that ALL of science is fraught with risk. But, let's face it. If Martin Blank is right, then most of the technological things that we are so commonly "enjoying" today are fraught with risks that most people are unaware of.

Such as?

Increased risk should be associated with increased damage to human health.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Semantics? It was a simple question.

Higher risks for health because of science? Why don't we turn the clock back 200 years and see how people are impacted by safety and health.

...don't strawman me, bhsmte. I said nothing about "closing down the offices and labs of science." But, that is what you're making it sound like I've implied.

 

[bhsmte]

Doesn't mean that science gets a free pass to say that it's discovering the nature of reality when it can't even tell us what a law of nature is.

And this law of nature is important to the discoveries science has made, how exactly?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Such as?

Increased risk should be associated with increased damage to human health.

"Such as?" Didn't you watch the video I posted above before you responded?

 

[bhsmte]

...don't strawman me, bhsmte. I said nothing about "closing down the offices and labs of science." But, that is what you're making it sound like I've implied.

No strawman, I addressed your post. As I stated, higher risk should be associated with more damage to humans over time.

 

[bhsmte]

"Such as?" Didn't you watch the video I posted above before you responded?

I don't typically watch videos.

You are free to put in your own words, what the video claims.