Do We Put Too Much Faith In Current Science?

[Renji]

LuisDantas I'm using there what we call "figures of speech". There are parts of my post that should not be taken literally. It's more on logical explaination.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/luisdantas-16218.html

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I strongly agree. I genuinely believe that we are now more faithful in science than in God. It seems that we are saying to HIM that " I don't believe in you. Even if you exists, I don't need you! We have science and techology. YOU are not in need!" This should not happen. We should not brag on our knowledge.

Nor proselytize our superstition and ignorance.

 

[LuisDantas]

LuisDantas I'm using there what we call "figures of speech". There are parts of my post that should not be taken literally. It's more on logical explaination.http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/members/luisdantas-16218.html

In so doing you may have clouded your point entirely, however.

 

[Renji]

Nor proselytize our superstition and ignorance.

God isn't superstition. Ignorance is often seen on the unbeliever. May your "science" bless you, hahaha.

 

[Troublemane]

Perhaps the Big Bang creation myth has eclipsed the other creation myths in the popular scientific mind, because they realized they needed a creation myth just as any other culture does. And like all previous priesthoods, the scientific community resists change when it comes to their own precious myths: for example--- When evidence of the microwave background radiation was first discovered it was hailed as proof of the Big Bang due to its isotropy and uniformity;now after the microwave background experiment has mapped the sky and found huge fluctuations in the background radiation (disproving the isotropy and uniformity), these fluctuations are again hailed as proof of the Big Bang because they are supposedly where the galaxies come from. WHA? Does anyone else see a contradiction? And its ridiculous to be told by someone with a degree "well thats because you are not qualified to analyse the data, you cannot understand it"....and yet, the explanation given in both cases contradict one another, which should be unscientific. I mean, how scientific is it to say "I predict that the isotropy of the microwave background proves the Big Bang theory"...then later "Ah, the non uniform nature of the microwave background proved it". It seems we have just changed our criteria in order to maintain a myth based on whatever new data comes in, however inconvenient.

In cases of faith however logic is easily dispensed with.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

May your "science" bless you, ...

And you as well.

 

[Renji]

I'm just defending Catholic faith... Peace people)(

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Perhaps the Big Bang creation myth has eclipsed the other creation myths in the popular scientific mind, because they realized they needed a creation myth just as any other culture does.

Or, perhaps, because that's where the scientific inquiry leads.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I'm just defending Catholic faith... Peace people.

Shalom.

 

[Troublemane]

Or, perhaps, because that's where the scientific inquiry leads.

but when (as i said later in my post) the evidence contradicts the theory, given the parameters initially set down, is it scientific then to change the parameters in order to acheive the desired result? i dont think so! LoL

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

i dont think so! LoL

That much we can all agree upon.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Just something that's been in the back of my mind lately....

I don't mean to disparage science itself, but I'm wondering if we're over-confident regarding our current theories. While we have inarguably made great leaps of progress in understanding this magnificent world, I can't help but think how, once upon a time, geocentrism was obvious in its logic.

We never see the major paradigm shifts coming, we always think that our current understanding is correct. Yet, time and time again, we discover something that requires us to abandon what we "know."

Anyway, I'm just rambling. What do you think?

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. " -Mark Twain

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact. " -Mark Twain

...speaking at a time when vaccines, space travel, lasers, computers, telecommunications, digital watches, microwave ovens and powered flight were all conjecture.

Perhaps the Big Bang creation myth has eclipsed the other creation myths in the popular scientific mind, because they realized they needed a creation myth just as any other culture does. And like all previous priesthoods, the scientific community resists change when it comes to their own precious myths: for example--- When evidence of the microwave background radiation was first discovered it was hailed as proof of the Big Bang due to its isotropy and uniformity;now after the microwave background experiment has mapped the sky and found huge fluctuations in the background radiation (disproving the isotropy and uniformity), these fluctuations are again hailed as proof of the Big Bang because they are supposedly where the galaxies come from. WHA? Does anyone else see a contradiction? And its ridiculous to be told by someone with a degree "well thats because you are not qualified to analyse the data, you cannot understand it"....and yet, the explanation given in both cases contradict one another, which should be unscientific. I mean, how scientific is it to say "I predict that the isotropy of the microwave background proves the Big Bang theory"...then later "Ah, the non uniform nature of the microwave background proved it". It seems we have just changed our criteria in order to maintain a myth based on whatever new data comes in, however inconvenient.

You've misunderstood the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation (CMB) entirely. Initially it was the SPECTRUM that was measured and found to agree perfectly with theoretical prediction; that is, a measurement of the total CMB (not the CMB coming from any particular direction in space), with intensity plotted against "color". This measurement has nothing to do with isotropy or anisotropy: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Firas_spectrum.jpg

Later, the CMB Explorer used extremely sensitive equipment to measure the CMB by scanning all directions in space. So this time, there was spatial information and they did measure the anisotropy (non-uniformity). The data showed the anisotropy of temperature (not spectrum) of the CMB in all directions: Image:WMAP 2008.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note that these fluctuations were not huge, they were tiny, they could only be measured with extremely sensitive equipment, and they were expected. The CMB anisotropy did not contradict the big bang, but it did help discriminate beteween different competing big bang cosmologies.

 

[painted wolf]

I don't think we put too much 'faith' in science. We have high expectations of our returns for our investment.

Its sad but true that people today take science for granted... scientific achievements are so ubiquitous that most people don't even notice how much of their lives are shaped by it.
We now have such high expectations that we get upset at the cost of doing advanced science and then complain about immediate returns on that meager investment.

You have no idea how many people asked me why the research I help with should be funded and to tell them why it wasn't a waste of money. (My own family for instance) :banghead3:

wa:do

 

[Rolling_Stone]

As a practical matter when making decisions, you should take into consideration the best information available at the time of the decision. That's usually whatever science there is on the subject.

I don't think so. Science and philosophy are not by themselves sufficient to meet the needs of human experience. They do not tell us with any degree of certainty how we should live.They don't inform us about the deep issues of life: the "whence, why or whither." Scientist Steven Weinberg famously said, "...the more we know about the universe the more it is evident that it is pointless and meaningless." This is a philosophical claim and not scientific, but it is a powerful argument for something science does not afford: fulfillment that comes only through faith, insight into the nature of unseen realities, and relationships.

 

[misanthropic_clown]

I actually think there exists a lack of faith in science and technology by the general public, which is damaging to the progress science can make. This is largely built up by a combination of both ignorance and religious/moral objection; that scientists shouldn't mess with nature or dabble in certain affairs in fear of doing irreversible damage. Of course, some of these fears have foundation (ie. GM foods, albeit the risks are often highly exaggerated). Mostly, it seems not. Not so long ago the world was going to end thanks to the LHC, to state one example.

That is to say, I do believe there are people who have too much faith in science to be able to answer life, the universe and everything - but such a faith is relatively harmless in comparison to ground lost to appease those with an unfounded lack of faith in science and technology. A little more faith in that respect could do wonders.

 

[logician]

The sad thing is that the study of science is not given a higher "Status" in our society, which workships the superficial and mundane. Thus, we are losing our scientific status in AMerica to other countries that see more value in the pursuit of scientific knowledge.

 

[tomspug]

Everyone keeps bringing up "vaccines". Sure, medicine is good for alleviating pain and prolonging death. Science is wonderful and amazing.

But it still doesn't in any way devalue the sentiments of the OP. Don't we put too much faith in science to solve all our problems? Especially when MOST of our problems are personal.

 

[logician]

Everyone keeps bringing up "vaccines". Sure, medicine is good for alleviating pain and prolonging death. Science is wonderful and amazing.

But it still doesn't in any way devalue the sentiments of the OP. Don't we put too much faith in science to solve all our problems? Especially when MOST of our problems are personal.

I'll be the first to admit our society has become way to drug dependant, but this is mainly to the hucksterism by pharmaceutical companies - who recklessly push the latest and greatest wonder drugs, spending twice as much on advertising as they do on research. But this is not relevant to the underlying science that creates new drugs, and many. many other products of our age.

 

[LuisDantas]

But it still doesn't in any way devalue the sentiments of the OP. Don't we put too much faith in science to solve all our problems? Especially when MOST of our problems are personal.

I tend to agree with misanthropic clown in that lack of faith in science is likely a far bigger problem than excess of it.

Still, I find you take interesting, even if more so due to what is not said. Do you think science is not personal enough to be of value? Myself, I think that a bit more of rational thought would do wonders to solve most personal problems.