Atheists and science

Arts & Sciences Religion & Spirituality
21

Well it’s Fox’s idea, let’s ask him. Interesting article you have there.

And yes I did note the caveats in the article you quoted (which I’ve now decided to mark in red), though ‘vigorously disputed’ would be more accurate than ‘vigorously refuted’; see here, where pro/con arguments are balanced and assessed throughout a review of the subject.

It’s all part of the rich tapestry of life.

Don’t worry, I have no intention of letting it get to that stage. Stripe, if that’s where this is heading then you need to rethink your strategy.

22

[quote]Well it’s Fox’s idea, let’s ask him. Interesting article you have there.
[/quote]

When you live a life closer to reality you are always more alive than the mad and delusional. It stands to reason.

Aerophants think they are living the dream but they are only dreaming that they are living:

23

Ok, that was, uh, Daliesque.

24

That’s the problem with the word “faith”. It can mean “confidence”, or “belief without evidence”, or something else (like Paul Tillich’s definition as “ultimate concern”), depending on context and the intention of the user of the word.

25

I am a Christian and I don’t think science is faith based. :smiley:
Sometimes I have doubts about God, and I have ways to deal with that.
Sometimes I have doubts about science. One would be where a doctor quoted some scientific studies about how animal hair in a home environment is bad for children (infants). I researched it a bit more and found that most of those studies were not done by infant immunology experts. I therefore found a few that stated clearly that there is a positive correlation between being in contact with more than one animal in the home environment and immune system development in infants. They were done by infant immunology experts :notworthy:
Many of the for or against arguments about God or science (still don’t understand why they have to be mutually exclusive) are made by people who are not experts but do so because they either hate religion or have some warped idea that all atheists are immoral. Naturally both positions are flawed but they will never admit to it.

26

[quote=“Fortigurn”]Stripe, would you mind not multi-posting? You can quote other people’s posts in one response. Thanks.[/quote]Do you guys have a multi-quote button?

[quote=“flike”]Why is the discussion important?[/quote]It’s not. It’s just a discussion. But you seem intent upon deranging it. :ponder:

[quote]Why not just cut to the chase and tell us what you think about faith and science?[/quote]I did. :neutral:

[quote]I can’t begin to tell you how many online discussions I’ve seen in the past five years or so re:‘atheists don’t realize they have faith in science/your faith is silly/no you’re silly for misplacing your faith - etc’. Of those that begin the way you’ve begun here, they never end well.* I can’t help but wonder, how will this one be any different?[/quote]So you know your problem and won’t face up to reality. Not really my problem, is it? :sunglasses:

[quote=“Chris”]How does that make it faith based?[/quote]The part about truth. :wink:

[quote]Given the long-time record of the success of science in unveiling the nature of the universe, I see no reason to think that the scientific process will stop yielding results.[/quote]That’s called avoiding the question. :wink:

Here it is again: What reasons to you have for believing you will continue to see good results from science?

[quote=“Fox”]I can have faith in the mailman delivering my letters every day.[/quote]Sure. That’s the same question. Why would you have faith that the mailman will deliver?

[quote]religious faith is a completely different thing. It is irrational. You have to have faith for religion to work. I don’t have to have faith for the mailman to deliver my letters. He’ll do that anyway, but I can have faith in him doing it and that is reasonable.[/quote]Wow. There’s so much wrong with this I don’t know hardly where to begin. :astonished:

  1. Faith is faith - if you’re going to divide it up you’re going to have to define the categories. Defining “religious faith” as “irrational” is simply poisoning the discussion. You have to give reasons why you think it is irrational to believe in God.

  2. You’re dodging the question. It is no answer for you to respond to my question with, “faith is irrational”. You have to give reasons why you believe the scientific process is reliable.

  3. The mailman will deliver and people can use the scientific method regardless of their faith. Why you make a distinction is beyond me. :eh:

Everyone does that.

[quote=“heimuoshu”]I am a Christian and I don’t think science is faith based.[/quote]Why do you believe that science is rational?

[quote]Sometimes I have doubts about God, and I have ways to deal with that.[/quote]You doubt He exists or you doubt He is interested in you?

[quote]Sometimes I have doubts about science.[/quote]You doubt it exists or you doubt the validity of its results?

[quote]One would be where a doctor quoted some scientific studies about how animal hair in a home environment is bad for children (infants). I researched it a bit more and found that most of those studies were not done by infant immunology experts. I therefore found a few that stated clearly that there is a positive correlation between being in contact with more than one animal in the home environment and immune system development in infants. They were done by infant immunology experts :notworthy: [/quote]OK. This is not “doubting science”. This is practising science. The very opposite of doubt. :thumbsup:

27

Non-sequitur.

No, it was a direct answer to the question. I have confidence in the efficacy of science because time and time again, over the centuries, it has been shown to have a spectacular track record of success. Sometimes it goes off track, but it always rights itself. Its fruits (technology, etc.) can be made use of, its findings can be tested, and it’s based in the sound principles of logic and evidence.

See above.

28

Or, as it’s often said:

29

[quote=“Chris”]Non-sequitur.[/quote]Do you think science can inform you what is true?

[quote]I have confidence in the efficacy of science because time and time again, over the centuries, it has been shown to have a spectacular track record of success. Sometimes it goes off track, but it always rights itself.[/quote]Why do you believe this situation will continue? Solely because it has done so far?

You do realise that this is not at all convincing as a rational answer, right? There is no logical connection between the premise and the conclusion:
A: Science has always worked.
therefore
B: Science will always work.

Certainly it is a very good common-sense answer, but it cannot be used as a rational basis for trusting science.

On the other hand:
A: God created us as rational beings.
B: Rational beings can use logic and reason.
Therefore
C: If we believe God is real, we have a rational basis for science.

30

I love Adblock.

31

I’m reminded of that scene from Indiana Jones, in which he says that archaeology is concerned with facts; for truth you need philosophy.

Science is the quest to learn the nature of natural phenomena. No faith is needed.

No, not solely because of it. But as explained above, because of the sound methods that are used. Logical reasoning. Experimentation. Testing of hypotheses. Falsifiability. Peer review.

[quote]A: God created us as rational beings.
B: Rational beings can use logic and reason.
Therefore
C: If we believe God is real, we have a rational basis for science.[/quote]
Premise A has a gaping hole in it, bud.

32

No, but there’s a multiquote function. When you are writing your post, you will see below your post a scrolling window which allows you to view previous posts. Each post has a quote button. You can simply hit that quote button to insert the text of the post in your own post. If you don’t want to insert the entire post, simply highlight the text you do want to quote, and hit the quote button.

I don’t believe Chris’ argument took exactly that form. Rather, he pointed out that the scientific method has an excellent track record of success (the prinicple of sustained resistance to falsification), which is sufficient reason for ‘confidence in the efficacy of science’. That is a perfectly logical and rational argument.

Please don’t use Adblock on this site; the owner relies on revenue from advertising, and requests that members respect that by not taking deliberate steps to prevent ads being displayed in their browser. The ads are minimal and unobtrusive, so I believe this is a reasonable request.

33

[quote=“Chris”]I’m reminded of that scene from Indiana Jones, in which he says that archaeology is concerned with facts; for truth you need philosophy.[/quote]Then you realise that what I said is not a non-sequitur.

[quote]Science is the quest to learn the nature of natural phenomena.[/quote]I know.[quote]No faith is needed.[/quote]Then please show us how you rationally account for the reliability of science. :thumbsup:

[quote]No, not solely because of it. But as explained above, because of the sound methods that are used. Logical reasoning. Experimentation. Testing of hypotheses. Falsifiability. Peer review.[/quote]Those things are science. What you’re saying is science works because science works. I’m afraid that is an even worse piece of reasoning.

Really? Would you mind explaining the “hole”?

[quote=“Fortigurn”]No, but there’s a multiquote function. When you are writing your post, you will see below your post a scrolling window which allows you to view previous posts. Each post has a quote button. You can simply hit that quote button to insert the text of the post in your own post. If you don’t want to insert the entire post, simply highlight the text you do want to quote, and hit the quote button.[/quote]Oh, sweet.

But that won’t work on the phone. I guess I’ll just post less from that device. :bow:

Then his post was no response to the question. Like I said, his answer was perfectly acceptable as a common-sense reason for believing scientific results, but the question is more fundamental.

[quote]Please don’t use Adblock on this site; the owner relies on revenue from advertising, and requests that members respect that by not taking deliberate steps to prevent ads being displayed in their browser. The ads are minimal and unobtrusive, so I believe this is a reasonable request.[/quote]Sure. But when users have pornographic avatars and post nasty pictures, I reserve the right to not have to see them.

Perhaps it would help for admin here to raise the standards a bit. :bow:

34

His answer was perfectly acceptable as a reason for trusting the scientific method, which seems to be what you were asking. If that wasn’t what you were asking, then you could rephrase your question.

[quote]Sure. But when users have pornographic avatars and post nasty pictures, I reserve the right to not have to see them.

Perhaps it would help for admin here to raise the standards a bit. :bow:[/quote]

I suggest you comment in the feedback forum.

35

Heres a phone.

Now to many, how it works is a complete mystery. Yet it is validation to a great number of discoveries and scientific theories, from electrical laws, magnetic laws, how waves travel through free space, impedances, admittances, reflection coefficients. Materials and their use in making precision valued components, capacitors, inductors, resistors, batteries, IC design. Understanding of sound, digitizing, replicating, storing and manipulation, understanding of light and cameras and display screens.

Seems to me, science is doing a pretty good job describing the world around me, and how forces of nature interact with each other.

1 Like
36

I’m disappointed. I was certain someone was going to post the magnet song.

37

I’m disappointed. I was certain someone was going to post the magnet song.[/quote]

:slight_smile:

38

[quote=“Stripe”]

[quote]Please don’t use Adblock on this site; the owner relies on revenue from advertising, and requests that members respect that by not taking deliberate steps to prevent ads being displayed in their browser. The ads are minimal and unobtrusive, so I believe this is a reasonable request.[/quote]Sure. But when users have pornographic avatars and post nasty pictures, I reserve the right to not have to see them.

Perhaps it would help for admin here to raise the standards a bit. :bow:[/quote]

There aren’t any pornographic avatars or nasty pictures in this thread. What are you talking about?

39

Really? Would you mind explaining the “hole”?[/quote]
It presumes the existence of god.

40

There’s nothing wrong with presuming the existence of God.

[quote=“Mick”]Heres a phone. Now to many, how it works is a complete mystery. Yet it is validation to a great number of discoveries and scientific theories, from electrical laws, magnetic laws, how waves travel through free space, impedances, admittances, reflection coefficients. Materials and their use in making precision valued components, capacitors, inductors, resistors, batteries, IC design. Understanding of sound, digitizing, replicating, storing and manipulation, understanding of light and cameras and display screens. Seems to me, science is doing a pretty good job describing the world around me, and how forces of nature interact with each other.[/quote]It is. And if I’d asked, “Is science doing a good job”, you could have answered with this post. :thumbsup:

But I didn’t ask that. I asked how you rationally account for the effectiveness of science. Why is it that you trust its results? Why do you believe the scientific method will continue to be the means by which we advance our culture?

Do you have any answers to that question?