Is Science a Faith System?

[dogmatically_challenged]

That is exactly where the difference is...in the use of reason.  We used reason to test the belief in Jesus and dismissed it because there was not evidence to support it. 

 

What is to stop anyone that believes in the supernatural from believing in the absurd?  We can still say we don't know but if/when there becomes evidence for something we consider absurd and supernatural, then there is reason to believe it because everyone would have access to that evidence (whether one can understand it or not...it is there).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yea. They just conveniently use the fact that we all don't know everything as an excuse to believe in the absurd. Thats how I see it.

 

All they got is a house of cards bulit on argument from ignorance and circular logic.

[Mythra]

Maybe one difference here is that, on any question of scientific discoveries or theories, I could do some research and (provided it wasn't completely over my head) discover how such a discovery came about. I could read about the experiments and analysis of data that resulted in that scientific find. I could also read about opposing viewpoints and arguments against a certain theory, and come to my own conclusions.

 

If christianity was true, then why the frantic destruction in the first few centuries CE of all other points of view? What did they have to hide? I bet if we somehow were able to gain access to every single manuscript that's every been written, every email exchanged between Eusebius and Constantine, Christianity really would be xtianity.

[NotBlinded]

Maybe one difference here is that, on any question of scientific discoveries or theories, I could do some research and (provided it wasn't completely over my head) discover how such a discovery came about.  I could read about the experiments and analysis of data that resulted in that scientific find.  I could also read about opposing viewpoints and arguments against a certain theory, and come to my own conclusions.

 

If christianity was true, then why the frantic destruction in the first few centuries CE of all other points of view?  What did they have to hide?  I bet if we somehow were able to gain access to every single manuscript that's every been written, every email exchanged between Eusebius and Constantine, Christianity really would be xtianity.

[NotBlinded]

Yea. They just conveniently use the fact that we all don't know everything as an excuse to believe in the absurd. Thats how I see it.

 

All they got is a house of cards bulit on argument from ignorance and circular logic.

Yes, and they can't understand the difference. It's not us understanding it or not, it's that the evidence is there. If one still can't believe it, then they better do some heavy-duty studying!

[dogmatically_challenged]

Edited

 

*****I made an off topic reply, removed to not hijack

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes mam!

 

In reply to what was in your post. hehe.

 

I don't claim I can disprove a Creator, I just have no confidence in it. Thats what makes me atheist.

 

If I'm wrong then god is probably more like what deists would see. Take a look at the world and gods appearent lack of involvement in the world and build from there. All we got is creation as a testament if us atheists are wrong. Might as well study what we actually got and try and get an understanding that way. Holybooks are bunk.

[white_raven23]

Yet I maintain many things we accept as " our knowledge" are actually belief in the knowledge of others.

 

 

In a sense you are correct...

 

BUT!!!!

 

Anyone.....anyone at all given the inspiration and desire, could decide at ANY time to study those sciences, repeat those experiments, and prove those theories FOR THEMSELVES. It can all be retested to the satisfaction of the person who wants the knowledge firsthand.

 

I'd like to see the bible student shout up to god and ask for a repitition of the biblical flood so they can see and study the event for themselves. Or even the crucifixion. The bible is a collection of events that may or may not have happened. Can't test the bible.

 

Science can, and is tested ALL THE TIME. Science changes as someone pointed out earlier.....an excellent post courtesy of Han Solo you have failed to address by the by. It's post # 12.

 

The blunt and dirty meaning behind your quote above....and I do mean blunt and dirty....pretty much translates as:

 

"Since most people lack the interst in studying the subject of science due to laziness, or percieved personal inability, and all people instinctively distrust people who are smarter than they are (a flaw of humanity itself....don't take it personally, we are all guilty of this one), those of us who know less see no difference between science and religion due to our steady ignorance.....and I want the rest of you to confirm my ignorant belief just because."

 

 

So yes....in your shortsighted world....this logic is true. But until you learn more, there is nothing anyone here can say that will convince you of any other possible truth.

[Ouroboros]

Hey Han,

 

I maintain when we experience something, like using a computer, it becomes a knowledge for us. However, until I had firsthand experience, I could only have faith computers worked.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

You misunderstood me there. It's not the faith if the computer works, but you are testing the outcome of science by using your computer.

 

If you trust your computer to work, you have to trust the science that led to that computer to work.

 

The computer is the consistent and repeated miracle you can experience every second to confirm that the science does work.

 

While believing that someone said something a long time ago is different, because you don't get any acknowledgements from the religion to confirm it. Only your personal experience and inner confidence is your proof and reaffirmation of its truth.

 

When you drive your car, you are proving every second that the science behind the construction of the car exists and is true.

 

Every time you pray for some sick people, and they don't get healed, you prove that prayer doesn't work, and you should drop the belief in prayer.

 

If prayer resulted in healings every single time, you would prove that prayer works.

 

A religionist of course makes excuses when prayers doesn't, but then you only move away from the responisiblity to have to prove it's functionality. They would say "God doesn't answer the way you want", then we should look into, do we get an answer that can't be explained by random circumstance, but is a miracle and is comparative to what we prayer for. And when you can't do that, you have to come up with a new excuse "God works in mysterious ways", and you basically have confirmed that prayer doesn't get prayer answer.

 

Another difference is that it pretty much has been proven that Mattew, Mark, Luke and John did not write the Gospels, still the majority of Christians claim they did write them. Evidence that contradicts the faith, still the faithful believes against the obvious. In Science a situation like that would result in a dropped claim.

 

If scientists finds clear and irrefutable evidence that Big Bang didn't happen, they will drop that theory. That's how science works.

 

Another thing with science is the peer review. You have multiple sources for you "belief" in science, while in religioin you trust only one or a very few sources.

 

I can pick up thousands of science books, written by yet more thousands of scientists, each one of them a separate individual doing separate tests and agreing to the outcome and the theories.

 

It's easier to trust science since the size of the "conspiracy" includes so many independet actors that it's impossible to be a fraud. While in religion you trust one book only, your pastor, and a few preachers, but if you meet a preacher contradicting your belief, you refuse to listen and reevaluate your belief. Even if he can prove you wrong.

[dogmatically_challenged]

Maybe one difference here is that, on any question of scientific discoveries or theories, I could do some research and (provided it wasn't completely over my head) discover how such a discovery came about.  I could read about the experiments and analysis of data that resulted in that scientific find.  I could also read about opposing viewpoints and arguments against a certain theory, and come to my own conclusions.

 

If christianity was true, then why the frantic destruction in the first few centuries CE of all other points of view?  What did they have to hide?  I bet if we somehow were able to gain access to every single manuscript that's every been written, every email exchanged between Eusebius and Constantine, Christianity really would be xtianity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

BUMP! hehe.

[dogmatically_challenged]

BTR...  Why don't you test your faith right now and let us know how it turns out...............  Drink some drano and let us know the outcome.  By the way, if you don't do it, it shows lack of faith.  That means that you do not have faith that you will be able to do it, even though the bible says that you can.

 

You won't do it though, know why?  Because it is scientifically proven to be harmful and even fatal.  You have more faith in man than in your god when it comes to this.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

LOL! We can slowly build a tollerance to strictnine but drano would be a true test of faith. hehe.

 

You are just awful thankful! Will you marry me? hehe.

[Ouroboros]

Hey dogmatically_challenged,

 

I maintain the confidence I have as a Christian is experienced. I can not prove it to you, it is a belief. There are many other things, we no doubt both accept as true, which neither of us can demonstrate, let alone prove. I'm not saying they are un provable, I'm saying you or I can't do so. (i.e., Mythra’s example of components of an atom.) Until we can, those feelings, no doubt correct, remain in the realm of belief.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

You see the theory of the atom is a major component for your computer to work at all. The electrons are jumping between the atoms, and without the knowledge, theories, mathematical formulas it wouldn't be possible to build the computer.

 

You're argument is similar to "Language doesn't really exist, is just a belief in words". And yet we're communicating in a language!

 

When the Intel CPU is made, they have to take quantum physics into consideration, since when you go to small you'll start having quantum effects that would ruin the CPU. So the engineer that makes the CPU knows for a fact the theories about atoms are real.

 

What you are suggesting is that we trust Dell, Compaq, HP, IBM et.al to either build their computers on proven science, or that they are part of a big conspiracy where science is a possible lie and all that you and I know of about science is totally wrong, but they know the truth but hide it.

 

In that case, Dell makes their computers in faith, and it's the Holy Spirit that makes them work. What other possibility is there? Theories of Atoms is true or false? If false, what does replace the theory in your opinion?

 

Maybe you know that IBM wrote the smallest text in the world on one chip. One or few atomes wide letters. And they did it with a electron microscope.

 

There are "pictures" of atoms today. So they do exists. And the theories connected to the atoms, do work. You have to trust the "fruit" of science, since you're using it right now.

 

Or take a microwave oven. Do you claim that the radio wave science has the possibility to be a lie and cover up? And we only trust the scientists when they claim there is radio waves? What about FM, AM, XM radio? It's totally built on science. Or X-Rays, or MRI scans, CAT scans, the medicine field, TV, VCR, DVD, coffee brewer, blue tooth, cell phones, the list is endless of things in your daily life that was built by people who trusted science.

 

Even if you don't trust the scientists, you still trust the equipment that was built on people that trusted the scientists, and the equipment works!!!

 

I guess something is missing here... The things you use on a daily basis didn't come out from nothing, and where not created by God from thin air. It was people who built them and it was built on the knowledge that exists in the scientific field. How can you refute the obvious evidence staring in you face every second of your life? And yet claim a belief in something that lacks evidence all the time!

[dogmatically_challenged]

Sorry sweetie, already taken. ;-)  Besides I'm 35 so technically, I could be your mother if I had a child at age 19.  Now, however, in about 13 years, I wouldn't mind my daughter dating such a wonderful young man such as yourself.  You'd be older but not "father" age.  LOL

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You have a very attractive mind thankful. And I like your attitude. I have a girfriend who doesn't mind that I flirt a little. hehe. Thank you for the kind words.

[Ouroboros]

Hey TK421,

 

I can agree with that. I'm not building up to make the jump that Christianity can be proved. It's a belief. Yet I maintain many things we accept as " our knowledge" are actually belief in the knowledge of others.

Peace!

 

BtR

 

You know I think I realized something...

 

For a religious person, belief is a binary system, either you believe everything or you don't believe at all.

 

This is not how I see it.

 

I don't believe in Big Bang as the ultimate and only truth. If new science proves Big Bang to be false, I can easily accept that.

 

So my belief is a sliding scale. I truly and undoubtedly believe the science that was the foundation for my computer, since the computer works and is in front of me.

 

But when it comes to theories that I can't confirm or prove or test myself, I keep it in a different "belief" bucket in my head. I can even accept multiple and contradictory ideas simultaneous to explain something. I can accept Big Bang as it is describe at the moment, and still accept the M-Model as an alternative explanation, and I can argue for and against both of them.

 

My apostacy is not based on the Big Bang theory or the Evolution Theory. Just as little as the Theory of Gravity changes my opinion about God.

 

God is not proven or disproven by science. Science is just the method of finding the NATURAL explanations of NATURAL phenomenon. And there's no evil intent from the scientists to disprove God. That's not their goal. Not even Evolution has the purpose to un-prove God. It only observes natural events and objects and tries to find the most NATURAL explanation to it.

[dogmatically_challenged]

God is not proven or disproven by science. Science is just the method of finding the NATURAL explanations of NATURAL phenomenon. And there's no evil intent from the scientists to disprove God. That's not their goal. Not even Evolution has the purpose to un-prove God. It only observes natural events and objects and tries to find the most NATURAL explanation to it.

However stories of bible god are given us by ancient primitive humans who are all long dead. They can't be questioned. Thier claims of supposed super powers that can be gained from worship is something that has never been demonstrated for all. Belief in things hoped for 'as is' is dishonest. Its a cruel thing invented by our asshole ancestors. Blind faith is anitihuman. Humans naturaly want to know things and naturaly get flustrated after a while with just hoping for a story to be true. It takes conditioning(blind faith, leap of faith) to remove our human need to know things. Conditioning that removed the common sense in abandoning a story that can't ever demonstrate ANYTHING which would give honest confidence in it.

[Ouroboros]

However stories of bible god are given us by ancient primitive humans who are all long dead. They can't be questioned. Thier claims of supposed super powers that can be gained from worship is something that has never been demonstrated for all. Belief in things hoped for 'as is' is dishonest. Its a cruel thing invented by our asshole ancestors. Blind faith is anitihuman. Humans naturaly want to know things and naturaly get flustrated after a while with just hoping for a story to be true. It takes conditioning(blind faith, leap of faith) to remove our human need to know things. Conditioning that removed the common sense in abandoning a story that can't ever demonstrate ANYTHING which would give honest confidence in it.

Which is why many kids see through the religious dogmas and asks questions that the teachers can't answer.

 

Like "But who made God?"

 

Or "Did Adam have nipples?"

 

Or "Couldn't God have stopped Adam and Eve from eating the apple?"

[dogmatically_challenged]

Also if we are gonna invent a Creator god that we would be in the immage of, then the Creator would be a she and not a he. Some of our ancestors were total tards.

[Ouroboros]

Just to clarify a little about the computer analogy in earlier post.

 

When you use the computer, you are in fact an experimental scientist; you are proving the science through the experience of the outcomes of the tests you're unwittingly doing, by the mere fact that you are using it and expecting certain results.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Board,

There are many here who maintain I can not prove Christianity. I am one. My faith in God is a belief. I am also not arguing there is no difference between science and religion. I am not claiming science is a religion. Clearly science is provable and religion is not. But many things we accept as knowledge are actually beliefs based on the knowledge of others.

 

Hey DC,

 

If you never seen a computer yet have heard folks talk about using them, then you have witnesses can demonstrate to you that they work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If others can demonstrate their computer works or show you output from a computer, then you have knowledge of a computer. If they tell you about it, I maintain you have belief.

If I can't prove it to myself then I have at least some doubt. Especially if its something that I want to be true. You can't say the same. [snip] You are hiding behind the fact that we can't know everything we hear to true yet we still might have confidence in unproven things. Fine. Then if I can't prove something then I will say I don't know for myself of certain things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don’t know you so I can’t say with any certainty, but I highly doubt anyone could function this way. The world is presented to us at an alarming pace, we accept that from reliable sources as knowledge unless we have reason to suspect. It’s still a faith.

 

Yea. They just conveniently use the fact that we all don't know everything as an excuse to believe in the absurd. Thats how I see it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I’m going to go out on a limb and assume I’m part of "them". I’m not basing my belief in God on your lack of infinite clairvoyance. I’m arguing much of what you claim is knowledge is truly a belief.

I don't claim I can disprove a Creator, I just have no confidence in it. Thats what makes me atheist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn’t that agnostic?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey NBBTH,

You have every reason to believe the scientist because there is knowledge that can be had by anyone willing to understand it.  It is not privy to the group of scientists.  And, if there is evidence to suggest they are wrong, then one's belief changes with the evidence. 

Noooooooo, we have a reason to 'believe' that the products of human reasoning are correct models of reality because everyone can gain access to this knowledge.  It is reality you are referring to here not the supernatural.  Faith is used when there is no way to gain access to any evidence, or reason, to believe it is true...you just accept that it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please unpack this for me.

We have reason to believe science because it is provable. I agree. But then, “Faith is used when there is no way to gain access to any evidence, or reason, to believe it is true.” What’s the difference between “belief” and “faith”?

 

We can still say we don't know but if/when there becomes evidence for something we consider absurd and supernatural, then there is reason to believe it because everyone would have access to that evidence (whether one can understand it or not...it is there).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do we have access to all the evidence? Do I believe people have walked on the moon? Yes, I do. Can I experience it? No, I can’t. Is my faith based on reason, yes. I have seen video and still photos. I have read about it. As a little boy I had a poster in my bedroom of the Apollo XI crew; Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins. I even had a little square “record” (remember those) that came inserted in a copy of National Geographic. Countless times I heard, “That’s one small step for man, one giant leap for small step for man, one giant leap for...Maybe that’s why most records were round. Lastly, I trust there is invaluable data gathered from the experiments they performed. Can I prove they were there? No. Can someone can? Yes. Do I know they were there, or do I believe?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey TK,

Have you seen this post?

 

The Answer

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have, I’m guessing I’m #4 The Platypus? Well, I’ve been called worse. In my defense, I truly am not attempting to play anyone for a sucker. I do gotta ask, what does

Don’t be afraid to tell this person to go piss up a rope, if you discern that you are being played for a sucker.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

mean?

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[white_raven23]

Hey Board,

There are many here who maintain I can not prove Christianity. I am one. My faith in God is a belief. I am also not arguing there is no difference between science and religion. I am not claiming science is a religion. Clearly science is provable and religion is not. But many things we accept as knowledge are actually beliefs based on the knowledge of others.

 

Okayyyyy.

 

Did you read my earlier post? I did address the problem with this already.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Mythra,

Maybe one difference here is that, on any question of scientific discoveries or theories, I could do some research and (provided it wasn't completely over my head) discover how such a discovery came about.  I could read about the experiments and analysis of data that resulted in that scientific find.  I could also read about opposing viewpoints and arguments against a certain theory, and come to my own conclusions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But until you do…

This is a sincere question; Is the fact that something is provable (not that it has been proved) make it more rational to believe?

 

Peaec!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

Hey Han,

If you trust your computer to work, you have to trust the science that led to that computer to work.

 

The computer is the consistent and repeated miracle you can experience every second to confirm that the science does work.

[snip]

When you drive your car, you are proving every second that the science behind the construction of the car exists and is true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I’m not questing science, rather the clamis that we know something when we do not. If you use a computer or drive a car which demonstrates science, then certainly you have firsthand knowledge. Perhaps if you are an electrical engineer, you can incur knowledge of atomic theory. I am not at that level of understanding. I do not know why computers work (it’s all 0’s and 1’s, right?) I only know they do. Are you maintaining that because our consumer goods are reliable and inexpensive, science as a whole is proved?

 

It's easier to trust science since the size of the "conspiracy" includes so many independet actors that it's impossible to be a fraud.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I’ve already agreed to that. http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?show...indpost&p=57602

 

You see the theory of the atom is a major component for your computer to work at all. The electrons are jumping between the atoms, and without the knowledge, theories, mathematical formulas it wouldn't be possible to build the computer.

 

You're argument is similar to "Language doesn't really exist, is just a belief in words". And yet we're communicating in a language!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I’m not denying science or atoms or computers I’m saying without personal experience, we are truly believing in the wisdom of others. Will try and get to the language thing next week.

 

Peace!

 

BtR

[Burry The Rag]

BTR...  Why don't you test your faith right now and let us know how it turns out...............  Drink some drano and let us know the outcome.  By the way, if you don't do it, it shows lack of faith.  That means that you do not have faith that you will be able to do it, even though the bible says that you can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey thankful, where does it say that?Peace! BtR

[BeccasStillSeeking]

Hey Mythra,

 

But until you do…

This is a sincere question; Is the fact that something is provable (not that it has been proved) make it more rational to believe?

 

Peaec!

 

BtR

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, because you can go out and prove that you were right in trusting it.

[Burry The Rag]

Hey white_raven23,

Anyone.....anyone at all given the inspiration and desire, could decide at ANY time to study those sciences, repeat those experiments, and prove those theories FOR THEMSELVES. It can all be retested to the satisfaction of the person who wants the knowledge firsthand.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I disagree. Take for example Fermilab (www.fnal.gov) the Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago. There is no way, given my track record in science I have the resume to merit employment in any significant role at their fine institution. Certainly I do not have the resources (let alone the space) to build an accelerator myself. Even if I did, I don’t have the intellect to interpret my data. It is virtually and forever impossible for me to recreate those experiments. It’s an extreme example, but there are thousands and thousands of assumptions we accept as knowing which we have neither the time, or the knowledge, or the resources or interest to investigate ourselves.

 

Science can, and is tested ALL THE TIME. Science changes as someone pointed out earlier.....an excellent post courtesy of Han Solo you have failed to address by the by. It's post # 12.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes, I’m not knocking science. I agree it changes as old theories are disproved and I wholeheartedly believe (although I don’t know) it is becoming more and more accurate as the body of knowledge increases. My issue is that we accept much on belief. Although Han describes, very eloquently I might add, distinctions between the two, I understood at the baseline he agreed that faith is required for the average individual.

It’s up you the individual to trust groups of scientists that independently have proven theories, and hopefully have reported it to the public in a correct manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In another thread he said:

 

Both [science and religion] require some level of trust that is true, but science get tested by different independent parties, each time a new discovery surfaces. And when theories are proven wrong they get tossed away instead of kept and argued against the discoveries.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Clearly we don’t see eye-to-eye, and I’m not attempting to oversimplify his statements there is a lot more there if you choose to follow the snap-back link.

 

The blunt and dirty meaning behind your quote above....and I do mean blunt and dirty....pretty much translates as:

 

"Since most people lack the interest in studying the subject of science due to laziness, or perceived personal inability, and all people instinctively distrust people who are smarter than they are (a flaw of humanity itself....don't take it personally, we are all guilty of this one), those of us who know less see no difference between science and religion due to our steady ignorance.....and I want the rest of you to confirm my ignorant belief just because."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a nutshell, and I'm printing it in bold because I think this may be one of our main sticking points. I'm not claiming "we don't know alot of what we think we do" out of arrogance but humility.

 

My take would be something more like "Since I lack the interest to study the subject of science due to laziness, or actual personal inability, I prefer to trust people who are smarter than I am rather than assuming I know it all.”

 

As for the rest of the board, I need to get a move on. Have great weekends! Peace! BtR