faith in science

Newbie First Class Joined: Jun 12, 2005 Posts: 31

On another forum, this guy keeps talking about how people will read a science journal and take everything they read as truth 99% of the time. He says this is faith just like people have faith in the bible. I've already counterargued him pretty well but I want to know what you guys counter argument would be to this.

You pick up a science journal and will start believing nearly everything it says. Why?

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 4:22 pm

its the same reason you believe a newspaper that says a robber came and hit the local gas station, but not some blogger ranting about his UFO encounter.

Posted: Sat May 24, 2008 8:08 pm

If experts are using methods that have a good track record, that can be evaluated by others, and that can be replicated by people who are competent in the specific field then their conclusions warrant serious consideration. We should not automatically conclude a finding is "true" if it is published in a scientific journal, but it merits serious truth contender status. If we are dealing with testable claims, what method has a better record?

Given the incentives in place for disproving the work of other scientists, the overall error correcting machinery of the scientific method, and the track record of science, the comparison to Biblical claims is absurd. This is just another tired version of "science is not perfect" therefore the Bible is on equal footing. Again, what method has a better record?

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 3:20 am

PJS wrote:

Given the incentives in place for disproving the work of other scientists, the overall error correcting machinery of the scientific method, and the track record of science, the comparison to Biblical claims is absurd.

Exactly. How do you test for things like talking animals, a flying fiery chariot, dead men coming back to life, water being magically changed into wine, the Red Sea parting, etc.? The Bible is filled with impossible miracles that have never been observed to happen. They exist only in the pages of the Bible. When confronted with them, and asked to prove that they really happened, the Christian tells us to just believe, just have faith. This is a far cry from how science works.

Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2008 11:11 am

I dont think scientists have faith in their work like the religious have faith in their dogmas. Basically faith is belief without evidence. But even if you define faith as simply belief in something then religious belief still lacks a foundation in evidence while science is entirely dependant on it. I talked about it on my last post at my blog:

www.theblackatheist.com

The Learned Joined: Nov 30, 2004 Posts: 115

bigDee wrote:

On another forum, this guy keeps talking about how people will read a science journal and take everything they read as truth 99% of the time. He says this is faith just like people have faith in the bible. I've already counterargued him pretty well but I want to know what you guys counter argument would be to this.

You pick up a science journal and will start believing nearly everything it says. Why?

It's nothing like faith in the bible because the journal is peer reviewed. Besides they don't believe the stories about Zeus, Athena, or Odin.

Newbie First Class Joined: Jul 07, 2008 Posts: 26

whether I believe it or not depends on how well they show the work and whether I understand it. If they don't show the work and correct obvious mistakes I don't believe it.

the religious idea of showing the work often involves repeating propaganda over and over. Rolling Eyes

In some cases scientists do the same thing then they shouldn't be believed.

Unfortunatly they don't do a good enough job presenting scientific reports in the traditional media in a way people can understand them. they usualy just show the public the results. they don't explain them well. It may be because they don't think the public can understand it. This is probably true but in order to change this they should try any way so eventually the public will understand it better.

most people including myself rarely if ever pick up scientific journals.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 379

Quote:

the religious idea of showing the work often involves repeating propaganda over and over. Rolling Eyes

Mmm Hmm. They've been using the same old argument from analogy for ID for 150 years. It doesn't even work. I was listening to an old debate hour episode with Kent Hovind and was thinking: If we find something in the woods and are thinking what could have formed it, we use two main explanations: natural process or a designer. For example, we can tell that a watch is made by a watchmaker but we don't know how squirrels came into being so we look for a natural explanation. Since Kent is trying to disprove evolution and abiogenesis, then he can't use this argument from analogy because these are the natural explanation. For the argument from analogy to work, he must first disprove the natural explanation as the reason for the squirrel.

Posted: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:12 am

One book's information is based on scientific study that has produced factual evidence.

The other is not.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore