Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you always trust a science. Science = religion. They are not a source of true.
But a realist does NOT always trust science, it is questioned, it is used with a wary eye at times, it is a tool, useful when used properly, and will turn and bite you big time when misused, in much the same manner of a sharp knife is both indispensable and deadly.
Religion, you got a "deity" or something, you talk to this deity, your 'ask' this deity for stuff, sometimes selfish stuff, you expect this deity to grant you this stuff (else why ask?).
Science is just a tool in the tool chest, there is no talking 'to it', or asking 'it' to provide anything, nor is it expected. Nor do I worry that it will feel ignored and become revengeful cause it's moody or a megalomaniac, just like my socket set doesn't.
When I don't need it, it is just ignored, no worry about offending it by not kowtowing, just like the screwdriver in my tool kit, there when I need to use its function, forgotten when I don't need to turn a screw.
I hear this nonsense from many 'believers', that Atheists must have a god, call it what you may. What that proves is that those that say that are incapable of thinking outside of their box, a box built upon the nonsense of an old old book of fables, urban legends, and of course the delusions and agenda of every person that penned a single word of it, originally or through the untold number of rewrites and translations.
The book you put your entire belief system reeks of the pollution from the minds of centuries of deluded people, some with good intention, some with a personal agenda or grudge.
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep-seated need to believe.....Carl Sagan
The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window............ Stephen King
Oh yes, Carl Sagan. The true worshiper of science. He believed there are billions and billions of stars out there but was for sure there was no God. He wanted us all to believe the astounding things he believed in but said we were not right to believe in God. The uncharted universe, it's there but we just can't see it. He had faith. His faith.
But a realist does NOT always trust science, it is questioned, it is used with a wary eye at times, it is a tool, useful when used properly, and will turn and bite you big time when misused, in much the same manner of a sharp knife is both indispensable and deadly.
Religion, you got a "deity" or something, you talk to this deity, your 'ask' this deity for stuff, sometimes selfish stuff, you expect this deity to grant you this stuff (else why ask?).
Science is just a tool in the tool chest, there is no talking 'to it', or asking 'it' to provide anything, nor is it expected. Nor do I worry that it will feel ignored and become revengeful cause it's moody or a megalomaniac, just like my socket set doesn't.
When I don't need it, it is just ignored, no worry about offending it by not kowtowing, just like the screwdriver in my tool kit, there when I need to use its function, forgotten when I don't need to turn a screw.
I hear this nonsense from many 'believers', that Atheists must have a god, call it what you may. What that proves is that those that say that are incapable of thinking outside of their box, a box built upon the nonsense of an old old book of fables, urban legends, and of course the delusions and agenda of every person that penned a single word of it, originally or through the untold number of rewrites and translations.
The book you put your entire belief system reeks of the pollution from the minds of centuries of deluded people, some with good intention, some with a personal agenda or grudge.
Oh yes, Carl Sagan. The true worshiper of science. He believed there are billions and billions of stars out there but was for sure there was no God. He wanted us all to believe the astounding things he believed in but said we were not right to believe in God. The uncharted universe, it's there but we just can't see it. He had faith. His faith.
You think we can't see that there are billions and billions of stars?
Oh yes, Carl Sagan. The true worshiper of science. He believed there are billions and billions of stars out there but was for sure there was no God. He wanted us all to believe the astounding things he believed in but said we were not right to believe in God. The uncharted universe, it's there but we just can't see it. He had faith. His faith.
WOW the delusion of one must have a god really has a strangle hold on some.
Atheism - defined as "the doctrine or belief that there is no God " What part of NO is beyond your comprehension?
Hubble telescope shows us the billions and billions of stars, gods ..... none
How did science get from---there may be germs to, I can see germs under this microscope, if they did not have faith that someday they would be able to see it. If not for faith they would have quit long ago in inventing anything.
Necessity is the mother of all invention.
Your misappropriation of the word faith is a poor analogy meant to distract rather than provide a valid argument. To utilize the word faith as bearing the same distinction of why you believe in God as the same word as to how germs are discovered is patently false.
I will explain the difference.
In the 1830's, London was plagued by a horrendous cholera epidemic where several hundred (thousand?) people died. In those days, of course, people did not have running water. Instead, they went to one of a few water pumps around the city to pump their water out of a type of underground well. One well in London had what everyone considered to be the purest and cleanest water in the city. Thus, if the opportunity presented itself, people sent their kids to that particular well to literally "fetch a pail of water." Some kids, being lazy and not wanting to go the distance, went to other wells instead.
At the time, the popular theory of what caused this particular sickness was a theory known as Miasma supported by none other than miasmists. Due to the close proximity of the Thames River to London, and the fact that humans dumped almost anything and everything in the river, the Thames River smelled horribly rotten. Supporters and advocates of the miasma theory were convinced that bad smells from the river were what caused these sicknesses.
One man, a doctor by the name of John Snow, opposed the theory because it didn't make sense as to why everyone could smell the putrid river but only a certain percentage actually got sick. Snow himself could smell the river but never got sick. In the midst of the cholera epidemic, Dr. Snow wasn't sure what caused the sickness but he started to make a map of those who had died or suffered from cholera in the area. As one would expect, the map didn't necessarily make sense either. There were some people infected with cholera thirty miles away on a farm to the north, and near the epicenter, the map didn't show any clear correlation. That is, until he started to interview survivors and relatives of loved ones and discovered that they all had one thing in common. They had all gotten water out of the exact same water pump within a day or two of getting sick or dying.
To further solidify his case, he interviewed the families of those who didn't get sick and often found a strange correlation. The families with "lazy children" who went to a pump closer to the house rather than the "pristine, tasty" pump per their parents' direction didn't get sick at all. This led him to believe that there was something in the water and went to the city council and told them to shut the water pump down.
Of course, the city council and everyone there laughed at him and told him to basically "shove it" because everyone knew (based on a belief without evidence) that bad smells caused the ailments. He was laughed at, mocked, and more or less kicked out of the city hall but his persistence didn't stop there. He encouraged people across the city not to drink water from the well and eventually the cholera epidemic slowly became a non-issue.
Now, there is a fundamental difference between the way you use the word "faith" to say that people looking for unseen germs are utilizing it and the way the word "faith" could be applied to those who believed in the miasma theory.
Dr. Snow went on a scientific investigation which slowly but surely led to a series of conclusions. As one hypothesis was proven and gave way to another hypothesis, he was able to slowly formulate and conceive that something was in the water. He didn't know what it was but he was stalwart in his defense that something was in the water. Had Dr. Snow insisted that the water was tainted without having done any research or good scientific investigation, he would have been operating on a foregone conclusion without any evidence to back it up - like the miasmists. Granted, he would have been correct, as we now know, but he would have been operating entirely on faith that he was correct - even though he would have had no evidence to support the notion.
As it turns out, Dr. Snow not only helped to discover the cause of cholera but he also created the first "Ghost Map" which the CDC still uses to this day to track virulent outbreaks and to find the initial "first cause" of an epidemic. He is also credited with the invention/utilization of anesthesiology by which he also used a heavily scientific method of research to develop. Sadly, he died before he was ever proven correct about cholera, germs, and many of his other achievements.
But, one thing is for certain. Dr. Snow did not operate on faith. He operated on a meticulous platform of logical deductions conceived by a precision-like propensity for accurate scientific investigation. There are hundreds of other examples in science of a very similar vein and I would hardly consider them elements of "faith."
Edit: There's an excellent book depicting this very story aptly called "Ghost Map" that I highly recommend.
LOL, science does depend on faith. First a scientist has a theory/faith about a thing. "Maybe there is some invisible thing that causes people to become sick--I wonder what it is?" Without faith science would not exist or if it did not get very far.
Your definition of 'faith' is flawed. Theory does not equal faith. In fact, a scientific theory has a different meaning than the way lay person's use the word 'theory'. A scientific theory is a body of principles that explains natural phenomena and is supported by abundant evidence.
Also, asking a question and developing a hypothesis does not equal faith. The hypothesis is tested and if proven wrong is rejected. Faith, on the other hand, requires no evidence, no tests. That is the point of faith. In fact, contrary to your statement, the scientific method would not work if faith was required. I'm sure scientists hope their pet hypotheses will pan out but hope, like theories, questions and hypothesis, isn't faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle144
How did science get from---there may be germs to, I can see germs under this microscope, if they did not have faith that someday they would be able to see it. If not for faith they would have quit long ago in inventing anything.
You really should read about how germ theory was developed. The idea wasn't pulled out of thin air. It was developed by observation and supported by experimentation. The ability to see germs under a microscope only confirmed this theory.
If I'm following your thought process, you appear to think that the confirmation of the existence of 'invisible' germs supports your belief that your 'invisible' god will one day be confirmed. Maybe you are right. But, so far, science has found no evidence to support the god hypothesis unlike germ theory.
ETA: GSC beat me to it and provided a much more eloquent explanation.
You think we can't see that there are billions and billions of stars?
We can't SEE the whole universe and science can't either. Not until or if they can build a bigger telescope. Now they are saying they may be other universes. Have you ever thought science is still at it's infancy?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
