• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Blue Box

Junior Member
Jun 2, 2014
183
14
✟15,381.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
What do you think of this blog written by Atheist activist and former Christian broadcaster Seth Andrews?


Science Isn't Perfect

People a few hundred years ago couldn't conceive of the advances we've made, and those advances have been made in the teeth of religious dogma. (Remember that the Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for daring to suggest that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. This is a single symptom of the epidemic, anti-science nature of religion, and it's been going on for centuries.)

The advances we've made as a species? They came from science. They came from testing, discovering and developing real solutions in the real world. (God was apparently busy making rainbows and finding lost car keys. Too bad he couldn't find time for the children's hospitals and the 30,000 who will starve to death today.)

Science isn't perfect. Scientists aren't perfect. But science is our most reliable method for understanding, and it's our most valuable tool for progress. It's what makes our cars drive. It's what makes airplanes fly. It's the medicine which fights infection, the vaccines which prevent disease, the smartphones in our pocket, the ability to forecast the weather, the devices which boil our water and cook our foods, the videos of our children, the cause for our almost 100-year lifespans, etc. It's the reason we could unlock the genome, the reason we can fix eyesight with lasers, the reason we have a human footprint on the moon.

We haven't reached this point in human history because we sat around, deferred to ancient texts and chanted to the sky. We busted our asses, tried, tried again and created real solutions in the real world.

The failures of science don't speak to its unreliability. Science fails because it tries, and the successes come because science learns from its failed attempts and improves the experiments along the way. Knowledge isn't a foregone conclusion. Knowledge is a process. And unlike religion, science sets up systems of peer review, accountability and collaboration to improve upon itself. It certainly doesn't ever claim Absolute Truth, but instead is prepared to continually subject our "facts" to further testing, and when new/better information is discovered, science updates the record. Then...it tests again. And again. And again.

Try that with religion.

Science. It wins by a landslide - See more at: The Thinking Atheist - Blog | Science Isn't Perfect
 

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship

Science wins by a landslide?

Wins what?
 
Upvote 0

Archie the Preacher

Apostle to the Intellectual Skeptics
Apr 11, 2003
3,171
1,012
Hastings, Nebraska - the Heartland!
Visit site
✟46,332.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Celibate
Politics
US-Republican
Blue Box.

Science does much to explain natural laws and invent nifty doo-dads to make life more comfortable. I like science. You are correct in that it is not 'perfect'. It is not 'finished' in that not everything is known, explained harnessed and so forth. Some theories are quite possibly founded on erroneous information - the Solid State Theory of the Universe comes to mind.

'Religion', not even Christianity, does anything to discover and codify natural laws or invent 'things'.

Christianity shows humans to escape from sinful behavior and be reconciled to God. Science doesn't even pretend to do that.

The two 'concepts' have different goals.

I suggest much of the tension between Christianity and Science is much like arguing whether a ball-point pen or a claw hammer is more useful. With no further context.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
Science wins by a landslide?

Wins what?

I gather from his post, science produces "real solutions in the real world". Contrast that with what religion produces, with the billions of tax-exempt dollars that go into it.
 
Upvote 0

Jeremy E Walker

Well-Known Member
Feb 20, 2014
897
16
✟1,156.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
In Relationship

Precisely what I was getting at!
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship

The feud only arises once religion is seen as a means or way to explain reality or phenomena in reality. That is the point where "science wins by a landslide".

But let's be honest here... religion is an attempt at explaining reality or phenomena in reality.

My question then becomes, how should one see religion, if not as an attempt to explain reality or the phenomena of reality? And if it's not to be seen as an attempt to explain reality... then what does it mean to "believe" it?
 
Reactions: Archaeopteryx
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Dogmahunter writes, "faith is not a pathway to truth". Neither science nor religion based on irrational assumptions is a pathwy to truth.

Off course, science isn't based on irrational assumptions. Only religion is.

Real faith and science do not contradict each other.

To believe on faith = to accept something as true without actual evidence, or even in spite of evidence to the contrary

Seeing as how science is evidence based and empirical, we can safely say that faith and science don't play nice together.
 
Upvote 0

single eye

Newbie
Jun 12, 2014
840
30
✟23,669.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Dogmahunter writes, "Off course, science isn't based on irrrational assumptions. Only religion is." This is an irrational statement. Did not the first people to observe the earth and conclude that it was flat jump to an irrational conclusion w/o sufficient evidence? BTW, religion and faith are not synonomous. Science requires faith in a process that will eventually lead to discovering truth. Sometimes this happens and often it does not. It is highly unlikely that science is one thing and all good, or that faith is one thing and all bad.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private


I think that this is simplistic. If you look at the world religions, eg in the bilbe, they are moral systems aimed at (in part) safeguarding what are logically sound interests of the people.

Insofar as they work or function, and this is a result of insight rather than randomness, then thay may be viewed as sources or expressions of moral knowledge.

That may sound like too much to swallow, but I mean they do some work, even if they are not perfect. The problem comes only if thou thinkest in black and white terms i.e. there has to be prefect and pure rationaistic knowledge or there is nothing at all...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Did not the first people to observe the earth and conclude that it was flat jump to an irrational conclusion w/o sufficient evidence?


No, actually. The evidence they had at their disposal indicated it was flat, so they assumed it was flat. Then evidence came up that indicated otherwise and then they changed their minds.

This is fine.

What is not fine is a religious dogmatic belief that the earth is a certain way and then resist when evidence indicates otherwise.

Furthermore, the religious docmatic belief is based on faith and not on rational evidence. So even by itself, it already is a different kind of belief then simply going by the evidence.

If the evidence you have indicates a certain thing (like the earth being flat) and you then accept that thing tentatively by the evidence - that is rational.

Assuming the existance of unobserved, untestable and unfalsifiable deities... not so much.

BTW, religion and faith are not synonomous

Indeed, they aren't.
One needs faith to accept religion as true.

Science requires faith in a process that will eventually lead to discovering truth

No, it doesn't. Consider yourself invited to explain how it does.


Sometimes this happens and often it does not. It is highly unlikely that science is one thing and all good, or that faith is one thing and all bad.

I have no idea what you are trying to say. One thing is clear though: you are one more in a line of MANY that tries to discredit something like science in order to try and justify your faith based beliefs.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟158,395.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
I think that this is simplistic.

It is very simple as far as I'm concerned...

You either believe things for good reasons or not.

If you look at the world religions, eg in the bilbe, they are moral systems aimed at (in part) safeguarding what are logically sound interests of the people.

No, they aren't. As far as my moral compass is concerned, the doctrines from the abrahamic religions are as evil as they get.

For me, christianity is a particularly immoral doctrine because it strips people from their humanity. It's a gigantic guilt trip. Abrahamic religions also have a giant mess of immoral "laws" and condoned practices... Slavery, public executions, homophobia etc.

No, I certainly cannot consider these worldviews to be moral in any way.

Insofar as they work or function, and this is a result of insight rather than randomness, then thay may be viewed as sources or expressions of moral knowledge.

Ethics and morals are important in a cooperative society, obviously. But you seem to be saying here that the people were the ones who had their morality reflected in those stories, correct?

I'ld agree to that. We still write books to reflect ethics and morals. We've just moved on from adding a bunch of unecessary mythology to it.


I'm not the one making extra-ordinary claims about these texts. I'm one of the people responding to said claims.

These religions to me aren't any different then any other religion or supernatural/magic belief system. Christians, Muslims, etc insist on their religion being special and deserve to have special treatment.

Sorry, wrong address. I see no reason to give special status to christianity, islam, whatever. Same claims, different wrap, same lack of evidence.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
It is very simple as far as I'm concerned...

You either believe things for good reasons or not.
IMO it is a fuzzy issue, not a polar one.


No, they aren't. As far as my moral compass is concerned, the doctrines from the abrahamic religions are as evil as they get.

The words of the reckless pierce like swords, but the tongue of the wise brings healing Proverbs 12:18



You seem to be arguing like this: their moral systems werent as developed as ours, just look at all these flaws. Thats totally accurate.
No, I certainly cannot consider these worldviews to be moral in any way.
IMO morality is about "rational attraction to being". Of course, in a progressive age, we are liable to look down on past efforts as ignorant, but I am sure thy had a few virtues even if they were not so lucid as our insight is.


I see your point, but that division (myth, untestable, etc) didnt exist in those times. In those times scraps of paper and insight were what they clung to. Without them, they woul have been back to square one, even if square two was not so happy or insightful a state as 21st C academics enjoy.



I'm not the one making extra-ordinary claims about these texts. I'm one of the people responding to said claims.
A distinction which belongs to the refines thought of Carl Sagan. Look this way: they may not have had combined harvesters and genetic engineering, but thay knew how to till the land. Their cosmology may be psychotically flawed, but they knew there were stars and planets...

These religions to me aren't any different then any other religion or supernatural/magic belief system. Christians, Muslims, etc insist on their religion being special and deserve to have special treatment.
OK I accept that is not a good situation, but generalising to from one part to all (or other) parts can be precarious.

Sorry, wrong address. I see no reason to give special status to christianity, islam, whatever. Same claims, different wrap, same lack of evidence.
Like I say, IMO the texts were a mix of the functional and the dysfunctional, not all bad and not all good.

If ethics is about "attraction to being" or "attraction to life" then the fact that there are generations of religious community suggests they may have some virtue, even if it has not been so self aware, either critically or not.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Conscious Z

Newbie
Oct 23, 2012
608
30
✟15,863.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Did not the first people to observe the earth and conclude that it was flat jump to an irrational conclusion w/o sufficient evidence? .....

I'm not sure you know what "irrational" means. "Irrational" does not merely mean incorrect. There is nothing irrational about believing the earth is flat if that is what the evidence indicates.

NOTE: Scholars never actually believed the earth was flat. Even since the ancient Greeks, scholars have known it was spherical. Myth of the Flat Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is highly unlikely that science is one thing and all good, or that faith is one thing and all bad.
I'm not sure what your justification is for saying science isn't all good, but I've yet to see any evidence that science is anything BUT all good. Do you have an example of the scientific method not working?
 
Upvote 0