Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

Originally posted by chaiyah99
God tests me; I test God.

Satan tested Christ in the wilderness by asking him to jump off a cliff so the angels would save him. Jesus told him to go (back) to Hell. I run into so many blasphemers on this board, it's really shocking. People who call themselves "Christian" who don't have a grasp of some of the basic concepts of their religion.

Let's go over it again.

We are human beings. We can't understand, interpret, test, or in any other way interact with God in any way like we interact with each other. That's what omnipotence is all about. So anybody who claims to know anything about what God wants, or what God is trying to accomplish, is not only talking through their hat, they're also blasphemers who are disobeying the First and probably the only Commandment worth really trying to understand. Read the Book of Job again. God told him in no uncertain terms that as a mere human, Job had no standing with him at all and should just shut up about it and get back to work.

Originally by mytym
It's time for science to come out of the closet and admit, "Hi my name is science, and I am just another religion."

The one big difference between Science and faith....Science can always change and knowledge can always be gained whereas your faith must stick with one belief and there will be no other theories or different answers.

Science does not make one claim that such and such event creates a star and thats that and continues to believe in such.

Where faith it would be only one thing that could have created the star.

'Mainstream' science is just as open to corruption as mainstream religion.
Unsuitable theories are ignored, trivialised and attacked just as unsuitable ancient texts are deleted from the 'so called' Holy books.
The funny thing is 'mainstream' science and religion just like many other belief systems are a tools to keep the masses in line.
Both require faith that what you have read/been told is free from corruption and bias and error at very least.
You think you have woken to one illusion, and find youself unwittingly ensared in another. A dream within a dream.
Beware of what is considered popular, it may be far from the truth of things.

'Mainstream' science is just as open to corruption as mainstream religion.

Agreed, it is open to corruption.

Unsuitable theories are ignored, trivialised and attacked just as unsuitable ancient texts are deleted from the 'so called' Holy books.

True. Happens sometime's. Usually when the evidence at hand doesn't support a theory, but sometime's that change's. And has done so. It's alot different from 'holy books' though.

The funny thing is 'mainstream' science and religion just like many other belief systems are a tools to keep the masses in line.

Mainstream religion yes, but science? Can I have what your smoking? The scientific method is not a tool to keep people "in line". Maybe your thinking about government?

Both require faith that what you have read/been told is free from corruption and bias and error at very least.

Religion does require this, possibly one of the reason's for those stupid 'holy wars'. Science though? Everyone know's science doesn't have all the answer's, never claims too, and always change's with newer discoveries. Seems like maybe the religous people are the only one's who think the way you do.

You think you have woken to one illusion, and find youself unwittingly ensared in another. A dream within a dream.

I'm not following you on this one, care to explain it abit more?

Beware of what is considered popular, it may be far from the truth of things.

Well, seeing as how religion has always been and still is by far the most 'popular' belief system on this planet, I guess your saying it's far from the truth? I agree 100% on that one.

ThePieMaN:
I partially agree with you on this. You make a valid point, there is much diversity between religions. Science is a lot more accomodating to change than many other religions. Rarely do other religions change their teachings, however I feel this problem stems from the need for science to prove it's beliefs through facts, whereas other religions prove theirs through interpretations. Once a belief is contradicted by facts it must either change or die, however interpretations are subjective, thus there is no need to change beliefs based on them.

Prot0n:
The only reason religion requires faith is because it has not been proven to be true. Once there is proof, faith is redundant. Agreed? If science doesn't require faith it must be true. Agreed? If this is the case, why does science always change with newer discoveries? The truth doesn't need to change. Face it, IT'S A RELIGION, that's why.

Originally posted by mytym
Prot0n:
The only reason religion requires faith is because it has not been proven to be true. Once there is proof, faith is redundant. Agreed? If science doesn't require faith it must be true. Agreed? If this is the case, why does science always change with newer discoveries? The truth doesn't need to change. Face it, IT'S A RELIGION, that's why.

Lol cute way of putting it. But, no.

Science, meaning the scientific method is niether true nor false, it's a method, a tool of discovery. Theories are theories, niether true nor false, untill 'proven' one or the other.

Some thing's discovered through science are fact's though. The distance of Earth from it's primary sun, the speed of light, speed of sound through various mediums, microevolution etc etc etc.

One can not have 'faith' in a "method" of discovery, such as science. Now, if you mean by 'faith' in say, evolution ... I'd say your wrong there too. I know the theory will change and evolve over time as newer discoveries are made in many various fields of science. I can't exactly have faith in something being absolutley true AS IS if it's under a constant state of change.

Nor can I have 'faith' in it being 'proven' absolutley true due to the fact that it could be entirely thrown out by some other theory that may better explain the problems and has better supportive evidence for it. I can however follow the evidence and point it out for that theory and argue in favor for it. This is a far cry from having 'faith' in it. Whether you choose to subscribe to a particular theory or not isn't due to faith, it's due to acceptance or non acceptance of the supportive evidence.

Faith in religion is entirely different then subscribing to certain scientific theories that have extrodinary ammounts of evidence supporting them. Faith in religous belief's is the hard held belief that it is true WITHOUT change. And yet, religous beliefs DO change and evolve despite them denying it. Which is stupidly funny imo.

Again SCIENCE is NOT a religion. Try learning abit more before you mark it off as something it's not.

Take your evolution example. You have faith in the theory of evolution thus you look for a missing link to bridge the gap between ape and man. If there was no faith in this theory why would you be searching for a missing link?

Originally posted by mytym
Take your evolution example. You have faith in the theory of evolution thus you look for a missing link to bridge the gap between ape and man. If there was no faith in this theory why would you be searching for a missing link?

Lol another cute attempt. But, no.

For starter's, there is no such thing as a 'missing link'. As I said, theories grow over time due to newer discoveries. Yes, it WAS once thought that there would be a 'missing link' of sort's, but not anymore.

Looking for evidence or trying to LEARN doesn't involve faith at all. It's simply, just learning and discovering. I'm not personally looking for anything that might support the theory, I'm just following what evidence has been discovered that supports it. Those who may be out there actively searching for transitionary fossils aren't doing so out of 'faith', they're doing so out of learning more and out of discovery.

If we find a new transitionary fossil amongst the hominid family tree, great! It may or may not be directly part of our species, but the more we learn the more better our understanding of how speciation works grows.

The form of faith your thinking of, that being a 'religous faith' does not exist within the scientific method or theories derived from it. Religous faith is basicly belief AS IS. Faith in the bible being the word of god, with no evidence at all to support such a notion. Please explain to me and show how it ties into a religous based faith on how I or you can have faith in something you know will change eventually, be it ten years from now, or even tomorrow.

I'm starting to get the impression that ...

1) You don't know what your talking about at all

or

2) You assume learning and discover can only occur through a 'requirment' of faith in some wierd off manner?

Please correct me if I'm wrong in either of those assumptions. As this is how your starting to seem to me now. I mean c'mon ... faith in ToE? It's gotta be one of those two reasons. Or your just BSing me?

They may not realise they're doing it out of faith, but if it's not a fact, then they must have faith that they are on the right track, must they not?

I didn't realise that you knew what I was referring to better than myself. I wasn't aware that there were different types of faith, please enlighten me. You make a number of incorrect assumptions here. As you request, I'm letting you know that the two assumptions about me, you admit to are both wrong.

They may not realise they're doing it out of faith, but if it's not a fact, then they must have faith that they are on the right track, must they not?

Lol "they may not realise", man too cute.

Yes I don't realise that I have faith in theories and such lol.

Why must it require religous faith that they are on the right track? Follwoing the evidence or looking (read: LEARNING) for whatever evidence out there may support the theory isnt faith. People aren't necessarily activley trying to "prove" evolution as fact. They're out their doing the jobs they do, such as genetic research, paleontology, archeology, microbiology etc etc etc. All these (and more) many varied and different fields of science tie in together in support of ToE. They all have their own different theories and some of these may or may not agree 100% with the current ToE as a whole and as more discoveries are made the theories change or in some cases get dropped. Ok, now I'm sure your just BSing me.

Finally, we agree! Again, I still need you to explain to me what "reigious faith" is and how it differs from whatever others varieties of faith you reckon exist. We can go round and round in circles, but at the end of the day we both know that something, (a theory, in this example) must be believed to be supported.

Originally posted by mytym
We can go round and round in circles, but at the end of the day we both know that something, (a theory, in this example) must be believed to be supported.

Your right, a theory must be believed to be possibly true. What your seemingly not understanding is that a theory isn't believed out of 'faith'. Theories are believed to be possibly true due to EVIDENCE in support of them, not out of pure faith in them being dead on right. The more evidence in support of a particular theory, the more validity it holds in possibly being right and the more "supporters" of the theory grows.

I hold my beliefs in ToE being right due to EVIDENCE, not due to faith.

Again, I still need you to explain to me what "reigious faith" is and how it differs from whatever others varieties of faith you reckon exist.

Right ... Crack open a dictionary. Show atleast a little initiative and willingness to learn more about something you obviously know practically nothing of. If you don't own a dictionary then one quick, easy simple way of learning more about 'different' forms of faith would be ...

1) Click this link www.google.com...

2) Type in the search box - define:faith

3) Enjoy reading and learning.

You can also goto this site en.wikipedia.org... and learn more about religous faith. Hopefully with these two steps taken you'll come to a greater understanding of how discovery and learning through the scientific method doesn't equate well with 'faith'.

Once again, we agree! Usually when you are trying to present an opposing viewpoint you don't use the same argument as your opponent. I think you need to crack open the dictionary. What do you think the definition of believe is? "Have faith in" perhaps? The evidence is causing you to believe (have faith in) the Theory of Evolution being right. You even said it yourself.

You seem to be attempting to show me how I can find the meaning of faith. I already know what the meaning of faith is. I want you to tell me what RELIGIOUS FAITH is, and how it differs from you ordinary garden variety.

Once again, we agree! Usually when you are trying to present an opposing viewpoint you don't use the same argument as your opponent. I think you need to crack open the dictionary. What do you think the definition of believe is? "Have faith in" perhaps? The evidence is causing you to believe (have faith in) the Theory of Evolution being right. You even said it yourself.

Lol, I don't think we're agreeing in the sense you seem to take it as (even if your being sarcastic lol). Nor is misunderstanding two very simple basic concepts going to help your case.

Your attempting to equate 'belief' in evolution as a religous type faith. I'm sure I don't need to quote you on that, but for the sake of argument, let's do so (as a memory refresher).

Face it, IT'S A RELIGION, that's why.

You even furthur dig your hole by giving ONE definition of belief in a RELIGOUS sense. Step outside of your narrow minded view for a minute and atleast TRY to understand what I've been telling you.

Belief in a theory, any theory not just evolution is belief in the take to be true sense brought about by the supportive evidence for the theory. Faith in the religous sense (which is what your attempting to equate with through lack of understanding) is 'belief' without any such supportive evidence.

For instance one may have faith that the universe was created by an all powerfull God without ever seeing, hearing, touching, smelling or tasting such a being. Belief in such a being without any evidence for it's existence or for it creating the universe period.

Belief in a theory isn't born of such 'faith'. I take evolution as to be true due to supportive evidence for the theory. I'm not sure if this post will help you much, but for this I will take a leap of faith (in this sense, complete confidence just in case you have trouble with it in this context) that you will finally come to a better understanding.

You seem to be attempting to show me how I can find the meaning of faith. I already know what the meaning of faith is. I want you to tell me what RELIGIOUS FAITH is, and how it differs from you ordinary garden variety.

So far you've shown the exact opposite. You don't seem to have much of a clue as to what your BSing me about. I've shown you example's in this post and in the other's above it. I've shown you how to learn more about each, where to look etc. If you choose to be so narrow minded and hard set in your limited viewpoint's, then there's not much else I can do for you. You can continue to argue this ignorant notion or you can decide to take the initiative and atleast try to understand what I'm telling you and to actually read the definitions and understand the context of each word and how it is used in certain situations.

You're not presenting anything new here. You still keep harping on the concept of RELIGIOUS FAITH yet you can seem to demonstrate how it differes from you garden variety of faith. When you can let me know. I've already showed you the belief is faith and you admit that you believe in the Theory of Evolution. What more must I do? Science is a religion. CASE CLOSED.

Originally posted by mytym
You're not presenting anything new here. You still keep harping on the concept of RELIGIOUS FAITH yet you can seem to demonstrate how it differes from you garden variety of faith. When you can let me know. I've already showed you the belief is faith and you admit that you believe in the Theory of Evolution. What more must I do? Science is a religion. CASE CLOSED.

Harping on religous faith? I thought this is what YOU were initially arguing, I even quoted you on this. When exactly did you change your mind on what different interpretation of faith to use?

I've shown you many time's so far through out my post's, could you be abit more clear on exactly what it is your not understanding here so I can help you abit more.

You've shown me the definition of belief in the RELIGOUS sense, yes. Your failing to grasp a very simplistic concept that shouldn't be this hard to figure out with all the example's I've given you and the many varied definitions and the usage's of the words.

Your discussing faith and belief in the RELIGOUS sense. I've already shown you how each definition equates with religion. I've also shown you how the definition of belief equates with theories. I'm not exactly sure what it is that's not getting through your limited understanding.

How about trying to give me an example of how science is a religion with the RELIGOUS definition's of faith and belief ALONE. This should be an interesting experiment, perhaps you'll learn something about yourself in the process. But most likely not. Simplicity seems to be complexity for you.

There is no RELIGIOUS FAITH and NON_RELIGIOUS FAITH. Faith is faith, there is only one kind. I have already given you countless examples of where science uses faith. You need to get past your limited concept that faith comes in different varieties. It doesn't, only what you have faith in does, whether that be science, God, your own judgement, etc.

Originally posted by mytym
There is no RELIGIOUS FAITH and NON_RELIGIOUS FAITH. Faith is faith, there is only one kind. I have already given you countless examples of where science uses faith. You need to get past your limited concept that faith comes in different varieties. It doesn't, only what you have faith in does, whether that be science, God, your own judgement, etc.

Ok, I'm still not sure what your issue is, you seem very confused. Your talking about science being a religion. This much I do know. Faith used in the sense of say, a theory being right doesn't necessarily exist. Faith used in a religous context (as I've shown you before more then once, please read this time) doesn't work here with belief in a theory. Faith in a religous context is basically attesting to the validity of the religion as absolutley true, as is, without change.

Believe as in I believe ToE to be true is using it in the context of I take to be true or accept to be true. The reason why I accept it to be true or take it to be true is due to evidence that is in support of the theory. I accept to be true due to supportive evidence. I don't have undying faith in the theory as being valid as is however from a religous standpoint. You could attempt to use faith in a different context here, such as follow a credo, but even that is a bit iffy as it's a religous context.

I've founf a couple of interesting articles through google about the differences between faith and belief. I'm sick and tired of trying to show you these difference when your unwilling to even listen. If you have any willingness to take the initiative and learn, try looking it up. Get back to me when you do so. I'm out of this part of the discussion as it's off topic, pointless, fruitless, and just plain idiotic. You can't argue with ... Look a plane!

As I've continually pointed out many times, there is only one type of faith. If you feel that there is more than one type, as you constantly seem to indicate, please show me. All you have shown me is your opinion, and as we all know, opinions don't prove anything. Conversely I have specifically demonstarted how you have faith in the theory of evolution without any mention of a religious standpoint. You're the one placing these conditions on the definitions of faith.