Science and faith: do you trust science?

@AkioTsukino
[quote]The skeptical criticism of religion seems to be that you can't disagree with it, that there is this danger of of changes to the orthodoxy, then you say the wonderful thing about science is that you can disagree with it (self correction) then get defensive when anyone disagrees with it.[/quote]

Well... there is that and the fact that they have a hard time providing proofs for their claims. Don't forget that part.
While a scientific argument needs to proof that it's right by providing evidence that pursuades.

@Kwek00 [quote]Well... there is that and the fact that they have a hard time providing proofs for their claims. Don't forget that part.[/quote]

Religion has a hard time doing that? They don't have to. If you belong to a specific political party, or insist on a specific genre of music, or brand of shoe, wine, sports team, fashion or art - the proponents needn't prove anything. They may be biased but they needn't be. Very much like religion. That's what religion does. People choose the right one for them. Then they don't want change.

What happens in religion is it transmogrifies, gains mass appeal, then sticks rigidly to that paradigm. The dissatisfied splinter or go elsewhere, the new people come in, the bills get paid and hopefully there's a profit. There may be a group that stays true to the original teachings but that doesn't usually gain mass appeal.

Science isn't like that at all is it? Well, okay, let's just say it shouldn't be.

Really, though, stop and think about it. Science can't examine the supernatural. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the understanding of science. How can it proceed if everything it can't understand is labeled incomprehensible? On the other hand, science is always correcting itself. Like a weather forecast. A meteorologist is what I think of most commonly when I think of science. That and fake science people trying desperately to look smart. It's similar to how I look at religion. Almost all religious people are fake. I look at religion like a television commercial or big name charity organization. It may have started out as useful or helpful, but once it starts making big money it becomes laundry detergent or the US army. Over commercialized and deviated from it's original purpose.

[quote]While a scientific argument needs to proof that it's right by providing evidence that pursuades.[/quote]

Mostly they have to get funding. All of those silly fake religious people pay for that. So, they pitch their ideas to the elected officials (puppets), sometimes exaggerating their findings and warnings so they can pony up more cash. And they have to be peer reviewed and published, which means they are going to have to cater to some agenda or politicized fabrication. Laundry soap and the army.

@AkioTsukino
[quote]Religion has a hard time doing that? They don't have to. If you belong to a specific political party, or insist on a specific genre of music, or brand of shoe, wine, sports team, fashion or art - the proponents needn't prove anything.[/quote]

I think, that if you make great claims about a "God" that has all kinds of impacts on our lives AND that prescribes certain values and an ethical framework for its followers to follow... that there sure should be so evidence. Not so long ago, you said that if we we wanted evidence, you'll give us evidence. But I guess the reality of the situation now pushes you to go the: "We don't need evidence at all for our big claims"-route. And that just isn't acceptable.

If you belong to a political party and you make claims, it's pretty smart for the voter base to ask evidence for the claims. If you just believe in stuff, you'll end up with all kinds of degenerate movements. Like the one that had the presidency in the US for 4 years, where all kinds of claims were made, but evidence was seriously lacking. And before you know it, someone is pushing bleach into their veins... which I don't consider a good evolution. Hence it's better to keep asking evidence for the big claims that are being made.

And we are not talking about tastes, colours or any other form of aesthetic diffrences. Bringing it to that level, shows me again that you have no idea what you are talking about.

[quote]What happens in religion is it transmogrifies, gains mass appeal, then sticks rigidly to that paradigm. The dissatisfied splinter or go elsewhere, the new people come in, the bills get paid and hopefully there's a profit. There may be a group that stays true to the original teachings but that doesn't usually gain mass appeal.[/quote]

And sometimes they end up in Guyana drinking the Kool aid, and dieing from poisoning. Just because you locked on to some charismatic figure that told you a bunch of bullshit which validity wasn't tested but just accepted by it's members. You are being so casual about being stupid, which is quite remarkable.

[quote]Science can't examine the supernatural. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the understanding of science. How can it proceed if everything it can't understand is labeled incomprehensible?[/quote]

If the supernatural is "incomprehensible" to a system that observes it and tries to measure and explain it. If it's trully incomprehensible... then all human beings should stay away from the incromphensible. Because it will be incromphensible to them too. Before you know it, you have a bunch of dumbasses, all filling in the blanks with their own imagination, and pretending that they are some kind of high priest bloating their egos by pretending that they are the only ones that can make sense of the incoprehensible nature. But feeling good about yourself, is not the same thing as being smart.

[quote]On the other hand, science is always correcting itself. Like a weather forecast.[/quote]

It's correcting it science according to evidence. You know, "evidence", that thing that people with a ego that just believe they understand everything [i](even the incomprehensible bits)[/i] don't need when they weave their fantastical narratives.

[quote]Mostly they have to get funding.[/quote]

... I guess we are going to muddy the waters some more.
Maybe it's time to go do something else with your life. Like, read up on the toppics that you want to discuss.

@AkioTsukino
[quote] Really, though, stop and think about it. Science can't examine the supernatural. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the understanding of science. How can it proceed if everything it can't understand is labeled incomprehensible? [/quote]
The term supernatural, as you put it is incorrect. It’s not that science can’t examine it. It would need the opportunity. Do you know of a reoccurring supernatural event that can be observed or tested ? You are assuming that given time and opportunity the phenomenon would , or could not become comprehensible.
Most, if not all records of the supernatural are hearsay. Non repeating, so there is nothing to examine. Like ghosts. Many have claimed to see them, but none have been able get close enough to know if their actual spirits.

@DocSavage [quote]The term supernatural, as you put it is incorrect.[/quote]

I didn't put it at all, except for listing it as something science can't examine. In a sense that isn't entirely accurate because supernatural only means "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." Interestingly, manifestation means, among other things "an event, action, or object that clearly shows or embodies something, especially a theory or an abstract idea." Like global warming. Another example of manifestation is "an appearance of a ghost or spirit." Ghost comes from a German word for spirit. Geist. Zeitgeist, for example, is German for "spirit of the times." Spirit, as translated from the ancient Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma (pneumonia, pneumatic) means something unseen which produces visible results. Also translated wind, breeze, compelled mental inclination. Science is knowledge. I've just given you knowledge about ghost and spirit.

Science minded skeptics of the Bible tend to judge the Bible by the superstitious and ignorant, but they won't rise above that ignorance because it doesn't justify their objection. That would be like me judging science by the same ignorant superstitions that labeled scientists as mad.

@AkioTsukino [quote] Ghost comes from a German word for spirit. Geist. Zeitgeist, for example, is German for "spirit of the times." Spirit, as translated from the ancient Hebrew ruach and the Greek pneuma (pneumonia, pneumatic) [/quote]
Who gives a shit ? You’re saying that we should put more faith in”faith”
What is it exactly that requires that faith ?
Am I supposed to have faith in a god , that doesn’t manifest in reality ? Have faith that when I’m dead , that my spirit will continue without a functioning body ?
You gave me “knowledge” on ghost. But can you give me “faith” in their existence?

@Kwek00 [quote]I think, that if you make great claims about a "God" that has all kinds of impacts on our lives AND that prescribes certain values and an ethical framework for its followers to follow... that there sure should be so evidence.[/quote]

There any evidence for that? It's a silly claim. Did you watch the Jordan Peterson YouTube clip? Then atheistic, he pointed out that it didn't matter whether there was a God, our world is formulated in mythological presuppositions. If you read Aesop's fables you don't have to believe the frog or fox etc. reasoned in some way and spoke to that effect to get the point and for it to change your perspective and therefore change the world.

You don't understand what a god is. In the society I live in anyone has a right to support or decline support of anything subject to the political and legislative state. They don't need a reason or evidence of their inspiration to do that. What you really should want evidence of is how that doesn't comport with the God in question and I could give you that but you wouldn't listen to it because you aren't REALLY interested in evidence. You and your group are ideologues.

The claim that God should impact your life and prescribe certain values and an ethical framework is literally wrong because the source of that ideology, as perverted as it has become, only dictated that impact [b]exclusively[/b] on first the ancient Israelites and then the Christian congregation. That is demonstrable through access to the source. The Bible supports it. Now, you or the religious fanatic may misinterpret it but how would you argue or support that misinterpretation? That's the beauty of the written word, there is actually less chance for error than simple observations of nature. The real beauty in the observations of science is that you have no authority to establish the accuracy of a hypothesis until further investigation occurs and that process is even more imprecise, speculative, conjectural than an examination of text. In religion the text is the authority, in science the science is the authority.

[quote]Not so long ago, you said that if we we wanted evidence, you'll give us evidence. But I guess the reality of the situation now pushes you to go the: "We don't need evidence at all for our big claims"-route. And that just isn't acceptable.
[/quote]

We don't need evidence to present to the skeptic unless they are interested in the claims other than from an ideologically fixated position. I was saying that I could provide evidence for the existence of God/gods and I've actually indulged myself in that pointless exercise on these very forums repeatedly. You don't want evidence, you want to believe there is no evidence. You won't accept evidence about something you are almost totally ignorant of only because that alleged evidence would challenge your world view. That isn't scientific that is ideology.

But also you have to keep in mind that I define evidence by the Dictionary and I have stressed over and over again that evidence is just thinking we [b]might[/b] know the correct answer. Evidence is based upon faith. Thus the point of the thread. Now if you are really interested in evidence of God/gods just answer yes in response to, if nothing else in this post, this question: do you want the evidence, as in are you willing to briefly look at the evidence? If the answer is yes I'll start the thread myself. Evidence of God/gods. Again.

[quote]If you belong to a political party and you make claims, it's pretty smart for the voter base to ask evidence for the claims. If you just believe in stuff, you'll end up with all kinds of degenerate movements. Like the one that had the presidency in the US for 4 years, where all kinds of claims were made, but evidence was seriously lacking. And before you know it, someone is pushing bleach into their veins... which I don't consider a good evolution. Hence it's better to keep asking evidence for the big claims that are being made.[/quote]

Hmmm. In this thread and in another I've recently posted the subjects of religion and science have come up that I could, though not terribly conversant in, argue with. Not wanting to get off topic or actually being terribly interested in those things I chose not to follow those paths. The same goes for the political path you are going off on. It's okay, I just don't see the point in the distraction. I'm apolitical, meaning I don't vote, choose sides, or try and influence politics or legislation in any way. I do have opinions, though, and I will say that the US presidency which you refer to was replaced by one that in comparison, is laughable, and that most of the objections of the former are either personal or in a legalized witch hunt that has also proven laughable. The reason for all of the noise is that he poses a threat to the established corruption.

If law must adhere to the facts as science does the witch hunt lost every trial, only establishing the politicized nature of the claims. You can respond, but I'm not going to get drawn into an argument. I don't have a dog in that race.

[quote]And we are not talking about tastes, colours or any other form of aesthetic diffrences. Bringing it to that level, shows me again that you have no idea what you are talking about.[/quote]

Uh-huh.

[quote]And sometimes they end up in Guyana drinking the Kool aid, and dieing from poisoning. Just because you locked on to some charismatic figure that told you a bunch of bullshit which validity wasn't tested but just accepted by it's members. You are being so casual about being stupid, which is quite remarkable.[/quote]

Exactly. The same with science as religion. Vaccinations come to mind, but that, again, is another argument. I'm not going to be distracted. Let's put it in a way that isn't ideologically or religiously founded. just because a specially trained mechanic working for a reputable business says I need a new transmission doesn't mean I do. Just because a fanatic says God is on our side doesn't mean he is and just because a Bible critic says science can't be or hasn't been corrupted doesn't mean it's true. It may seem complicated, but it isn't.

[quote]If the supernatural is "incomprehensible" to a system that observes it and tries to measure and explain it. If it's trully incomprehensible... then all human beings should stay away from the incromphensible.[/quote]

Oh, well, see, that's just like religion. Who's your high priest? At one time science thought the world was flat, the heliocentric theory was correct, night and day were caused by miasmas from either the ground or sky, washing your hands wasn't necessary when going from the morgue to the birthing table of a maternity ward. The Bible was right about all of that before science. And that's the natural. Whales and giant squid were thought to be supernatural like mermaids. Science always gets it wrong, it hasn't the merit to dictate the incomprehensible. And that isn't it's function or science wouldn't occasionally have to upend itself when some rebel comes along. That one rebels, not against science, but against dogma. Look, just don't be so dogmatic about science is my advice. But that's an afterthought. More than advice I insist you don't misrepresent God, the Bible, spirituality or religion in ignorance in the name of "science." Then I become the rebel.

[quote]Because it will be incromphensible to them too. Before you know it, you have a bunch of dumbasses, all filling in the blanks with their own imagination, and pretending that they are some kind of high priest bloating their egos by pretending that they are the only ones that can make sense of the incoprehensible nature. But feeling good about yourself, is not the same thing as being smart.[/quote]

Exactly right. See, you understand!

[quote]It's correcting it science according to evidence. You know, "evidence", that thing that people with a ego that just believe they understand everything (even the incomprehensible bits) don't need when they weave their fantastical narratives.[/quote]

Pity. So, you're not really picking up on the irony, are you?

[quote]... I guess we are going to muddy the waters some more.
Maybe it's time to go do something else with your life. Like, read up on the toppics that you want to discuss.[/quote]

You want to talk (criticize) the Bible, Gods, spirituality, and even to a lesser extent, religion, I'm the man. But I'm not criticizing science, I'm criticizing idiotic ideologues who misrepresent it, just like I do with idiot ideologues that misrepresent the Bible, Gods, spirituality, etc. I'm capable of seeing the misrepresentation of both because they are basically the same, just appearing in different fields.

Still, let me conclude by saying you are unusually good at this. It's refreshing to see someone use reason and logic in this sort of discussion. I appreciate that. I appreciate thoughtful skeptics.

@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.