Originally posted by Creechuur
What is 'proof'? Its a word we created to give us power over the universe. If you have proof then you can obviously explain the essense of something, right? But what do you base the explanation on?How do you know your proof is correct? Because a group of scientists said so? What makes them absolutely right? Granted, they make a lot of sense and I really have no reason to question their findings, but what if theyre wrong? What if it really is Gods will that keeps us planted on the ground? And what if Gods will can be described with manmade ideas like mass and pressure combined with the rotation of the planet?
I'm not saying science has it all wrong, maybe theres just other ways to describe the world around us. People shouldnt get stuck on one discipline or belief, whether scientific or religious. Minds should be open to the possibility that factions other than their own have a piece of the puzzle.
Theories need to be corroborated by other scientists before being taken as proven, right? The only problem is that theres no way to prove all the foundations of our own knowledge. If we could meet a society from another galaxy that used the same methods we did and explained the universe in the same way, it would 'prove' something to me. Otherwise, its all stuff we've made up. Really good stuff from really intelligent minds, but made up nonetheless.
Science's job is to explain the world as it IS, and so involves discovering that. It is not trying to meet any pre-set agenda. There is no point saying that there is another way other than science to explain things. WHATEVER way there is, it is the PURPOSE of science to find it. This is a common misconception many people have. Science has NO preset agenda other than what it discovers.
Your post again demonstrates how ignorant you are of what science is. NOT a collection of absolute certainties, but the continuing process of deciphering how things work, for practical gain or otherwise, via a process of reasoned and demonstrable research. So it does not matter what else there is- science will ultimately stive to find these answers. If anything about religion could be proven, it would be part of science. But it cannot. The two cannot be equated.
And to say it is all made up, when they can provide demonstable evidence, is simply ridiculous. What if they are wrong? Well, try and prove they are wrong first, seeing all the evidence they have about being right. But if they are wrong, then if scientific principle continues to be followed, then they will correct and improve all their theories over time. Like I said, science is self-sceptical. 'What if they are wrong' is a pointless question, and trying to imply this puts it on the same grounding as religiion is as completely ridiculous as it ever was. As Gregory says, these things are often in motion- but some things are as set and certain as they are ever going to be.
Earlier you ask what the difference is between how science explains things and how religion does? Well. the difference is that what science explains it can show a WHY, that shows them to be right more than any faith ever can. And from those whys they have developed technologies that found our modern civilisation. Proof of science's worth is surrounding you every second of every day- our whole world built on scientific process and the way it works.
If you call things that can be shown, demonstated, supported and proven 'made-up', and equate them with the pure faith mechanic of a religion, then you are simply of an irrational mindset that makes trying to understand sense very difficult indeed.
yes...this has become more than whether you're agnostic or an atheist to whether science is a fallacy made up by thinking humans...in order to explain the unexplainable...whoah!!! i for once am at a loss for words...
but for Ushgarak...your chipping away at a stone wall with a plastic spoon with that one...
our whole world built on scientific process and the way it works
Its the other way around. Science is built upon our trying to understand the world. C'mon Ush, youre smarter than this. As someone already mentioned, the world was here long before we could explain it. We've invented a lot of stuff but we haven't changed the basics.
'What if they are wrong' is a pointless question
Its a perfectly debatable question, as we have proven.
This has gone completely off-topic, hasn't it? 😮
Shaber> Two things… One, I’m not a man 😉
Two: Do you know how difficult it is for a fossil to form? Missing pieces in the fossil-record doesn’t show evolution is wrong, because the actual fossil record itself is more than adequate proof for me. Even if it is not complete.
And to enlighten you: Atheists do not presume to know everything. We simply do not think gods do or can exist.
Silver Tears> You don’t have to have faith in gravity for it to work. Try stop believing in it and see if you fall off the face of the planet. There exists cultures without advanced science, and they still remain firmly rooted to the ground. Or before we got a theory of gravity, it still worked.
The forces of nature don’t care whether or not we believe in them.
And just to comment on Ush’s post: Science is NOT about believing. New knowledge is discovered by using the scientific method, calculating, testing, testing again, calculating and doing experiments. The only agenda scientists can be said to have, is to unlock the secrets of the world around us. To answer the “why’s” of the Universe.
Science works whether or not you believe in it. Or there wouldn’t be cars, planes, computers, medical technology, new drugs and so on and so forth. You may choose to disbelieve how an engine works… the engine works regardless.
An atheists like myself do not BELIEVE in science, the way religious people believe in a God. There is nothing TO believe in.
Creechur> That the world has existed before we started trying to explain it has nothing to do with the issue. We don’t have to’ve been there all along to TRY and explain things. What a peculiar reasoning.
Originally posted by Creechuur
Agnostics, I'm telling you, youre going to be waiting awhile for proof. Faith is not rewarded with physical manifestations of belief...Heck, thats Rule One, and anyone over the age of 16 should know it.
I am not waiting for nothing. I Prefer to go out searching for it
Sometimes, my faith in myself is rewarded with physical manifestations of my belief in it. Thats enough. Dont generalise "faith".
What Rule?
Why sixteen?
I'm atheist... and whoever posted the big A/little a thing thoroughly confused me... I didn't know it had to be capitalized or lowercased. *confused* Anyway... I used to think I was just agnostic, but then, it's not that I don't believe in God, it's that I don't think there can BE a God (for reasons that I don't really feel like explaining at the moment).
Science is not a belief, not by any stretch of the imagination. Science is (like Ush said) demonstrable theory. You don't believe in science, you either accept the theories or you don't. And if you don't accept it, it's not like you'll be punished for eternity, like most religions will have you believe if you don't worship their particular God.
My friend is an agnostic, and she says it is a hard place to be. An athiest truly believes that is not and cannot be a God. A Christian/Buddhist/Hindu/etc truly believes that there is an guiding Power, whether external or internal. However, an agnostic is not sure. My mate really envies my faith, and that of the athiests. You may say that an athiest has no faith, but they do, they have faith that no God exists.
It is the uncertainty that upsets my friend, and she says she'd really like to be like me, a Christian, who knows that there is a God, and beleives it with all her heart, but she just can't.
Uh-oh, Phoe... I think you may upset Omega with 'atheism is a faith'. That page she links to refutes that view utterly.
I''ll save her the trouble and quote from it.
"But surely belief in atheism (or science) is still just an act of faith, like religion is?"
Firstly, it's not entirely clear that sceptical atheism is something one actually believes in.
Secondly, it is necessary to adopt a number of core beliefs or assumptions to make some sort of sense out of the sensory data we experience. Most atheists try to adopt as few core beliefs as possible; and even those are subject to questioning if experience throws them into doubt.
Science has a number of core assumptions. For example, it is generally assumed that the laws of physics are the same for all observers (or at least, all observers in inertial frames). These are the sort of core assumptions atheists make. If such basic ideas are called "acts of faith", then almost everything we know must be said to be based on acts of faith, and the term loses its meaning.
Faith is more often used to refer to complete, certain belief in something. According to such a definition, atheism and science are certainly not acts of faith. Of course, individual atheists or scientists can be as dogmatic as religious followers when claiming that something is "certain". This is not a general tendency, however; there are many atheists who would be reluctant to state with certainty that the universe exists.
Faith is also used to refer to belief without supporting evidence or proof. Sceptical atheism certainly doesn't fit that definition, as sceptical atheism has no beliefs. Strong atheism is closer, but still doesn't really match, as even the most dogmatic atheist will tend to refer to experimental data (or the lack of it) when asserting that God does not exist.
-
The logic is good. Atheism is not a faith, Phoe. That is a mis-definition of faith. At best it is also a philosophical position, but its root is basically in the conscious rejection of choosing a presented belief system!
Meanwhile, agnosticism shouldn't have to be the angst-ridden thing your friend seems to have made out of it.
As what I posted just says, if you start assigning 'faith' to a statement like that, you have to assign it to just about anything you state ever, as which point the term becomes meaningless.
But yeah, I'm no atheist myself. But there is a very clear logical difference between atheism and faith-based systems. Atheism really doesn't define anything specific; more a lack or, as I say, rejection of something else.