heavyblinker
Posts: 3623
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote:
ORIGINAL: heavyblinker quote:
ORIGINAL: bounty44 have said this numerous times in my life, and here as well, and as long as this type of broad nonsense keeps appearing, i'll keep saying it: on the whole, each side starts with basic assumptions--there is a god, there is not a god--and then its a question of the evidence supporting one side or the other. You should stop saying this... it's completely wrong. You can believe in God and accept the theory of evolution. The problem arises when, like you, someone tries to pretend that your faith-based beliefs are equivalent to someone else's evidence-based conclusions. and there is an even greater problem when people think science is anything more than 'faith' based How Science Mimics Faith People may use trust in science as others use religious faith to cope with life's uncertainties Participants reported greater belief in science in both threatening situations, just as subjects in past studies have displayed an increase in religiosity in similar scenarios. “It is likely that some people use their ideas about science to make sense of the world and for emotional compensation in difficult situations in the same way that religious people use their supernatural beliefs,” Farias says. “Our findings suggest that it may be belief itself, regardless of its content, that helps people deal with adverse situations.” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-science-mimics-faith/ TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH By Paul Davies [12.31.06] Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence. TAKING SCIENCE ON FAITH SCIENCE, we are repeatedly told, is the most reliable form of knowledge about the world because it is based on testable hypotheses. Religion, by contrast, is based on faith. The term "doubting Thomas" well illustrates the difference. In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue. The problem with this neat separation into "non-overlapping magisteria," as Stephen Jay Gould described science and religion, is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified. https://www.edge.org/conversation/paul_davies-taking-science-on-faith It usually demonstrates their ignorance on the subject especially when they are ignorant enough to condemn religion which philosophy would prove is condemning themseleves regardless of what label ['ism'] they wish to sport. Your first link is good, but you misinterpreted it... probably didn't read it. It's about TRUST in science, not science itself. The second link's comments section says it all... I doubt you red the article either, judging by the way you just casually included the links, assuming they prove your point simply because they exist. Until there is PROOF that the universe is magical, random, or dictated by the will of somebody's God, then there is no reason to proceed as if that's why things are the way they are. In science, nothing is true... theories and laws are created to explain things, but unlike faith, they can be revised if they are proven inadequate. Dogma in a scientific community doesn't mean that science itself is inherently dogmatic.
< Message edited by heavyblinker -- 7/16/2017 4:18:35 PM >
|