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 »

zonavar68 · 51-55, M

Science also responds to peer review. Faith/religion does not.

AkioTsukino · M

@zonavar68What you are doing is comparing religion and science. In doing that you are either mistaking faith as exclusively religious or at least saying that faith has no place in science. Both are incorrect. Peer review is a formalized part of a specific methodology but it's also something, like faith, that we all do. If we as humans (or animals) performing a job or task, or finding a place in our society, interacting with friends and family, we utilize peer review. In science and religion these are both especially relevant.

ElwoodBlues · M

@AkioTsukino [quote]What you are doing is comparing religion and science.[/quote] Indeed he is.

That is [i]also[/i] what you were doing in your presentation of "the atheist vs theist debate."

Also, perhaps this is a good time to point out the excluded middle fallacy implicit in your "atheist vs theist debate." Myself and many of the people I know are agnostic. Theists like to classify us agnostics as atheists, but that's absolutely false. Agnostics maintain skepticism of both sides of the debate, and await better evidence. I would bet good money that the majority of non-theists and religiously unaffiliated are in fact agnostic, and that you are thus misclassifying them.

zonavar68 · 51-55, M

@ElwoodBlues That's how I am - and I'm the same with the bullshit of the Covid situation. I follow the evidence and make decisions/choices about religion (or not) and covid (or not) and other things in life based on the best body of evidence I can acquire then verify (or unverify) it against as many reputable sources of information as I can find. And if down the track the evidence suggests a different outcome, then i consider changing my position. but on religion, that's unlikely as I have both been religious and non-religious so have a unique position of seeing it from both sides of the fence and the hypocrisy of commercialised religion cements the case of it being a sham.

AkioTsukino · M

@ElwoodBlues [quote]Indeed he is.

That is also what you were doing in your presentation of "the atheist vs theist debate."[/quote]

Not necessarily, some religions are atheistic. Buddhism, for example. Also this is specifically about faith and science, not faith and religion. By faith I mean trust in something and by science I mean method of investigation; formalized, or casual.

[quote]Also, perhaps this is a good time to point out the excluded middle fallacy implicit in your "atheist vs theist debate." [/quote]

I sometimes use the term "atheist vs theist" as a general term for what I see as a silly and pointless debate. As it is usually presented. Not that it need be, it just is because it doesn't address the facts or theology it addresses the bias and ideoalogy.

[quote]Myself and many of the people I know are agnostic. Theists like to classify us agnostics as atheists, but that's absolutely false. Agnostics maintain skepticism of both sides of the debate, and await better evidence. I would bet good money that the majority of non-theists and religiously unaffiliated are in fact agnostic, and that you are thus misclassifying them.[/quote]

I absolutely agree with you regarding the distinction but the facts are that the atheist is without gods and the theist is with gods. Christians, for example, are not the only theists and if you define agnostic as being without knowledge (absolute, certainty) then theists as well as atheists are all agnostic in that sense. Words and terms have various applications. But I didn't mean to misclassify them as such.

Good point, though, duly noted. Also, there are a few posts of yours I haven't gotten to due to the specific nature of those posts and the attention required to respond. In the other room my mother is currently concluding her long battle with cancer and I am not able to respond as quickly as I like or keep focused on more specific responses. Please be patient and I hope to get to them as soon as possible.

AkioTsukino · M

@zonavar68 What about commercialized science. Is that a sham?

zonavar68 · 51-55, M

@AkioTsukino C.O.V.I.D so-called 'vaccine' drugs - need I say any more.

Gloomy · F

@AkioTsukino commercialized science is a product of capitalism and not great but It would still rely and need to produce accurate results in most cases. In the scientific field background information and methodology need to be transparent meaning it grows increasingly difficult to fake results.

AkioTsukino · M

@zonavar68 [quote]C.O.V.I.D so-called 'vaccine' drugs - need I say any more.[/quote]

Yes. Actually you do. The "Science" of lockdowns, isolation, social distancing, masks etc. All in the name of "science."

AkioTsukino · M

@Gloomy You're Naïve. You can't look at the rigid dogmatic nonsense of past idiotic apostate religions and see them trampled upon throughout history and think, on the other end of it, that science is immune to the same. That it has some methodology that is like kryptonite to those who would tramp all over it for the same reason it did religion with the same result. You don't see it happening for at least the last 120 years. Probably longer. To me that's just religiosity or insanity at the risk of sounding redundant.

zonavar68 · 51-55, M

@AkioTsukino Sorry but I don't buy into the cognitive bias that has been used to 'sell' covid and covid drugs. I'm not naive - I'm smart enough to make a fully informed decision and judgement for myself without being told how and what to think.

Gloomy · F

@AkioTsukino No your lack of understanding what science is, is evident here.
Discourse is part of the scientific process and always has been. Authoritarianism may destroy the discourse and pretend something is scientific like the Nazis did.

AkioTsukino · M

@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?

Gloomy · F

@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?

AkioTsukino · M

@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.