Faith in Science as Ridiculous as Faith in God.

DeBunny

There is a lot that science has yet to explain, for example, how do chromosomes form into their X and Y shapes? What is matter actually made of beyond quarks?
Science can tell us what is happening yet, in many cases, it can't tell us how. Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''. I find this as ridiculous as the concept of religion. How can anyone know this? I also find that scientists and atheists can be just as dogmatic and unyielding as the most fervent bible basher.

At the risk of being labeled a creationist *shudder* I can see some sort of intelligence within nature. We can see, from quantum physics, that If everything is broken down to it's smallest property we can see that all it is, is information. Surely information would need something intelligent for it to exist?
When I read about quantum physics I feel almost like a character in a computer game trying to figure out Ones and Zeros.


My main questions are:
Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

Why does so much of science have such unyielding faith in itself that it will figure it all out?


This post was inspired by, among other things, this article I found on the Dawkins and Metaphysics thread.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html?page=1
And this video I found on the expand your mind forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8AXmJdmzfM&feature=player_embedded

blubloblu

You sound very confused. What sense of the word faith are you using?

iUseVi

DeBunny wrote: »

There is a lot that science has yet to explain, for example, how do chromosomes form into their X and Y shapes?

Ummm...the X and Y chromosomes are not actually X and Y shaped? X and Y are just names for them.

EDIT: pedantic I know, but couldn't let that slide

Zombrex

DeBunny wrote: »

Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''

Many atheists are morons.

Thankfully you don't get too many of them around here

DeBunny wrote: »

At the risk of being labeled a creationist *shudder* I can see some sort of intelligence within nature. We can see, from quantum physics, that If everything is broken down to it's smallest property we can see that all it is, is information.

We can?

DeBunny wrote: »

Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist?

I can't see any reason why it would.

In fact I find it very difficult to see how an innate intelligence would just exist. That seems to complicate things quite a lot and leads to far more questions than it answers.

Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

DeBunny wrote: »

Why does so much of science have such unyielding faith in itself that it will figure it all out?

It doesn't, in fact quite the opposite.

I'm not sure who you have been talking to, like I said some people are morons.

Sam Vimes

DeBunny wrote: »

Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''. I find this as ridiculous as the concept of religion.

Yes it's ridiculous to state it as if it's a foregone conclusion. An asteroid could hit the planet tomorrow and kill us all and then we wouldn't figure any of it out.

DeBunny wrote: »

My main questions are:
Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

Why should it need an intelligence? If the fact that the universe is so complex and wondrous has led you to this conclusion then you're left with the problem of where the intelligence itself came from, since it must presumably be even more complex and wondrous. You're using one mystery to pseudo-explain another

Also, using the word god in the "god as the universe" sense only confuses things. When you use the word god people tend to think of their personal version. Having said that, that sounds an awful lot like pantheism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Pantheism is the view that the Universe (Nature) and God are identical,[1] or that the Universe (including Nature on Earth) is the only thing deserving the deepest kind of reverence.

DeBunny wrote: »

Why does so much of science have such unyielding faith in itself that it will figure it all out?

Can't really answer that because I've never got the impression that that's a prevailing view.

Bottle_of_Smoke

DeBunny wrote: »

My main questions are:
Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

Not exatly sure what you mean here.

Why does so much of science have such unyielding faith in itself that it will figure it all out?

[/url][/QUOTE]

I'm not sure that's true. I don't expect "science" to figure everything out. Something like the chromosones I reckon will be figured out, I think that because biochemists and scientists as a whole have a very good track record in finding things out.

hamonrye

i'd be very careful in mentioning quantum mechanics as an argument for intelligence. Really need to do the maths to get a grip on what actually is happening for yourself, which is generally the case in physics. Oh and I don't claim to have done this myself, maybe in a few more years, if ever.

DeBunny

Well religion has faith in god, in that he made the world and that's it.

Science doesn't know for certain how the world was made yet it has faith in it's self that it will figure it all out.

Many aspects of scientific research can be seen in parallel with aspects of religion. Scientists can be extremely dogmatic and fervent if their beliefs are challenged. Even by other scientists. For example the case of Dr. Balanova who found evidence of Tobacco and cocaine in Egyptian mummies but was accused of lying and hallucinating because it went against what was accepted at the time.

bnt

I don't have faith in science. It has to show results, but you can use past results to predict the future.

When I get on a plane, am I displaying "faith" that I will get to my destination in one piece? I can be reasonably confident that the designers have done their jobs and learned from past mistakes - and mistakes do happen. (The Comet disasters of 1954, for example, could have been avoided, had its designers learned lessons from the "Liberty Ship" failures during WW2.) Nowadays, it's a statistical exercise: lots of flights per day, extremely few failures.

The other part to this question is one of expectation. Do you expect perfection? If you believe in eternal, perfect gods, then you've been told that there is such a thing as perfect, and you think you have a right to expect it from science. Meanwhile, back here in the real world ... people are fallible, they're dealing with insufficient information, and doing the best they can with what they know. Dara O'Briain put it like this:

Science knows it doesn't know everything; otherwise, it'd stop. But just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

So, when I get on a plane, I am aware that there is a very small statistical probability that the plane will crash and kill me. Can I live with that? Obviously I can, or I wouldn't ever get on a plane. My death wouldn't be the end of the world for anyone but me - and I'd be too dead to care. :rolleyes:

DeBunny

iUseVi wrote: »

Ummm...the X and Y chromosomes are not actually X and Y shaped? X and Y are just names for them.

EDIT: pedantic I know, but couldn't let that slide

pedantic I know, but couldn't let that slide

Zombrex

DeBunny wrote: »

Science doesn't know for certain how the world was made yet it has faith in it's self that it will figure it all out.

Science is a methodology based on a philosophy that at its heart recognizes that some things are unknowable.

So it is rather inaccurate to say that science has faith in its own abilities to figure stuff out.

Some misinformed people can have this faith in science, but that itself is a misunderstanding of science.

GLaDOS

DeBunny wrote: »

pedantic I know, but couldn't let that slide

You'll notice all the chromosomes are X shaped (apart from Y), not just the X chromosome. X chromosome refers specifically to the larger sex chromosome.

iUseVi

DeBunny wrote: »

pedantic I know, but couldn't let that slide

What? Oh you think the X one looks like an X? But so do lots of them:

Although the precise details of its chemical structure and performance are only just emerging, the X chromosome has long been renowned among geneticists, who named it X not because of its shape, as is commonly presumed — the non-sex chromosomes also vaguely resemble an “X” at times during cell division — but because they were baffled by the way it held itself apart from the other chromosomal pairs. “They called it X for unknown,” said Mark T. Ross of the X Chromosome Group at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge.

DeBunny

iUseVi wrote: »

What? Oh you think the X one looks like an X? But so do lots of them:

Quote:

Although the precise details of its chemical structure and performance are only just emerging, the X chromosome has long been renowned among geneticists, who named it X not because of its shape, as is commonly presumed — the non-sex chromosomes also vaguely resemble an “X” at times during cell division — but because they were baffled by the way it held itself apart from the other chromosomal pairs. “They called it X for unknown,” said Mark T. Ross of the X Chromosome Group at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge.

Fair enough, but, we know that chromosomes form into shapes, it is still not known how this happens, regardless of what the actual shape is. Science can tell us that this is happening but it can't tell us how.

I'm not trying to explain anything, I'm thing just asking questions. For the most part I'm getting good answers, cheers.

GLaDOS

DeBunny wrote: »

it is still not known how this happens, regardless of what the actual shape is. Science can tell us that this is happening but it can't tell us how.

What makes you say this? Have you checked all the hundreds of scientific journals? I don't know the exact mechanism myself but that doesn't mean it's undiscovered.

Herbal Deity

DeBunny wrote: »

My main questions are:
Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

What does "God as the universe" mean?

iUseVi

DeBunny wrote: »

Fair enough, but, we know that chromosomes form into shapes, it is still not known how this happens, regardless of what the actual shape is. Science can tell us that this is happening but it can't tell us how.

But why does this matter? I realise you are just using this as an example, but I'm sure you agree chromosomes form into "shapes" by entirely natural processes, no? Besides, even if you think its by magic I'm sure science will tell us how they do, if it doesn't already. At which point you will no doubt move on to another example and say "ah ha! But science can't explain this!". So what. So what if there are things science can't explain. I don't see how that implies a god of any sort.

Can you expand on your argument that information requires intelligence? I don't get it atm. It seems that you are saying that things are mysterious, hence intelligence? Nothing personal, but it seems like a classic example of the argument from personal incredulity.

Ickle Magoo

DeBunny wrote: »

There is a lot that science has yet to explain, for example, how do chromosomes form into their X and Y shapes? What is matter actually made of beyond quarks?

Religion doesn't tell us that either, I'm not sure what your point is? Science would tell us if it could, religion wouldn't look & say god did it - and you think that makes science inadequate somehow?

DeBunny wrote: »

Science can tell us what is happening yet, in many cases, it can't tell us how. Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''. I find this as ridiculous as the concept of religion. How can anyone know this? I also find that scientists and atheists can be just as dogmatic and unyielding as the most fervent bible basher.

Well, I think given the opportunity, in a million years science will have answered most of the questions we now ask & thrown up a thousand more & that will continue for as long as we do. I'm not sure why you think that is a ridiculous statement? Given the option between a life without science and a life without religion, I think few would choose the latter and head back to caves and chewing on herbs to cure cancer.

DeBunny wrote: »

At the risk of being labeled a creationist *shudder* I can see some sort of intelligence within nature. We can see, from quantum physics, that If everything is broken down to it's smallest property we can see that all it is, is information. Surely information would need something intelligent for it to exist?
When I read about quantum physics I feel almost like a character in a computer game trying to figure out Ones and Zeros.

Quantum physics/QM deals with energy. What do you mean by information?

DeBunny wrote: »

I also find that scientists and atheists can be just as dogmatic and unyielding as the most fervent bible basher.

There are a lot of dogmatic and unyielding people from all walks of life, faiths, professions, countries...I don't think your statement would come as a great surprise to anyone.

DeBunny wrote: »

My main questions are:
Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word

No. Why would it? What part of the universe could not possibly have happened without a god or being god itself? Taking into consideration dark matter, dark energy, string theory, extra dimensions, etc - why does a "god" have to play a part? Why can't universe creation/expansion/singularity/big bang/ekpyrotic/cyclical whatever "it" is be a natural cycle or event?

DeBunny wrote: »

Why does so much of science have such unyielding faith in itself that it will figure it all out?

I'm not sure science has a faith it WILL figure things out, I think there is a general feeling of development and changed views thanks to learning, because science is constantly trying to get to the truth; trying to falsify every hypothesis, trim every theorem, discover more and more information so we get a clearer picture of how the universe operates, how it came into existence, how the minutiae we see around us operates. Scientists may be biased and have preconceived notions but science as a field is not - over many, many years, thousands of studies, models and repeated experiments later a general picture based on testable evidence emerges.

cavedave

Herbal Deity

Wouldn't the universe need an innate intelligence to exist? Not in a ''God as the creator of the universe'' sense, but in a ''God as the universe'' sense. I use the word God for lack of a better word
What does "God as the universe" mean?

Sam Vimes already pointed out this argument seems to be close to Pantheism. Perhaps a version of it called Panpsychism.

Which I believe.

liamw

I don't have 'faith' in science. I have confidence in the scientific method. The reason you have the privilege to browse the internet and fly across the world is because of science. I actually think it's utterly insulting and hypocritical to berate science like this and put it on even par with religion. I'm sorry but you should be ashamed of yourself DeBunny.

Ickle Magoo

Sorry to be a pedant but shouldn't that poster read;

"religion and science fly you into buildings" ?

Sorry.

MrPudding

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Sorry to be a pedant but shouldn't that poster read;

"religion and science fly you into buildings" ?

Sorry.

Good point. I think the planes count as science. Perhaps "Science flies you to the moon. Religion drives you to think it might to a good idea to fly into a building or perhaps shoot a doctor that carries out abortions or maybe even get onto a bus full of kids with a waistcoat full of explosives and scrap metal and detonate yourself." Not quite a catchy though...

MrP

Ickle Magoo

Yeah, you'd definitely need a longer bus for that one!

Flamed Diving

I'm so, so sick of these posters. Debunny, you must be the 10th this year...

DeBunny

woah, think I jumped in at the deep end with this one. Any hoo

ScienceNerd wrote: »

What makes you say this? Have you checked all the hundreds of scientific journals? I don't know the exact mechanism myself but that doesn't mean it's undiscovered.

It's merely an example of something science doesn't know yet. Whether it knows it or not is not the point. I was technically wrong about chromosomes. Lets move on.

Herbal Deity wrote: »

What does "God as the universe" mean?

Again, I used the word God for lack of a better word. I meant it in that the Universe was not created by an intelligent being but, is in itself intelligent. This isn't a belief I hold, merely a thought. I know it sounds kinda new age-ie. I avoided the likes of the spirituality forums because I wanted more scientific answers.

iUseVi wrote: »

But why does this matter? I realise you are just using this as an example, but I'm sure you agree chromosomes form into "shapes" by entirely natural processes, no? Besides, even if you think its by magic I'm sure science will tell us how they do, if it doesn't already.
At which point you will no doubt move on to another example and say "ah ha! But science can't explain this!". So what. So what if there are things science can't explain. I don't see how that implies a god of any sort.

I'm not trying to denigrate science or extol ''magic'' I just find it irritating when I see scientists and atheists treating science like dogma. Despite my thread title I'm not trying to attack science. Probably should have stuck a question mark at the end but I knew it would get a reaction. Seem to have worked

Can you expand on your argument that information requires intelligence? I don't get it atm. It seems that you are saying that things are mysterious, hence intelligence? Nothing personal, but it seems like a classic example of the argument from personal incredulity.

It's not really my argument just a question I'm asking. The belief that the universe is unintelligent seems as ridiculous to me as the belief that it is intelligent. How can we know either? To me, it appears to have an innate intelligence. Particles appear to know what to do. Science tells us what they are doing but not how. There is a prevailing faith in science to figure this out. Who really knows?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Religion doesn't tell us that either, I'm not sure what your point is? Science would tell us if it could, religion wouldn't look & say god did it - and you think that makes science inadequate somehow?

That's exactly what religion does.
My point is that science has a lot to figure out and many people have an unyielding faith that science will figure it out. I don't think science is inadequate compared to religion. You took my first sentence way out of context.

Well, I think given the opportunity, in a million years science will have answered most of the questions we now ask & thrown up a thousand more & that will continue for as long as we do. I'm not sure why you think that is a ridiculous statement? Given the option between a life without science and a life without religion, I think few would choose the latter and head back to caves and chewing on herbs to cure cancer.

Your statement and mine are not the same. I don't find your statement ridiculous.

Quantum physics/QM deals with energy. What do you mean by information?

What is energy but information? Light waves and radio waves are energy and information. Troffs and peaks, on and off, yes and no, 1 and 0.

There are a lot of dogmatic and unyielding people from all walks of life, faiths, professions, countries...I don't think your statement would come as a great surprise to anyone.

I find it ironic that science in particular has become so dogmatic. But no, not surprising i suppose.

No. Why would it? What part of the universe could not possibly have happened without a god or being god itself? Taking into consideration dark matter, dark energy, string theory, extra dimensions, etc - why does a "god" have to play a part?

A ''God'' doesn't have to play a part. I was just asking the question.
It would appear to me that the universe seems to know (again, lack of a better word) what it is doing. Consider the atom. We know what it is doing but not how. It could be compared to a ship that pilots itself. We can see the wheel moving but don't know how. Why shouldn't that be an indication of an innate intelligence in the universe. (alliteration not intended:))

Why can't universe creation/expansion/singularity/big bang/ekpyrotic/cyclical whatever "it" is be a natural cycle or event?

I would agree. I don't think the Universe was ''created'' but has always been and always will be. Why does that have to be unintelligent?

I'm not sure science has a faith it WILL figure things out, I think there is a general feeling of development and changed views thanks to learning, because science is constantly trying to get to the truth; trying to falsify every hypothesis, trim every theorem, discover more and more information so we get a clearer picture of how the universe operates, how it came into existence, how the minutiae we see around us operates. Scientists may be biased and have preconceived notions but science as a field is not - over many, many years, thousands of studies, models and repeated experiments later a general picture based on testable evidence emerges.

Yes, science as a field is not faith based but too many people see it that way.

DeBunny

liamw wrote: »

I don't have 'faith' in science. I have confidence in the scientific method. The reason you have the privilege to browse the internet and fly across the world is because of science. I actually think it's utterly insulting and hypocritical to berate science like this and put it on even par with religion. I'm sorry but you should be ashamed of yourself DeBunny.

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I'm so, so sick of these posters. Debunny, you must be the 10th this year...

Jeez, chill out lads. I'm not attacking you or science. Just the faith that many people seem to have in science. There are a lot of aspects of science that are starting to resemble religion. [EDIT]: I think your over the top reactions prove my point.

If you want to be insulted that's your choice. It wasn't my intention.

Turtwig

DeBunny wrote: »

Yes, science as a field is not faith based but too many people see it that way.

I agree people who have a misinformed view of science do, but then again if that was all they were lacking awareness (I hate using ignorant) about when it comes to science I'd accept it any day.

robindch

DeBunny wrote: »

Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''.

Could you name, say, five atheists who make this claim?

Flamed Diving

DeBunny wrote: »

Jeez, chill out lads. I'm not attacking you or science. Just the faith that many people seem to have in science. There are a lot of aspects of science that are starting to resemble religion. [EDIT]: I think your over the top reactions prove my point.

If you want to be insulted that's your choice. It wasn't my intention.

I am just bored of you and your duplicates wading in here with the same old debunked arguments that you just read on your favy Christian website. Unless you have something interesting or original to say then you are going to have to deal with complaints about your mind-numbing posting style.

In addition, I don't have faith in science. I say this only so you can stop making a fool of yourself with spurious assumptions.

mardybumbum

I have no doubt that there many questions that science will never be able to answer.

The thing I like about it though, is that it makes an attempt to answer these questions, whereas religion does everything in its power to retard the process.

cavedave

If I believe that "all parts of matter involve mind" and quite possibly the universe has some purpose am I an atheist?

I do not believe in a personal god that does magic tricks for you and gives you pie in the sky when you die.

DeBunny

robindch wrote: »

Could you name, say, five atheists who make this claim?

It's just atheists I've talked too and comments I've seen on boards. I don't see the point in naming them.
It would seem to me that for many atheists science has become a faith.
If you look at some of the comments here you'd think I'd posted a picture of Mohammed on an Muslim forum.

sink

I don't understand where you are coming from DeBunny. Science at it's core is scepticism, faith is the complete opposite. How can one have faith in scepticism? It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron if you will.

Flamed Diving

DeBunny wrote: »

It's just atheists I've talked too and comments I've seen on boards. I don't see the point in naming them.

Nonsense.

Dades

DeBunny wrote: »

If you want to be insulted that's your choice. It wasn't my intention.

Maybe rather than commenting on the reaction you got, you could comment on the rebuttals to your original post?

Repeating yourself won't convince anyone.

DeBunny

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I am just bored of you and your duplicates wading in here with the same old debunked arguments that you just read on your favy Christian website. Unless you have something interesting or original to say then you are going to have to deal with complaints about your mind-numbing posting style.

In addition, I don't have faith in science. I say this only so you can stop making a fool of yourself with spurious assumptions.

Where did you get the idea I was a Christian? If you actually read my thread title you'll see I find faith in god to be ridiculous.

If I can't be uninteresting and unoriginal on boards then where can can I.
Like wise with me having to deal with complaints; if you're going to participate on boards you'll have to expect repeat questions.
Repeat questions on boards are par for the course.

I was not trying to piss you off. Stop taking it so personally.

liamw

DeBunny wrote: »

Jeez, chill out lads. I'm not attacking you or science. Just the faith that many people seem to have in science. There are a lot of aspects of science that are starting to resemble religion. [EDIT]: I think your over the top reactions prove my point.

If you want to be insulted that's your choice. It wasn't my intention.

I'm just responding to the thread title. It's a statement. If you had "Do science and religion both require an equal amount of faith" or something along those lines then I would have given a different response. Perhaps this was your intention..

robindch

DeBunny wrote: »

It's just atheists I've talked too and comments I've seen on boards. I don't see the point in naming them.

I've asked you to name them -- or point me towards some forum where frequent posters make this claim commonly -- because what you have said is a common misconception amongst religious people and people who are unfamiliar with what atheists and formal agnostics actually think. I've been hanging around atheists for many years and I've yet to hear a single atheist say that.

So, can you substantiate your claim?

doctoremma

DeBunny wrote: »

Fair enough, but, we know that chromosomes form into shapes, it is still not known how this happens

Yes it is. We know exactly how DNA is packaged (in the sense that science can know anything "exactly").

DeBunny

robindch wrote: »

I've asked you to name them -- or point me towards some forum where frequent posters make this claim commonly -- because what you have said is a common misconception amongst religious people and people who are unfamiliar with what atheists and formal agnostics actually think. I've been hanging around atheists for many years and I've yet to hear a single atheist say that.

So, can you substantiate your claim?

Here's one example. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055840429
I don't think I'm wrong in saying many people would agree with this zealous attitude

Dave!

OP I think the fact that all discoveries about the physical universe have been as a result of scientific research and testing is what gives most people confidence that it's a good way to try to understand the world.

Science may or may not explain everything (probably not), but the rich history of success is an indication that the scientific method is the right way to go about explaining it.

Compared with religion, which has explained...... nothing at all, nothing at all, nothing at all......

Ickle Magoo

DeBunny wrote: »

It's just atheists I've talked too and comments I've seen on boards. I don't see the point in naming them.
It would seem to me that for many atheists science has become a faith...

Atheists have only a lack of belief in a god in common, they haven't congregated around and started praying to the Hadron Colider. What do you mean by science has become a faith? Science is rational, evidence based and peer reviewed after full disclosure. I trust that system more than I trust archaic religions built around superstition and anecdotes, I don't think that qualifies my views of the scientific method, or the world for that matter, as a form of blind faith a la religion.

robindch

DeBunny wrote: »

robindch wrote:

DeBunny wrote: »

Despite this, many atheists claim ''science will eventually figure it all out''.

Could you name, say, five atheists who make this claim?

Here's one example. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055840429

Where does Memnoch claim that "science will eventually figure it all out'', or something similar? I can't see it on a first reading.

DeBunny

sink wrote: »

I don't understand where you are coming from DeBunny. Science at it's core is scepticism, faith is the complete opposite. How can one have faith in scepticism? It's a contradiction in terms, an oxymoron if you will.

It doesn't stop people having faith in it.

Ickle Magoo

DeBunny wrote: »

Here's one example. http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055840429
I don't think I'm wrong in saying many people would agree with this zealous attitude

Did you read the thread? NOBODY agreed with him. He got one thanks after admitting his point was ridiculous...

Ickle Magoo

DeBunny wrote: »

It doesn't stop people having faith in it.

I guess it depends on your definition of faith, whether it's a general trust of something or an unevidenced belief in it.

Flamed Diving

DeBunny wrote: »

if you're going to participate on boards you'll have to expect repeat questions.

I am very aware of this, but on this forum, the problem of posters coming on here with the "oh, science/atheism is a faith system too, ninininini" argument is becoming irritating. I have been one of a few to suggest that an FAQ be created for you and your ilk, as a sort of buffer to the onslaught. If you are interested in such a debate, then I suggest you scroll down through recent debates on the subject, where you will find dozens of pages to read, at your leisure. You have nothing original to say. We have heard it all before. It is boring.

studiorat

Perhaps the OP should read, "Faith is ridiculous". full stop as it were...

Zillah

Whoah boy this could be interesting.

First of all DeBunny, it's important to note that there is no connection between any atheists. We don't have a Bible or a Pope or any ties at all really. If one atheist says something stupid then the only person you can hold that against is that atheist (as opposed to if the Pope says something you can hold his Bishops responsible if they continue to support him).

Most of what you've said seems to stem from confusion. Let's see if we can clear some of it up:

Faith: Believing something in the absence of, or contrary to, evidence ("There is a magic fairy in my hat!").

Confidence in something: Believing something is likely to be correct based on a previous track record and the sound principles it follows ("The sun will rise tomorrow!" or "My wife won't stab me while I'm making breakfast.")

I, and the majority of atheists and reasonable people, have confidence in the scientific method. Bear in mind that science is not a body of knowledge, it is a tool by which we update and correct that body of knowledge. We don't claim science knows everything, or that it will ever know everything. However, if we encounter a question like "Why does this thing go like this?" or "How did that get there?" we have confidence that if that question is ever to be answered it is likely to be science that will explain it. Time and time and time again we have seen throughout history that religious thinking leads to answers that are false (but often comforting), and that it takes a good dose of diligent science to prove them wrong. But of course, scientists have made mistakes. But what we see time and again is that whenever a scientist has been proven wrong, it was another even harder working scientist who got the right answer.

When it comes to the really difficult questions such as "Why is there something rather than nothing?" or "What is subjective consciousness?" we might never have an answer, and I'm happy to admit that. I'm certainly not going to do what a religious person does and give an answer that amounts to "It's magic!"

We don't have faith in science. But in a world where most questions have one correct answer and an infinite number of incorrect answers, I think it is reasonable to trust the system that is most cautious. That's science.


Next time you run into an atheist claiming that science either knows everything or will definitely some day know everything (I suspect it would be the first time, but I digress) you feel free to tell them they're an idiot, because the first is false and the second is unlikely.

DeBunny

Geuss I should have tested the waters a bit more before posting a thread like this.
I would atleast hope I didn't come across as bad as these two
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055822214
http://boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055798315

My perception of atheists of having a belief in science to figure ''it'' all out comes from atheists I've had conversations with and the generally self righteous nature a lot of atheists seem to have. Which, I suppose, comes with being able to explain things in a logical and reasonable manner, and being able to back up statements with solid facts.
Would it be fair to say that the perception of atheists is that they have a faith in science, whether this is the case or not?

Herbal Deity

My perception of people with blue eyes of having a liking for chocolate ice cream comes from blue eyed people I've had conversations with and the generally chocolate-loving nature a lot of blue eyed people seem to have. Which, I suppose, comes with being able to enjoy the smooth creaminess of ice cream, and being able to savour chocolatey goodness.
Would it be fair to say that the perception of blue eyed people is that they have a liking for chocolate ice cream, whether this is the case or not?