Science is not a religion (theist input needed)

[Ace_2004]

So i was having a mini debate with a religious guy about god and science and apart from all the usual stuff, one of the things that came up was that science and evolution is also based on faith and is itself a kind of religion.

I disagreed and found a post on the net that i sent him which is quoted below.

The thing is though, the more i read this the more i wonder how a believer in god (a theist) can reply to this and argue against it when theres so much logical proof and evidence that both stamps out the idea of science being based on faith and gives logical evidence against religion itself.

If theres any theists here that would be willing to read the following and give a reply then i'd be very interested in what you have to say to counter it, thanks.

Originally Posted by badatronomyblog

Scientific method makes one assumption, and one assumption only: the Universe obeys a set of rules. That's it. There is one corollary, and that is that if the Universe follows these rules, then those rules can be deduced by observing the way Universe behaves. This follows naturally; if it obeys the rules, then the rules must be revealed by that behavior.

A simple example: we see objects going around the Sun. The motion appears to follow some rules: the orbits are conic sections (ellipses, circles, parabolas, hyperbolas), the objects move faster when they are closer to the Sun, if they move too quickly they can escape forever, and so on.

From these observations we can apply mathematical equations to describe those motions, and then use that math to predict where a given object will be at some future date. Guess what? It works. It works so well that we can shoot probes at objects billions of kilometers away and still nail the target to phenomenal accuracy. This supports our conclusion that the math is correct. This in turn strongly implies that the Universe is following its own rules, and that we can figure them out.

Now, of course that is a very simple example, and is not meant to be complete, but it gives you an idea of how this works. Now think on this: the computer you are reading this on is entirely due to science. The circuits are the end result of decades, centuries of exploration in how electricity works and how quantum particles behave. The monitor is a triumph of scientific engineering, whether it's a CRT or an LCD flat panel. The mouse might use an LED, or a simple ball-and-wheel. The keyboard uses springs, the wireless uses radio technology, the speakers use electromagnetism.*

Look around. Cars, airplanes, buildings. iPods, books, clothing. Agriculture, plumbing, waste disposal. Light bulbs, vacuum cleaners, ovens. These are all the products of scientific research. If your TV breaks, you can pray that it'll spontaneously start working again, but my money would be on someone who has learned how to actually fix it based on scientific and engineering principles.

All the knowledge we have accumulated over the millennia comes together in a harmonious symphony of science. We're not guessing here: this stuff was designed using previous knowledge developed in a scientific manner over centuries. And it works. All of this goes to support our underlying assumption that the Universe obeys rules that we can deduce.

Are there holes in this knowledge? Of course. Science doesn't have all the answers. But science has a tool, a power that its detractors never seem to understand.

Science is not simply a database of knowledge. It's a method, a way of finding this knowledge. Observe, hypothesize, predict, observe, revise. Science is provisional; it's always open to improvement. Science is even subject to itself. If the method itself didn't work, we'd see it. Our computers wouldn't work (OK, bad example), our space probes wouldn't get off the ground, our electronics wouldn't work, our medicine wouldn't work. Yet, all these things do in fact function, spectacularly well. Science is a check on itself, which is why it is such an astonishingly powerful way of understanding reality.

And that right there is where science and religion part ways. Science is not based on faith. Science is based on evidence. We have evidence it works, vast amounts of it, billions of individual pieces that fit together into a tapestry of reality. That is the critical difference. Faith, as it is interpreted by most religions, is not evidence-based, and is generally held tightly even despite evidence against it. In many cases, faith is even reinforced when evidence is found contrary to it.

To say that we have to take science on faith is such a gross misunderstanding of how science works that it can only be uttered by someone who is wholly ignorant of how reality works.

The next time someone tries to tell you that science is just as faith-based as religion, or that evolution is a religion, point them here. Perhaps the evidence of science may sway them. Perhaps not; it's difficult to reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. But the next time they get on a computer, maybe they'll take a slightly more critical look at it, and wonder if its workings are a miracle, or the results of brilliant minds over many generations toiling away at the scientific method.

[Harbinger]

Originally Posted by Ace_2004

So i was having a mini debate with a religious guy about god and science and apart from all the usual stuff, one of the things that came up was that science and evolution is also based on faith and is itself a kind of religion.

I disagreed and found a post on the net that i sent him which is quoted below.

The thing is though, the more i read this the more i wonder how a believer in god (a theist) can reply to this and argue against it when theres so much logical proof and evidence that both stamps out the idea of science being based on faith and gives logical evidence against religion itself.

If theres any theists here that would be willing to read the following and give a reply then i'd be very interested in what you have to say to counter it, thanks.

Great post! There won't be any rational theistic replies to this as there can be none.

[AaronJF]

Originally Posted by Ace_2004

So i was having a mini debate with a religious guy about god and science and apart from all the usual stuff, one of the things that came up was that science and evolution is also based on faith and is itself a kind of religion.

I disagreed and found a post on the net that i sent him which is quoted below.

The thing is though, the more i read this the more i wonder how a believer in god (a theist) can reply to this and argue against it when theres so much logical proof and evidence that both stamps out the idea of science being based on faith and gives logical evidence against religion itself.

If theres any theists here that would be willing to read the following and give a reply then i'd be very interested in what you have to say to counter it, thanks.

Science makes that one assumption, but scientists approach matters with alot more than that one assumption.

Like the asumption that there is no God, or the assumption that there is a God. Every body has an axiom that holds up their methods for interpreting information. Theists and Atheist alike. It isn't the scientific method that requires faith, it's the interpretations of the evidence and theories that were acquired using a method built on personal assumptions and convictions. We are only human, and scientists are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us. They aren't "clean slates" so to speak, and whether people believe it or not, their beliefs are based on information acquired and interpreted with a bias.

In the ideal world, science doesn't require faith. But we don't live in an ideal world.

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by AaronJF

Science makes that one assumption, but scientists approach matters with alot more than that one assumption.

Like the asumption that there is no God, or the assumption that there is a God. Every body has an axiom that holds up their methods for interpreting information. Theists and Atheist alike. It isn't the scientific method that requires faith, it's the interpretations of the evidence and theories that were acquired using a method built on personal assumptions and convictions. We are only human, and scientists are subject to the same emotions as the rest of us. They aren't "clean slates" so to speak, and whether people believe it or not, their beliefs are based on information acquired and interpreted with a bias.

In the ideal world, science doesn't require faith. But we don't live in an ideal world.

Except scientific dsicovery has no bearing on the existance of God, therefore a nonreligious theist or nonreligious athiest should in theory be unbias with regarding to scientific discovery.

It is not faith/absence of but religion that produces a compromise.

[AaronJF]

Originally Posted by Queequeg

Except scientific dsicovery has no bearing on the existance of God, therefore a nonreligious theist or nonreligious athiest should in theory be unbias with regarding to scientific discovery.

It is not faith/absence of but religion that produces a compromise.

Scientific discovery isn't being questioned, that's undeniable. It's the interpetation of the discovery, everybody has a bias or conviction and they can't just "leave it at the door" so to speak. The theories and ideas being set up are based on information interpreted with a bias. It's the jump from factual scientific discovery to tangible scientific explanations that is carried on faith. It can't be avoided, preconcieved ideologies will always influence science.

It's also quite narrow to say that only religion produces a compromise, why not spread that statement out to include all world views and biases, not just religion.

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by AaronJF

Scientific discovery isn't being questioned, that's undeniable.

Yes what is fact is fact

It's the interpetation of the discovery, everybody has a bias or conviction and they can't just "leave it at the door" so to speak. The theories and ideas being set up are based on information interpreted with a bias. It's the jump from factual scientific discovery to tangible scientific explanations that is carried on faith. It can't be avoided, preconcieved ideologies will always influence science.

I''l give you an example;

Atheist scientist develops theory of evolution based on 1000's of facts. This does nothing to assert his/her beliefs but it does not contradict them

Theist scientist develops theory of evolution based on the same facts. This does nothing to assert his/her beliefs but it does not contradict them

Christian scientists examines the same facts but refuses to develop theory of evolution because it conflicts with the creation story in the bible which is deemed infalliable.

And that is the crux of the matter, science maybe deemed fallible, if there is a hidden agenda and bias interpretation of data this will come alight during the peer reivew. Religion is deemed infallible and can not be peer reviewed or questioned in the same fashion.

It's also quite narrow to say that only religion produces a compromise, why not spread that statement out to include all world views and biases, not just religion.

I was referring to Science being related to a theological concept hence I didn't feel the need to bring in politics as is in accord with the thread title.

[tbonez3858]

Science is a skeptic's method of attempting to find the truth about the world we know and perceive...The problem with science is that it can take evidence that it doesnt completely understand, strings it together and then sell it to the general public as fact. Science evolves after it learns something new. Anyone that disagrees with them during one of those phases is an outcast because they aren't buying into the collectively accepted knowledge. I laugh when I read an article in which a scientist that was once labeled as a 'loon" or "nut" by the scientific community at large comes up with completely different idea that proves the general understanding wrong.

If and when all the holes are filled in and all of the dots connect then maybe science will have a chance to lose its humility.Until that time you have to have faith that the scientist understand the basics they are dealing with. You have to have faith the ideas they are stringing together are indeed logical sequences. These are all things you have to have faith in to believe today's brand of science..In the end I lived through a time in which professors and school taught that there was an imminent ice age coming. Its not hard to see why a rational mind can be skeptical of science.

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by AaronJF

Science makes that one assumption, but scientists approach matters with alot more than that one assumption.

I'll address this since the rest of your post is basically garbage and non-sequitors (for example, just because we don't live in an ideal world, it does not follow that therefore we can draw whatever conclusions we want about anything and everything).

Anyways, SCIENTISTS might make assumptions, but that doesn't matter in their experiments and research because of the empirical nature of science. Ideas have to be testable and results have to be reproducible.

Science is not a religion. It's an adherence to the scientific method, logic, and, as often as possible, empirical evidence.

Originally Posted by tbonez3858

Science is a skeptic's method of attempting to find the truth about the world we know and perceive...The problem with science is that it can take evidence that it doesnt completely understand, strings it together and then sell it to the general public as fact. Science evolves after it learns something new. Anyone that disagrees with them during one of those phases is an outcast because they aren't buying into the collectively accepted knowledge. I laugh when I read an article in which a scientist that was once labeled as a 'loon" or "nut" by the scientific community at large comes up with completely different idea that proves the general understanding wrong.

If and when all the holes are filled in and all of the dots connect then maybe science will have a chance to lose its humility.Until that time you have to have faith that the scientist understand the basics they are dealing with. You have to have faith the ideas they are stringing together are indeed logical sequences. These are all things you have to have faith in to believe today's brand of science..In the end I lived through a time in which professors and school taught that there was an imminent ice age coming. Its not hard to see why a rational mind can be skeptical of science.

I partially agree...but your second paragraph is incorrect.

It's actually EXTREMELY hard to see how a rational mind can be skeptical of science. Most people in the scientific community ARE open to new ideas and questioning things even as long as there is evidence supporting an argument(unless they're "court scientists" and simply do research for public policies). That's part of the essence of science. As long as someone has evidence to back up their argument, you should be open to the possibility that they're correct and examine the evidence and testing methods they use.

[bradlehman]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

I'll address this since the rest of your post is basically garbage and non-sequitors (for example, just because we don't live in an ideal world, it does not follow that therefore we can draw whatever conclusions we want about anything and everything).

Anyways, SCIENTISTS might make assumptions, but that doesn't matter in their experiments and research because of the empirical nature of science. Ideas have to be testable and results have to be reproducible.

Science is not a religion. It's an adherence to the scientific method, logic, and, as often as possible, empirical evidence.

Would definitely rep if I didn't need to "spread some around" first before repping you again.

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

I'll address this since the rest of your post is basically garbage and non-sequitors (for example, just because we don't live in an ideal world, it does not follow that therefore we can draw whatever conclusions we want about anything and everything).

Anyways, SCIENTISTS might make assumptions, but that doesn't matter in their experiments and research because of the empirical nature of science. Ideas have to be testable and results have to be reproducible.

Science is not a religion. It's an adherence to the scientific method, logic, and, as often as possible, empirical evidence.

well done, I got bored repeating myself to ignorant people

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by bradlehman

Would definitely rep if I didn't need to "spread some around" first before repping you again.

Queequeg to the rescue, I repped

[bradlehman]

Originally Posted by Queequeg

Queequeg to the rescue, I repped

Thanks for acting as my proxy in this time of need.

[Queequeg]

Originally Posted by bradlehman

Thanks for acting as my proxy in this time of need.

Lulz

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by bradlehman

Would definitely rep if I didn't need to "spread some around" first before repping you again.

Originally Posted by Queequeg

well done, I got bored repeating myself to ignorant people

thx guise

[Enso]

Does all faith have to be blind? Science does indeed go by empirical evidence, but it is faith in the process that instills confidence in it (because it has been proven and can be shown). In regards to the blind faith of acceptance of God's existence, that is something that will never be shown empircally unless you are of the mindset that God is not separate from the universe and all things discovered are simply a discovery of the 'Self that is'....and even that is based on an assumption. The nature of answers is to ask more questions. Within the phenomenal, logic dictates and questions can be answered with confident certainty. However, science will never be able to explain why, or ultimately how in an absolute sense, and it is that angle which scientific minded theist hold. Scientific minded atheist go by the assumption that if it isn't proven by science, it cannot therefore be true. The problem with that is that it often leads to myopia. As mentioned, science will never be able answer the ultimate question...thus, there will always be room for theism (which, yes, is speculative...but that doesn't make it irrational by default).

You can still be a theist and accept evolution and scientific discovery. What many theist are hung up on is the passage that states man was created in God's image. The answer to that question runs a bit deeper than what we see when we look in the mirror imho, though that is generally how most interpret it.

[bradlehman]

Originally Posted by Enso

Does all faith have to be blind?

Faith
?noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I think that based on the definitions of the word faith, religious "faith" has to be blind in the sense that you believe something for which there is no proof and you do not question it. The other definitions of "faith", however, don't seem to require "blindness" the way the religious definition does.

[cheerupemokid]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

I'll address this since the rest of your post is basically garbage and non-sequitors (for example, just because we don't live in an ideal world, it does not follow that therefore we can draw whatever conclusions we want about anything and everything).

Anyways, SCIENTISTS might make assumptions, but that doesn't matter in their experiments and research because of the empirical nature of science. Ideas have to be testable and results have to be reproducible.

Science is not a religion. It's an adherence to the scientific method, logic, and, as often as possible, empirical evidence.



I partially agree...but your second paragraph is incorrect.

It's actually EXTREMELY hard to see how a rational mind can be skeptical of science. Most people in the scientific community ARE open to new ideas and questioning things even as long as there is evidence supporting an argument(unless they're "court scientists" and simply do research for public policies). That's part of the essence of science. As long as someone has evidence to back up their argument, you should be open to the possibility that they're correct and examine the evidence and testing methods they use.

The problem is when a group of scientists collude with one another to to advance their idea or agenda regardless of what actual adherence to actual science tells them.

For instance:

Let’s say you run a multibillion-dollar football league. And let’s say the scientific community—starting with one young pathologist in Pittsburgh and growing into a chorus of neuroscientists across the country—comes to you and says concussions are making your players crazy, crazy enough to kill themselves, and here, in these slices of brain tissue, is the proof. Do you join these scientists and try to solve the problem, or do you use your power to discredit them?

...

[Dr. Omalu] wrote a paper detailing his findings. He titled it “Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy in a National Football League Player” and put it in an envelope and sent it to the prestigious peer-reviewed journal Neurosurgery. He thought NFL doctors would be pleased when they read it. He really did. He thought they would welcome a finding as important as this: scientific evidence that the kind of repeated blows to the head sustained in football could cause severe, debilitating brain damage. He thought they could use his research to try and fix the problem.

“I was naive,” he says now. “There are times I wish I never looked at Mike Webster’s brain. It has dragged me into worldly affairs I do not want to be associated with. Human meanness, wickedness, and selfishness. People trying to cover up, to control how information is released. I started this not knowing I was walking into a minefield. That is my only regret.”

http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/20...ry-concussions

And:

The head of research at one of the world’s leading scientific institutions, in Switzerland, has resigned after it emerged that data about hydrocarbon structures had been tampered with.... The science world is no stranger to scandal – in 2002, a committee from Bell Labs in the USA found Jan Hendrik Schön, one of the rising stars of physics, guilty of 16 charges of misconduct after he manipulated and misrepresented data in his research on microelectronics and superconductivity. It emerged that none of the most significant physical results of his experiments had been witnessed by any of his co-authors or colleagues.

Prof Victor Ninov from the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California claimed in 1999 to have discovered chemical element 118, before he was fired amid allegations his data was faked.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/exp...-research.html

It took almost a decade for some of the scientific fraud to be uncovered.

The idea of the scientific method is fine and a good one. However, the problem is that scientists are human beings, so they do not always adhere to the scientific method and will fake results and collude with one another to perpetuate a fraud for financial, political, or other reasons.

[Enso]

Originally Posted by bradlehman

I think that based on the definitions of the word faith, religious "faith" has to be blind in the sense that you believe something for which there is no proof and you do not question it. The other definitions of "faith", however, don't seem to require "blindness" the way the religious definition does.

Blind faith can be questioned, however, because it is blind, it does not result in disbelief. Thus, despite the evidence to support the theory of evolution, it will never fully do away with belief in God. All that will change will be our understanding of the nature of how God works in the universe, and God's relation to the universe. And this, as I mentioned in my previous post, is because science is limited to the phenomenal world, thus it will never be able ultimately to explain how, or why. The best it can do is satisfy to a reasonable degree of certainly how things work in a relative sense. And our understanding of that is constantly being expanded.

[bradlehman]

Originally Posted by Enso

Blind faith can be questioned, however, because it is blind, it does not result in disbelief. Thus, despite the evidence to support the theory of evolution, it will never fully do away with belief in God. All that will change will be the nature of how God works in the universe, and God's relation to the universe.

The point of the theory of evolution is not to disprove the existence of God and no one with any credibility is seriously suggesting that it will/does. It will change the way people CLAIM God works in the universe since we're increasingly able to explain all the ways that he DOESN'T work in the universe.

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by bradlehman

Faith
?noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.

I think that based on the definitions of the word faith, religious "faith" has to be blind in the sense that you believe something for which there is no proof and you do not question it. The other definitions of "faith", however, don't seem to require "blindness" the way the religious definition does.

x2, and science only has a "faith" in evidence and reason...which means it's not faith. It's simply an acknowledgment of that evidence and a way of understanding how the world works.

Originally Posted by cheerupemokid

The problem is when a group of scientists collude with one another to to advance their idea or agenda regardless of what actual adherence to actual science tells them.

For instance:




http://www.gq.com/sports/profiles/20...ry-concussions

And:



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/exp...-research.html

It took almost a decade for some of the scientific fraud to be uncovered.

The idea of the scientific method is fine and a good one. However, the problem is that scientists are human beings, so they do not always adhere to the scientific method and will fake results and collude with one another to perpetuate a fraud for financial, political, or other reasons.

a decade isn't that long in history, and depending on what area of science, it's not that long for that either. The most intellectual dishonesty I see is with the people working for public policy.

[Enso]

Originally Posted by bradlehman

The point of the theory of evolution is not to disprove the existence of God and no one with any credibility is seriously suggesting that it will/does. It will change the way people CLAIM God works in the universe since we're increasingly able to explain all the ways that he DOESN'T work in the universe.

Well, that is a decent approach. However, most Atheistic minded 'scientist', as I have seen, seem hell bent to prove otherwise lol. Or, perhaps those are just the psuedo intellectual atheist who wish to use science in a way it was not designed in their attempt to rid the world of theism lol.

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

x2, and science only has a "faith" in evidence...which means it's not faith.

You could say science (or scientist) has (have) faith that the universe acts by a set of rules because it has been shown to be thus. Therefore, it can be trusted to be true. And, that as long as the process is followed, the correct answer will become known. That is an application of faith, albeit a practical/rational one.

No need to be allergic to the word 'faith'. Faith isn't a four letter word

[bradlehman]

Originally Posted by Enso

Well, that is a decent approach. However, most Atheistic minded 'scientist', as I have seen, seem hell bent to prove otherwise lol. Or, perhaps those are just the psuedo intellectual atheist who wish to use science in a way it was not designed in their attempt to rid the world of theism lol.

Anyone who thinks that they can disprove the existence of God (or anything else) is ignorant. You cannot prove a negative. There's an invisible, immaterial leprechaun sitting on my shoulder right now. Prove me wrong. See? Using the theory of evolution to disprove the existence of God is, at best, a reflection of total ignorance when it comes to some very important things. There are much better ways to try to 'rid the world of theism.'

[Inev]

of course theists see it as a religion like theirs. Its mostly because they dont really understand that science openly admits, "this may not be 100% right" therefore they liberally expand that and say, "because you KNOW its not 100% right, it takes faith!!"

what they dont understand is that science is about the most plausible explanation for any given circumstance based on evidence. Where as their explanation is based on a book written roughly 1500 years ago (yes, its closer to around 1500-1600 than 2000) and re-inforced by popular opinion.

The two methods both arrive at an answer that requires some lead way in the 'I may not be right' department. But the method they arrived at that answer is completely different. religion is NOT a rational explanation for the world around us. All religious rational works backwards not forwards. They have their answer, and then they try to support it working back from that. Where as science ALWAYS works forward never looking to support ONE specific answer.

anyways, peoples rational is easy to understand. You just have to stop thinking people are rational decision makers. People are fu cking retarded.

[SYRIANKID]

I can shed some light on this question from a theological perspective.

1) Science as a religion?

The main problem here is that people restrict the definition of religion to the worship of some form of deity. This is restrictive. At its most basic form, religion is a matter of obeying some standard, or to put it another way, how one chooses one's value-ranking system.

So for example, this becomes obvious for a religious person because their value-ranking system is supposed to be based on Divine Revelations. However, each of us makes a similar choice, and we derive our ranking system based on:

A) What maximizes our physical pleasure
B) What maximizes our personal gain
C) What maximizes the overall "good" of society
D) What economists deem to be most cost-effective or efficient for resource allocation
E) What scientists deem to be healthy (physically, mentally, sociologically)
F) What we personally deem as most rational (based on a combination of the above depending on the context of the situation)

So this is the "unifying theory" of religion when it comes to value-ranking. In one way or another, we all have something that has the "final say" in our decision making OR we have a combination of several of the above-mentioned ranking systems.

So in my view, this is what people mean when they say some people take "science as religion". Indeed, some people take economic benefit as "religion" too. It depends on what you use to place values on choices and behavior.

2) Your second question is deeper, because it opens up a lot of philosophical doors that many people in the last 100 years have assumed were closed.

At its core, science is based on two principles:

A) Deduction
B) Induction

The problem is that many people (often laypersons who champion "science" but have no formal scientific training) think that science is based on irrefutable "proofs" and that there is some consensus on how to always logically arrive at scientific "truths". This is certainly not the case.

A) The reason this view is simplistic is that many great thinkers don't even agree that "induction" is a valid way of arriving at any conclusion. This sabotages a great deal of what we think we know "scientifically".

B) Another problem is that many great thinkers believe that deduction itself is mostly masked by the idea of statistical significance. This means that nothing can truly be deduced, rather, it can only be known to a certain level of statistical certainty. This also damages our scientific foundations. Many people don't realize that in the same way non-religious people claim that all religious phenomena are "just coincidence," the same level of incredulity can be applied to any test, since a person can always decide to designate consistency of natural laws or experimental results to mere "chance". This is a philosophical conundrum that has been outlined with the general question "how many times must a phenomenon be repeated before it becomes a rule/law".

C) Perhaps the third challenge to the scientific method is the outright rejection of the principle of causation. It has been argued that it is impossible to prove causation. In fact, it is quite difficult to shake away the argument that neither chronological order nor proximity of the events actually prove that A led to B.

But in general, we tend to ignore the above because science WORKS. We use what we know to get results, and it is PRACTICAL. The problem with this pragmatic approach is that the same argument is used by the religious. Religion also WORKS to effect changes in mind and body; religious people, to some extent, also rely on various proofs and evidences to substantiate the Divine origin of their religious beliefs.

My personal opinion is that science, the scientific method, logic, and the study of the legal validity of evidence are all inseparable from religion. I believe that these methods can be effectively used to prove "true" religion in as much as they can disprove "false" ones. This practicality, however, will never allow us to ignore the shaky foundations upon which our "rational systems" of gaining knowledge are built. There are some very disturbing questions that can be asked about the validity of our theories of knowledge and exactly how we "know" some of the things we use and rely upon on a daily basis.

[cheerupemokid]

Originally Posted by stealth_swimmer

x2, and science only has a "faith" in evidence and reason...which means it's not faith. It's simply an acknowledgment of that evidence and a way of understanding how the world works.


a decade isn't that long in history, and depending on what area of science, it's not that long for that either. The most intellectual dishonesty I see is with the people working for public policy.

For me, the issue is not so much the length of time it takes before a fraud is discovered rather it is that scientists are willing to perpetuate fraud under the guise of science in the first place.

My point is that even with the scientific method and the reliance on empirical evidence, some scientists neglect those things and will manipulate the process and collude with one another to advance an agenda that is not actually backed up by scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, most people do not have the time or resources to test the reliability of the scientific claims made, so I just think there is a danger in blindly accepting every claim made by a scientist because he calls it science. Again, scientists are human and just as susceptible to political, financial, and other forms of manipulation.

[neonhypoxia]

Originally Posted by cheerupemokid

For me, the issue is not so much the length of time it takes before a fraud is discovered rather it is that scientists are willing to perpetuate fraud under the guise of science in the first place.

My point is that even with the scientific method and the reliance on empirical evidence, some scientists neglect those things and will manipulate the process and collude with one another to advance an agenda that is not actually backed up by scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, most people do not have the time or resources to test the reliability of the scientific claims made, so I just think there is a danger in blindly accepting every claim made by a scientist because he calls it science. Again, scientists are human and just as susceptible to political, financial, and other forms of manipulation.

Which is why one of the central tenents of science is having results verified by seperate independent people working in seperate independent labs. Don't consider anything to be true in science until it has been verified.

So SK, you are basicly going with the whole noone was there to see it so you don't know for sure concept but with alot of bigger words and more complex sentence structure?

[dixon]

Originally Posted by Enso

Does all faith have to be blind? Science does indeed go by empirical evidence, but it is faith in the process that instills confidence in it (because it has been proven and can be shown).

If something is "proven" then that means it is validated by a process of reason. That's not faith in science.

[dixon]

Originally Posted by cheerupemokid

For me, the issue is not so much the length of time it takes before a fraud is discovered rather it is that scientists are willing to perpetuate fraud under the guise of science in the first place.

My point is that even with the scientific method and the reliance on empirical evidence, some scientists neglect those things and will manipulate the process and collude with one another to advance an agenda that is not actually backed up by scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, most people do not have the time or resources to test the reliability of the scientific claims made, so I just think there is a danger in blindly accepting every claim made by a scientist because he calls it science. Again, scientists are human and just as susceptible to political, financial, and other forms of manipulation.

So you take an issue with dishonesty. Oh. So does everybody.

[stealth_swimmer]

Originally Posted by Enso

You could say science (or scientist) has (have) faith that the universe acts by a set of rules because it has been shown to be thus. Therefore, it can be trusted to be true. And, that as long as the process is followed, the correct answer will become known. That is an application of faith, albeit a practical/rational one.

No need to be allergic to the word 'faith'. Faith isn't a four letter word

You're conflating faith with evidence. It isn't "just" faith they use. They use evidence. On the other hand, "faith" doesn't require evidence at all, by definition.

[SYRIANKID]

Originally Posted by SYRIANKID

I can shed some light on this question from a theological perspective.

1) Science as a religion?

The main problem here is that people restrict the definition of religion to the worship of some form of deity. This is restrictive. At its most basic form, religion is a matter of obeying some standard, or to put it another way, how one chooses one's value-ranking system.

So for example, this becomes obvious for a religious person because their value-ranking system is supposed to be based on Divine Revelations. However, each of us makes a similar choice, and we derive our ranking system based on:

A) What maximizes our physical pleasure
B) What maximizes our personal gain
C) What maximizes the overall "good" of society
D) What economists deem to be most cost-effective or efficient for resource allocation
E) What scientists deem to be healthy (physically, mentally, sociologically)
F) What we personally deem as most rational (based on a combination of the above depending on the context of the situation)

So this is the "unifying theory" of religion when it comes to value-ranking. In one way or another, we all have something that has the "final say" in our decision making OR we have a combination of several of the above-mentioned ranking systems.

So in my view, this is what people mean when they say some people take "science as religion". Indeed, some people take economic benefit as "religion" too. It depends on what you use to place values on choices and behavior.

2) Your second question is deeper, because it opens up a lot of philosophical doors that many people in the last 100 years have assumed were closed.

At its core, science is based on two principles:

A) Deduction
B) Induction

The problem is that many people (often laypersons who champion "science" but have no formal scientific training) think that science is based on irrefutable "proofs" and that there is some consensus on how to always logically arrive at scientific "truths". This is certainly not the case.

A) The reason this view is simplistic is that many great thinkers don't even agree that "induction" is a valid way of arriving at any conclusion. This sabotages a great deal of what we think we know "scientifically".

B) Another problem is that many great thinkers believe that deduction itself is mostly masked by the idea of statistical significance. This means that nothing can truly be deduced, rather, it can only be known to a certain level of statistical certainty. This also damages our scientific foundations. Many people don't realize that in the same way non-religious people claim that all religious phenomena are "just coincidence," the same level of incredulity can be applied to any test, since a person can always decide to designate consistency of natural laws or experimental results to mere "chance". This is a philosophical conundrum that has been outlined with the general question "how many times must a phenomenon be repeated before it becomes a rule/law".

C) Perhaps the third challenge to the scientific method is the outright rejection of the principle of causation. It has been argued that it is impossible to prove causation. In fact, it is quite difficult to shake away the argument that neither chronological order nor proximity of the events actually prove that A led to B.

But in general, we tend to ignore the above because science WORKS. We use what we know to get results, and it is PRACTICAL. The problem with this pragmatic approach is that the same argument is used by the religious. Religion also WORKS to effect changes in mind and body; religious people, to some extent, also rely on various proofs and evidences to substantiate the Divine origin of their religious beliefs.

My personal opinion is that science, the scientific method, logic, and the study of the legal validity of evidence are all inseparable from religion. I believe that these methods can be effectively used to prove "true" religion in as much as they can disprove "false" ones. This practicality, however, will never allow us to ignore the shaky foundations upon which our "rational systems" of gaining knowledge are built. There are some very disturbing questions that can be asked about the validity of our theories of knowledge and exactly how we "know" some of the things we use and rely upon on a daily basis.

bump