Science and faith: do you trust science?

@SatyrService [quote]"faith is belief without evidence or belief in the face of contrary evidence"

"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed;
Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved"[/quote]

Ideological preoccupation is the most obvious element in the atheist vs theist debate. Your estimation is biased, which isn't very scientific. More than a few problems arise; Proponents of each side of the argument aren't good representations of their respective side and even worse of the other side. They (proponents of either) politicize the issue. It's emotional, irrational, unfair.

To assume that science adjusts its views based on what's observed reads like an advertising slogan or bumper sticker. Like saying religion is based upon an unwavering morality, or God is on our side. It's empty and meaningless. A quixotic pipe dream. Faith is never without evidence, contrary or otherwise. Evidence isn't a synonym of truth, though atheists seem to use it as such. The same thing that corrupts evidence corrupts science, faith and everything else. Some call it human nature, others call it sinfulness. It manifests itself in many forms; greed, power, ignorance, fear, xenophobia. Science depends upon tax payer funding like religion enjoys tax exemption. Science depends upon publishing, tenure. and peer review. Subject to conformity. It all sounds very scientific but the similarities between science and religion are obvious to anyone outside looking in.

Ignaz Semmelweis and Ancel Keys are good examples of science being neglected and abused for long periods of time. Semmelweis (late 1800s) at the tail end of the miasmatic school of medicine of the dark ages and Keys being the poster boy for dietary misinformation. Bad science no one corrected for decades. Both resulting in the death of millions. Denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.

But that isn't to say science is without faith or that faith is a bad thing. Faith is trust. Belief. Much like the Latin word credit. The atheist who uses science in the paradoxical criticism of religion, theism, theology, the supernatural and the Bible have no scientific credentials to reach outside of what isn't even their realm, let alone their field. It isn't an argument. It's uninformed ideological struggle, a sociopolitical frustration. On both sides faith is in use but faith isn't necessarily a good thing, either. Anyone can misplace their trust or lazily adhere to blind faith. Of and in both science and religion.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

SatyrService · M

thank you so much for your careful composition of this reply
Science is made and used by people, and people, [i]even when diligent[/i] are flawed, and subject to emotional effect, often destroying, the hopeful objectivity that it requires
[quote]Ideological preoccupation is the most obvious element in the atheist vs theist debate. [/quote]
[b] a brief clarification[/b]
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"
I am not interested in [i]conflict [/i]with people of faith
I should like to be considered Less Militant
preoccupation (The state of being preoccupied or an idea that preoccupies the mind; [i]enthrallment[/i]. ) 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

Ignaz Semmelweis and Ancel Keys are interesting examples
the tragedy of Semmelwise. Had he been heeded? much suffering would have been prevented.
and as many, flawed in his personal life, and crushed by rejection
Keys has been shown to have falsified and cherry picked data skewed in his favor
The sin of putting your results ahead of the truth.
[i]It has been other workers in science, who have revealed his perfidy[/i]
Think of Fritz Haber, were his works good? or were they bad?
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]Faith is never without evidence, contrary or otherwise.[/quote]
[i]
i disagree[/i], it is the nature of faith, that the sources attributed to that faith, are often apocryphal , or a based on writings or teachings that are themselves unable to be verified.
I know that for some persons, the physical universe is the evidence they use for their faith.
These are rare persons
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 [i]older than that are available .[/i]
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.
the requires that "leap of faith" that we cant know anything about this. but must take it as an article of faith.

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

[i]Evidence isn't a synonym of truth[/i] 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 [i]Science version[/i] of evidence is understood as that which confirms or dis-confirms, verifiable objective examples
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 [i] physical evidence[/i], 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

[i]no scientific credentials to reach outside of what isn't even their realm,[/i]?
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]The same thing that corrupts evidence corrupts science, faith and everything else
[/quote]Yes so stipulated, I too agree than even rigorous attempts, to adhere to pure reason, or even discrete goals, are apt, even doomed, to be affected by the creature we are, or inhabit
we must be aware f and compensate for this hence double blind experiment and codes of conduct

SO YES! you are correct to find fault focused on individual practitioners. All just people who are doing what they can, and are often deluded by human frailty

[quote]But that isn't to say science is without faith or that faith is a bad thing. Faith is trust. Belief Anyone can misplace their trust or lazily adhere to blind faith. Of and in both science and religion[/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.
Thee scientific process, [i]when aptly applied[/i] 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. The process, is to remove those individual biases, and to expose those things that are bogus, or just wrong.

i I would suggest that science is in many way as old as religion itself. 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] To assume that science adjusts its views based on what's observed reads like an advertising slogan or bumper sticker[/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.

thank you for your time

SatyrService · M

@AkioTsukino I was realy hoping you might reply

AkioTsukino · M

@SatyrService It's open in another window. I've been working on it all day long. But I have other stuff to do as well. The longer it is the more attention it needs so shorter responses get answered first. I can deal with many in the time of only one. Patience.

SatyrService · M

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

AkioTsukino · M

@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]

AkioTsukino · M

@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.