Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

Is science fact or faith


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 746 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 2 Mar 2013 11:18:50 GMT
DB says:
The history of science is of one theory replacing another. Each theory at the time is crusaded by those who believe it, and evidence is produced. It is presented as absolute truth.

The scientist is absolutely certain of his theory.
The theory is then evidenced and presented as fact, which we are told to believe.

People and scientists of each age have believed these theories absolutely, until they have been disproved by the next age.

So
Science does make mistakes and sometimes contradicts itself

We all read that it is healthy to eat x and not y one year, and then this changes to be healthy to eat y and not x the next year.
Each claim is made with certainty by scientists at the time.

Be wary of sticking to the science of the age as the ultimate truth.
The science that is held strongly today, could be the science that is on the junk pile in a hundred years or so.

If you are pinning your atheism solely to the science of today, you may just be acting on faith.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 11:42:29 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 11:43:35 GMT
DB,

"It is presented as absolute truth."

No its not. Its presented as the best model we have that fits the observations at this time.

"The scientist is absolutely certain of his theory."

No he isn't. Because he knows it may change in the future.

"The theory is then evidenced and presented as fact, which we are told to believe."

No we are not. You are told of observations which are fact - if you don't like the theory make another. But be prepared for criticism.

"Science does make mistakes and sometimes contradicts itself "

Noone is saying it doesn't.

"Each claim is made with certainty by scientists at the time."

No it isn't. Read it carefully next time. You will find that it says something like "it would appear that eating x is beneficial but there are a lot more factors in play that we don't know about yet. More research is needed" nearly every time. The claims are not usually made by the scientists but distorted by the media for sensationalism.

"Be wary of sticking to the science of the age as the ultimate truth."

No scientist thinks that todays science is the ultimate truth. They are all aware we may discover new things in the future.

"The science that is held strongly today, could be the science that is on the junk pile in a hundred years or so."

Probably not though. It may be modified slightly but still present. Think of Newton's laws - still used today but not entirely correct.

"If you are pinning your atheism solely to the science of today, you may just be acting on faith. "

I see no evidence for gods. I am an atheist. Do I need to be a scientist to make that claim?
Its a logical principle:
"In the absence of evidence for something, it is rational not to believe in it"
NOT
"In the absence of evidence for something, it requires faith not to believe in it"

Belief without evidence (faith) is not non-belief because of no evidence (rationalism).

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 11:49:44 GMT
DB says:
Rev

I don't remember hearing many maybe',s or perhaps's, or appear's that, in the Brian Cox programmes.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 11:52:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 13:51:32 GMT
Ian says:
The history of religion is of one theory never replacing another. Each theory at the time is crusaded by those who believe it, and no evidence is produced. It is presented as absolute truth.

The theist is absolutely certain of his theory.
The theory is never evidenced but is presented as fact, which we are told to believe.

People and theologists of each age have believed these religions absolutely, until they have been arbitrarily replaced by the next age.

So religion does make mistakes and sometimes contradicts itself

We all read that it is healthy to worship x and not y one year, and then this changes to be healthy to worship y and not x the next year.
Each claim is made with certainty by theologists at the time.

Be wary of sticking to the religion of the age as the ultimate truth.
The religion that is held strongly today, could be the mythology that is on the junk pile in a hundred years or so.

If you are pinning your hope of an afterlife solely to the theology of today, you may just be acting vainly in the face of a total lack of evidence and a very low probability of being right.

EDIT: edited because I can't spell 'theist' or 'worship'; I must be out of practice.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 12:04:36 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 12:06:38 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 12:19:55 GMT
"Who ever heard a theologian prefacing his creed, or a politician concluding his speeches, with a statement as to the probable error in his opinions? It is an odd fact that subjective certainty is inversely proportional to objective certainty. The less reason a man has to suppose himself right, the more vehemently he asserts that there is no doubt whatever that he is exactly right. It is a practice of theologians to laugh at science because it changes. `Look at us,' they say. `What we asserted at the Council of Nicea we still assert; whereas what scientists asserted only two or three years ago is already forgotten and antiquated.' Men who speak in this way have not grasped the great idea of successive approximations."

Bertrand Russell

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 13:19:52 GMT
DB,

"Are you saying that science is a faith too? "

You don't understand science. Science is based upon observation. Faith is destroyed by observation. If we require faith to believe our senses then there are no truths because existence would be subjective.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 13:27:57 GMT
richard says:
what flyer for the gullible theist did you get that from?

Posted on 2 Mar 2013 14:01:10 GMT
Neither DB, science is human's endeavour to better understand the world we live in and help improve our quality of living. It isn't perfect, because as we both know human's are not without fault. It doesn't have the same intentions as a religion or 'faith'. It tends to recommend as opposed to command. It admits when it has been wrong and has no problem u-turning on its beliefs if they are scientifically proven to be incorrect. Its a function, not a faith. I hope this goes some way to explaining what I see when science is the subject.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 21:21:06 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 21:29:30 GMT
Ian says:
Surely religions are humans' endeavour to explain what we do not understand and try to create a set of rules to live by to improve our quality of living.

Unfortunately it can be hijacked (to the embarrassment of many believers) in order to force your view of the world on others by condemning their lifestyle, passing laws or questioning science when it proves inconvenient for you.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 22:29:05 GMT
AJ Murray says:
-"But, when it is hijacked ( to the embarrassment of many scientists) in order to further atheism, then it becomes something else. Scientism- the religion on which some base their atheistic belief."

[I've never met any of these scientismists, what a fascinating sight they must be.]

What do you call it when some theological dullard hopped up on some goofball religion hi-jacks science in the same fashion?

Posted on 2 Mar 2013 22:35:52 GMT
Obelix says:
Science is all about learning more. Religion demands that we learn less, limit our intellects, and stunt every effort to improve the lot of humanity.

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 22:39:03 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 Mar 2013 22:44:53 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 23:11:27 GMT
Obelix says:
Religion is about stating the answer first and dreaming up the question second.

Science is the mirror opposite, and the reason why it has triumphed over mere superstition and relegated it to its lowly position in society.

Posted on 2 Mar 2013 22:49:32 GMT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 22:50:54 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 22:52:59 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on 2 Mar 2013 22:53:23 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 22:53:52 GMT
Obelix says:
Are you being serious, DB?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 22:54:20 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 22:56:40 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 23:01:11 GMT
Obelix says:
Of course not. I just don't see why, yet again, you wifully failed to grasp a point; and asked a phoney question off the back of it.

Posted on 2 Mar 2013 22:58:45 GMT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1403106/One-third-of-clergy-do-not-believe-in-the-Resurrection.html

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 23:00:52 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 23:02:22 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Mar 2013 23:10:28 GMT
Obelix says:
Do you mind if I ask why you don't understand that very sentence, DB?

Or is that you understand it just fine, but your religion- warped ego has to make a few...alterations?

In reply to an earlier post on 2 Mar 2013 23:13:17 GMT
DB says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 30 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  43
Total posts:  746
Initial post:  2 Mar 2013
Latest post:  13 Apr 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions