"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really Think"

Jan 22, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 13,514

It is fascinating to note that atheists boast that most scientists are atheists.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#21 Jan 26, 2012
GhostShaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution and science is essentially the same as religion. As human being we are always looking for answers to things. 10,000 years ago the reason for space or the sun was because someone riding a flamed chariot in the sky put it there and that was the answer for this. Now in modern times when we think we are more educated than before we have different answers with the big bang and balls of gas. Thats where our intellectual prowess leads us versus 10,000+ years ago. I'm just as sure in the future that the answers we think we have now will be mocked and laughed at also.
So there's no difference between claims like the fire chariot thousands of years ago compared to the claims made by scientists today?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#22 Jan 26, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think the scientific method is a myth.
I also think it's kind of silly for scientists to insist that there is a natural explanation for all phenomina known and unknown and always will be that way past, present, and future. Then they turn around and insist that they only believe in things for which there is rigorous scientific proof. Where's the rigorous scientific proof for metaphysical naturalism?
Not at all how real scientists think. Instead of insisting that there is always an explanation, they simply attempt to find an explanation. So far, that has been an incredibly successful endeavor. Furthermore, the term 'natura' is rather ambiguous. Instead, they attempt to understand the phenomena they can actually observe and make models that predict new observations. There is no *inherent* restriction to 'metaphysical naturalism'(whatever that means in practice). But we have found the describing the universe in terms of atoms, quarks, electrons, photons, etc. is very, very successful. if you think there are other phenomena that need to be described, please specify and describe *exactly* what needs explaining.
EdSed

Hamilton, UK

#23 Jan 26, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
....I don't personally see any difference between the two camps.
This is the mistake you make. It is not that religionists believe one thing and atheists believe another. It is that religionists treat evidence like the various good books with the same respect as scientific method and empirical knowledge. They even treat their good book with reverence. Some think that all religious beliefs should be respected.

Atheists only believe anything so far as evidence and reason seem to justify it.

Religionists start with a set of beliefs and then expect people to disprove them.

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#24 Jan 26, 2012
GhostShaman wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution and science is essentially the same as religion. As human being we are always looking for answers to things. 10,000 years ago the reason for space or the sun was because someone riding a flamed chariot in the sky put it there and that was the answer for this. Now in modern times when we think we are more educated than before we have different answers with the big bang and balls of gas. Thats where our intellectual prowess leads us versus 10,000+ years ago. I'm just as sure in the future that the answers we think we have now will be mocked and laughed at also.
Ridiculous. 10000 years ago we made things up without evidence. The flamed chariot was religion. Religion keeps trying to explain things, but their explanations have always been wrong.

Religion explained the sun as a chariot
Science then figured out what the sun is and why it rises

Religion explained floods (Posiedon was angry)
Science tells us the actual reason.

Religeon says we were created in 6 days as is and the earth is 6000 years old

Science tells us the real answer (evolution)

And on through history.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#25 Jan 26, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
One could say the proof is in the pudding...
However the fact remains is that science deals with METHODOLOGICAL naturalism, because methodological supernaturalism doesn't work.
Hence why you're here arguing for "It COULD be magic cuz how do YOU know, where you THERE?!?", and bitter that the scientific community doesn't give two figs.(shrug)
Oh, feel free to reference more YECers, that's always good to add to your credibility.
Methodological naturalism doesn't work, either.

Learn to spell.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#26 Jan 26, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all how real scientists think. Instead of insisting that there is always an explanation, they simply attempt to find an explanation. So far, that has been an incredibly successful endeavor. Furthermore, the term 'natura' is rather ambiguous. Instead, they attempt to understand the phenomena they can actually observe and make models that predict new observations. There is no *inherent* restriction to 'metaphysical naturalism'(whatever that means in practice). But we have found the describing the universe in terms of atoms, quarks, electrons, photons, etc. is very, very successful. if you think there are other phenomena that need to be described, please specify and describe *exactly* what needs explaining.
Well you certainly think it's been successful, but since none of the current scientific theories are (or can be) verified how can you be so bold as to claim that you are certain that it has been successful?

To the extent that science has been successful (which remains doubtful) it has done so using math. It seems to me far more likely to believe that math has been responsible for whatever successes science can lay claim to than a supposed method that is known to be based on a logical fallacy.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#27 Jan 26, 2012
EdSed wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the mistake you make. It is not that religionists believe one thing and atheists believe another. It is that religionists treat evidence like the various good books with the same respect as scientific method and empirical knowledge. They even treat their good book with reverence. Some think that all religious beliefs should be respected.
Atheists only believe anything so far as evidence and reason seem to justify it.
Religionists start with a set of beliefs and then expect people to disprove them.
There is no such thing as empirical knowledge because empiricism suffers from an infinite regress problem. Even something as simple as verifying that the star nearest the earth is some 4.3 light years away is nearly impossible to do empirically.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#28 Jan 26, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
Ridiculous. 10000 years ago we made things up without evidence. The flamed chariot was religion. Religion keeps trying to explain things, but their explanations have always been wrong.
Religion explained the sun as a chariot
Science then figured out what the sun is and why it rises
Religion explained floods (Posiedon was angry)
Science tells us the actual reason.
Religeon says we were created in 6 days as is and the earth is 6000 years old
Science tells us the real answer (evolution)
And on through history.
Most of the supposed successes you attribute to 'science' were accomplished by Catholic monks before scientists even existed.

Since: Mar 09

Hidden

#29 Jan 26, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Most of the supposed successes you attribute to 'science' were accomplished by Catholic monks before scientists even existed.
Not true at all. They were accomplished by scientists. Can't a catholic monk be a scientist? A scientist is anyone who employs science and the scientific method to arrive at the truth. This does not exclude believers.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#30 Jan 26, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Methodological naturalism doesn't work, either.
Does it not?

If we open your cranium and subject your brains to an electric pasta scrambler, my hypothesis is that the natural outcome would be to the detriment of your health.

Shall we test that hypothesis?

.

Or you could be correct, perhaps that test has already been done...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#31 Jan 26, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you certainly think it's been successful, but since none of the current scientific theories are (or can be) verified how can you be so bold as to claim that you are certain that it has been successful?
Then stop using your computer, stop using all modern medical treatments and systematically go through all the comforts in your life which are due to scientific advancement.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#32 Jan 26, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true at all. They were accomplished by scientists. Can't a catholic monk be a scientist? A scientist is anyone who employs science and the scientific method to arrive at the truth. This does not exclude believers.
Don't be silly, they cast spells!

They stood there chanting in front of the bricks of Stonehenge, and lo and behold, they found a cure for hair!
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#33 Jan 28, 2012
CTEd wrote:
<quoted text>
Not true at all. They were accomplished by scientists. Can't a catholic monk be a scientist? A scientist is anyone who employs science and the scientific method to arrive at the truth. This does not exclude believers.
A simple look at any dictionary (try http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scient... for example) shows that the word scientist entered the dictionary in 1834. Now even assuming that the idea of a scientist existed some 34 years earlier and it just took awhile for a word to get coined and to get into the dictionary, we are still unable to consider people such as Galileo to be scientists.

Now those historical revisionists like to say that BEFORE there were scientists, there were "natural philosophers" which was basically the same thing. Under that definition Galileo still wasn't a scientist as he wasn't a natural philosopher and natural philosophy definitely excluded mathematicians and astronomers.

Galileo was a devout Catholic until the day he died, and was carried to mass daily when he was too weak to walk there. All of his observations of the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were confirmed by Jesuit priests whereas the natural philosophers (supposed scientists) refused to even look through the telescope.

Of course that doesn't stop atheist scientists with an axe to grind from lying about the affair.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#34 Jan 28, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it not?
If we open your cranium and subject your brains to an electric pasta scrambler, my hypothesis is that the natural outcome would be to the detriment of your health.
Shall we test that hypothesis?
.
Or you could be correct, perhaps that test has already been done...
I'm sure that without methodological naturalism no one would have arrived at that conclusion.
Peru_Serv

Lima, Peru

#35 Jan 28, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then stop using your computer, stop using all modern medical treatments and systematically go through all the comforts in your life which are due to scientific advancement.
Do you believe in Thor, God of Lightning?

No?

Then stop using all electricity.

Does that sound like an impressive argument? Obviously not. Yet it is no different from the argument you made.

In order to prove that science is wonderful you start by assuming that science is wonderful and then come back around to re-prove what you started out by assuming. Earth shattering.

Don't believe in God? Stop breathing the air he created for you.
Don't believe in Vishnu? Stop walking on the planet he maintains in existence for you.
Don't believe in Allah? Stop enjoying the sun he has provided you with.
Don't believe in Zeus? Stop using the body he created for you.
Don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Stop eating pasta.
The serpent was right

Orefield, PA

#37 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as empirical knowledge because empiricism suffers from an infinite regress problem. Even something as simple as verifying that the star nearest the earth is some 4.3 light years away is nearly impossible to do empirically.
You are absolutely incorrect.
You should learn the definition of empirical before you make any statements about it.

Also, would you define "nearly impossible" for me? I find that term ridicules.
The serpent was right

Orefield, PA

#38 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
A simple look at any dictionary (try http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scient... for example) shows that the word scientist entered the dictionary in 1834. Now even assuming that the idea of a scientist existed some 34 years earlier and it just took awhile for a word to get coined and to get into the dictionary, we are still unable to consider people such as Galileo to be scientists.
Now those historical revisionists like to say that BEFORE there were scientists, there were "natural philosophers" which was basically the same thing. Under that definition Galileo still wasn't a scientist as he wasn't a natural philosopher and natural philosophy definitely excluded mathematicians and astronomers.
Galileo was a devout Catholic until the day he died, and was carried to mass daily when he was too weak to walk there. All of his observations of the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were confirmed by Jesuit priests whereas the natural philosophers (supposed scientists) refused to even look through the telescope.
Of course that doesn't stop atheist scientists with an axe to grind from lying about the affair.
So since the word "man" wasn't in the dictionary in 1032 AD, we can't consider anyone to be a man that existed in 1032 AD? Your logic is laughable.

Can you please post a collaborating link for your claim that "All of his observations of the phases of Venus and the moons of Jupiter were confirmed by Jesuit priests". Also, the question arises as to WHEN were they confirmed? Also, when was the term "natural philosophers" included in the dictionary? If it was after Galileos time, than according to you, you can't consider them to be natural philosophers.
The serpent was right

Orefield, PA

#39 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe in Thor, God of Lightning?
No?
Then stop using all electricity.
Does that sound like an impressive argument? Obviously not. Yet it is no different from the argument you made.
In order to prove that science is wonderful you start by assuming that science is wonderful and then come back around to re-prove what you started out by assuming. Earth shattering.
Don't believe in God? Stop breathing the air he created for you.
Don't believe in Vishnu? Stop walking on the planet he maintains in existence for you.
Don't believe in Allah? Stop enjoying the sun he has provided you with.
Don't believe in Zeus? Stop using the body he created for you.
Don't believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Stop eating pasta.
It is different.
We know that scientists developed those things he mentioned. Since you have no evidence that any of those myths(including yours) are real, or have ever existed, your claim is unfounded.
You are comparing reality to myth. It's not the same thing. Logical fail.
The serpent was right

Orefield, PA

#40 Jan 28, 2012
Peru_Serv wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure that without methodological naturalism no one would have arrived at that conclusion.
Unrelated to the fact.
You claimed that methodological naturalism doesn't work. He gave an example of how it would work. The fact that another method would also work is of no consequence to the conversation. He easily proved his point.
Daily Reflections

Ava, MO

#41 Jan 28, 2012
Maybe there is something to this "god gene" hypothesis. True, it gets complex because of environmental influences but maybe biology plays some role in religiosity and influences which way we go.
There is still this problem with materialism saying that consciousness is an illusion and doesn't really exist. Likewise a bigger problem with this dualism, the body and the mind, the soul and the flesh which makes even less sense. So what is consciousness, the mind, the soul or what ever you call the inner me?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... 1 hr serfs up 815
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 hr Morse 231,776
Pastafarian former porn star Asia Lemmon allowe... 9 hr tha Professor 1
10) Experts debate reality of God (May '10) Thu Morse 8,934
"No Master! No God!" - Isms, Religion and Atheism (Aug '13) Thu God worships Sin ... 2
Siro is writing a new book Thu Siro 2
Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) Thu Friend of all 14,431

Atheism People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE