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.
"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.
