Faith question for Christians

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
higgy1911
Scholar
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:04 pm

Faith question for Christians

Post #1

Post by higgy1911 »

Christians, what parts of your beliefs are based on faith and what parts are based on scientific evidence.

For instance YEC Christians claim scientific evidence for the flood. I have seen many posters argue that there is scientific and historical evidence favoring the resurrection of Christ.


So what elements of CChristianity are taken on faith alone?

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #61

Post by dianaiad »

Divine Insight wrote:
dianaiad wrote: The only people using the scientific method, in science, are the scientists doing the experimentation/observation/reporting. Those who read and accept their information without confirming it with their OWN experiments and observations are not. They simply trust.
Even when this is the case it still doesn't compare with religious faith.

Even those who trust the scientific community have good reasons for doing so.
You think so. I think so.


...........but the folks who trust their religious leaders think they have good reasons to trust them.


Whether they do or not is an entirely different subject.
Divine Insight wrote:The scientific community has a very well-established method of inquiry. It has a very well-established history of success. It has also produces technologies that actually do prove that it's trustworthy. Science is proven through technology.

How does this compare with theology and theologians? Theology is based on ancient unverifiable rumors. Rumors that have clearly been invented by many ancient cultures many times over (i.e. Jesus is nowhere near being the first fable of a demigod).

Theologians do not test each others work. On the contrary when they disagree they simply start a new religious sect rather than attempting to discover some actual undeniable truth. This is extremely opposite from science.

In short, there is absolutely no reason to place any faith in theologians.
I know you don't think so. But that's not the point, DI.

You trust in scientists because you think you have good reasons to trust them.

Theists trust their leaders because they think they have good reasons to trust them.


The argument there is about whether they DO have good reasons, and that is an entirely different point from the one I am making here. Really. It is.


If you want to change the subject and talk about that, fine. I'd be just fine if even one non-believer would simply admit the following:

yeah, we believe in science because we have good reason to believe in the scientists. You trust your religious leaders because you think you have good reason to trust them.

But we both believe because we trust. Now let's find out which one of us has a better reason to do so.
Divine Insight wrote:Most honest theologians will confess that their beliefs are based entirely on faith and their own personal subjective feelings and experiences.
Every theist's beliefs are based upon their own subjective feelings and experiences. your problem is that you think that this is a bad thing.

Religion isn't science, DI, and it's not SUPPOSED to be.

I do note your circular definition of 'honest theologian,' though.
Divine Insight wrote: Theologians who refuse to confess that their knowledge is entirely subjective and faith-based shouldn't be trusted at all.
Yep, that's circular. ;)
Divine Insight wrote:There is no reason to trust a theologian.
I'm sure you don't think so. As for me, that depends on the theologian. I would have a problem with one who told me to believe him and 'not test the spirits' by looking for truth 'from the source' myself (and there are a bunch out there), but...well....
Divine Insight wrote: Moreover, if you were going to trust a theologian which theologian would you place your trust in and why? There is no reason to trust any particular sect of Christianity than there is to trust any particular sect of Islam. And those are only two of the Abrahamic religions.
Which one?

I generally trust my own church leaders, DI...partly because they say something and then tell me to go confirm it for myself.
Divine Insight wrote:And once again Dianaiad, if we accept your reasoning on this all you are really saying is that it's just as reasonable to be a Scientist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Wiccan, an Atheists, or anything.
No, I have said nothing at all about that.

I have said, simply and only, that when one believes something because someone one trusts has 'said so,' that belief is 'trust,' or faith. It doesn't matter what the information is, or what the source of that information is.

Whether or not it's wise to do so, or what the reasons are, or whether the sources are trustworthy? Entirely different topics.

A child who believes that the world is round because his teacher says so is doing so because he trusts the teacher...not because he has used the 'scientific method' to confirm this. A child who grows up into an adult never confirming this information by the very simple means by which one can confirm it is STILL believing 'on trust.'

So what he believes is true. Irrelevant.

In other words, DI, faith and trust do not become something else simply because the information believed in is scientific in nature, or even true.
Divine Insight wrote: According to you these are all equally reasonable and therefore there is no good reason to place your trust in any one of these over any other one.
No such thing. Whether it is reasonable or not, trust is still trust.
Divine Insight wrote: You see, this argument that you are making truly is one that theologians make to bring science down to the level so they can claim to be on a level playing field with science. However, in doing this they inadvertently also demand that every other religious belief in the world must also be on precisely the same footing as their Christianity. Otherwise their argument breaks down.
Then you still aren't getting my 'argument,' DI.
Divine Insight wrote:So theologians haven't helped themselves in this argument. Moreover, to show their hypocrisy to the extreme, if they can succeed in getting anyone to buy into this argument, their very NEXT TRICK will be to try to argue why Christianity should be believed above all other religions. :roll:

How can you not see the self-defeating hypocrisy of this apologetic argument.

Please note: I am not suggesting that you are the source of this hypocrisy. You did not invent this apologetic argument. It has been made by many theologians. But it's an argument of hypocrisy if the theologian then attempts to claim that there is something "special" about Christianity.

They want to bring everything else down to their level to create a level playing field, but then after they do that, they instantly set about making argument for why Christianity should trump all other beliefs. :roll:

This is the epitome of hypocrisy.

If you want to support an argument that it's just a reasonable to believe in Christianity as it is to believe in anything else, then you must also concede that there is no reason to believe in Christianity OVER anything else.

And then all you have done is concede that Christianity is nothing but a stab in the dark that has no more promise than any other stab in the dark.

So where does that even get you? :-k
What it gets me is frustrated, because you still aren't understanding the point OR the argument.

Try throwing out your instinctive defense of WHY you trust scientists and don't trust theologians.

Stop worrying about whether one group is right and one wrong. This has nothing to do with that.

The point is not about whether anybody is worthy of your trust, or about the reasons why you trust.

It's about THAT you trust.

It is vital that we do that, y'know, trust. We trust our scientists to not cheat and report things that are not true; we have to. We really don't have the means to repeat the experiments and confirm the truth of the information. We'd never get anything else done.

My objection is to the idea that trust in what one reads in a peer reviewed journal is somehow different, on a personal level, than the trust one has in one's parents or religious leaders, as if the trust one has in the scientist is somehow not trust, but something else.

And it's not.

Again, whether the sources are worthy of that trust is an entirely different thing.

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Post #62

Post by dianaiad »

Clownboat wrote:
dianaiad wrote:
Clownboat wrote:

What should we trust more? Horoscopes or the scientific method?
Please pretend that you have the same person reading your horoscope to you as you do reading from a peer reviewed article.
good question. we should trust the scientific method, and those who do are far better prepared.
Great. Now, if someone claims to be following the scientific method, I would suggest you don't trust them. This appears to be your straw man IMO. You try so hard to keep your argument about someone telling you something. That is not my argument. I am talking about the different sources and the different levels of reliability that we both seem to agree is there between said sources. It's no surprise to us as to why you want to disregard the source and why you want to focus on it being all about claims.
I'm not disregarding it. I AM calling you out on the 'strawman' thing, because that's exactly what you are doing. Bringing the reliability of a source into this IS the strawman.

Let me try this one more time and then I give up.

What is the difference between the man who

Performs CPR and saves a life because his religious leaders have told him that the divine breath of life may reanimate a dead person, (and has practices on a dummy in a religious ceremony) or

the man who does so because he was taught the mechanics of providing oxygen to the brain and the heart's role in it and has practiced on a dummy in his EMT class?

Absolutely none. Both trust the folks who taught them. Both did the correct things to save a life.

What's the difference between the man who trusts his leaders when they tell him that it's a bad idea to go into a mine because it's 'bad air' and the gods are angry...so he doesn't go in,

And the man who trusts his leaders who tell him not to go in because it's full of carbon dioxide and he'll die of oxygen starvation...so he doesn't go in?

Nothing at all. He's trusting his leaders.


What's the difference between the kid who trusts his Mom when she tells him not to run across the street in busy traffic because she'd swat him one when she caught him

and the one who trusts his Mom when she tells him not to run into the street because he might get run over?

If neither kid runs into the street to test the hypothesis, not a fippin' thing. They believe their mothers. They trust.

That doesn't mean that the information these people all got was equally accurate and trustworthy. It DOES mean that they all trusted.
Divine Insight wrote:People need to evidence their claims before they should be credible. And claiming to follow some method or another will not suffice. They need to show their work (point to said article, explain the "hows", etc...).
Uh, and we trust (there's that word again) that they aren't lying about all this, why, exactly?
Divine Insight wrote:Why must we ignore the fact that the scientific method is more trustworthy and if you are simply believing someone when they tell you they followed the scientific method, you are in fact not trusting the method that we are arguing is so well established.
Why?

Because we're still on the first step. THAT we trust people is an important step. WHY we do is an entirely different question.

The reason I am harping on this is because of the often advanced notion that somehow trusting in anything 'scientific' is not actually trust, but that trusting in anything 'they' don't trust is 'faith,' which is, somehow, not really 'trust,' but something insupportable and woo hoo worthy.

In fact, the word 'trust' gets thrown right out.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #63

Post by Divine Insight »

dianaiad wrote: Again, whether the sources are worthy of that trust is an entirely different thing.
If you are attempting to argue that a belief in science is no different from a belief in religion because they are both based on TRUST, then taking into consideration whether the sources are worthy of trust is indeed paramount.

Moreover, I have already conceded your argument for air-heads. People who are so completely ignorant, unaware, and incapable of making a distinction between trustworthy sources and untrustworthy sources would indeed qualify for your assessment of equality of "faith".

The problem with this is that most people who place their trust in science aren't that ignorant. They fully understand that science is proven to be trustworthy and that theology is not.

So your argument is only applicable to truly inept and incompetent people.

It doesn't apply to anyone who can recognize the difference between science and theology.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #64

Post by dianaiad »

Divine Insight wrote:
dianaiad wrote: Again, whether the sources are worthy of that trust is an entirely different thing.
If you are attempting to argue that a belief in science is no different from a belief in religion because they are both based on TRUST, then taking into consideration whether the sources are worthy of trust is indeed paramount. [/

Moreover, I have already conceded your argument for air-heads. People who are so completely ignorant, unaware, and incapable of making a distinction between trustworthy sources and untrustworthy sources would indeed qualify for your assessment of equality of "faith".

The problem with this is that most people who place their trust in science aren't that ignorant. They fully understand that science is proven to be trustworthy and that theology is not.

So your argument is only applicable to truly inept and incompetent people.

It doesn't apply to anyone who can recognize the difference between science and theology.
quote]

Maybe that's where the communication block is. Belief in science...and belief in religion, too, for that matter, is not 'based on trust,' as if 'trust' is a stand alone thing.

It IS trust.

And we believe what is told us by people we trust.


So, if belief is 'based on trust,' it means that we believe BECAUSE we trust the source.

Whether that source is worthy of that trust is an entirely different conversation.

Let's take a guy who publishes a peer reviewed article on global warming. He claims that the earth is indeed warming up, and he provides lots of graphs to prove it.

Graphs that are, it turns out, faked.

(this actually happened, btw)


A lot of people accepted this information and disseminated it themselves, and a great many people trusted them, in turn...and the information was faulty. He wasn't trustworthy. People...including many scientist types, trusted him and believed his information.

Later someone else posted very similar information, using studies and observations that were more accurate and trustworthy. people believed him, too...though there are a great many people who did NOT trust him because of the way their trust was betrayed by the first guy.

So now, in this very scientific field, there's a lot of whoopla; who is to be trusted about what information? The vast majority of us cannot confirm the information ourselves; we have to trust the givers of the information who may, or may not, be feeding us manure. On both sides.

Most of us, though, take a side and believe the folks who advocate for it. Because we trust them. Someone is wrong about this, y'know. One way or another, someone is, and a great many people have trusted the wrong scientist.

WE do not trust because we trust. We trust...for whatever reason we trust.

The point is, we do trust. All of us do.

My argument isn't that the reasons for faith in God and faith in science are the same. My argument is that faith in science doesn't become 'not faith' because you like the reasons, and faith in religion doesn't become 'based on faith alone' because you DONT like the reasons.

They are both faith.

The reasons are a different topic. Some reasons are a lot better than others.

User avatar
Divine Insight
Savant
Posts: 18070
Joined: Thu Jun 28, 2012 10:59 pm
Location: Here & Now
Been thanked: 19 times

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #65

Post by Divine Insight »

dianaiad wrote: My argument isn't that the reasons for faith in God and faith in science are the same. My argument is that faith in science doesn't become 'not faith' because you like the reasons, and faith in religion doesn't become 'based on faith alone' because you DONT like the reasons.

They are both faith.

The reasons are a different topic. Some reasons are a lot better than others.
The problem is that your argument is then meaningless. What would be the point to this argument?

The issue of which reasons are better would then be the more meaningful discussion, and once we go their science wins by a landslide. Even in spite of your example of climate change and supposedly falsified data. A few fraudulent individual scientists who haven't been properly peer-reviewed do not topple the trustworthiness of the larger scientific community.

Moreover, if you're going to discredit science due to possible fraudulent individuals, then the same would need to be done for theology, and I'm quite sure you'd have a whole lot of weirdos teachings different things there.

In fact there is not single "theological community". Even the theologians are highly divided. The Abrahamic religions are divided into Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Islam and Christianity are then each subdivided into a myriad of disagreeing cults.

But the time they are all done disagreeing with each other it's hard to even point to a single body that amounts to anything significant. Catholicism and the Vatican with it's Papal authority is probably the single largest theological sect of the Abrahamic religions, and even it has internal disagreements.

So it's not even rational to even compare something like the scientific community with all these rebel and protesting theologians.
[center]Image
Spiritual Growth - A person's continual assessment
of how well they believe they are doing
relative to what they believe a personal God expects of them.
[/center]

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #66

Post by dianaiad »

Divine Insight wrote:
dianaiad wrote: My argument isn't that the reasons for faith in God and faith in science are the same. My argument is that faith in science doesn't become 'not faith' because you like the reasons, and faith in religion doesn't become 'based on faith alone' because you DONT like the reasons.

They are both faith.

The reasons are a different topic. Some reasons are a lot better than others.
The problem is that your argument is then meaningless. What would be the point to this argument?

The issue of which reasons are better would then be the more meaningful discussion, and once we go their science wins by a landslide. Even in spite of your example of climate change and supposedly falsified data. A few fraudulent individual scientists who haven't been properly peer-reviewed do not topple the trustworthiness of the larger scientific community.

Moreover, if you're going to discredit science due to possible fraudulent individuals, then the same would need to be done for theology, and I'm quite sure you'd have a whole lot of weirdos teachings different things there.

In fact there is not single "theological community". Even the theologians are highly divided. The Abrahamic religions are divided into Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. Islam and Christianity are then each subdivided into a myriad of disagreeing cults.

But the time they are all done disagreeing with each other it's hard to even point to a single body that amounts to anything significant. Catholicism and the Vatican with it's Papal authority is probably the single largest theological sect of the Abrahamic religions, and even it has internal disagreements.

So it's not even rational to even compare something like the scientific community with all these rebel and protesting theologians.
OK, imagine this (it's not difficult to imagine it; happens all the time right here on this forum)

Atheist (or other non-believer):
Theists (usually Christians) go on 'faith alone:' They have no reason to trust, so their trust is based upon nothing at all; believing something because someone told you so? Rubbish! (or words to that effect.)

While WE, who believe in science, have 'real' trust because of the scientific method and because we like what the people we believe have to say. It's not really faith, because it's belief supported by "Real" evidence.

Therefore what we have is not faith or trust, it's something else. What you have (aimed at the theist) is ludicrous, since believing something simply because they 'said so' is pretty stupid.
Now me, I'm simply pointing out that for the believer, there is absolutely no difference between the guy who believes that the world is round because someone told him so, and the guy who believes that there is a God because someone told him so.

None.

Zip.

And I am really tired of critics telling people that if they believe in God because someone they trust told them He exists, they are stupid, ignorant, and a whole bunch of other insulting and demeaning terms, when they turn around and claim superiority in thought, intellect and reason if they believe something 'scientific' when a person they trust tells them so.

The next atheist who tells me that I'm a nutcase because I believe someone I trust about a religious thing, and then turns around and brags about how HIS belief is based on the 'scientific method' when he himself hasn't done thing one to confirm the information he has is going to get an earful.

Or an eyeful.

Whichever.

Because if you don't confirm the information for yourself, 'scientific' or religious, your reason for believing is EXACTLY the same thing' you trust the guy what told you.

And yes, it is important for those who hold to science to understand this; if you don't confirm this information yourself, you are behaving exactly like the religious you so despise.

And the religious see that, and wonder at the hypocrisy.

It's not that we theists think that trusting others is a bad thing; it's not. It's that the science only types DO think that it's a bad thing, and are pretending that they don't do it even as they criticize those who do.

higgy1911
Scholar
Posts: 261
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 10:04 pm

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #67

Post by higgy1911 »

[Replying to dianaiad]

I agree, and am not being critical. I'm interested in what Christian beliefs are taken on faith.

I agree with you that many science beliefs are. And I am ready to have pointed out to me which of my beliefs are taken on faith. However if you should point one out to me I will jump to question it.
The theory of evolution for example. I don't bother using it in debates because my ability to check out fossils and such is so limited. Although my very limited experience with animal breeding confirms for me some things that confirm evolution to be not an unreasonable or outrageous theory. But I really have no way to confirm that the process of evolution, which I strongly believe in, is the process that resulted in the human race as it is today. Though I do think it did I consider that a weak belief. And I thank you for drawing my attention to the difference between what I can attempt to verify and what I haven't.

So there, I have gone first. As an atheist I take it that humans evolved from an ancestor shared by other apes on faith in scientists who have reported their findings and conclusions.

What do Christians take on faith? Obviously this is a personal question and varies between people. But what theological positions do you as a Christian consider personally verified and what do you take on faith in the reporters?

I don't see any use in debating sources before we make clear what we attribute to which source. I understand my fellow atheists position but I don't think we can debate which faiths are justified without first determining what particular beliefs are based on faith. So for that reason I'm happy to concede that any belief not personally verified is taken on faith. And I hope we can now explore the reasons for those faiths, which I feel is what the atheists have already argued thus far, and especially what specific Christian doctrines that Christians feel they take on faith and which they feel they have personally verified.

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25089
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 40 times
Been thanked: 73 times

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #68

Post by Zzyzx »

.
dianaiad wrote: I'm simply pointing out that for the believer, there is absolutely no difference between the guy who believes that the world is round because someone told him so, and the guy who believes that there is a God because someone told him so.

None.

Zip.
I don't know about the guys you are describing but there is a BIG difference between accepting (believing) what one is told concerning the Earth being is spherical vs. believing what one is told about "gods" IF the person is not gullible (defined as: "Easily deceived or duped; naïve, easily cheated or fooled").

A non-gullible person will "check it out" (particularly on matters of some importance) and ask "Why should I believe that?"

In the case of Earth spherical shape (actually a oblate spheroid), the answer is presentation of evidence that is abundant and readily available – including observations nearly anyone can make on their own.

In the case of "gods" the answer is "Take my word for it (or his word, or his), you can read the opinions and stories of ancient unidentified writers, and if you believe on faith alone you will be rewarded after you die."
.
Non-Theist

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

User avatar
dianaiad
Site Supporter
Posts: 10220
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 12:30 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #69

Post by dianaiad »

Zzyzx wrote: .
dianaiad wrote: I'm simply pointing out that for the believer, there is absolutely no difference between the guy who believes that the world is round because someone told him so, and the guy who believes that there is a God because someone told him so.

None.

Zip.
I don't know about the guys you are describing but there is a BIG difference between accepting (believing) what one is told concerning the Earth being is spherical vs. believing what one is told about "gods" IF the person is not gullible (defined as: "Easily deceived or duped; naïve, easily cheated or fooled").

A non-gullible person will "check it out" (particularly on matters of some importance) and ask "Why should I believe that?"
Yeah?

And how many people actually perform the experiment (a simple one, requiring, frankly, a piece of typing paper and a crayon or stick) to confirm that the world is round?

This isn't about those who actually do the confirming. It's about the ones who don't, and simply accept what they are told....and I have run into a LOT of folks who are dismissive of my belief in God because it's just 'based on faith,' but who swallow everything they read as long as it is labeled 'science.'

It is also about those who cannot confirm something they are told, because it's not feasible. These also have to make a decision as to whether it is sufficient to trust the guy who told them.

A great deal of science...and those who believe in what they are told about science...falls into this category.

Sometimes they are wrong. Sometimes they are right. Either way, their belief is trust in the guy who told them, not the result of personal confirmation.


Zzyzx wrote:
Zzyzx wrote:In the case of Earth spherical shape (actually a oblate spheroid), the answer is presentation of evidence that is abundant and readily available – including observations nearly anyone can make on their own.
Absolutely. I did that. Anybody can. Not everybody does.

What's the difference between someone who never confirms a scientific idea for himself (even so simple a one as 'the world is round') but believes it wholeheartedly because he trusts his science teachers,

........and the guy who believes in God because his parents and his religious leaders have assured him that God exists?

I contend....not a blessed thing. They both believe for exactly the same reason; they trust the guy that told them.
Zzyzx wrote:In the case of "gods" the answer is "Take my word for it (or his word, or his), you can read the opinions and stories of ancient unidentified writers, and if you believe on faith alone you will be rewarded after you die."
Er....y'know, I don't really know many theists who actually DO that. In fact, getting 'outside confirmation' of religious truth is a rather important part of most religions. You know...ask God?

yeah, yeah...the answers one gets may be objective and emotional, but at least there's something.

What does the man who simply accepts the word of his science teacher without ever checking the truths of this out for himself have as an excuse?

Both fields require, when possible, outside confirmation of 'inside' truth. The difference here is that while I'm fine with objective confirmation of scientific fact, I ALSO think that subjective and emotional confirmation is fine with religious truth.

;.............and you guys, by and large, aren't.

Still, it's more than the guy who never rolls up that piece of paper to test out the 'world is round' idea has.

User avatar
ThatGirlAgain
Prodigy
Posts: 2961
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 1:09 pm
Location: New York City
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: Faith question for Christians

Post #70

Post by ThatGirlAgain »

dianaiad wrote: Now me, I'm simply pointing out that for the believer, there is absolutely no difference between the guy who believes that the world is round because someone told him so, and the guy who believes that there is a God because someone told him so.

None.

Zip.

And I am really tired of critics telling people that if they believe in God because someone they trust told them He exists, they are stupid, ignorant, and a whole bunch of other insulting and demeaning terms, when they turn around and claim superiority in thought, intellect and reason if they believe something 'scientific' when a person they trust tells them so.

The next atheist who tells me that I'm a nutcase because I believe someone I trust about a religious thing, and then turns around and brags about how HIS belief is based on the 'scientific method' when he himself hasn't done thing one to confirm the information he has is going to get an earful.

Or an eyeful.

Whichever.

Because if you don't confirm the information for yourself, 'scientific' or religious, your reason for believing is EXACTLY the same thing' you trust the guy what told you.

And yes, it is important for those who hold to science to understand this; if you don't confirm this information yourself, you are behaving exactly like the religious you so despise.

And the religious see that, and wonder at the hypocrisy.

It's not that we theists think that trusting others is a bad thing; it's not. It's that the science only types DO think that it's a bad thing, and are pretending that they don't do it even as they criticize those who do.
I DO do my best to confirm what scientists claim. This consists primarily of understanding what is being said and analyzing it for reasonableness, internal consistency and explanatory power for the world I see. And I do these things in depth, inventing ‘lectures’ for an imaginary audience and answering questions that ‘they’ ask. (OCD can be quite useful. Or at least fun. :D) Sometimes I am able to directly confirm claims. The night sky is a great laboratory. If what I have been told about the solar system were substantially wrong I would notice! I have measured the speed of light with marshmallows in a microwave within 4% of the book value. I have seen orbiting satellites exactly where they ought to be.

Everything I see about the world is in line with the explanations I have been taught and/or read. And all scientists agree in detail about these explanations. Beyond that point I see explanations that vary in completeness and reasonableness from very good to rather speculative. But until you get to the most abstruse (e.g., follow-ons to quantum theory, itself extraordinarily successful) there is still strong agreement on the essentials and even good agreement on most of the fine details. And above all, scientific knowledge is ultimately based on confirmation. Recently the Large Hadron Collider confirmed the existence of the predicted Higgs Boson, completing the Standard Model. But the LHC also failed to find the predicted particles to support the most popular forms of supersymmetry theory even though they should have appeared. Scientific theories stand or fall on evidence.

You are correct in saying that many people have only faith in science. But it is not a bind faith. They see and use technologies every day that came out of scientific investigations. They have good reason to believe scientists. Do religious people have good reason to believe what they are told? My own investigations into the Bible led me to my current state of mind. Oh, not any nonsense about ‘contradictions’. Who cares, really? I am talking about reading the Bible with a genuinely open mind and finding that the story it tells is rather different from what I had been told. Not at all what I expected to find. How many religious people really delve into their religion? Have you given the religious blind faith crowd ‘an earful’?

You are entitled to believe whatever you want as long as you do not hurt anybody. (And I do not mean silliness like ‘brainwashing’.) One would have a hard time proving that democracy is a good thing without some non-evidential assumptions. Yet I continue to believe in democracy. Why? Because I want to. But claiming that belief in scientific matters is no different than belief in religious matters is simply not the case. Believers in science have reason to believe. It hits them in the face every day in the form of technology. Believers in religion have rather less to go on.

My $.02 anyway.
Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.
- Bertrand Russell

Post Reply