paarsurrey said:
I agree with you; under a situation where atheists/agnostics/skeptics are not involved in the science directly to a special branch of it as experts; and give opinion on other branches of science; there they certainly believe it on faith and sometimes if not often out of blind faith when they sentimentally cling to it.
paarsurrey said:
There is no reason whatsoever to have the slightest respect for atheism; its adherents must be subjected to scrutiny.
paarsurrey said:
The atheists/agnostics/skeptics are so sentimental on this issue and they laud science so much, though science is not a function of atheism; so if existence of God is so important to them; why don't they set up a special field to find God and outline the tools they have in this connection.
Or Dawkins or Hawking should have not spoken on this issue; if it was not related to science.
You do know that there is a clear distinction between science and atheism/agnosticism, don't you?
Why do you persist on putting science and atheism/agnosticism together, when they are COMPLETELY UNRELATED. And yet, you seemed to link them together, as if ONLY atheists or agnostics support modern science. Even a lot of the religious and theists people here support science. The only one who don't, are the literal creationists.
Both atheism & agnosticism ONLY deal with the question of GOD'S EXISTENCE OR NONEXISTENCE....AND NOTHING ELSE! Neither atheism nor agnosticism is a science issue.
I have to emphasize my point with CAPITALS, to drive this point into thick skull of yours.
You should understand that atheism or agnosticism IS NOT an extension of science. And science IS NOT an extension of atheism or agnosticism. Because many of your posts seem to imply that they are the ONE AND THE SAME, when THEY REALLY ARE NOT THE SAME!
My point is that science is NOT the realm of atheism or agnosticism. Anyone - with the will and patience - can learn and understand science, or even become scientists, and that including religious and theistic people.
My own education and experiences in science has nothing to do with my agnosticism. Until 6 or 7 years ago, I didn't even know what agnosticism was. In fact, I didn't know I was agnosticism. My position in agnosticism, in no way affect my understanding in science.
And there are many religious members here (including theists) who are knowledgeable in science, with qualifications and experiences.
If a person had no understanding of (or education in) science, scientific theories or scientific method, then I would agree with you that this person is accepting science on faith. But with technology available, everywhere to be seen, our understanding now in the natural world, in biology, chemistry, physics and mathematics (as well as applied science, including computer science, astronomy and medicine) far exceeded those 100 years ago, 200, 500 or 1000 years ago, then you would have to bl@#dy stupid to not see the evidences.
There were many great Muslim scientists during the medieval period (from 900 to 1450 CE), and I have greatest admiration for their discoveries, or rediscoveries (because some of them found lost writings of Greek and Roman science or engineering). It was these Muslim scientists who deserved all the credits for their achievement in science. HOWEVER, no credits go to Islam, because Islamic theology and science are unrelated, just as science and atheism are unrelated.
So that for you to say something like those quotes of yours, that atheists and agnostics take science in faith, without knowing their education and work histories in specific fields of science, then it is simply gross generalization and biased. It is petty and ignorant.
And lastly, anyone can be a skeptic, including religious people, because the skepticism is not the realm for only the atheists or agnostics...or even only the scientists. You are apparently skeptical over science. No doubt that you are skeptical with the position of atheism and other religions that you disagree with it.
But of course, skepticism is usually associated with who are "skeptical" over the supernaturals, the magical or the miracles. The distinction between you own skepticism and that of the scientist's skepticism is that scientist should deal with matters or phenomenon with no bias or with no preconception of a deity when trying to find answers in the phenomenon of the natural world. Belief in god (faith) is purely subjective, like opinions, likes & dislikes, or taste in beauty.
Scientist has to be objective (which is not easy thing to do), otherwise the data or finding (of evidences) are contaminated by his personal opinion. If they can't keep preconceived notion (like gods and miracles) or their biases out of their experiment or testings, they are poor scientists.
That's why scientists must adhere to scientific method of observations, such as repeated testings & independent testings, finding evidences (that can be tested), measuring, etc. Any scientific theory should be based on the evidences; science is not supposed to make the evidences fit neatly in the theory. If the evidences doesn't support the theory or hypothesis, then it is rejected.
When you have evidences available, then it is not taken in faith. Religion of god(s) is based solely on faith.
Science put everything under scrutiny, including those that are not falsifiable. You have to be able to distinguish what is observable/testable and what is not (unscientific).
because apparently you have no interests in looking at those journals. And I think a lot of people (including me) have wasted their time on this useless thread.
