Religion vs Science - Proof

[Willum]

Why is it that it requires tons and tons of evidence and even practical application to demonstrate a theory in science.
And theories are treated with contempt, as if our world didn't rely on gravity and electricity.

But religion has three books, no back-up and virtually everything is contested, not observed or shown to be false, yet it has such a strong following?

What can explain the idea overwhelming proof can not dismiss anecdotal or idealistic religion?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 50 by BeHereNow]

And that is where we are today. The gold standard of the Scientific Method, is sometimes little more than tarnished brass.

What was the point of that blatant anti-science rant? There are not "dozens" of versions of the scientific method, and certainly not multiple versions in a given discipline. It is very simple:

1) Put forth a hypothesis.

2) Carry out observations and experiments to test the hypothesis.

3) Accept, reject or refine the hypothesis based on the results of #2.

4) Repeat if needed, or elevate the hypothesis to the status of scientific theory.

Science, carried out via the scientific method, has produced the understanding of nature that we have today, as well as the incredible technological achievements that create the modern world. It has proven its validity and usefulness over and over again ... nothing else even comes close.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 50 by BeHereNow]

Science has always had this credibility problem.

No, it hasn't. Your lengthy post was just an attack on a giant straw man. The scientific method has a proven success record that you can see if you just take an unbiased look at the world around you. Religion, on the other hand, has revealed nothing of the the workings of the universe and basically kept humanity shackled to primitive superstitions.

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 51 by DrNoGods]

It seems we have a difference of opinion.
It also seems someone is trying to lock me out of the forums, forcing me to use the back door.
What I have posted about the SM is certainly true. It is easy to verify with some very simple searches.

This is certainly not the discussion board I originally joined.

Truth is becoming a causality on the net, as well as Science.

Cheers

[mgb]

Why is it that it requires tons and tons of evidence and even practical application to demonstrate a theory in science.
And theories are treated with contempt, as if our world didn't rely on gravity and electricity.

But religion has three books, no back-up and virtually everything is contested, not observed or shown to be false, yet it has such a strong following?

What can explain the idea overwhelming proof can not dismiss anecdotal or idealistic religion?

In many respects it is not science that is being criticized it is the conclusions people draw from science. Science is being used to support atheism and a sadly diminished view of the human reality. For example, for a long time, science was used to promote the idea taht we are programmed genetic machines. This idea was defended with great fervor for a long time. But now with the emergence of epigenetics and more advanced ideas in biology, this idea is losing ground. Science and what science means are two different things. I have no problem with science but I don't like the way science is being used to diminish humanity.

Religion has more than three books. It has centuries of writing such as that of Origen, Leibnitz, Agustine...the list goes on. It also has many lesser known witnesses and teachers that have helped to being truth to the world.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 54 by mgb]

Science is being used to support atheism and a sadly diminished view of the human reality. For example, for a long time, science was used to promote the idea taht we are programmed genetic machines. This idea was defended with great fervor for a long time.

Science has established that all species of organism on the earth are the outcome of evolution through natural selection. It does not need defending. It is essentially an established fact. The science is still relatively young, but it is only in the details of the mechanism that there may be some dispute.

But now with the emergence of epigenetics and more advanced ideas in biology, this idea is losing ground.

No. That is a red herring. As I said, evolution through natural selection is firmly established. The details are still being refined. There is no loss of ground.

Science and what science means are two different things. I have no problem with science but I don't like the way science is being used to diminish humanity.

Science, or the scientific method, is the means by which we make progress through gaining knowledge and understanding of the world we live in. It is enhancing our humanity. Religious superstition and the way it shackles people to primitive practices is what diminishes humanity.

Religion has more than three books. It has centuries of writing such as that of Origen, Leibnitz, Agustine...the list goes on. It also has many lesser known witnesses and teachers that have helped to being truth to the world.

What truth has religion brought to the world? Centuries of writing about myths and superstitions do not constitute truth. Faith is not a pathway to truth. Opposition to science is the largely the result of science revealing truths that are often contradictory to the cherished beliefs held by the religious.

[mgb]

Science has established that all species of organism on the earth are the outcome of evolution through natural selection.

I'm not disputing Natural Selection.

but it is only in the details of the mechanism that there may be some dispute.

The details are exactly what I'm talking about. We are not genetically programmed machines.

Science, or the scientific method, is the means by which we make progress through gaining knowledge and understanding of the world we live in.

Science and what science means - ie the philosophy that emerges from it - are two different things. That is why scientists disagree in their world views. Some are atheist some are theist. Science has nothing to say on fundamental ontological questions concerning human existence.

What truth has religion brought to the world?

The truth about human existence.

Centuries of writing about myths and superstitions do not constitute truth.

That you put myth and superstition in the same standing shows don't understand the difference between them.

Faith is not a pathway to truth.

Maybe not for you. Science is not a path to truth concerning fundamental ontological matters.

Opposition to science is the largely the result of science revealing truths that are often contradictory to the cherished beliefs held by the religious.

I have been studying science for decades and I have great respect for it. I have nothing against science. It is scientism that I find fault with.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 56 by mgb]

The truth about human existence.

What truth? Religion has not provided any truth about human existence. It has invented countless gods and thousands of scenarios for the origins of everything, but no verified truth.

Edited to add: Science deals with analyzing empirical evidence logically and deducing objective facts. It does not take an active role in determining what one should do or how one must act.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 56 by mgb]

It is scientism that I find fault with.

What exactly do you see as the meaning of scientism and how do you find fault with it?

[BeHereNow]

[Replying to post 56 by mgb]

It is scientism that I find fault with.

What exactly do you see as the meaning of scientism and how do you find fault with it?

I can not speak for mgb, but I have the same opinion, possibly for different reasons.

Here are some things I gave been told, various times, covering decades, by self proclaimed advocates of Science. Some claimed to have PHDs in the Sciences.

>The process of Science is perfect, flawless, without error, always.

>The Scientific Method is flawless, and has remained unchanged for centuries, if not longer.

>Science has proven, absolutely, many things.

>If you believe Science, you know, with certainty, that God does not exist.

>Philosophy specifically, and related humanities, have nothing of value to offer mankind.

>Logic and critical thinking are scientific endeavors, and not a bit to do with Philosophy.

>All scientists know the above things, and are in agreement. (A no true Scotsman defense generally implied.)

>There is no way to know Truth, without Science.

The above claims filter down to other more specific claims. An example would be - 'In the history of Science there have never been any false claims made by representatives of the institution.'

Also,in general, across decades, and many forums, the Science minded have an aversion to substantiation of claims, that have been rebutted with substantiation. By 'aversion', i mean refusal.

Also, in general, across decades and many boards, the actual scientists do not speak up against the above claims. They encourage the wannabes, both with their silence, and with supportive claims of their own.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 59 by BeHereNow]

Here are some things I gave been told, various times, covering decades, by self proclaimed advocates of Science. Some claimed to have PHDs in the Sciences.

My background is in science with 8 years at university and decades of teaching. The nonsense that followed your opening statement is the sort of rubbish perpetrated by fundamentalists and creationists who are essentially opposed to science. I have not heard anything like it in all my years and dismiss the claims with the contempt they deserve.