If you use science as a weapon against religion, explain something to me.

Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AK47WOLF

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Science is a bid by humanity to understand our environment, why things are the way they are, and how/why things happen. And many other things. People who use science as a weapon against religion regularly claim that "Well, I can back this up with evidence, all you have is blind faith."

Let's just say for a moment that religion IS blind faith. That said, can you now explain to me how science is not also a blind faith? Specifically a blind faith via the assumption that human perception is absolute, and is never in error?

Please don't misunderstand. Science does admit error. But when we discover something we perceive to be correct, we assume (have faith in, if you will) that our perception is without error. In other words, scientists assume things to be correct based on their "faith" in human perception being an absolute in the universe.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Colonel J

Member

12-28-2012

Do not bother showing how science is as faith based as religion.

Most people can't understand it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Anguibus

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47WOLF View Post
Science is a bid by humanity to understand our environment, why things are the way they are, and how/why things happen. And many other things. People who use science as a weapon against religion regularly claim that "Well, I can back this up with evidence, all you have is blind faith."

Let's just say for a moment that religion IS blind faith. That said, can you now explain to me how science is not also a blind faith? Specifically a blind faith via the assumption that human perception is absolute, and is never in error?

Please don't misunderstand. Science does admit error. But when we discover something we perceive to be correct, we assume (have faith in, if you will) that our perception is without error. In other words, scientists assume things to be correct based on their "faith" in human perception being an absolute in the universe.
Science is based on empirical evidence. Perhaps we can never fully understand the universe, but science provides a methodology by which we can test it.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

AK47WOLF

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anguibus View Post
Science is based on empirical evidence.
Empirical evidence is based on observations and tests that can be reproduced with similar results. But the belief that our perception of the observations and tests are true is very much a faith in our capacity to understand the universe.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Anguibus

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47WOLF View Post
Empirical evidence is based on observations and tests that can be reproduced with similar results. But the belief that our perception of the observations and tests are true is very much a faith in our capacity to understand the universe.
Science makes no claims to truth. It only describes.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Postal Twinkie

Wrenchman

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Anguibus View Post
Science makes no claims to truth. It only describes.
Not only that, but Science is constantly asking its peers to prove it wrong. Scientist actively look for reasons they are wrong, and how their data could have misled them, how they could have perceived something wrong. Science embraces failure.

Religion doesn't do any of this.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Taria05

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Science and religion are two sides of the same coin, either doctrine is a statement of what we believe to understand. Are these systems sometimes abused? Yes. Are people allowed to come to their own conclusion and enlighten others within these systems? Also true.

It's not enough to say that believing in science is more accurate, or believing in religion is morally safer; throughout history both have been used to oppress.

What's important is that you ask yourself: do you believe in a world where people should accept that what they are told by others is correct, and that what we know should be decided by those who claim they know and you are ignorant, or do you believe in a world where people are allowed to have dissenting opinions from their elders, and that understanding life in general is a personal journey as opposed to a planned expedition?


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Umbasa

Senior Member

12-28-2012

came in expecting something dumb

was not disappointed


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Vapeurs

Senior Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Postal Twinkie View Post
Not only that, but Science is constantly asking its peers to prove it wrong. Scientist actively look for reasons they are wrong, and how their data could have misled them, how they could have perceived something wrong. Science embraces failure.

Religion doesn't do any of this.
Exactly. Religion is blind faith without ever considering you are wrong. If you think the religion you are in is wrong, you are not faithful in the first place. There is no way to test if your religion is wrong. I.E. nobody who has died came back and said Christians are right, or Jews are right, or Muslims, or Hindus, or Budists, or Scientologists, etc and so forth.

In science, you are supposed to test your faith constantly. That is why we have different rules on how gravity works depending on which century of human existence we look at. Yes, religion evolves too, but by branching, not be admiting one was wrong, otherwise catholoics and orthodox churches would stop existing when Calvanists popped up. In science, you realize a law of nature was wrong, and you completely replace it with something else. Old laws are only kept as a sort of guideline for basic rules, i.e. gravity moves objects.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Fujiou

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Member

12-28-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by AK47WOLF View Post
But when we discover something we perceive to be correct, we assume (have faith in, if you will) that our perception is without error. In other words, scientists assume things to be correct based on their "faith" in human perception being an absolute in the universe.
You're arguing that sighted faith is as flawed as blind faith because our eyes could be lying to us?

Do you actually think before you post, or do the letters just kind of slip out of your rectum?