What do you need scientific evidence for . .?

[Biblestudent_007]

I once stated that Atheism is a humanist philosophy.

 

[LuisDantas]

I meant ToE in the general sense.

Don't worry about it its cool.

Sorry, but you are not making things any more clear. I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering what you mean.

Besides, it doesn't much matter if "it's cool". Far as I know the relevant issues about the ToE are instead why and how it is so widely despised despite all the evidence and practical value that it has shown for over a century now.

I once stated that Atheism is a humanist philosophy.

Well, it isn't. Atheism is simply atheism. It may be a component of several philosophies, but by itself it simply doesn't have enough substance to be called a philosophy.

 

[LuisDantas]

I'm in agreeance. I don't believe scientific evidence lends any value to religion, faith or belief in "God" for either the theist or the atheist.

Not directly, anyway.

Still, since religion deals with the relationship between everyday life (which is very much influenced by scientifically investigable phenomena) and higher, more abstract values, there is still some value in not being in direct opposition to scientifically verifiable fact.

Or, to put it in another way, a religious belief that is shown not to be scientifically unsound is that much more reliable and lends its faith that much more credibility.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do you need scientific evidence for . .?

Turning on the lights, getting clean water for a city, flying a plane, maintaining health, and everything else that is useful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Generally speaking, people of religious faith do not need scientific evidence for anything.

On the other hand, scientific evidence is always requested by all kinds of people who do not have religious convictions.

Just thinking about this more... I don't know of a church anywhere around me that didn't hire a team of people to determine, using scientific evidence, that the church will stay up and safely bear the weight of itself, its contents and the parishoners.

Even before the era of modern building codes, religious people weren't so keen to accept prayer or faith in God as a substitute for structural analysis.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Turning on the lights, getting clean water for a city, flying a plane, maintaining health, and everything else that is useful.

Say you had two airlines and asked them both how they determined the maintenance intervals for their planes.

- Airline 1: metallurgical analysis based on laboratory experiments, refined by a review process where old parts are examined to confirm that their wear and fatigue characteristics are consistent with our understanding of the processes involved.
- Airline 2: prayer.

I doubt that even the average religious person would fly on Airline 2.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Say you had two airlines and asked them both how they determined the maintenance intervals for their planes.

- Airline 1: metallurgical analysis based on laboratory experiments, refined by a review process where old parts are examined to confirm that their wear and fatigue characteristics are consistent with our understanding of the processes involved.
- Airline 2: prayer.

I doubt that even the average religious person would fly on Airline 2.

Well it worked for the Wright brothers.

 

[Willamena]

Not directly, anyway.

Still, since religion deals with the relationship between everyday life (which is very much influenced by scientifically investigable phenomena) and higher, more abstract values, there is still some value in not being in direct opposition to scientifically verifiable fact.

Or, to put it in another way, a religious belief that is shown not to be scientifically unsound is that much more reliable and lends its faith that much more credibility.

If you say so.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you say so.

You mean you disagree? How so?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well it worked for the Wright brothers.

This worked for the Wright brothers.

 

[Willamena]

You mean you disagree? How so?

I mean that you present your case based on how you've defined religion, what it means to you. I cannot argue against that. I could present my case, based on what it means to me, but I'm beginning to believe in the meaninglessness of such exchanges.

 

[sojourner]

Generally speaking, people of religious faith do not need scientific evidence for anything.

On the other hand, scientific evidence is always requested by all kinds of people who do not have religious convictions.

I dunno... whenever I'm sick, I seek out scientific evidence for a cure. When I fly in a plane, I also need scientific evidence, lest the plane fall to the ground in an uncontrolled fashion. And I'm a "person of religious faith."

 

[Skwim]

I'm in agreeance. I don't believe scientific evidence lends any value to religion, faith or belief in "God" for either the theist or the atheist.

Sure it does. Take the whole creationist thing. Science has demonstrated its value here by showing how utterly stupid the concept is; opening the eyes of honest, thinking Christians to the fact that a literal interpretation of the Bible is indefensible.

 

[RedOne77]

Sure it does. Take the whole creationist thing. Science has demonstrated its value here by showing how utterly stupid the concept is; opening the eyes of honest, thinking Christians to the fact that a literal interpretation of the Bible is indefensible.

It is one thing to show that God didn't do X, like a global flood, and another to show that God doesn't exist. Science can do the former, not the latter.

 

[HonestJoe]

It is one thing to show that God didn't do X, like a global flood, and another to show that God doesn't exist. Science can do the former, not the latter.

If God is defined as a divine being who (among other things) flooded the world 4000 years ago and we show the world wasn't flooded 4000 years ago, God by that definition would be disproven.

As it happens, you technically can't use science to definitively disprove anything but the number of possible things that can't be disproven is literally infinite. You can't show Allah, Zeus or Malcolm, god of biscuits don't exist either. That isn't a reason to act as if they do though. A positive claim requires positive evidence.

 

[Skwim]

It is one thing to show that God didn't do X, like a global flood, and another to show that God doesn't exist. Science can do the former, not the latter.

While science can show how and why a global flood took place it doesn't rule out the possibility that a god of some sort---make up whatever kind you like---didn't set the whole physical cause and effect progression into motion. Science simply can't address any aspect of a god; its reality, unreality, what it does or doesn't do, or any of the stuff in between.

 

[Amill]

It has been made clear and evident that people who are non-religious always ask for and request evidence.

How come . .?

How do you believe something without evidence or a reason?


It doesn't make a bit of difference if you don't want to convince them of anything. But if you want to get someone to question their own beliefs or to consider yours, you gotta give them a reason to lol. Not everyone simply believes everything they hear, I don't think anyone does. Even you needed evidence and reason to believe the things you do, it may just be different from the kind of evidence that others request.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

How do you believe something without evidence or a reason?

Because generally, people of faith (believers) accept things on faith & reason.

It doesn't make a bit of difference if you don't want to convince them of anything. But if you want to get someone to question their own beliefs or to consider yours, you gotta give them a reason to lol. Not everyone simply believes everything they here, I don't think anyone does. Even you needed evidence and reason to believe the things you do, it may just be different from the kind of evidence that others request.

Well . . .the requests for evidence stems from non-belief . .

 

[Sunstone]

Why would you not want scientific evidence for something if it were available?

 

[Skwim]

Because generally, people of faith (believers) accept things on faith & reason.

Excuse me, but simply saying that it's something other people do doesn't answer the question of "how you believe something without evidence or a reason?" Care to give it another shot?