IOW Blind faith?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Is science interested in finding God ?
- Thread starter chinu
- Start date
Don't confuse science with scientists. Science is a field of study, scientists are people (often ego driven) who study science
The OP asked about science, not scientists.
More like the best supported, most educated guess.
A hypothesis rises to the highest level of certainty; theory, only after extensive testing, ie: attempts to disprove it, and criticism by other experts in the field.
There is never absolute certainty, and theories are always open to revision, but the round Earth and germ theories are pretty well evidenced; the theory of evolution, even more so.
Science isn't a field of study, it's a methodology; a way of assessment and interpretation that strives to eliminate bias, irrationality, and 'the obvious'.
Last edited:
PureX
Veteran Member
Faith is only as blind as we make it. But one way or another, we are going to have to act on faith. Because we are not clairvoyant.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You are describing blind faith and trust in people.
People are only correct in terms of their beliefs and models. Theory does not rely on opinion but it is constructed of beliefs called a "paradigm".
No. Science is pretty much the opposite of blind faith. It's extreme skepticism, resolved only by hard evidence and testing.
It;s not the people we trust. It's the evidence, and the results of testing we trust. An authority is only as reliable as the evidence s/he can cite.
Audie
Veteran Member
Opposite to religious beliefs on both of those.
cladking
Well-Known Member
You are describing a proper scientific perspective. Unfortunately this exists in only some individuals and only in an idealized form. Most individuals including most peers can't see beyond the prevailing paradigm. They do not understand how science works so they do not even know what they know.
Reality and an understanding are never "resolved". It can only be re-solved over and over and over again.
If you don't understand science and why peers believe what they believe then you are merely believing (in) Peers. You are a member of a cult if you assume Peers have all the answers and all you have to do is read a book.
I have to deal with this on a continuing basis so i have a great deal of experiential knowledge of "scientific" belief systems. I am regrettably the world's leading expert in the belief in science, probably.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Nobody is holier than thou than those who believe in science. Believers proselytize more than anyone else in human history. They send emissaries everywhere and have taken over Washington and most businesses which are run not by the competent but those best able to "talk a good game".
The world is screwy and spiraling down the drain because of the belief in science and the extreme specialization concomitant to it.
We are on the brink of extinction and will be lucky to exist at all in just the next century. We are stinky footed bumpkins masquerading as omniscient Gods. Homo omnisciencis; hear us brag. Learning our ignorance might be sufficient to prevent extinction.
cladking
Well-Known Member
Why is this not obvious to every single observer and why did schools quit teaching metaphysics and critical thinking?
What is wrong with people that they think squashing the human spirit is the means to control society?
cladking
Well-Known Member
Our omnipotence even affects photons in the double slit experiment. We create reality through theory and through the imposition of the "Laws of Nature" upon the gods themselves. We create infinity and infinite number of ramps by merely solving equations or defining reality.
Our hubris knows no bounds.
In general, science is not interested in finding something defined as an explanation a -priori.
It would not be science, if it was.
Ciao
- viole
gnostic
The Lost One
The only hubris I see, is your own.
you make up these fantasies, conspiracy theories and expect everyone to accept your nonsensical claims as if they were facts. The whole 40,000 science and metaphysical language you have made up, is clearly a fiction of your delusion. There are no evidence to support your claims.
And your anti-science conspiracy theories are nothing more than paranoia and misinformation. They are nothing more than conspiracies.
Last edited:
gnostic
The Lost One
Metaphysics, by itself, is merely a philosophy.
By itself, is useless, and it is just talks without much substances.
Sciences, particularly Natural Sciences, are focused more on understanding the WHAT & HOW about nature.
Metaphysics, as with most other philosophies, is more focused on the WHY questions, which isn’t practical.
Critical thinking isn’t just the sole domain of metaphysics. Critical thinking also occurs even more so in science and in mathematics.
What do you think the Scientific Method steps involved? It is about finding proposed solutions to questions, which would require “critical thinking“ when scientist(s) are formulating the models to a hypothesis. Critical thinking are needed here.
But the only real ways to getting real answers, is when scientists are testing their hypotheses. These tests involved observations. Observations include experiments, evidence and the all-important data.
Without tests, then it would disqualify any model as being hypothesis, the model would be just pseudoscience claims, eg Michael Behe’s paper on Irreducible Complexity, because he cannot support his IC with original experiments & data. His only contributions to Irreducible Complexity are his metaphysical thinking are some irrelevant analogies and computer stimulations, that are without substances (no testable evidence or experiments, and no testable data).
what the point of having metaphysics that cannot be tested, cladking. A metaphysics without testable evidence & data, isn't science. A metaphysics without experiments, are just useless talks, relying on the logic of philosopher, that usually relies on circular thinking and confirmation bias.
Hey, cladking, that actually described your 40,000 years old ancient science and ancient language - there are no tests, just circular reasoning and confirmation biases. If anyone is suffering from hubris, it is you and your fantasy. You see yourself as god when you look in the mirror, you believing yourself to be omniscient and inerrant.
PureX
Veteran Member
No, it's not entirely blind. We can see other people do it, and learn something from that. We can try it for ourselves, in moderation, and see what results from it. We can trust in our hopes, knowing that for we humans, this is often a necessary and positive course of action as it can bring about what we'd hoped for when not trusting and acting on that hope would never have done so.
I heard a line in a song the other day about chasing your dreams because those dreams are never going to chase you. And that is true.
We humans live by faith and hope because we can't see the future. But that faith is only as "blind" as we let it be. And I don't know anyone that can muster totally blind faith. At least not unless they feel they absolutely have to.
SavedByTheLord
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately those that have rejected the existence of God have bling faith.
Blind faith in what -- a non-belief? Do you have blind faith that the Flying Spaghetti Monster or pink unicorns don't exist?
No. You lack belief because of a lack of evidence.
Lack of belief in something with no tangible evidence of its existence is not blind faith.
cladking
Well-Known Member
I disagree. At the risk of lapsing into semantics there is a difference between not believing in something and believing something does not exist.
Most people who believe in science believe god does not exist.