Cliff notes You place "faith" in what others believe until they decide to change their minds. So now facts are not absolutes either? Newton came up with a theory about atomic bonding. Take 2 hydrogen atoms that bond to 1 oxygen atom. The result of the covalent bonding is a water molecule of course. Now that is my idea of testing a theory. I believe evolution is possible, but I still find it hard to believe that everything evolved from bacteria and some lightening without seeing some tests that prove it can happen. How many scientific tests have been conducted that led to a mammal being made from some bacteria and lightening ? There is to much uncertaintity about the beginning among science that is not accounted for.
Facts and Theory SJGould had some great thoughts on this question: "In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"âpart of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of scienceâthat is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was." Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered. Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html Seneca
You place "faith" in what others believe until they decide to change their minds. no, I weigh all the evidence myself and perform my own measurements if possible, or needed. Unlike religion where there is no evidence or measurements that can be made. "The others' disagree amongst themselves quite often and 'they' have been responsible for overturning of their own theries. Again, unlike religion where constant investigation and skeptism are not allowed as that would be blasphemous. There is a reason it is called religious faith, and therefore there are more than 3000 sects of Christianity and a halfdozen or so major religions. People in religion just make shit up because they can, noone can test it. Just read the history of Mormonism and your jaw will drop, grown adults actually believe that shit. I suppose you believe your religion is better than all the others because your beliefs are the 'true' ones... spare me. So now facts are not absolutes either? Fact is not defined, absolutes are contradictory. Newton came up with a theory about atomic bonding. no he didn't Take 2 hydrogen atoms that bond to 1 oxygen atom. The result of the covalent bonding is a water molecule of course. Now that is my idea of testing a theory. and you just contradicted your own flimsy argument, which was that theories are pretty much worthless. I believe evolution is possible, but I still find it hard to believe that everything evolved from bacteria and some lightening without seeing some tests that prove it can happen. Argument from personal incredulity, what you find hard to believe doesn't mean ant crap How many scientific tests have been conducted that led to a mammal being made from some bacteria and lightening ? Argument constructed from ignorance, evolution makes no claims like that There is to much uncertaintity about the beginning among science that is not accounted for. I agree for once, much work needs to be done. However to simply replace it with a religious/superstitious explaination so that people can feel better is downright scary. That's mass stupdity of the kind found in the dark ages.
Mav, you know as well as anyone that science is still a very limitied limited concept. Try using it to measure love or to show that love exists. You keep bringing up religion. Why ? It is entirely possible to believe in a creator and not be religous. While we are talking science, will someone tell me roughly what speed the earth rotates at presently ?
fuck religion fuck evolution fuck professors fuck gods i dont believe anyone fuck everyone its all bullshit anyways
Mav, you know as well as anyone that science is still a very limitied limited concept. Try using it to measure love or to show that love exists. Of course it is limited, but it is infinitely more beneficial than superstition/religion and a 2000 year old storybook. Love is not a rigorously defined concept and humans themselves define more than one type, but there are definite chemical changes within your body that can be measured. Infatuation hormones like dopamine take about 9 months to die down and that's why one should never rush into marriage- but they can be measured. Define love first, then measure if it makes sense. But really that's kind of dumb because human motives and actions are whimsical and arbitrary. They can be measured, if we ever thought useful, by mapping every electro-chemical state over time within the brain -but how that advances us is beyond me. You keep bringing up religion. Why ? Because you challenged atheists about facts versus theories. Believing in a creator is rather pointless, because beyond that humans have about a billion different untestable assertions about such a being. While we are talking science, will someone tell me roughly what speed the earth rotates at presently ? why?
The Irrationality of Science Paul Davies points out the flaw in any science which claims to be based upon reason rather than faith in an essay in the New York Times. Here are a few highlights: "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....In science, a healthy skepticism is a professional necessity, whereas in religion, having belief without evidence is regarded as a virtue." The last sentence is an irritatingly common misrepresentation of faith. Faith is not believing despite the lack of evidence, faith is believing despite the fact that the evidence falls short of proof. Anyway, Davies is going to argue that science, like religion, is ultimately based on faith: "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. The most refined expression of the rational intelligibility of the cosmos is found in the laws of physics, the fundamental rules on which nature runs....But where do these laws come from? And why do they have the form that they do? Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from 'that's not a scientific question' to 'nobody knows.' The favorite reply is, 'There is no reason they are what they are - they just are.' The idea that the laws exist reasonlessly is deeply anti-rational. After all, the very essence of a scientific explanation of some phenomenon is that the world is ordered logically and that there are reasons things are as they are. If one traces these reasons all the way down to the bedrock of reality - the laws of physics - only to find that reason then deserts us, it makes a mockery of science. Can the mighty edifice of physical order we perceive in the world about us ultimately be rooted in reasonless absurdity? If so, then nature is a fiendishly clever bit of trickery: meaninglessness and absurdity somehow masquerading as ingenious order and rationality. A second reason that the laws of physics have now been brought within the scope of scientific inquiry is the realization that what we long regarded as absolute and universal laws might not be truly fundamental at all, but more like local bylaws. They could vary from place to place on a mega-cosmic scale. A God's-eye view might reveal a vast patchwork quilt of universes, each with its own distinctive set of bylaws. In this "multiverse," life will arise only in those patches with bio-friendly bylaws, so it is no surprise that we find ourselves in a Goldilocks universe - one that is just right for life. The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn't so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse. 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." This is correct if ultimate reality is physical but not if the ultimate reality is God. If beyond our universe lies something else that is physical then it's true that we lack an exhaustive explanation of physical reality because we have not explained that part of it which transcends our world, but if underlying all physical being is a non-physical Being then that Being provides an exhaustive explanation, at least in theory, of the physical reality. Davies concludes: "But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus." Beyond the fact that this essay is guaranteed to send materialists into a tizzy it's also notable that Davies is saying what many philosophers - most prominently, perhaps, Alvin Plantinga - have been saying for decades: If the physical is all there is then ultimately the universe is non-rational. The rationality that scientists impute to the universe and which forms the epistemic foundation for their investigations of it can only be justified if the ultimate explanation for the universe is an intelligent, rational mind. RLC http://www.wscleary.com/pov/home?month=11&year=2007"\l"3888
There are real examples of faith based beliefs which are utilized in science. They include: * A belief that the universe and the manner in which it functions can be comprehended by a species of limited intelligence through empirical methods (a necessary assumption). * A belief that actual causal patterns, that explain the origin and subsequent development of both the universe and life on earth, can be traced to basic forces of nature from which are generated more complexly organized phenomenon. * A belief that consciousness arose from chemical properties of matter contained by the organism having consciousness. * A belief that chemical reactions of non-living matter led to a living cell. * A belief that science is able to explain the origin of the universe and life on earth without recourse to any telic or intelligent causal components. * A belief that no empirical data can be produced to support theories of intelligent design.
theists will forever be retreating to the limit of our current knowledge so they can place their "god did it"superstition in the gap.