Thread: The laws of men

Science is profoundly different from religion, it is based on evidence and experience - the exact opposite of religious faith. Religious faith is defined as belief without evidence.

Originally Posted by trewornan

Science is profoundly different from religion, it is based on evidence and experience - the exact opposite of religious faith. Religious faith is defined as belief without evidence.

I would go this far and further. Science is active disbelief, always trying to falsify its own theories. James has an interesting point however, that the rationalist puts stock in empirical data where the theist puts stock in the scripture. Better men than we have debated this, I'm sure, but I'm pretty sure it still ends here. By refusing rationalism all together, the theist would seem to devalue any argumentation which could compare or question their faith. Is that fair to say?

X

Yet there are some very common concepts in science that are without any basis an fact or direct observation that excite zealous rightous defense if questioned. The "big bang" for instance. Or evolution as the origin of new species. There is no data for either that is conclusive.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

The "big bang" for instance. Or evolution as the origin of new species. There is no data for either that is conclusive.

There is a great deal of evidence for both these theories - I find it very sad that you don't realise this.

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Yet there are some very common concepts in science that are without any basis an fact or direct observation that excite zealous rightous defense if questioned. The "big bang" for instance. Or evolution as the origin of new species. There is no data for either that is conclusive.

This is a false assumption. There is in fact hoards of evidence pointing conclusively to both ideas. Scientists keep looking for something else, but in thousands of cases we find only these two determinations (scripture aside).

X

Point me at the Hoards (not meant to be sarcastic). Every time scientists finally think they have traced the links from any species to another they find that one or another of the link is either a fake or actually genetically different from what they assumed making the chain impossible. I'm not awar of a single viable evolutionary chain.

(boy have we gotten far afield from a discussion of morality LOL)

Originally Posted by Wildtim

Point me at the Hoards

I recommend "Climbing Mount Improbable" by Richard Dawkins.

Just to clarify - my training and profession leads me to believe that nothing is certain. Measurement is subject to variability. We can quantify uncertainty to some extent, but knowing how uncertain we are does not mean we are certain. Therefore most, if not all, of science is, in my view, belief because most, if not all, of science, is based on measurement. Those parts of science not based on measurement are just educated, un-verifiable, beliefs.

This is just my view. Because of this, I have no problem accepting others' views, even though I might not subscribe to them myself - after all, I'm uncertain about pretty much everything, and there's a non-zero probability that I might be wrong.

Anyway, this has probably gone way off topic like Tim said. Maybe we could start a new thread on belief and its role (or lack thereof) in science and religion?

James.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

knowing how uncertain we are does not mean we are certain.

I agree I'm a skeptic myself - we know nothing beyond all doubt. I like to think of science as a current best guess at how things are on the evidence available. As more evidence is gathered our best guess may change but were better of with a scientific best guess than we are with a religious certainty.

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Just to clarify - my training and profession leads me to believe that nothing is certain.

But to be perfectly clear, when we have a 99% probability of something, we may speak with conviction.

X