the science of faith.

[Sir Doom]

That was all very well said, but the fact remains that I take the word of all these physicists on faith. It is true that I have good reason to trust scientists, especially when the most prominent scientists in a field converge on agreement, but I have no immediate means or intention of verifying their claims about particle physics.

Sure, but lets say someone else who did have the means and intention suddenly proved that there are no such things as quarks. The only thing that would change for me is my current belief that there are such things as quarks. Other than the fact that I know about them, quarks have no effect on my life. There is no reason for me to believe in quarks other than the fact that I happen to have learned about them at some point. If they suddenly get replaced by some other explanation for the phenomenon they explain... big deal. Its nothing to me.

OTOH, I do not take claims of religious experts to be true, even when they come from a respected body of theologians or church hierarchs. Lots of other people do treat religious personnel as trustworthy sources of information. So there is some equivalence between trust in scientific claims and trust in religious claims. (I do not consider "trust" and "faith" to be synonyms. In reality, "trust" is about belief based on a source of information, but "faith" is about a belief that is held regardless of source.)

Here's the thing. You have no choice but to trust these people. If you ask a biblical scholar to quote a verse from the Bible, do you not trust that he's probably not making it up? You may not trust him to interpret the verse for you, but he's probably got it memorized, right? Scientists don't always agree with each other's interpretations of experimentation either, that's the whole point of peer review. Same with theology. It is a scientific study, even if its a study of something that isn't very important to you or I.

Why am I so much more skeptical about religious claims than scientific ones? It is because I have some understanding of how the scientific method works. That gives me confidence in the claims of a body of scientific experts. I do not know of any coherent method of verification of religious claims, all of which seem to be based on hearsay or stuff that people just make up. So I lack an adequate reason to sustain a belief in gods. Beyond that, I have other, more positive reasons for believing that gods are implausible beings.

You do have a method of verification. The scientific method. You examine religious claims in the same way you examine scientific ones. The only difference is that religious claimants rarely do this before presenting their claims. You see a poorly written hypothesis to explain an already explained phenomenon that is subjected to a useless experiment that somehow magically verifies the hypothesis to be 100% correct. It's not science at all. So you dismiss it. It's a choice you make that everything is scientific or its fake.

You say that you have other more positive reasons for believing gods are implausible, and I would stick with those if I were you. Don't worry so much about the ridiculous claims of others. Just because Terrell Owens thinks god let him win another Super Bowl doesn't mean there isn't a god. It just means Terrell Owens has stupid ideas about what god cares about.

 

[gseeker]

If I wanted to, I could go look at the evidence for the scientific theories, but I cannot look at God. If I had questions about the validity of evolution, for example, I could look at the fossil records and the genetic evidence through the different genome projects. I could even get plants myself and allow them to hybridize, showing further evidence. However, I cannot go and look at God or the evidence for Him. God has never been scientifically tested, because it is not possible to do so.

Belief in science and belief in God are very different from eachother, but they're not clashing unless you have specific features of God that have already been disproven (such as the Biblical creation story). If you believe God created the Universe, then fine, that doesn't clash with any scientific theories.

I could give you a personal example of this. I believe in a cyclic Universe, because it makes sense to me, and as long as it isn't disproven I will continue to believe in it. If, however, there was enough evidence that the Universe was linear, I would abandon my belief. The belief in a cyclic Universe here is similar to the belief in God, because neither is proven by science. Atoms, evolution and the earth spinning around the sun however, are backed up by clear scientific evidence, so these are not similar to God or a cyclic Universe.

If you're having a crisis of faith, then just look for what you believe is true. Trying to force oneself to keep beliefs seldom leads to good.

Evolution huh? The big bang? That's science to you? It is a theory that cannot be proven. You mention fossil records, okay, I've studied geology since I was 16 years old.Your carbon imprints and fossilized remains only truely tell you that something once existed in time past, id does not prove evolution. The only proven form of evolution is natural selection and that does not state that one creature becomes another just that the strongest will survive to pass down its genetics within its species. If you talk about alteration of creatures due to survivability wouldn't we all have wings by now and an armored shell like an armadillo? Maybe the reason the fossil records of past plants and animals have the attributes and similar genetic makeup of other creatures is because they were designed, and created by the same artist using the same brush and genetic material to create them all. They seem similar not because of common ancestors but for the same reason one Rembrandt and one Picasso panting looks like another. The theory of evolution is so rediculous that you need way more faith to believe in that than to believe in God.

 

[Absolute Zero]

Misspelled ridculous.LoL I do that crap all the time though so I guess were in the same boat then.LoL..... So why do scientist back up these clames from the evolutionist camp ? Uh gseeker ?

 

[Orias]

the problem with theism that turns many people away, is the refusal of knowledge and education.

your turning away common kowledge in favor of a percieved personal fantasy ???

This is just complete nonsense, you'd figure one who sports this argument would at least use proper grammar, and reread for linguistic errors and typos.

Perhaps you are turning away common knowledge in favor of a perceived personal fantasy. And by common knowledge I mean that God exists, our ancestors have been saying it for about 2.5 million years now.

 

[gseeker]

Misspelled ridculous.LoL I do that crap all the time though so I guess were in the same boat then.LoL..... So why do scientist back up these clames from the evolutionist camp ? Uh gseeker ?

At work texting on the cellphone, don't have spell check. LOL by the way you meant to say we're no were. Why do people cling to the idea of evolution when it is just a theory? For the same reason others cling to the idea of God, it is an explanation of the unknown. Again both have evidence available, the only difference is interpretation of the evidence. The reason they call it the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution is because it isn't a fact. People who try to claim it is are doing so out of ignorance or out of selfish motivation.

 

[gseeker]

Also plenty of scientist especially paleontologists disagree with the idea of evolution.

 

[Orias]

At work texting on the cellphone, don't have spell check. LOL by the way you meant to say we're no were. Why do people cling to the idea of evolution when it is just a theory? For the same reason others cling to the idea of God, it is an explanation of the unknown. Again both have evidence available, the only difference is interpretation of the evidence. The reason they call it the theory of evolution and not the fact of evolution is because it isn't a fact. People who try to claim it is are doing so out of ignorance or out of selfish motivation.

I see evolution and God as two very factual things.

I bolded and underlined your last sentence because its kind of hypocritical.

 

[Absolute Zero]

I see evolution and God as two very factual things.

I bolded and underlined your last sentence because its kind of hypocritical.

Thought you didnt belive in the Abrhamic God ?

 

[Orias]

Thought you didnt belive in the Abrhamic God ?

What does this have to do with the general argument though?

 

[Absolute Zero]

Hm...I guess it doesnt but if I were to relate it to the thread I would say that one could not have belief in both because of multiple theorys supporting the evolution of the universe even though there still just theorys.

 

[gseeker]

I see evolution and God as two very factual things.

I bolded and underlined your last sentence because its kind of hypocritical.

Everything we do as human beings have selfish motivations involved, what your interpretation is, is dependent upon what your selfish motivation is.

 

[Orias]

Hm...I guess it doesnt but if I were to relate it to the thread I would say that one could not have belief in both because of multiple theorys supporting the evolution of the universe even though there still just theorys.

These theories don't conflict, the people believing them to support their own state of existence do.

Everything we do as human beings have selfish motivations involved, what your interpretation is, is dependent upon what your selfish motivation is.

Its hypocritical because you use the same interchangeable reference to dispute two subjective claims, God and evolution, while remaining unaware of the reference you are using to expound your intent and disposal.

 

[gseeker]

These theories don't conflict, the people believing them to support their own state of existence do.



Its hypocritical because you use the same interchangeable reference to dispute two subjective claims, God and evolution, while remaining unaware of the reference you are using to expound your intent and disposal.

I'm simply comparing God and evolution by saying both are required to be accepted on faith. Comparative interpretation uses the same evidence with two different conclusions three if you chose to believe both. Motivation, interpretation, intent, and reasoning are all involved to interpret the information available saying that both ignorance and selfish intent serves a minor function in your drawn conclusion is not hypocritical because I apply that to myself as well.

 

[outhouse]

I'm simply comparing God and evolution by saying both are required to be accepted on faith.

evolution has been observed, as many of the facts regarding evolution have all been observed.


there is ZERO faith require for a high school biology class

and ZERO faith required to see millions of fossils that demonstrate evolution

 

[outhouse]

This is just complete nonsense, you'd figure one who sports this argument would at least use proper grammar, and reread for linguistic errors and typos.

Perhaps you are turning away common knowledge in favor of a perceived personal fantasy. And by common knowledge I mean that God exists, our ancestors have been saying it for about 2.5 million years now.

I type fast while at work, that you will have to deal with


the rest is simply your opinion.



How many theist websites do I have to post, to show you my point? is OP making that mistake as a example, claiming evolution is based on faith, instead of accepting known knowledge?

 

[painted wolf]

I'm simply comparing God and evolution by saying both are required to be accepted on faith. Comparative interpretation uses the same evidence with two different conclusions three if you chose to believe both. Motivation, interpretation, intent, and reasoning are all involved to interpret the information available saying that both ignorance and selfish intent serves a minor function in your drawn conclusion is not hypocritical because I apply that to myself as well.

No... I can measure evolution. I've even done so. I can even manipulate evolution. I don't need faith to understand evolution because I've worked with it hands on.

I can't measure God or manipulate it. I need faith to understand God and even just to realize that it's there. I can not do anything with God without faith.

wa:do

 

[Orias]

I'm simply comparing God and evolution by saying both are required to be accepted on faith. Comparative interpretation uses the same evidence with two different conclusions three if you chose to believe both. Motivation, interpretation, intent, and reasoning are all involved to interpret the information available saying that both ignorance and selfish intent serves a minor function in your drawn conclusion is not hypocritical because I apply that to myself as well.

This has nothing to do with what I just said.

I type fast while at work, that you will have to deal with

Sure.

the rest is simple your opinion.

No its pretty factual.

How many theist websites do I have to post, to show you my point? is OP making that mistake as a example, claiming evolution is based on faith, instead of accepting known knowledge?

I don't understand your point, it might have something to do with your grammar or opinion.

 

[gseeker]

evolution has been observed, as many of the facts regarding evolution have all been observed.


there is ZERO faith require for a high school biology class

and ZERO faith required to see millions of fossils that demonstrate evolution

I'll take your high school biology class and raise you by a college education paleontology class. What you call evidence of evolution is natural selection within a species that is not evolution by itself. You also refer to fossil records? Again, paleontology is the study of the fossil record, to prove evolution though is to ignore that the fossil record is incomplete and proves nothing accept that something existed at one time. You say evolution is proven? Then why is it only referred to as a theory even by the scientists who believe in evolution? Why is it that I have also met many paleontologist and biologists who believe in creation and not evolution? Simple, because no true evidence has been discovered that proves that claim. The only reason so many people believe in evolution is because they are sheeple unwilling to think for themselves but would rather be spoon fed by the governmental school system. I do have respect for those people who acknowledge that evolution is a theory but choose to believe it because to them it makes sense but those who try to claim it is a fact, not so much.

 

[gseeker]

No... I can measure evolution. I've even done so. I can even manipulate evolution. I don't need faith to understand evolution because I've worked with it hands on.

I can't measure God or manipulate it. I need faith to understand God and even just to realize that it's there. I can not do anything with God without faith.

wa:do

You cling to the 'truth' of evolution by claiming proof by using micro evolution as a template completely ignoring macro evolution. Of that no proof exists and cannot be measured.

 

[Orias]

You cling to the 'truth' of evolution by claiming proof by using micro evolution as a template completely ignoring macro evolution. Of that no proof exists and cannot be measured.

This doesn't make sense.

If evolution can be proven on any scale then it has been proven, all scales equate to the essential understanding and meaning we see in concept and how they correlate to our own scales used to measure and exercise judgement.