• 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!

Science, why we should believe it?

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
...why just the atheists?

...why ask me that? Unless you just want to nit-pick. Just go and find atheists and watch for them to stereotype mystics or mysticism and then set them straight. Simple, right? And then please send me a PM with a link to that thread so I can see it.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
...why ask me that? Unless you just want to nit-pick. Just go and find atheists and watch for them to stereotype mystics or mysticism and then set them straight. And then please send me a PM with a link to that thread so I can see it.
I'm asking why you are only interested in atheists when many theists also stereotype mystics.

On a somewhat related note, does my signature offend you?
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Scientism isn't the worse intellectual sin in the universe. Who cares whether some kid somewhere believes science answers the question of whether or not a deity exists? I find it hard to imagine a life so devoid of meaning that scientism became for me a pressing, urgent issue.
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
I'm asking why you are only interested in atheists when many theists also stereotype mystics.

I don't care what you're asking, because you aren't out there DOING.

Let me know when your crusade against atheists who stereotype mystics and/or mysticism is well underway. Until then, I have nothing to say to you.
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
Scientism isn't the worse intellectual sin in the universe. Who cares whether some kid somewhere believes science answers the question of whether or not a deity exists? I find it hard to imagine a life so devoid of meaning that scientism became for me a pressing, urgent issue.

Is this a 'yes' to the question of whether you believe that science is essential for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion? Just want to be clear.
 

Gjallarhorn

N'yog-Sothep
I don't care what you're asking, because you aren't out there DOING.

Let me know when your crusade against atheists who stereotype mystics and/or mysticism is well underway. Until then, I have nothing to say to you.
You never had anything to say in the first place from what I can see.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
The steps of the scientific method are to:
Ask a Question
Do Background Research
Construct a Hypothesis
Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
Communicate Your Results
Here is the process,
so i we take for example "higher intelligence create the world", we can tasted using scientific method, tell me what that is different form religion?


nothing indicates anything was ever created from anything other then what we call nature.

there is nothing nor has there ever been anything that can be attributed to a higher intelligence.


science you study

religion you worship.

we dont worship science
 

shawn001

Well-Known Member
One of my teacher said once in my Biology class "What I said to you today tomorrow may not be true". In other words since change so much, so is science trustworthy ?


Natiaonla Academy of Science.

"Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist.

Evolution Resources from the National Academies


"
Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.
In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions."

Evolution Resources from the National Academies

So do your trust the earth orbits the sun?

Gravity exists?

Humans are made from Atoms?
 

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
One of my teacher said once in my Biology class "What I said to you today tomorrow may not be true". In other words since change so much, so is science trustworthy ?

Yes. The fact that scientists are capable of changing their minds when new facts arise, and that scientific theories can be changed in order to more accurately reflect those facts makes science more trustworthy. Not less.

I mean, who is more trustworthy? The person who tells you to believe what they say without question and never changes their mind no matter what, or the person who's willing to accept when they're wrong and admits that the things they tell you are never absolute?
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
Then give me a straight answer please. Yes or no. Do you believe that science is essential and sufficient for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion?
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Then give me a straight answer please. Yes or no. Do you believe that science is essential and sufficient for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion?
Science provides a picture of the world. So does religion, albeit a poetic one. There is no need to rely on one to have the other, or to define one in terms of the other. It's just two pictures.
 

Sunstone

De Diablo Del Fora
Premium Member
Then give me a straight answer please. Yes or no. Do you believe that science is essential for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion?

I think your question is poorly formed, so I'm not going to directly answer it. Presumably, you would not answer a stupid question, either.

It seems to me that scientism is logically flawed, but it also seems to me that scientism is a trivial issue. After all, whether or not someone is a productive scientist seems to have very little to do with whether or not he or she subscribes to scientism. I just don't see many real life consequences to the fact that a relatively few people on this planet subscribe to scientism. Of course, it's always fun to discuss it on an internet message board.
 

serioja7

Member
I believe that exits pure science, however, many things in science are made up, for example global warming, I remember when I was a kid the scientists where taking about ace age. My point is if they can not prove something they should not jump to conclusions. I go my BA in my, and in undergrad math you have to do a lot of proves. And if down the way you miss a chain of the prove, than that means that you did not prove anything. I believe that should be with the science. Moreover, they have a lot of date to analyse, and most the time they don't have all the date, but they still make conclusions.
 

Student of X

Paradigm Shifter
I'm really, genuinely beginning to believe you have a reading comprehension problem. You should have that assessed by a professional, though. I could be wrong.

Look I'm just trying to get a straight answer out of you. I think you're dancing around my questions.
 
Top