Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Further said:
I just wish the non-scientifically inclined could see how beautiful and inspirational science and the search for reasoned, objective facts can be. Likewise, I am sure that many religious just wish the non-religious could see how beautiful and inspirational the word of god is to them. But, alas I don't see it. I don't know if it's possible for the two types of thinking to actually comprehend the perspective of the other. We can try, I attempt to, but I fall short. Mags walks the line and sees both god and science as beautiful, but I feel he often misunderstands both perspectives in his attempt to marry the two. But I'm glad he tries.
Click to expand...
God is the true scientist. The divine scientific method. I wish some atheists actually see the poetry and romance of it all.
 
MarAzul said:
Sorry to see you distraught by this ancient Hebrew yarn dviss. I hope you recover.
Click to expand...

No matter what the Trinitarians try to push, God and Jesus are not the same entity. The God of Abraham was a jealous God full of vengeance. Completely different than Jesus.
 
Last edited:
I personally don't want to serve a God who while knowing Job was an upstanding and righteous man and that he would never forsake him, made a bet with Satan regarding his and his children's. Christians try to use the book of Job as some example of Faith. I simply see the God of Abraham making a bet with Satan and killing Job's children in the process...
 
Last edited:
Don't make me quote more Scripture. I've read the Bible cover to cover 2X. The Bible has a rape manual. There are specific directions with regard to what should happen after a woman is raped. That man-made book that was cherry picked by the Catholics is full of atrocities. And Christians want to sit here and talk shit about Muslims when both of their religions are full of atrocities.
 
We live in a time of unbounded criticism. Too much importance is put on uninformed opinion. It seems like people are becoming totally intolerant on certain subjects..... science can exist without philosophy, religion can exist without theology. It's only a matter of time before the word empathy becomes meaningless....
 
there are at least two types of "bad science" but that doesn't make science bad. 1) rushed, untested or under-tested claims. Usually well meaning attempts at truth that just jump the gun, but can also just be poorly thought out and designed experiments that have too many permutations to be adequately tested. 2) scientists who for reasons of greed, recognition or some other failing decide to prove a point, and force the s Irene to confirm to their agenda. These peckerwoods are true assholes.

Then there is good science that uses all that's currently known to elucidate truths and test hypotheses, but as new information is learned over time it becomes falsifiable.

I feel that many in society overinflate #2, and assign malice whenever a scientific theory or claim is disproven. But in actuality, most of the those disproven claims come from honest attempts that are either rushed or have new information introduced. So science is often looked at as untrustworthy. But almost every scientist I have ever known is fiercely honest with regards to their scientific claims. Would never purposely obscure, falsify or manipulate data to reach the result. Scientists have bad PR, they need better marketing because their image is often bastardized by people in the non-scientific community who do have agendas.
 
magnifier661 said:
God is the true scientist. The divine scientific method. I wish some atheists actually see the poetry and romance of it all.
Click to expand...


I do, but poetry/romance as you're using them semantically are subjective aesthetic qualities, not a measure of objective reality.
 
UncleCliffy'sDaddy said:
Unfortunately Just based on my life experiences and observations, I honestly believe you can't have science without God
Click to expand...

I've heard some (flawed) philosophical arguments using a priori logic that knowledge of any kind requires the existence of God, but God being a requirement for the scientific method to exist is not something you can accurately deduce just from personal observation.

You could say God is a requirement for anything at all to exist, in which case saying God is a requirement for science is trivial.

and you can't have God without science. They may well be one and the same.
Click to expand...

sounds like sentimental gobbledygook
 
ripcityboy said:
We live in a time of unbounded criticism. Too much importance is put on uninformed opinion. It seems like people are becoming totally intolerant on certain subjects..... science can exist without philosophy, religion can exist without theology. It's only a matter of time before the word empathy becomes meaningless....
Click to expand...


It seems that way if you binge watch Fox News or MSNBC. But recent polls indicate the real world on average is actually getting more generally tolerant and empathetic towards differing views.
 
crowTrobot said:
I do, but poetry/romance as you're using them semantically are subjective aesthetic qualities, not a measure of objective reality.
Click to expand...
Fine if that's what you feel is important to you. I don't feel this way and its purity is felt deep inside my heart.
 
magnifier661 said:
Fine if that's what you feel is important to you. I don't feel this way and its purity is felt deep inside my heart.
Click to expand...


Didn't say anything about what's important. That's also a concept you're using aesthetically here.

I was just pointing out that atheism is a view referring to objective reality, and what you "feel deep inside your heart" doesn't necessarily correspond to objective reality - and in fact based on the track record of humans who have expressed similar feelings about other things there's no reason for you to expect it to.
 
crowTrobot said:
Didn't say anything about what's important. That's also a concept you're using aesthetically here.

I was just pointing out that atheism is a view referring to objective reality, and what you "feel deep inside your heart" doesn't necessarily correspond to objective reality - and in fact based on the track record of humans who have expressed similar feelings about other things there's no reason for you to expect it to.
Click to expand...
But that's not what I'm saying. I believe science and God absolutely coexist, which is what I believe in my heart. You believe God and science can't. Neither has proof the other isn't logical in that thinking. Do you understand what I'm trying to say?
 
the idea of a creator (god/ alien overlord/ some science experiment/ computer program/ who knows) makes some sense to me, but i can see how an atheist would thumb their nose at that. i think the way everything works together, the universe, down to the smallest bug or speck of mold, is spiritual in its own way. basically some "mother earth" hippie shit.

i think if everyone followed the teachings of "jesus" the world would be pretty rad, he seemed like a solid dude. if he is the arbiter, the way that religion and politics has corrupted that is a surefire ticket to hell if one exists, imo.
 
magnifier661 said:
But that's not what I'm saying. I believe science and God absolutely coexist, which is what I believe in my heart.
Click to expand...

Cool. I was responding to your implication that something triggering poetic/romantic feelings is in any way evidence it's objectively true. It's not. Other people feel the same way you do about science/God when they think about magic/Harry Potter.

You believe God and science can't.
Click to expand...

No, I believe the findings of science indicate the existence of any Gods described in human traditions is highly improbable. But otherwise speaking generally there is no reason to think science is incompatible with the existence of a creator.
 
crowTrobot said:
I do, but poetry/romance as you're using them semantically are subjective aesthetic qualities, not a measure of objective reality.
Click to expand...
I wonder how true that statement is. Sure, we can't measure those aesthetics but the more we learn about our brains the more we learn certain aestetic preferences are hard wired, and not quite as subjective as once thought. There have been analysis for example, of primitive artworks from tribes all over the globe. There tends to be certain types of shapes like triangles, and certain spacing, and certain number groups of repetition that come up far more often than one would expect if the art were truly subjective. Other studies of people's preferences of certain color combinations, and even voice tone and timber, seem to point that aesthetics might not be subjective and are actually based in part on evolutionary advantages. Understanding dangers in nature, love from adults a child should rely on, or pattern recognition for recall might all be reasons for our aesthetic preferences instead of some subjective personal determination.
 
It is possible that the belief in God provides an evolutionary advantage, and so the aesthetic beauty many find in God is hard wired I'm some people.
 
I think what's hard wired in humans more than anything is a need for intentional community or tribe. Religions provide that as do sports, arts, pubs, etc...folks need to belong to something that gives them a supportive environment. Political affiliations are the same...if I identify with a political party, there's a large demographic that I can tap into
 
crowTrobot said:
Cool. I was responding to your implication that something triggering poetic/romantic feelings is in any way evidence it's objectively true. It's not. Other people feel the same way you do about science/God when they think about magic/Harry Potter.
Click to expand...
No different than when Dawkins eloquently describes the wonders of evolution or the Big Bang. The emotional connection is what drives us as a species.

No, I believe the findings of science indicate the existence of any Gods described in human traditions is highly improbable. But otherwise speaking generally there is no reason to think science is incompatible with the existence of a creator.
Click to expand...
This argument can be used for anything that can't be observed through science. We can use abiogenesis or singularity for example.
 
Further said:
It is possible that the belief in God provides an evolutionary advantage, and so the aesthetic beauty many find in God is hard wired I'm some people.
Click to expand...
In a naturalist point of view, this makes perfect sense. In a theistic point of view, we could say God implanted the yearning to seek him out
 
Further said:
I wonder how true that statement is.....
Click to expand...

You're not actually disputing that it is. Even if belief in God is hardwired by evolution (which I'd dispute) it would not be evidence that God exists. Behavior motivated by false belief can provide evolutionary advantages. A primitive who automatically thinks a predator is after him every time the bushes rustle has a survival advantage over another who tries to figure out if it's the wind or not before running.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
the idea of a creator (god/ alien overlord/ some science experiment/ computer program/ who knows) makes some sense to me, but i can see how an atheist would thumb their nose at that. i think the way everything works together, the universe, down to the smallest bug or speck of mold, is spiritual in its own way. basically some "mother earth" hippie shit.

i think if everyone followed the teachings of "jesus" the world would be pretty rad, he seemed like a solid dude. if he is the arbiter, the way that religion and politics has corrupted that is a surefire ticket to hell if one exists, imo.
Click to expand...
Best post of this entire thread
 
magnifier661 said:
No different than when Dawkins eloquently describes the wonders of evolution or the Big Bang. The emotional connection is what drives us as a species.
Click to expand...


Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution because he thinks it's a poetic/romantic idea. He can point to a mountain of objective evidence that has nothing to do with the way anyone "feels" about anything.

Similarly atheists (most of them) do not lack belief in God because they feel a certain way about it. Almost all of them can make logical arguments without referring to feelings or intuition.
 
magnifier661 said:
This argument can be used for anything that can't be observed through science. We can use abiogenesis or singularity for example.
Click to expand...


It's not an argument either way. It's just pointing out there is a gap in our knowledge.
 
crowTrobot said:
Dawkins doesn't believe in evolution because he thinks it's a poetic/romantic idea. He can point to a mountain of objective evidence that has nothing to do with the way anyone "feels" about anything.

Similarly atheists (most of them) do not lack belief in God because they feel a certain way about it. Almost all of them can make logical arguments without referring to feelings or intuition.
Click to expand...
This is false. He has publicly admitted being romantically involved with the theory of evolution. He carries that same passion for his atheistic views as well.
 
crowTrobot said:
It's not an argument either way. It's just pointing out there is a gap in our knowledge.
Click to expand...
Okay fine, it can be applied the same way. The semantic argument of it being an argument is silly. You knew what I was trying to say
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top