Science vs. Faith

[sdbest]

For better view, Right Click mouse, select View Image.

Regards
S.

[Zhavric]

Image blocked. Can you give a little description of what this op is about?

[sdbest]

Zhavric, try this link.

http://stupidevilbastard.com/Images2/sciencevsfaith.png

Failing that the image compares a schematic representation that compares the thought processes of scientific and faith-based reasoning.

Regards
S.

[Maybe-not]

Science = wins.
Religion = I fail at live..

[shrike]

I really don't understand how can you believe in something without any evidence.
When only one individual believe in something he called a wacko or schizophrenic but when its a large group of people its a religion.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: shrike I really don't understand how can you believe in something without any evidence. When only one individual believe in something he called a wacko or schizophrenic but when its a large group of people its a religion.

Belief without evidence is the province of agnosticism.

Theism is the phenomenon wherein skepticism towards evidence is applied selectively. A claim is "evidenced" by an unsupported claim. The unsupported claim is held up on faith. If challenged, theists resort to a variety of invalid arguments.

Point being, theists don't believe "without evidence". Theists have really terrible invalid evidence.

[rez]

People that lived thousands of years ago who claimed to have supernatural abilities > People that lived in the present day who claim that they have supernatural abilities.

Bronze Age explanations of the universe > Present day explanations of the universe (note: they only prefer the present day explanations that do not conflict with the bronze age explanations)

Theists also somehow tricked themselves to believe in one supernatural religion over all the other supernatural religions. They fail to recognize that each supernatural religion has the same amount of evidence to back up each religions claims. Why should any reasonable person believe in heaven but not Elysium? Both paradises have just as much evidence to back them up, yet a theist rejects Elysium.

Double standards all around for theists.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: rez Theists also somehow tricked themselves to believe in one supernatural religion over all the other supernatural religions. They fail to recognize that each supernatural religion has the same amount of evidence to back up each religions claims. Why should any reasonable person believe in heaven but not Elysium?

It has to do with memes and how they affect our logic.

[InTheFlesh?]

Do scientists believe in theories or do they accept them? Belief is something which requires no evidence, as to the believer it is true. So can you believe in a proven theory, like the existence of elephants, or do you accept it? Slightly pedantic to pick on words but it does add interesting thought to the 'how religious is science?/ atheism is a religion' discussion.

Yeh

[rez]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Do scientists believe in theories or do they accept them? Belief is something which requires no evidence, as to the believer it is true. So can you believe in a proven theory, like the existence of elephants, or do you accept it? Slightly pedantic to pick on words but it does add interesting thought to the 'how religious is science?/ atheism is a religion' discussion. Yeh

Theories are not proven. You need to look up what theory means according to science.

[gallo]

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Do scientists believe in theories or do they accept them?

They accept them. They may believe the theories but they do not believe in the theories.

Quote by: InTheFlesh? Belief is something which requires no evidence, as to the believer it is true.

That's true.

Quote by: InTheFlesh? So can you believe in a proven theory, like the existence of elephants, or do you accept it?

As pointed out, theories are not proven. Theories are explanations for observed facts. However, the existence of elephants is not a theory, it is an observation; a fact. I don't believe in elephants, I have seen them.

[Gods_Mercenary]

Unless elephants are an illusion created by our silly human brains:)

[Jack]

Do scientists believe in theories or do they accept them?

After enough test are done, the results are examined and certain conclusions are reached. Conclusions may be accepted or may be rejected, in which case more testing would be done to see if those conclusions hold up or if another conclusion can be drawn for the results.
There's no belief involved. Conclusions are never taken for absolute fact. They are simply the best and most consistent (with the rest of known science) answers that we have based on our current knowledge and ability to test. Any scientific conclusion is subject to adjustment or change in light of new information.

[Gods_Mercenary]

However, scientists can become so attached to an idea that they cling onto it much like a faith, although they should be stripped of the title scientist, at that point.

[Kamehameha34]

Quote by: Zhavric Belief without evidence is the province of agnosticism. Theism is the phenomenon wherein skepticism towards evidence is applied selectively. A claim is "evidenced" by an unsupported claim. The unsupported claim is held up on faith. If challenged, theists resort to a variety of invalid arguments. Point being, theists don't believe "without evidence". Theists have really terrible invalid evidence.

Umm.. Do you own a dictionary? Even a simple internet connection would suffice - I assume you have one, because you're able to provide your misconceptions for correction on this forum.

Theists tend to just look at evidence in their favor. That doesn't mean it's included in the definition.

Agnostics don't "believe" anything.. You still don't understand. Claims can be unknown. Agnostics hold that, due to the complete lack of evidence, they don't have any grounds to make an accurate and intellectually responsible conclusion regarding the "god" claim. Lack of conclusion = Unknown.

Let's speed up the discussion a little:

You're going to say that god contradicts proven claims.

After much insistence, I'll have you support that claim.

You'll respond that energy and matter can't be "created".

I'll respond that a god only needs to make said matter and energy a collection.

[Jack]

Scientists aren't perfect. I'm sure many have their pet theories that they defend beyond reason. That's why peer review is so important. Any scientist who suggests something way out there is going to have to submit all their data and have their conclusions peer reviewed. There are processes in place to weed out the obviously whacko stuff, and for the simply wrong, peer review will expose that.
Theists love to use Piltdown man as an example of how wrong science can be. What they fail to notice is that the hoax was exposed by scientists and it was announced to the world that it was indeed a hoax. True, it took 50 years to determine that, but the important thing is that science didn't just sit back and allow Piltdown man to become an established tenet of biology and anthropology. When there were the means to retest the artifact, the hoax was uncovered and made public. That's how science works.
Would that same course be followed by theologians if Jesus' body was discovered? I seriously doubt it. It would be covered up and the evidence "lost". Too much is invested in keeping people believing in religion.

[Gods_Mercenary]

You wouldn't be able to prove beyond a doubt that that was Jesus' body, so that's not a very good example.

[Jack]

Granted, it's a weak analogy, but I think you got the point. If something was discovered that appeared to disprove a basic belief in Christianity...

[Gods_Mercenary]

It depends, some faiths would just fudge around it and explain that the tenet is more trying to express a "truth" rather than "fact", some would abandon their faith all together, and some would take the fundementalist route and simply deny its validity.

[pikatore]

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Agnostics don't "believe" anything.. You still don't understand. Claims can be unknown. Agnostics hold that, due to the complete lack of evidence, they don't have any grounds to make an accurate and intellectually responsible conclusion regarding the "god" claim. Lack of conclusion = Unknown.

No, you still don't understand. I believe that there has been countless argument with you on this, and you STILL don't understand.

The traditional, classic definition of agnosticism DIRECTLY INVOLVES BELIEF, in that even if there is any evidence for/against the existence of the god, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to find. That is a claim that we cannot be certain about, hence, it takes faith to stick by that claim.

How many different ways does it have to be put to you?

You need to cite a specific sub-category of agnosticism, that is, a modified ideology that isn't radical enough from the array to be labelled a different theological stance entirely. Right now you are ignoring the classic definition of it, and applying a modified definition to it. It's not other people's problem if you mess around with definitions of broader terms instead of just being specific.

Quote by: Kamehameha34 Let's speed up the discussion a little: You're going to say that god contradicts proven claims. After much insistence, I'll have you support that claim. You'll respond that energy and matter can't be "created". I'll respond that a god only needs to make said matter and energy a collection.

And I'll stick my nose in and say that the discussion isn't going anywhere, as both you and the theist are talking vague nonsense.

How is anyone supposed to interpret the word 'collection' in that last statement? There is a difference between speaking complexities, and speaking words that poke the air, and lose thier meaning, and turn what was before a clear discussion into a murky, degenerative slugfest.