Science and faith: do you trust science?

@reflectingmonkey [quote]there are major differences between science and religion, they are sometimes portrayed as two rival ideologies but the difference runs much deaper than that.[/quote]

Apples and oranges. You think the ideological rivalry is warranted given the major differences?

@AkioTsukino I think YOU are the person raising the rivalry. Your first sentence is [quote]Ideological preoccupation is the most obvious element in the atheist vs theist debate.[/quote] That's you presenting it as rivalry.

@ElwoodBlues No, that's me saying the ideological preoccupation, which is poorly constructed in the guise of criticism, is the result of the rivalry.

@Gloomy He didn't say anything about gender.

@AkioTsukino painfully obvious that he was mentioning the transgender debate and strawmaning a position he seems to know nothing about

@Gloomy I wonder what rock he must have crawled out from under if he knows nothing about that nonsense.

@AkioTsukino
[quote] Exactly. Now apply the same defense to religion[/quote]
The same can’t be said of religions. Gods are manufactured to begin with. We customize them for what ever we need done. Including manipulating the population towards an agenda. Science only explains what is there .
There are thousands of religions, with multiple interpretations.
Subject to whims and desires. Science boils it down to facts.

@DocSavage [quote]The same can’t be said of religions. Gods are manufactured to begin with. We customize them for what ever we need done. Including manipulating the population towards an agenda. Science only explains what is there .[/quote]

No, I'm pointing out that the corruption is apparent in both. The skeptic has difficulty with discussing this without bias. I loath organized religion. I don't loath science. I loath the corruption. Your response is unrealistic because it dismisses the corruption due to bias. You admit there is corruption in science, but you deny the possibility of the process being susceptible to corruption? That isn't realistic nor is it fair. I loath organized religion but in criticizing or even evaluating it I must be fair. You can't be honest or accurate if you aren't fair.

What you describe above is an illogical comparison. Very unfair. The science of the Plandemic was manufactured, customized to manipulate the population towards an agenda. Religion and science are incentivized to explain what is there in such a way as you explain above.

[quote]There are thousands of religions, with multiple interpretations.
Subject to whims and desires. Science boils it down to facts.[/quote]

Science doesn't have multiple interpretations? There is never disagreement in science? Science is so beautify decisive and never subject to whims and desires? Corrupt or not, science is obviously not what you seem to think it is. And facts? I doubt if you know any more what that word means as you do the word God.

Fact: a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

God: an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god; an adored, admired, or influential person.

@AkioTsukino
Again what is your point. A fact is accepted as true, normally because it has a good amount of supporting evidence. As long as the evidence is good the science is good. The proof is in the results.
You asked me to apply the same defense to religion. Religion starts from ignorance, it usually has no facts to support it, and many facts that disprove it.( The global flood myth is a good example of that.) taking it as a factual event, in order to promote a particular religion as true, would be corruption, providing false evidence would be a misuse, but true science would expose it.

@Kwek00 [quote]Yes... but you don't have to go on a rant about it. The answer is just yes. I totally agree, I actually talked about that in my post. But I guess you are still not there yet.[/quote]

Not where yet? I'm not ranting about it I'm discussing it. We agree. Do you see that the same principle can be applied to religion? If I'm being told repeatedly by science minded skeptics that bad science isn't science then I have two questions. Is bad religion religion? And, is pitting science against religion in the name of science bad science? Because I think both are true. Bad science is bad science, bad religion is bad religion and pitting science against religion in the name of science - in complete ignorance of religion - is bad science.

[quote]Where do you get that from?[/quote]

Over a quarter of a century of personal experience.

[quote]Don't say you have evidence and wait for everyone to ask for it then. Just give it. Man, the world is waiting. If you can proof God is real, that would be a huge step for human kind. [/quote]

See above. Nearly 30 years of my giving evidence. Evidence doesn't mean anything to someone who doesn't want evidence. And that's fine, until you say you want evidence and then ignore it. Common human interaction. This thread isn't about evidence of God or anything else, it's about faith and science.

[quote]No... No it can not. [/quote]

It can and it does. Faith: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. Dogmatism in science? C'mon.

[media=https://youtu.be/ltkHwoig8Qc]

[quote]Because "human nature" has zero impact on the scientific method. It's not a component of science. It's a component of humanity. And once human beings fall victim to their human nature and go against the framework of the scientific method... we are not talking about science anymore.[/quote]

Overconfidence or naiveté. Even if science were conducted exclusively by androids it would still have an element of human nature in it. It's like you're saying science can't be mistaken, while saying science makes mistakes. It's religious doublespeak.

[quote]And things that are corrupted are being called out all the time. Sure some slip through the net, but eventually they will be called out and adjusted. There is 0 hope for that with a dogmatic concept, that's also where the "etched in stone" part came from. You know, those 10 commandments, they can't be changed, it's been cut out as it is.[/quote]

Not sure what you mean by it's been cut out as it is. Dogmatism doesn't mean there is no correction or criticism it means it doesn't matter. A priest or a scientist, usually a group of them, have the power, basically, to corrupt religion or science or politics.

I don't think we disagree, perhaps we just see it differently. Perhaps from different perspectives or positions.

@AkioTsukino
[quote]Do you see that the same principle can be applied to religion?[/quote]

It's worst in the case of religion... way worst. Because you can start to have another interpretation of the text which changes the orthodoxy and then becomes a new one. These periodes where schisms occur can be violent and mean. But after the dust settles, you'll be left with 2 religions instead of one. While with science... once you corrupt it, you are no longer functioning within the scientific method, it's no longer science.

[quote]Is bad religion religion?[/quote]

I don't even know what "bad religion" would be. On the basis of what would it be bad? I mean, except for the texts and the priests and theologians that interpretate those texts... The thing is that religious people have the tendency to not accept other peoples orthodoxy and then call it "bad". But at the end of the day, both are an orthodoxy. The human component in "religion" and the fact that you have people that need to "interpretate" the text and that there is no objective measuring tool, makes it way worst for religion.

[quote]Over a quarter of a century of personal experience.[/quote]

Considering how this conversation is going... I can imagine you have a lot of those experiences.

[quote]This thread isn't about evidence of God or anything else, it's about faith and science.[/quote]

I know... but earlier you said:

[quote]You want evidence. I can give you evidence.[/quote]

I guess we were going to have a big reveal here... But I guess not. What a surprise, man... I almost got my hopes up.

BTW, do you know what poisoning the well means? Because David loves to talk about human nature, and make people conscious. But since we started following the scientific method and slowly shedding ourselves from dogmatic thought... we came a long way. I mean, it keeps producing results. It's not a straight line, but eventually it pushes our knowledge about our surroundings forward. Something that I think is hard to deny. And no matter how cynical David is who talks about the corruption and the setbacks because of them... eventually, we advance because of it. So yeah ... I think David cynism, portrayed in this way, is deff poisoning the well. I would love to see the entire interview though.

[quote]Overconfidence or naiveté. Even if science were conducted exclusively by androids it would still have an element of human nature in it. It's like you're saying science can't be mistaken, while saying science makes mistakes. It's religious doublespeak.[/quote]

Science can come to falls conclusions without human nature entering in the mix. Methods can be lacking, understanding can be lacking. Then a theory can become popular that seems to have enough backing it so it's workable. And then one day, someone figures out that it's not and science will readjust. For me the idea that:

[quote]To assume that science adjusts its views based on what's observed reads like an advertising slogan or bumper sticker.[/quote]

Is not just a bumper sticker, it's a core idea that has to be true for it to be even considered to be science.

@AkioTsukino
[quote] science. There isn't anything wrong with faith or science, except for they corruptible. If you say there is good science and bad science or science isn't science if it's bad or the same thing about religion you're just sweeping the obvious problem under the rug. [/quote]
You are wrong on a fundamental point. Science itself , can not be corrupted in the matter you suggest. It can be used for what you consider corrupt purposes, but the science itself is valid and true. You change the equation, you change the results. Regardless of human morality.
Faith, is the opposite. It is based on the belief system of the people. Subject to their whims and desires. Trump and his Christian nationalist are a good example of that.
Science is a process, it has no agenda by itself. If it’s wrong , it’s due to a lack of information. No because it is willfully misleading.

@AkioTsukino It is true that scientists take certain things on trust (for example rely on someone elses findings to expand on them). It is also true that religious narratives might speak to human needs that scientific theories can’t hope to satisfy.

And yet, scientific practices - observation and experiment, the development of falsifiable hypotheses, the relentless questioning of established views - have proven uniquely powerful in revealing the surprising, underlying structure of the world we live in, including subatomic particles, the role of germs in the spread of disease, and the neural basis of mental life.

Religion and faith has no equivalent record of discovering hidden truths.

@AkioTsukino [quote]God is a title, like king, president, captain.[/quote]

In its most common usage it refers to a superhuman/supernatural being and when gods are discussed in context of faith and religion that is what is meant.

@Gloomy Yes, but that most common use isn't complete. It's only one example. It's most common because it's the one most used. There are few gods fitting that description and billions of others that don't. That specific example doesn't explain the requirements of being classified as a god. The billions of others are just as much gods as that one.

@AkioTsukino oh yes please do not be troubled, I enjoy your words and will happl'y wit till it is done

@SatyrService [quote]thank you so much for your careful composition of this reply[/quote]

You are most welcome. Kind and respectful discussion, debate and yes, even disagreement are refreshing.

[quote]Science is made and used by people, and people, even when diligent are flawed, and subject to emotional effect, often destroying, the hopeful objectivity that it requires[/quote]

Pretty accurate summation of the OP.

[quote]a brief clarification
I am uncomfortable with the designation "Atheist" as it seem to have morphed into something like "people who do not have religion, and are Opposed to those that do"[/quote]

Fair enough. I'm not impressed with the term atheist in a practical sense myself. This thread is about faith (trust) in science. The objectionable mislabeling of atheism - as you've described it and I agree with - is stereotypical and in that context is being used here, so your clarification is significant and duly noted. In fact, this is the sort of problem I hope to address. To say "Science" is (blank) or religion is (another blank) is too idealistic or critical, depending upon ones' inclination. It's distracting. What much of the nonsensical (as it is or tends to be) debate between belief and unbelief in the theistic or theological arena is primarily about, in my opinion.

We should just look at the evidence objectionably. That almost never happens.

[quote]I am not interested in conflict with people of faith
I should like to be considered Less Militant[/quote]

Okay. But that is the issue, more than any façade or alternative. It shouldn't be but it almost always is.

[quote]preoccupation (The state of being preoccupied or an idea that preoccupies the mind; enthrallment. ) this suggests an unwillingness, to look at past presuppositions as fixed Knowledge. this is contrary to the principles of science, where doubt and disproof are integral to the process[/quote]

That's almost human. Science is human. I don't think that radical atheists actually think science is infallible, in fact they will reluctantly admit it isn't, by nature, but it seems as if they seem to present it as infallible when they compare it to their ideological opposition. The vast majority of conversations I've personally had with radical atheists is that they will begrudge a believer even the slightest agreement and so even if they agree they won't admit it. There's a very deep seated religiosity there that isn't dissimilar to believers. Maybe that's conflict and maybe ideology or xenophobia.

[quote]It has been other workers in science, who have revealed his perfidy[/quote]

Exactly. An important point.

[quote]Think of Fritz Haber, were his works good? or were they bad?[/quote]

Not familiar, I'll have to look it up. Interesting that it is said (just Wikipedia, mind you) that he converted from Judaism to Lutheranism, possibly in an attempt to improve his chances of getting a better academic or military position. That's a red flag. To what end? So, what he did could be used for good or bad, meaning explosives aren't exclusively political. He took it a bit too far for that, perhaps as some of his effort was intended for war, which is just stupid. War, that is. It seems to me short sighted to expect such efforts not mirrored by any opposing military and irresponsible to negate one's responsibility as if you aren't responsible for the use of your work. And can the same be said of the potential abuse? If I were a scientist and I thought I could get rich and famous and be some kind of hero for inventing something like that I wouldn't trust my fellow man with it. It would depend upon whether or not there were a practical constructive use.

Haber saw that in the threat National socialism presented to his friends and family in 1931 Germany. I didn't dig deeply into his career, but he could have thought to fight that sort of thing with his work without being accountable for it falling into the "wrong hands." Since there are no right hands that seems odd to me.

[quote]Individuals will ever require examination, and confirmation, before an idea can gain acceptance and veracity
it is a more open process, not one fellow in his lab, it is showing your work to the scrutiny of those well equipped to refute it.[/quote]

As they did with Keys. And also Semmelweis - post-mortem, But that sort of thing takes a long time. While what you say may be true, it's like saying no one would break the speed limit because it's clearly posted. There's no fake faith healers because the Bible says God healed people. Science is always scrutinized etc.

[quote]Conversely, Those with faith are often shown evidential reality, that stands against that faith
the The Ussher chronology puts the creation of earth at October 22, 4004 BC o for example, is made meaningless not only by what science has reveled but by the fact that records older than that are available .[/quote]

The problem there is getting the correction wrong. Usher's chronology was bunk, it wouldn't have anything to do with the creation of the earth even if it wasn't and science hasn't revealed records older than that are available. Now, let's say I reveal how I'm right, and I can, are you going to accept that evidential reality? Heavens no. And it has nothing to do with whether or not I'm right or it can be refuted. It's ideology. It works both ways.

[To be continued]

@SatyrService [quote]The story of Genesis requires belief that all mankind, is descended from TWO people.
who did the children of Adam, Pair with if not their own siblings or their own mother.[/quote]

According to the Bible they paired off with their own siblings.

[quote]the requires that "leap of faith" that we cant know anything about this. but must take it as an article of faith.[/quote]

We can't know anything about this? You've just answered the question yourself. If by "know" you mean absolute certainty the same is required of any alternative explanation as well. That's sort of the point to the OP.

[quote]but you do not seem to be a biblical literalist. correct me if I am mistaken[/quote]

I recognize that the Bible alleges to present the literal truth, but I know which portions are figurative, illustrative or metaphorical.

[quote]Evidence isn't a synonym of truth if using. the widest possible definition this, is so,
including as evidence, hearsay, dubious testamentary speculation, 3rd and 4th hand accounts anecdotes
Then, that may be so,, but if one uses the Science version of evidence is understood as that which confirms or dis-confirms, verifiable objective examples[/quote]

Okay. What evidence in the Bible is there that the earth is only created in 6 literal days, 6,000 years old and flat?

[quote]In law, a pretty flawed system , rules of evidence govern the types of evidence that are admissible in a legal proceeding. Types of legal evidence include testimony, documentary evidence, and physical evidence
of those three? I lean toward physical evidence, as testimony is often memory based, and we have seen memories are very malleable and thus less trustworthy. Documentary evidence, is of imperfect sources. Is it verified? what is the source of this documentation ? so yes I dismiss much evidence without the most convincing proof or argument. Even "Expert Tetsamony" often "sciency " has oft been shown to be flawed. but we learn better when we examine things[/quote]

Right, so all evidence is subjective, temporal. What science does is simply try to figure things out. People often make the presumption that the current science is infallible when it isn't, which is why science corrects itself as it should. People often make the presumption that the investigation of the supernatural, which we can't explain, must necessarily be fallible when they have no way to determine that. Presumption is the acceptance of something as true although it is not known for certain. Assumption is a thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof.

[quote]no scientific credentials to reach outside of what isn't even their realm,?
So only a believer may study religion? or be an expert in it?I would suggest that would be an ultimate bias as we have seen often in Science , and Academic history[/quote]

Anyone can study science or religion. You don't have to be a believer or expert. Experts often adhere to tradition. Religion is systematic repetition. A strict adherence to a set of principles. Buddha, for example, allegedly said that there is no God and if there were he wouldn't be concerned with the efforts of mankind. That was, allegedly, a belief of the historic man who is called Buddha. What was his evidence? Did he really say that? Is it necessary for his followers to agree? His teachings weren't put into writing for 500 - 1,000 years after his death. Today Buddhists may have faith in the authenticity of his writings and they may not. It doesn't matter when it comes to their religion.

The Bible presents Christ Jesus as a man who was born at a specific time, which can be pretty accurately determined. You can check the contemporaneous historical references, astronomical references, like eclipses, and things like that. Archeological discoveries, improvements in linguistic understanding, manuscripts etc. but it doesn't establish the authenticity of all the Bible says. Then you have a potential for misinterpretation, mistranslation, etc. As with anything our understanding improves but we still have to have faith, as with many things, including science. Believer, unbeliever and expert alike.

[quote]Again we agree!
where we diverge is that I think acting on faith, and faith alone, is rash and requires ever greater degrees of accepting doctrine, even when faced with contradictory rigorous physically verifiable evidence. this is perilous. when life is on the line, it is better to be right, than adherent to scripture.[/quote]

I don't advise acting on faith alone and I've addressed that above, but I think what you mean is that it is not wise to trust, or have faith, in scripture if it presents a conflict with current science, correct? It's okay to think that God may resurrect me but it isn't wise for me to, let's say, abstain from homosexual behavior or doubt evolution due to my Bible beliefs? Why would I trust science over God? Especially if I have evidence that God created everything science is trying to figure out?

I think unbelievers see the Bible as outdated science. Much of that has to do with not only the failure of science, and it's inability to comprehend the supernatural, but more than that their own understanding of the Bible is influenced by the failure of religion and more specifically theology. Theology and science are both the fallible work of mankind.

[quote]Thee scientific process, when aptly applied continues to modify it's model of the universe, to account for new discovery. over time this refinement produces more true understanding, thus allowing us create for instance, this media we are using to create.[/quote]

The Bible says that there was a global deluge in Noah's day. Can science confirm? Does it negate the Noah account? If so, how, and what practical difference does it make whether I agree with science in the case that it does actually negate the account? So, I can ask the same of variations in dogmatic teachings of the Bible I don't agree with. There isn't any scriptural evidence of Jesus dying on a Roman cross, of the soul being immortal, of hell or the trinity. The Jews and early Christians didn't celebrate Christmas or Easter. They are pagan. That's well documented. If you insist I agree with the science negating the flood of Noah's day that seems like religious dogma to me.

[quote]The process, is to remove those individual biases, and to expose those things that are bogus, or just wrong.[/quote]

That's fine. But the process eventually removes it's own as well, so what difference is it when they do that or when they can claim to do the same with my Bible beliefs. Especially when I can demonstrate most of those disagreements are based primarily on the traditional ancient Greek philosophies instead of an accurate understanding of the Bible [b]AND[/b] some of those "scientific" teachings were introduced by the same ancient Greek philosophies? Like evolution from Empedocles, Aristotle, Anaxagoras, Anaximander.

[quote]I would suggest that science is in many way as old as religion itself.[/quote]

It's interesting that I read the post I'm responding to as I go. So, I'm just now reading this after having said above that that is what I think unbelievers do.

[quote]while some were having ritual and speculating about where it all came from, others were coming up with a better stone tool, or discovering this clay made red beads, or that place where i gorged on those melons, now has Mellon growing there
Examining the world for what IS there, not what we hope might be, tho it is Hope , that keeps us looking
and faith that helps us beliver there is something to look for[/quote]

In that case the people coming up with bad ideas about where it all came from were, or should be, left behind? The same with tools, beads, agriculture? Think that through. First of all the Bible records history. It talks about the inventors of musical instruments and tools. Second, much of that is still around, and though other tools have came along those other tools (agriculture, etc.) still exist. Thirdly, science doesn't know where life came from. The Bible says it does. Many of today's science is relatively new, even though it is recorded thousands of years earlier in the Bible. Science is catching up with the Bible and has made some pretty bad mistakes along the way. Fourthly, the Bible makes it pretty clear that, though mankind will live forever, most of us have nothing to look forward to and it doesn't negate the musing of science. Faith in science and faith in God can coincide and overlap. Science isn't a dogmatic religion, but neither is the Bible. Both of them can influence dogmatic religious beliefs but they aren't those things specifically themselves.

So, science and religion doesn't have to agree. Nor should they strive for that goal. Nor should they dictate tyrannical adherence. Ideological tyranny is human nature. Think like me. Don't question. That isn't excusive to religion. the Bible itself says to test it, to question it, not to believe everything it says because there are potential problems. Translation, for example, interpretation. The Bible, like science or anything else has safeguards if it's used properly and potential for corruption if it isn't.

Since I have very little interest in science compared to my interest in the Bible, I needn't examine it like I do the Bible. But that doesn't mean I oppose it or doubt all of it. I don't know gravity, but I don't have to. A scientist might have to. I don't know automechanics but I drive. There's no one who knows everything and if they did they wouldn't need science. Or God. But Jehovah God isn't just about knowledge. On the other hand my seeking knowledge in Jehovah over science doesn't mean I have to be ignorant about how the world works. Or nature. The Bible makes a clear distinction between the world and the heavens and earth. The heavens and earth, according to the Bible, will last forever, but the world will be destroyed. Part of my Biblical understanding involves an investigation of how the world works more so than the planet earth. The earth will take care of itself, but the world you better keep an eye on.

[quote]guilty, it is part of a poem/lyrics, I like artistic expression truth, need not be dull. you'd hate the rest of the poem.
[/quote]

What I meant is that when people give estimations of science or faith they can become hyperbolic or biased overconfidence or jargon that may mean something and have truth but - overestimated - I guess is the right word. Or close enough.

[quote]thank you for your time[/quote]

You are most welcome, and thank you for your time. I've been very busy and it has taken a while, but I've enjoyed our discussion very much.

@ElwoodBlues [quote]No, I trust events and observations that I can repeat. For example, when someone tells me the Earth is flat and has four corners, I can point to a number of examples of and observations of a non-flat Earth. When someone tells me the Earth is only 6000 years old, I can point to a bunch of evidence and observations that indicate a much older Earth and universe.[/quote]

But the observations of science in the past have been proven wrong just as the current ones, including your own, will be proven wrong. For example, the Bible doesn't say that the Earth is flat, four corners is metaphoric and still used today. The Bible doesn't say the Earth is only 6000 years old. So, you're wrong about all of that. Your observations of the Bible are wrong. Because you listened to theology and religion instead of the Bible. Theology and religion are like science in that regard and others as well.

Given that the quotes you gave should be "experienced" in that light. If it's true that science doesn't teach it experience and experiment does then all three can be wrong and often will be. If you don't think that you are fooling yourself.

@AkioTsukino Actually, I'm quoting other peoples' observations of the Bible. Those interpretations of the Bible are still common in some corners of this country; they used to be much more common.


And what led us to our current understanding of the age and development of the Earth? Well, it started with the observations of a geologist named Lyell, and rates of sedimentation, salt accumulation, and such. And his calculations suggested there was lots more past time than the Bible begats suggested. And with all that time, Darwin was able to propose his theory of the origin of species. Meanwhile, people of faith opposed Lyell & Darwin at every turn, and some still do.

[quote]But the observations of science in the past have been proven wrong just as the current ones, including your own, will be proven wrong. ... then all three can be wrong and often will be. [/quote]
I agree absolutely. And this leads me to an essential point about science and truth that deserves its own thread. Fortunately for me, but not for this thread, I have things to do and then a college reunion to attend so I may not get back to this thread for a few days.

@AkioTsukino None of which negates my statement

@newjaninev2 Perhaps that's because your statement is pointless. In order to negate religion you have to negate faith which is also used in science meaning that science is as corruptible as religion. This is a warning, not an overly critical ideology.

The point is the corruption isn't caused by faith it's caused by a lack of it. The financial and sociopolitical incentive replaces faith and allows for corruption. The scientist with integrity doesn't make it to the top of the power structure. Those with integrity are the ones with faith.

You guys . . . you're part of the ideological masses that support the corruptible who [b]will[/b] destroy science as you know it because you don't see this.

@AkioTsukino
You have no idea WTF you’re talking about.
You’re suggesting that science has some kind of misleading agenda .science can be misused, but it is a process, not an ideology. It’s the results that matter. It makes no claims . You get back what you put into it.
Give us an example of how science is corrupted. That’s the process of science, not an example of how someone’s agenda misrepresents it.

@Gloomy You think the Nazis were the only ones to do that? And if the scientific process can so easily be destroyed in the very short time they had, you think it hasn't been corrupted otherwise? Maybe your Science has been. Do you know it hasn't? And what about religion? You think it can't be corrupted and how do you know the religion that you might be critical of isn't destroyed by the same sort of corruption? If it has been your criticism is misplaced?

@AkioTsukino any authoritarian system does because scientific discourse needs freedom of speech but clearly if something has been disproven over and over again and people are hell bent on spreading misinformation that shouldn't be allowed.

"Your science" 🤦‍♀️ Your lack of knowlegde on scientific work and the overall International community in every field is showing again.

Because somehow in christianity for example there are already so many different groups and they all are problematic in their own way. Also when you bring up religion and faith do you really want to claim there is a god? Or are you refering to religious practices?

@Gloomy [quote] any authoritarian system does because scientific discourse needs freedom of speech but clearly if something has been disproven over and over again and people are hell bent on spreading misinformation that shouldn't be allowed.[/quote]

Not allowing misinformation is the very definition of an authoritarian system. Once you start proclaiming yourself the arbiter of misinformation it's only a matter of time until someone points that finger back at you. If you don't let everyone speak no one speaks.

[quote]"Your science" 🤦‍♀️ Your lack of knowlegde on scientific work and the overall International community in every field is showing again.[/quote]

Uh-huh. After over a quarter of a century having these types of discussions I know what buttons to push.

[quote]Because somehow in christianity for example there are already so many different groups and they all are problematic in their own way. [/quote]

All Jewish and Christian divisions are false. In fact there has never been any religion that remains true even to itself. That is the nature of religion.

[quote]Also when you bring up religion and faith do you really want to claim there is a god? [/quote]

That there are millions of gods is so self evident I consider it infantile to even think it necessary to claim there is a god. It's like claiming there is water.

[quote]Or are you refering to religious practices?[/quote]

In what context? I'm not following you. In reference to gods and faith? Having faith isn't necessary to all gods or religions. When I say faith I mean trust, rather than religious affiliation. Generally speaking when I say religion I mean strict adherence to a specific set of principles or repetitious ritual. In the context of this thread I examine the flaws in my fellow skeptics of religion and suggest that in their ignorance they are oblivious to their true religiosity and use of faith as I've described it. Namely trust.

@newjaninev2 [quote]That's exactly what happens.[/quote]

Ideally. That is what's supposed to happen. Not that that is saying that much. Eyewitness testimony isn't very reliable.

[quote]There are none[/quote]

There are more similarities than not. You, for example.

@AkioTsukino Science is a progression. not a limitation.

@ChipmunkErnie Bumper sticker. What does "Science is a progression, not a limitation have to do with faith in science?

@AkioTsukino It's just an observation on how science works, that it is basically self-correcting as human knowledge continues to expand.

@DocSavage [quote]Who gives a shit ? [/quote]

Spoken like a true purveyor of the evidentiary. Not giving a shit isn't a problem with me until you start making remarks about spirit that are just ignorant. If you don't give a shit about it shut up about it.

[quote]You’re saying that we should put more faith in”faith”[/quote]

No, I didn't say anything like that. One of the strongest criticism I have about the faithful is they should put more knowledge with their faith, but really you have to ask what they are truly faithful of. Tradition, Greek philosophy influenced pagan nonsense, that sort of thing. So maybe you can send them a link to my post that you don't give a shit about and not be surprised they share your lack of enthusiasm.

So, I view science ideologues the same as religious ones. They don't really care about what they say they care about enough to actually know what they pretend to care about.

You are probably not accustomed to someone who isn't biased. Wonderful, isn't it.

[quote]What is it exactly that requires that faith ?[/quote]

Trust. With or without knowledge. I highly recommend with.

[quote]Am I supposed to have faith in a god , that doesn’t manifest in reality ?[/quote]

Hypothetically speaking, how do you think I will answer that? If you want faith in a god look for it. Don't just buy into whatever is common knowledge (contradiction in terms, I know) and don't just establish faith in a god of your own making unless that's what you want to do. Then you just get whatever it is you want and not what it really is. It's the same with science as it is with religion. Don't buy into your own bullshit any more than anyone else's. That isn't easy and you fail at it until you are dead and gone, but faith is that you keep trying. If you buy into your own bullshit or a Bible or textbook, poet, priest or politician, tradition, etc. you aren't manifest faith in the thing you are investigating, you are manufacturing your own or someone else's.

The Bible says put God to the test, and to seek knowledge of him, and not to believe even the inspired expression (literally spirit) of, it uses as an example, the apostles or the Bible. The word Israel means to wrestle, contend, or grapple with God. If you're not doing that you aren't doing it right. If you don't have doubts . . . . spirituality should actually be a very practical endeavor. Not like the nonsense the "religious" ideologues that you may be accustomed to preach and police the globe with.

And if you don't want to have faith in a god, even if you believe in the existence of that god, then don't bother. You don't have to get upset when religious ideologues say you are going to burn in hell or can't get into heaven, aren't as "moral" as they are, or you evolved from a common ancestor. You can learn their nonsense to debunk it, but what a waste of time that would be if you aren't interested in the alleged god. You may be satisfied to know enough to see through their bullshit, but if you can't correct them, and yourself, not unlike science, then just stay out of it. And by the way, the Bible doesn't say the spirit or soul continues after death, it says when you die, that's it. You're just dead. Then at some later time you may be resurrected. But that goes for the righteous and the unrighteous. If you're not interested why bother? The God of the Bible thinks that is unfortunate, but as you wish. It's your call.

[quote]You gave me “knowledge” on ghost. But can you give me “faith” in their existence?[/quote]

Nope. That's up to you and your search for knowledge. Just like you can't give me faith in science that isn't deserved or desired by my self.

@AkioTsukino
[quote] Nope. That's up to you and your search for knowledge. Just like you can't give me faith in science that isn't deserved or desired by my self.[/quote]
So then, what is the point ? What exactly are you trying to say ?
You say you don’t have , and don’t want faith in science. What then is the subject you are addressing ? Do I trust science, yes. Is science perfect, no.
But I trust it because it is the best method we have. It produces results, and it can actually make predictions of both past and future events.
If you’re inquiring why Atheist mock faith, the answer is simple , it’s unreliable, ignorant, uninformed, unreasonable, and for practical purposes, useless and without value. There is nothing that faith can accomplish or achieve, that science can’t without it. Any faith only be practical if it believes is the science you deny.
You are glorifying your own willful ignorance. That’s worth mocking and ridiculing.

@newjaninev2 [quote]I cannot see the thrust of your last comment to me.[/quote]

The evidence remark was sarcasm. A buzz word for skeptics. It means very little. They say it often because they think it offends believers. It's silly.

I didn't say anything about evidence in the post you're responding to, other than the sarcasm. Little t was mentioned earlier. People say you believe what you want. They're talking about evidence.

@AkioTsukino That's merely incoherent.

@newjaninev2 His arguments just disappear up his own arse.
He doesn't care about any coherent/sensible replies.
He argues for the sake of arguing.

@DocSavage Stupid memes. Your emotional and illogical us (science) vs them (religion) is so thoughtless and petty that it has clouded your ability to think.

@AkioTsukino Science simply doesn't need and often contradicts religion...
When we talk about how we design society and how we can advance science is the way and not religion.

@Gloomy So? I hate religion. If I were ruler of the world I would completely ban organized religion and I would outlaw conflict of interest, the biggest threat to science, I would dramatically increase funding to advancements in science and appoint real scientists, not corporate or political shills in positions of power. I would make it so that people like myself in this hypothetical scenario, the "ruler of the world" had no say in how science could and couldn't be used so long as it didn't potentially harm people. Probably one of the first steps in putting science back into the hand of scientists would be to repeal the Bayh-Dole act. https://research.wisc.edu/bayhdole/

Greed and power is destroying science like it did religion and people like you can't see it because, like the religious, you can't see the weakness of your own ideology.

@DocSavage [quote]That’s an improper question.[/quote]

My theory is that you only think that because you don't understand faith very well. Especially in a secular or temporal sense.

[quote]“ Do you trust science ? “[/quote]

If someone were asking me that question I would respond that I do trust the principle of science more than I do theology but only because theology is older. You could be only somewhat pedantic in thinking science is, by definition, the same age as theology, and in some sense they are different approaches to the same, the seeking of knowledge, so I would specify modern science and modern theology.

Religion became apparently incentivizing to corrupt entities long before science for obvious reasons. Religion is more cultural and traditional. It has more appeal to the masses as such. But during the industrial revolution that began to change, and the material became more appealing to the growing diversity of a global culture at the same time as the corruption in organized religion was becoming more apparent.

Now, science has become, in effect, the new religion. Understand that I'm not criticizing the search for knowledge, either spiritual or material, I'm criticizing the corruption inherent in mass appeal as has now been applied to both.

For me, arguing with the skeptics is the same as arguing with the religious because in both the corruption of their respective ideologies are what not only motivates but also poorly instructs them. Theology and science should and does correct themselves, but their ideologues suppress that correction while perceiving their ideology as being the "knowledge" they allegedly seek.

@AkioTsukino
Nonsense. From what I’ve read so far, you keep moving the goal post . One to avoid straight answers, two to criticize anyone asking for straight answers. Claiming falsely, that they misunderstand the subject at hand.
Example: when I said that a global flood was virtually impossible to have happen, as described in the bible. Your response was : can science make that call.
The answer is yes it can. That answer is based on physical evidence, as well as the law of physics. A consensus of science from various fields.
So, what exactly do you have to support the viewpoint of faith ? You can leave religion out of it, if you want. But I would like to establish what is your basis for the value of faith.
Any discussion on corruption, can wait. Start with the basics. Stay on subject. Skip the strawman, just straightforward, intellectual honest answers. Give me something to work with.

@newjaninev2 the debate you like to pretend doesn't exist. The silly, pointless one which I refer to throughout this thread.

@AkioTsukino Nothing personal, but would you please offer concise, clear, remarks... it's quite tiring to work through the word-salad you keep posting.

Please just say what you mean, without vague references to even vaguer prior postings.

@newjaninev2 Are you being ironic? What I said couldn't have been more simple or clear, but if your having problems with it you can easily ask me specifically why you are having trouble understanding.

@BlueSkyKing
“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”
[i]Steven Novella[/i]

@BlueSkyKing and my personal favourite...

https://fs.blog/mental-model-scientific-method/

@AkioTsukino This reminded me of a video, of which I’m showing a short clip.

[media=https://youtu.be/_1DwH2tJ4PU]

@BlueSkyKing [quote]This reminded me of a video, of which I’m showing a short clip.[/quote]

Excellent! I was hoping someone would make that point. Was it assumed by that by UFO I meant alien space craft? I didn't. That's why I said UFO. Evidence of a UFO. Unidentified Flying Object. My claim of observing that is evidence. Tyson makes the same mistake in this video. He says "Well, if you don't know what it is that's where your conversation should stop." No, that's where the conversation started. To continue you need more evidence. True, you don't then say it must be anything, you say it may be something. And What? Science, and more specifically proponents of science who compare it with spirituality or the supernatural, can and often do go from abject ignorance to abject certainty. Abject being (of something bad) experienced or present to the maximum degree.

It's funny you should bring Tyson up, because I had seen another video that the making of this very thread reminded me of and I went and looked it up. In it Tyson brings up some failures of science regarding mercury. (Beginning at 1:40)

[media=https://youtu.be/n0-jKmcNr_8]

The long version from which it was taken is, I think, fun and interesting. Science and scientists don't have to be boring.

[media=https://youtu.be/_J4QPz52Sfo]

@AkioTsukino Full video goes into detail.

[media=https://youtu.be/9BRDCxNEuyg]

@AkioTsukino [quote]biological and chemical weapons created by science?[/quote]

Such weapons are not created by science... they result from technology

@AkioTsukino [quote]everyone was religious. everyone warred against everyone else. Religion was only the primary tool because science didn't have any power.[/quote]
Yeah, I knew that 'no true Scotsman' fallacy was coming, [b]LOL!!![/b]

[quote] The author of his biography, Eusebius of Caesarea, says that he became a Christian in the last moments of his life. Did he?[/quote] Are you thinking of Constantine I or Constantine II? Or perhaps Constantius I or Constantius II? The dynasty spanned nearly 60 years.

[quote]The day before he had made a sacrifice to Zeus[/quote]
The Romans always prayed to multiple Gods. As part of their pattern of conquest and rule, they would ease some gods in and ease other gods out. A sacrifice to Zeus might have been politically expedient. Don't expect Constantine's Christianity to match Southern Baptists or Jehovah's Witnesses or whatever flavor of today's Christianity you subscribe to.

[quote]or Anthony Fauci. [/quote] Wash your mouth out with soap. Anthony Fauci is a data driven scientist who saved over a million American lives. I have the data to prove it, and I'm happy to do so in a different thread.

[quote]Science, abused and neglected, is as tangible a godhead as any other. [/quote] Lemme guess - you didn't major in a STEM field, you've never studied stats, and you've never written a scientific paper where you had to calculate the probability that your results were only due to random chance (that's a non-zero probability for every scientific result, and every scientist knows it). Belief is the only tool in your personal toolbox and so you see everything thru that lens. The fact is, skepticism and doubt are the most important tools in the scientists' toolbox. You clearly can't appreciate that fact, and instead you project your religious tunnel vision on everything you don't understand.

@AkioTsukino [quote]medical horrors committed by Joseph Mangala or Anthony Fauci.[/quote]

This stupid and disrespectful comparison right here invalidates anything you write on the matter.

[quote]Science and religion aren't sentient beings. They don't do anything.[/quote]

Like saying "guns don't do anything"
Human create and operate making the human component a necessity for basically everything because our perception and consciousness is what our reality is based on.

and now comparing the two concepts with each other we can say that religion offers conclusions without backing them up and claiming absolute truth while science can outline how conclusions were reached.

Religious scripture dealing with outdated concepts and making things up to fill gaps in knowledge are not a valid source to base ones behavior on. Theology is a mixture of history and philosophy. Analysing religions through the lens of history is very interesting yet when it comes to the philosophical aspect it bases everything on the hypothetical and narrow concept of a God making it less insightful and again much more dogmatic.

@ImperialAerosolKidFromEP Yeah, it's a thing. A thing called fundamentalist militant atheist minority. FM/AM. I just made that up. Sort of like a utopian Ministry Of Science and Technology. MOST.

It isn't science, though. Science can protect us against scientism. Like the truth can set you free. It isn't religion, faith, science, or spirituality that's harmful. It isn't even ideology, which is the science of ideas. It's just ignorance and xenophobia. Politics gone bad.

All of that stuff is gods. Gods of the people. Good and bad. Just look up the definition or Wikipedia entry for Gods or deities. Not just the occidental definitions, but all of them.

@AkioTsukino maybe it's more common than you think. Neil Degrasse Tyson says "science is true even if you don't believe in it". This means the luminiferous aether was true because it was science. Then when James Maxwell came along, science said his equations were true. That right there, is scientism.

Although, having said that, maybe I'm digressing into the realm of celebrity science (public perception) vs the scientific community. I could have lost my shirt believing that Bill Nye was a qualified scientist. It turns out he isn't any more qualified than I am. I wonder what the scientific community would have to say about the qualifications of all these household names.

@LvChris [quote]1/10. Wouldn't read again.[/quote]

Well, at least it provided us with the opportunity to read your insightful rebuttal.