... since so many threads on this board seem to devolve into believer vs. atheist cage match, I just wanted to throw in my response without hijacking the "Religions and billions of planets?" thread (http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,756614).

On this board, and many many MANY times before, the parallel has been drawn that atheists' love of science is just another belief system. If you feel that this is the case, please consider this:

Science is not based in belief because it can be tested. The whole point of science is that a theory, a hypothesis, or a conjecture can be proven or disputed based on tests with predictable, knowable outcomes. Even the most complex scientific theories can be broken down into basic chemistry, physics, and mathematics which can be observed, recorded, and verified. Chemicals can be combined in a beaker and if the theory is true, they will react in a certain way. Variables can be inserted into formulas and if the theory is true, they will lead to a certain conclusion.

The scientific community takes itself very seriously, and credible theories are thoroughly tested, re-tested, peer-reviewed, critiqued, corrected, over and over again over a long period of time before they are presented or published. Then they are critiqued and reviewed some more before they are widely accepted, put into practice, and taught as science in the classroom. All complex scientific theories are based on things that are learned from layer upon layer of simple, testable data.

So equating science with guesswork is not only foolish, but offensive to any rational person. Saying that someone "believes" in science is completely disregarding the centuries (millennia, even) of work that people have put into answering questions about the universe. Those of us who cite science as the basis for our arguments are not just latching on to some idea somebody came up with because it sounds like it makes sense. We know that those claims have been scrutinized, and that if we have the time, skill and resources we could put them to the test ourselves. An argument based on religion or faith, however, is only here say. It is impossible to test someone's claim that they heard the voice of God commanding them to do something. When prophets and holy books make claims about a supernatural deity or the afterlife or anything else that can't be adequately tested, those claims simply do not hold water compared to the science which CAN be tested.

Faith or belief is acceptance that a claim is true without evidence. You can't have faith or belief in science because science IS evidence.

Now, I don't presume to speak for every person who calls themselves an atheist, or agnostic, or humanist, or whatever else. I can only speak for me. But I don't see how atheism equates to science. Rationalism does. Evidentialism does. Skepticism does. But atheism is simply a lack of belief in god. There are plenty of people who DO believe in some sort of god who also understand and respect science. There are also atheists who believe in all sorts of things that can't be proven by science.

There is a lot of danger in equating being religious with being anti-science, and vice versa. It stagnates growth and limits our abilities to communicate.

I am an atheist. That doesn't have anything to do with science. I am also a skeptic. That does have to do with science, but is not limited to my opinions about god.

Science IS the answer to everything. That doesn't mean science HAS the answer to everything.

Didn't we all leave TSCC to get away from petty, narrow-minded judgement?

However, my best friend is a Christian. He's a good guy which is what counts for me. I'd like for that to be our rallying cry. I don't want to spend my time with deadbeats, atheist or otherwise. Just be a good person. Believe what you want, treat others well and we'll get along fine.

I like science fine but not as much as other subjects and I certainly don't worship it the way mormons worship their temples and sacrament bread.

Science = Belief......

Vacinations don't work unless you believe they will.

The sun won't rise unless you believe it will.

Birth control pills don't work unless you believe they will.

A Staurn rocket won't take people to the moon unless you believe it will.

All these come from science and they work regardless of beleif.

Contrasted with Belief = Truth (religion)

If you believe the earth is 6K years old, then it's true.

If you believe dinosours bones are from pre-existing planets that god combined to make this earth and then literally hurled it across space to it's current orbit, then its true.

Etc, etc....

>>All these come from science and they work regardless of belief.<<


Well--most of these things--actually will *not* work for the nuts who don't believe them, because they will refuse to use them. Think of the anti-vaccination kooks. Vaccination doesn't work for them.

The Sun, however didn't "come from science". I think you'll find the sun predates science.

Belief itself is not the evil concept some antitheists would have us bel...um... think it is if you use the greek definition of belief: to be convinced of, trust, or rely on something.

It's the OBJECT of a belief that determines if it's harmful, good, stupid, prudent, etc.

"I believe joseph smith is a prophet"=stupid belief easily disproven.

"I beleive all the best evidence shows the universe is expanding"=same emotion (belief), but directed toward a resonable object.

..or if we go back several decades:

"Due to the latest observations, I no longer believe the steady state model of the universe"=still using *belief* but willing to drop a belief when disproven.

The object of the belief is where the meat of the matter is.

Both "sides" seem absurd IMO. "Believers" argue that belief is necessary and should be somehow cultivated for it's own sake regardless of the object. or that having irrational beliefs somehow enriches their life, or that examining a belief ruins it.

On the other hand, atheists often claim they have no beliefs at all--that belief itself is the source of all evil throughout history. This starts coming close to the Vulcan philosophy that if we could just eliminate human emotions we would have world peace.

jeez my post is way too long--sorry.

I wouldn't say that's about your beliefs being directed toward reasonable *objects*, so much as you having come to conclusions using reasonable *methods*. A subtle distinction, but I still think an important one. The claims don't exist in a vacuum. "Joseph Smith is a prophet" is only an unreasonable belief because the evidence indicates that in fact he wasn't.

No one was saying that the Sun rises because of science. He was simply saying that it has been *observed* that the sun rises. It can be tested and verified scientifically.

All "science" is at the end of the day is a formalization of truth-gathering methods we all already use. Of observing things, making predictions, seeing if they pan out, and modifying our ideas accordingly. If someone says they have discovered the Loch Ness monster, the natural response is "Show me. Prove it."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 03:31AM by doubtisavirtue.

Biggest difference? A single counterexample can obliterate a scientific theory. Try THAT with religion.

Equating atheism with science is wrong.

King Benjamin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Equating atheism with science is wrong.


Exactly. Atheism is just a non belief in the claims of the theist's deity.
Science is just another subject.

Well stated!

Interesting post. Certainly we hear loud voices from "evangelical atheists" who insist that science leaves no room for any kind of god. But many scientists do believe in god. There need not be a conflict between science and religion. Nonetheless, a conflict has been going on since at least Galileo's time, and continues today. A great book on this written in 1896 is A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, by Andrew Dickson White.

Just one comment about science. As you point out, science rests on fact and religion on faith. But in the cutting edges of science, where people are working today, I think science tends to be less of the rational field that you describe and more of a clash in beliefs and emotions. The politics of science means a lot. The physicist Max Planck once quipped that science advances one funeral at a time. In other words, old theories die hard, only when their supporters die off. That involves more faith than fact.

Just another thought. It seems to me that much of science today concerns theories that cannot be tested. How do you test the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, for example? Or how do you test the theory that mankind is causing catastrophic global warming? Much like religion, some facts can be found to support these theories. But at their core, these theories can only be accepted by a leap of faith.

johnsmithson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ... How do you test the Big Bang theory of the
> origin of the universe, for example?

Point a telescope into the sky and see if the stars and galaxies are staying put or moving away from each other?

johnsmithson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just another thought. It seems to me that much of
> science today concerns theories that cannot be
> tested. How do you test the Big Bang theory of the
> origin of the universe, for example? Or how do you
> test the theory that mankind is causing
> catastrophic global warming? Much like religion,
> some facts can be found to support these theories.
> But at their core, these theories can only be
> accepted by a leap of faith.
Agreed. You cannot take little sets of data, such as the adaptations within a species of organism, make big extrapalations which can't be tested such as every living thing evolved from one ancestor over millions of years, and call it anything but a leap of faith.

There must inevitably be a conflict between science and religion. Science is the only fact-based belief system.

To the extent that religions make testable claims science can, and will, test them.

When the claims are found lacking religion has less to hide behind and less power over people.

I don't buy the "science is an atheist belief's system" arguement, simply because many religious people understand and "believe" in science, and there's many atheists that don't. You just have to do a Google search for example, to find out how many non-religious people don't believe in climate change/global warming, for example.

Why is God relevant?

Religion gives reasons why s/he/they is/are.

Science systematically destroys reasons why God might be relevant or needed.

The neurosciences are learning more about how we feel and believe certain things.

Science finds the elements of religion that produce certain results and are able to reproduce the results without the necessity of any belief at all.

Religion has to show why people still need to eat it's moldy bread when science can create penicillin and give you all the positive benefits of the moldy bread without any of the negatives of moldy bread eating.

Science will ultimately give people, atheist or no, all the benefits of religion without the negatives.

Any belief accepted, or none at all. :)

BUDDHA: "Believe nothing on the faith of traditions,
even though they have been held in honor
for many generations and in diverse places.
Do not believe a thing because many people speak of it.
Do not believe on the faith of the sages of the past.
Do not believe what you yourself have imagined,
persuading yourself that a God inspires you.
Believe nothing on the sole authority of your masters and priests.
After examination, believe what you yourself have tested
and found to be reasonable, and conform your conduct thereto."

Centuries before Buddha, the systems of Yoga were developed through experimentation and peer-review verification.

Gandhi's autobiography is titled "My Experiments with Truth."

People presume there can be no 'subjective science,' as if experiments and empirical testing can be done only on objective "things." Even psychology, the study of mental functioning, has had to follow the example of the hard sciences in academia, though those hard sciences probably don't accept the existence of a "psyche" as an element in itself.

I submit that if people sincerely try to live the moral values of their religions, being rigorously honest in their own reflections, constantly revising where they err, and detachedly observing the results, they are certainly being 'scientists.'

But you cannot test "moral values" like you can scientific theories. The whole "scientific method" concerns only falsifiable hypotheses. It cannot apply to moral values, which cannot be proven false.

Actually, we can test some values. But we rarely do so.

The "God" particle does not, can not, and will not explain spirit, a component of man.

"The Happiness Hypothesis: Finding Modern Truth in Ancient Wisdom": Prof. Haidt examines "Great Ideas" of thinkers of the past (Plato, Buddha, Jesus, et al.)in the light of contemporary psychological research (Science!...or don't you consider social sciences to be 'real' science), extracting from them any lessons that still apply to our modern lives (wikipedia). I read it, and you'd be surprised at what is testable, and how.

You beat me to it, Richard. I also recommend his book The Righteous Mind: How Good People are Divided by Religion and Politics.

I can have faith that the Dr. who has always taken care of me. I can have faith that even if the Dr. is perplexed by my issue, the Dr. will work to figure out the issue.

I can have faith that the idea that seems so far fetched will be fleshed out. I can have faith that after the idea has been tested it will be subjected to even more probing.

I trust the principles of science because there are no sacred cows. I can have faith in the effort that will be put into problems solving. From my point of view, the only thing about science that I don't need faith for are the ideas supported by a preponderance of data.

Here's P.Z. Meyers talking about this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfXbnygJirc

Yes, he's a rabid opponent of religion, but I think he's right.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God, nothing more.

If you want to bring science into the debate, put science up against religion and leave atheism out of it.

Science isn't a "belief system" because facts are true or false whether they are believed in or not. (I can disbelieve the theories of gravity or evolution and they are still factual).

Religion is a belief system. And even the most passionate belief by billions of people cannot make any of them true.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/11/2013 12:19AM by corajudd.

One exception to the scientific method I have seen is the climate change debate. Those who believe humans are driving global warming believe in science by consensus, and at the same time try to squash any heretical voices.

Atheism and science are religions like abstinence is a sexual position.

"a self-enforced restraint from indulging in bodily activities [most frequently sexua] that are widely experienced as giving pleasure" (wiki). Thus it is definitely a 'position' on sex--an avoidant reaction to it. If this were really a parallel to atheism, it would contradict the common assertion of atheists that theirs is simply a lack of belief. Abstinence is not simply asexuality, or lack of sex.

Some of my friends who fervently believe in Noah's Ark, or Lehi's excellent voyage, can turn on a dime and suddenly become science critics on things such as vaccinations and global warming. Most people believe what they want to believe, very few are willing to honestly challenge their own beliefs.

Still, it is believers that put us in the awful mess of, like Johnny the Smoke says, equating belief to fact. Mormons, for all their acceptance of science, still believe in a literal Adam and Eve and a literal Garden of Eden. They believe, in fact, that Eve was made from one of Adam's ribs after he was put into a deep sleep (at least he was out, right?). This is literal. In order to be a good Mormon, you are constrained to accept this as fact.

The truly frustrating thing for us doubters is how most science is a bit of a moving target and always evolving or developing. We now no longer believe the sun revolves around the earth, but the various theories of the beginning of the universe and its construct will always evolve, and therefore remains "theory." Religious people always like to pull that one out of their hats to prove that science can't be trusted because it's "theory."

judyblue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science IS the answer to everything.


Can you prove that statement using the scientific method?

Is pure mathematics science? Is philosophy?

What can science say about meaning except to deny that there is any beyond what we subjectively create? Science is the answer to everything only if you irrationally and arbitrarily assume that the only permissible questions are those that empirical science can address.

I think people confuse science, which is a methodology for discovering and organizing facts about the natural world, with scientism, which is the metaphysical belief that science offers the only path to understanding and knowledge.