Method for accepting science

[Smidlee]

Faith is an assertion of unreasonable convictions and defended against all reason.

That's sounds more like foolishness. Like I wrote even science foundations are based on faith. I know atheist love to claim faith=foolishness yet that only reveals their lack of understanding.

 

[Michael]

That's sounds more like foolishness. Like I wrote even science foundations are based on faith.

It's simply amazing to me that 'faith' is such a dirty word to atheists and they seem to "assume" that faith plays no role in "science". Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[MyLordMySavior]

Why do you accept or reject this or that scientific theory?

For me I am lucky enough to enjoy science and was good at it when I did it at school. Still I can't possibly accept or reject various theories based on my own full assessment of the theories. Nevertheless, based on my understanding of the scientific method and how science works I find it reasonable to accept scientific consensus as approximate truth. Of course this takes more than accepting what any one scientist says at any one time. This would also be my roughly my method for other subjects as well.

So what I want to ask to those who have high doubts about things like evolution and climate change, is why is this? Why do you consider it reasonable to accept the word of non-scientists or a tiny minority of scientists over the majority? Is this based on the assumption that you are able weed out the incorrect theories without the appropriate training?

Why I reject evolution and climate change? Well, I don't doubt climate change for sure. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sometimes rain and sometimes snows, so I do believe in climate change. For evolution, however, the reason I don't believe it is because I've found many problems with it, there are missing pieces, and other things as well. While, with the Bible, I have found no problems in it and everything fits so perfectly together.

In my view, evolution is more of a blind faith then God. I would go into more detail on why evolution is false, but, i'm sorry, I don't feel like typing that long of a refute that will just be ignored. Because most atheists and people who choose science over religion, their just too hard headed for me! And no matter what evidence and proof I put forward they still won't believe it!



God bless you!

 

[Michael]

Er, I understand you've made an assertion you've yet to back up.

Like I said, you two aren't even speaking the same language.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

That's sounds more like foolishness. Like I wrote even science foundations are based on faith.

What you wrote is wrong. See my Hitch sig.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

It's simply amazing to me that 'faith' is such a dirty word to atheists and they seem to "assume" that faith plays no role in "science". Nothing could be further from the truth.

Right, because if I don't have faith in the germ theory of disease, my soul will spend eternity in hell.

 

[Smidlee]

What you wrote is wrong. See my Hitch sig.

Prove your Hitch sig is truth or do you accept this by faith.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Prove your Hitch sig is truth or do you accept this by faith.

That's why they call it "faith."

 

[Michael]

Right, because if I don't have faith in the germ theory of disease, my soul will spend eternity in hell.

No, but if you openly 'lack faith' in dark energy around astronomers sometime you'll certainly catch hell for your lack of faith and it will feel like an eternity before they actually respond intelligently to any of your actual criticisms.

 

[Smidlee]

That's why they call it "faith."

You may find this interesting.

The Truth wears off.

Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

​

Why are atheist so blind to their own faith?

 

[CaliforniaSun]

No, but if you openly 'lack faith' in dark energy around astronomers sometime you'll certainly catch hell for your lack of faith and it will feel like an eternity before they actually respond intelligently to any of your actual criticisms.

Why would you, me or anyone need to have faith in DE/DM? Either you understand the concept to help explain certain cosmological models, or you don't. Faith not needed.

 

[Michael]

Why would you, me or anyone need to have faith in DE/DM? Either you understand the concept to help explain certain cosmological models, or you don't. Faith not needed.

Well, for starters if you don't have any faith in the idea that "dark energy' exists or has any effect on nature, the math is pretty much completely useless to ANY cosmology theory that isn't based on SUPERNATURAL ideas. It's only apparent use is as 'gap filler' in ONE otherwise falsified cosmology theory. Why not just let that one theory die a natural scientific death? Why evoke gap filler to save it?

You have to have some amount of "faith" in the concept of graviton or a SUSY particle to study or write about them and attach a mathematical model to them. Inflation? When did inflation ever move even a single atom in lab? You have to have some amount of faith' in the concept of a Higgs particle too before spending BILLIONS of dollars designing and building experiments to go looking for it. Pretty much the whole theoretical science is based on faith. About the only thing that ISN'T based on faith is empirical physics, but that is just SMALL SUBSET of what passes for 'science".

 

[sandwiches]

That's sounds more like foolishness. Like I wrote even science foundations are based on faith. I know atheist love to claim faith=foolishness yet that only reveals their lack of understanding.

So the fact that science and religion are both based on faith, as you claim, makes science as strong and valid as or as weak and unjustified as religion?

 

[Michael]

So the fact that science and religion are both based on faith, as you claim, makes science as strong and valid as or as weak and unjustified as religion?

It makes religion a subset of science and it makes religion as strong and as valid as any other theoretical form of "science.

 

[sandwiches]

It makes religion a subset of science

I agree. Religion was the best available explanation for many things in the universe.

and it makes religion as strong and as valid as any other theoretical form of "science.

Interesting. I like this. I goes counter to the idea that religious or spiritual claims cannot be tested scientifically, which I've disagreed with many times on these forums.

Claims regarding reality, regardless of how we want to compartmentalize them, can be scientifically tested. And I have to admit that I think it's ironic that you'd say this after saying that things like prayer cannot be tested empirically.

 

[Elias526]

So the fact that science and religion are both based on faith, as you claim, makes science as strong and valid as or as weak and unjustified as religion?

Actually the question is, what can stand the test of time.

 

[sandwiches]

Actually the question is, what can stand the test of time.

Nope. The question, again:
So the fact that science and religion are both based on faith, as you claim, makes science as strong and valid as or as weak and unjustified as religion?

 

[Michael]

I agree. Religion was the best available explanation for many things in the universe.

Interesting. I like this. I goes counter to the idea that religious or spiritual claims cannot be tested scientifically, which I've disagreed with many times on these forums.

Claims regarding reality, regardless of how we want to compartmentalize them, can be scientifically tested. And I have to admit that I think it's ironic that you'd say this after saying that things like prayer cannot be tested empirically.

I'm amazed how much we tend to think alike in many ways.

Just to clarify one point, I'm not suggesting that prayer CANNOT be empirically tested here on Earth, quite the contrary there may be such test done with fMRI type devices showing behaviors of the human brain, (prayee and prayor) that produce useful and tangible data. I'm simply "skeptical" of the methods that have been employed to date to attempt to "test" the concept. They seem very primitive and too 'impersonal' to be of any useful effect. They don't really seem to even attempt to address the placebo effect. They don't seem to even address the fact that they are literally attempting to 'read God's mind', or tell God what God "should" do based on the beliefs and "scientifically curious" wishes of humans. I'm just not sure HOW to test they idea yet, I'm not actually claiming it CANNOT be tested.

 

[Elendur]

You may find this interesting.

The Truth wears off.

Just because an idea is true doesn’t mean it can be proved. And just because an idea can be proved doesn’t mean it’s true. When the experiments are done, we still have to choose what to believe.

Why are atheist so blind to their own faith?

If it is proven, it is true. Per definition.
And since science relies upon evidence for the solid theories, no faith is required. Per definition.

 

[Naraoia]

Even science foundations are built on faith.

I would very much like you to explain what you think these faith-based foundations are.

Yes, I know all knowledge and all ways of finding knowledge are built on assumptions or axioms that must be accepted without proof. But I'm curious what you think the "axioms" of science are.

Why I reject evolution and climate change? Well, I don't doubt climate change for sure. Maybe that's not what you mean, but it sometimes rain and sometimes snows, so I do believe in climate change.

That is weather, not climate. If you want to discuss climate change, knowing what climate is is a good place to start...

For evolution, however, the reason I don't believe it is because I've found many problems with it, there are missing pieces, and other things as well.

This student of biology is eager to hear about those missing pieces and other things.

In my view, evolution is more of a blind faith then God. I would go into more detail on why evolution is false, but, i'm sorry, I don't feel like typing that long of a refute that will just be ignored.

The one thing it won't get in this place is ignored. I can promise you that

Because most atheists and people who choose science over religion, their just too hard headed for me! And no matter what evidence and proof I put forward they still won't believe it!

Well, I can give you my reasons both for my unbelief and my choice of profession. (They are not the same.) Perhaps then you'll understand why this particular atheist won't be easily converted. Of course, I can only speak for myself.

God bless you!

Live long and prosper!

So the fact that science and religion are both based on faith, as you claim, makes science as strong and valid as or as weak and unjustified as religion?

Excellent question!