Is faith a reliable means of ascertaining the truth?

[Hawkins]

It seems to me that people are capable of having faith in virtually anything. Since people can have faith in things that are clearly false, how can anyone claim that faith is required in order to comprehend truth?

It's yes and no. Humans almost exclusively get to a truth of any kind by faith. What worth examining is the reliability or credibility of the source. That's why you don't need evidence before you believe firmly that the existence of black holes is a truth!

 

[Sunstone]

What? People believing daily news with faith. That's how they get to know what are happening in this world on a daily basis.

Interesting equivocation on the word "faith".

 

[Hawkins]

Interesting equivocation on the word "faith".

No. It's a fact that faith means believe without evidence. You don't need evidence to believe what is said in each and every piece of daily news you get information from. This is the fact to the majority of human kind.

Rather you don't know what faith is, as a result of being brainwashed by our secular education since childhood.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You may have not made too many judgements on me as you have to others. I am not offended, however it was more of me trying to pick your mind as to a reason as to why the truth mattered so much, so much that so many judgements are made on others who think differently.
To put it simply, why should one seek to know truth? Why is there only one way(your way) to reach the truth when only a very tiny percentage of things are observable and measureable?

Also to touch base on how you perceive faith, if you're searching for a "mythical being," of course you won't find anything. You've already confirmed, through bias what you're searching for and deemed it's non-existence. I would think for any truth to come intuitively, someone's mind would have to be in a zero-state, that is to say... having zero bias, zero preconceived imaginations of what something ought to be or appear.

At the end of the day, it is by faith that you believe that life came from non-life randomly, accidentally. Stubbornness in anyone may not want to admit such.

" if you're searching for a "mythical being," of course you won't find anything. You've already confirmed, through bias what you're searching for and deemed it's non-existence."

Let me ask you... would you be able to genuinely 'search for' invisible magical unicorns, just because I told you to? Wouldn't you require at least some degree of evidence that invisible magical unicorns aren't anything more than mere myth before you could make such a genuine effort? Would you be 'biased' because you were unable to pretend as if you believe without any evidence that such unicorns are anything other than myth?

"At the end of the day, it is by faith that you believe that life came from non-life randomly, accidentally. Stubbornness in anyone may not want to admit such"

I wouldn't call my trust in the scientific method to be faith. It's based on the fact that thus far in human history the scientific method has BY FAR been the most reliable means of determining how the universe actually works. Thus far all of the evidence suggests that life came about due to random chemical interactions. If I were stubborn, then I would hold tight to that theory, even if additional evidence is found that disputes the theory. But being an open minded individual, I am willing to go wherever any future evidence may lead. That's because I'm interested in the actual truth, not in finding ways to confirm a 'truth' I think I already have.

 

[QuestioningMind]

No. But if you are nearly tone deaf, and can barely hear, and you can just barely hear the music then faith is important. Is religion garbled? Indeed it is. It's one nearly deaf individual talking to another nearly deaf individual that's contemporary religion. They have faith in the music. What is atheism? It's just deaf. Zero capacity, so it's simply mainfesting what is already problematic in religion itself. Atheism relies on religion for its views and understanding, all it hears is the noise of normal culture is all. The only atheists I know in the woods are poachers and tourists. I don't think with a healthy dose of wilderness that people come back atheists, and often times they start to hear the music themselves. Atheism is a city problem of city folk who live in a box of being highly educated. No one who has embraced the wild-ear-Ness is an atheist we all hear the music in that which you all call nature. It's a song very loud that to much city makes us deaf to is all.

"No one who has embraced the wild-ear-Ness is an atheist we all hear the music in that which you all call nature. It's a song very loud that to much city makes us deaf to is all."

My, you are incredibly un-insightful, aren't you? I mean, I don't think you could possibly be more incorrect if you tried. Atheism is a CITY problem? What a phenomenally ignorant claim. I hate city life, which is why I live in the middle of 27 acres of remote dense forest in Oregon. I ADORE nature and have a deep connection with nature. But that doesn't mean that I'm a nearly tone deaf twit who pretends like he can make out the melody in the music.

 

[QuestioningMind]

It's yes and no. Humans almost exclusively get to a truth of any kind by faith. What worth examining is the reliability or credibility of the source. That's why you don't need evidence before you believe firmly that the existence of black holes is a truth!

"What worth examining is the reliability or credibility of the source."

Actually that's ALL that's worth examining. Because if you can determine that a source is credible and reliable then you don't NEED faith. Please provide an example of anyone needing faith in order to get to genuine truth.

"That's why you don't need evidence before you believe firmly that the existence of black holes is a truth!"

Oh, but I DO need evidence before I will firmly believe that black holes exist. At this point and time the evidence we have certainly suggests that black holes exist, but it's not yet so conclusive that I FIRMLY believe that they do. As new information comes in its possible that science will determine that what we think are black holes right now may actually be something entirely different.

 

[Profound Realization]

" if you're searching for a "mythical being," of course you won't find anything. You've already confirmed, through bias what you're searching for and deemed it's non-existence."

Let me ask you... would you be able to genuinely 'search for' invisible magical unicorns, just because I told you to? Wouldn't you require at least some degree of evidence that invisible magical unicorns aren't anything more than mere myth before you could make such a genuine effort? Would you be 'biased' because you were unable to pretend as if you believe without any evidence that such unicorns are anything other than myth?

"At the end of the day, it is by faith that you believe that life came from non-life randomly, accidentally. Stubbornness in anyone may not want to admit such"

I wouldn't call my trust in the scientific method to be faith. It's based on the fact that thus far in human history the scientific method has BY FAR been the most reliable means of determining how the universe actually works. Thus far all of the evidence suggests that life came about due to random chemical interactions. If I were stubborn, then I would hold tight to that theory, even if additional evidence is found that disputes the theory. But being an open minded individual, I am willing to go wherever any future evidence may lead. That's because I'm interested in the actual truth, not in finding ways to confirm a 'truth' I think I already have.

In our minds, we can concoct up invisible, magical unicorns and deem they don't exist. I wouldn't do anything just because someone told me to, I am not chained any longer to do such. Just as I wouldn't force you to search for anything already deemed a mythological being and non-existent.

The only viable way to determine anything all occurs from within. There are also no scientific means to determine how the non-observable and non-measurable universe works.

I agree that it's a reliable method to observe facts regarding the observable and measureable universe. But at the same time, I can see through the predictions, assumptions, guesswork, biased CPU simulations, "could's," having to add mythological concepts just to support observable concepts, hypotheticals to support hypotheticals. When evidence does dispute a theory, another mythological concept is just added to revive it or keep it on life support.
I appreciate sound science, not pseudoscience accepted blindly by masses as sound science who cannot see these. It's no different than religious indoctrination. Someone thinks they are are wise by seeing through religious indoctrination, that is easy. Let me know when you can see through the reality of scientific indoctrination, it is more deceptive and intelligent and much more difficult to become aware of. Because it mixes what in actuality is true with tiny subtle portions of fiction that also sound realistic and clever.. but are nothing more than fiction. Same spell, same effects. It's a struggle as is to even understand what's observable and measurable.

Scientific theory's via human mind have a lot of mythological creatures they claim once existed yet have no evidence. Given your random infinity generator of mathematical probabilities in a CPU simulation, you've stated yourself it's a fact that given enough time, it's inevitable that a unicorn could evolve, did evolve.

Have you confirmed the mythological beings already in evolution theory as fact with no evidence or are you open minded that they may not exist? Cant take you true to your words unless you admit you're open minded that they may not exist. Or is this confirmation bias? Is it by faith/trust that made this conclusion? At this point, I am unsure if you're willingly hypocritical to your own models or you're simply not aware of what you do.

 

[QuestioningMind]

In our minds, we can concoct up invisible, magical unicorns and deem they don't exist. I wouldn't do anything just because someone told me to, I am not chained any longer to do such. Just as I wouldn't force you to search for anything already deemed a mythological being and non-existent.

The only viable way to determine anything all occurs from within. There are also no scientific means to determine how the non-observable and non-measurable universe works.

I agree that it's a reliable method to observe facts regarding the observable and measureable universe. But at the same time, I can see through the predictions, assumptions, guesswork, biased CPU simulations, "could's," having to add mythological concepts just to support observable concepts, hypotheticals to support hypotheticals. When evidence does dispute a theory, another mythological concept is just added to revive it or keep it on life support.
I appreciate sound science, not pseudoscience accepted blindly by masses as sound science who cannot see these. It's no different than religious indoctrination. Someone thinks they are are wise by seeing through religious indoctrination, that is easy. Let me know when you can see through the reality of scientific indoctrination, it is more deceptive and intelligent and much more difficult to become aware of. Because it mixes what in actuality is true with tiny subtle portions of fiction that also sound realistic and clever.. but are nothing more than fiction. Same spell, same effects. It's a struggle as is to even understand what's observable and measurable.

Scientific theory's via human mind have a lot of mythological creatures they claim once existed yet have no evidence. Given your random infinity generator of mathematical probabilities in a CPU simulation, you've stated yourself it's a fact that given enough time, it's inevitable that a unicorn could evolve, did evolve.

Have you confirmed the mythological beings already in evolution theory as fact with no evidence or are you open minded that they may not exist? Cant take you true to your words unless you admit you're open minded that they may not exist. Or is this confirmation bias? Is it by faith/trust that made this conclusion? At this point, I am unsure if you're willingly hypocritical to your own models or you're simply not aware of what you do.

"There are also no scientific means to determine how the non-observable and non-measurable universe works. "

If something is incapable of being observed or measured, why would you have any reason to believe that it exists?

"When evidence does dispute a theory, another mythological concept is just added to revive it or keep it on life support."

Please provide an example of this. The scientific method has been a very reliable means of separating genuine science from pseudo science.

"Have you confirmed the mythological beings already in evolution theory as fact with no evidence or are you open minded that they may not exist?"

Care to point out a 'mythological creature' that is accepted by evolutionists as fact with no evidence?

"Cant take you true to your words unless you admit you're open minded that they may not exist."

Are you asking if I'd ever be willing to admit that the ToE is wrong? Absolutely, but ONLY if an alternate theory is proposed that can account for the mountains of evidence we have thus far that supports the current theory. I'd be willing to entertain ANY theory, as long it has evidence that can be reliably replicated. That's what the scientific method is all about, adjusting our understanding of the universe as new verifiable evidence comes to light.

"Because it mixes what in actuality is true with tiny subtle portions of fiction that also sound realistic and clever.. but are nothing more than fiction. Same spell, same effects. It's a struggle as is to even understand what's observable and measurable. "

Again, please do provide an example of this, because I'm starting to think that you really don't have the slightest clue how the scientific method works. Science wouldn't have gotten us to a place where we can manipulate electrons to the point where the two of us can communicate on this forum by 'mixing tiny subtle portions of fiction' into scientific theories. That has to be one of the most ignorant claims I've ever heard.

 

[Milton Platt]

What? People believing daily news with faith. That's how they get to know what are happening in this world on a daily basis.

No, people believe the news sources they read because they feel the sources have a proven track record of truthfulness that can be verified over time with other sources. That isn't faith, it is reasoned confidence.

 

[Milton Platt]

It's yes and no. Humans almost exclusively get to a truth of any kind by faith. What worth examining is the reliability or credibility of the source. That's why you don't need evidence before you believe firmly that the existence of black holes is a truth!

Who believed there were black holes before they had any kind of evidence? Their existence was predicted in 1916 by the theory of relativity. They were confirmed through observation later when we had developed the tools to do so.

 

[corynski]

Faith or trust in what you believe in helps you find the truth despite what you your doubts. If you really believe in something, then you trust that your senses even the ones that doubt are senses of a person spiritually growing. So, if an atheist came to be christian and still had an issue with believing in a deity, if he really has trust/faith in his belief and want to believe, his mindset would be one of "wanting to find the truth" that he is still learning how to gain.

Depending on faith means trust yourself. If you don't trust yourself to learn things you are uncomfortable with, how are you growing in general. It isn't specific to religion but all things in life. If you don't have faith, how are you trying new things? How are you going out of your comfort zone to find out what you thought wasn't true is true? How do you define your comfort zone if you don't have trust and courage enough to question what you believe?

That's what faith does. So, yes, it does show people what is true and what is false. It's putting trust in.. not a religious word in and of itself. People come up with different conclusions. I don't see how one conclusion is more true than the other. That's ego.

Carlita, a very moot point to my mind...... Much more complicated than at first glance. Take two statements, the first: I have faith that a god exists, and the second: I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. So no, to me, it doesn't show people what is true and what is false. We are still talking about approximations of reality, i.e., are the odds better that the sun will rise tomorrow then that a 'god' exists? The former to me is quite likely, I'd bet on it, while the latter is about 50/50 to my mind, at best, there either is or there isn't a god. I think we're using different nuances of the word 'faith' perhaps.....

 

[osgart]

why butcher a word that is otherwise very handy, and call faith blind trust in a belief based on nothing known.

confidence and trust in something without evidence won't get you anywhere but hurt.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Carlita, a very moot point to my mind...... Much more complicated than at first glance. Take two statements, the first: I have faith that a god exists, and the second: I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. So no, to me, it doesn't show people what is true and what is false. We are still talking about approximations of reality, i.e., are the odds better that the sun will rise tomorrow then that a 'god' exists? The former to me is quite likely, I'd bet on it, while the latter is about 50/50 to my mind, at best, there either is or there isn't a god. I think we're using different nuances of the word 'faith' perhaps.....

If I were agnostic, I'd somewhat agree because I'd say we don't know and can't prove it. I was listening to a Dhamma talk about the future isn't promised to us; stop thinking that it is. The reason people put more trust in the validity of god is that there is no "maybe" the sun will rise or not.

We honestly are trusting what we know but no one, at least in the states outside of religion, has taught us that the boogie man can help us just the same as a best friend. The point the boogie man does not exist doesn't invalidate the child's well being if in deed this belief helps him. I think it's pointless to argue god's existence.

Actually, I have faith that god exist and I have faith the sun will rise are two sides of a coin. If someone is agnostic, how would one be more likely than the other without going off preconceived and confirmed facts that the sun has risen X many years of your life to date?

Many of us think we will live the rest of our day and won't die. So, if god is expressed by experience and you can see it in how a community conducts themselves (looking at the positive sides), and see the wholeness character in their communion, I would define god by their criteria, that trust and experience that brings people together to god not how we see it, maybe to some an external being and others a spirit while others the boogie man.

We should go off their criteria not our own.

 

[Ponder This]

No, can't say that I can. If a truth is unverifiable how exactly does faith enable someone to 'comprehend' it as true? If it can't be verified as truth, then all faith could do would be to enable a person to pretend that they comprehend it as true, regardless of the fact that it can't be verified as true.

Because the mind doesn't actually require verification in order to believe a thing to be true.
I know that as high-thinking, logical, reasoning, scientific beings that we'd like to think that we only believe things that have evidence, but we don't actually work that way. There's one Spock in a ship full of emotional beings. We actually have a fundamental ability to accept things as being true without proof.

Let's say I'm a Japanese sword-maker and I make excellent swords. I know that when I fold the rice into the steel and say a bunch of prayers that I'm getting a better steel for swords. I'm making a better sword. It's a simple truth and very easy to comprehend. If someone comes along and gives a long-winded explanation about why that does or does not make the sword stronger, I just shrug and continue making swords. My teacher taught me how to make swords and I believe him. The person with the explanation thinks he has understood truth, but he might not be that good a sword-maker despite all that "verification".

Truth by faith is a shortcut. It's actually super-efficient, because no time is wasted worrying about verification. I can understand a thing to be true without proof or explanation.

 

[QuestioningMind]

Because the mind doesn't actually require verification in order to believe a thing to be true.
I know that as high-thinking, logical, reasoning, scientific beings that we'd like to think that we only believe things that have evidence, but we don't actually work that way. There's one Spock in a ship full of emotional beings. We actually have a fundamental ability to accept things as being true without proof.

Let's say I'm a Japanese sword-maker and I make excellent swords. I know that when I fold the rice into the steel and say a bunch of prayers that I'm getting a better steel for swords. I'm making a better sword. It's a simple truth and very easy to comprehend. If someone comes along and gives a long-winded explanation about why that does or does not make the sword stronger, I just shrug and continue making swords. My teacher taught me how to make swords and I believe him. The person with the explanation thinks he has understood truth, but he might not be that good a sword-maker despite all that "verification".

Truth by faith is a shortcut. It's actually super-efficient, because no time is wasted worrying about verification. I can understand a thing to be true without proof or explanation.

"Because the mind doesn't actually require verification in order to believe a thing to be true.
I know that as high-thinking, logical, reasoning, scientific beings that we'd like to think that we only believe things that have evidence, but we don't actually work that way. There's one Spock in a ship full of emotional beings. We actually have a fundamental ability to accept things as being true without proof."

I agree 100% that people are quite capable of believing in all sorts of things on faith without verification. The question was, is faith a reliable means of reaching the actual truth? As for your example of a sword maker adding rice and prayer to his sword making process, that hardly sounds like faith to me. We have a sword maker who has learned from EXPERIENCE that certain methods create better steel for swords. That's certainly not the same as accepting something on faith.

 

[Profound Realization]

"There are also no scientific means to determine how the non-observable and non-measurable universe works. "

If something is incapable of being observed or measured, why would you have any reason to believe that it exists?

"When evidence does dispute a theory, another mythological concept is just added to revive it or keep it on life support."

Please provide an example of this. The scientific method has been a very reliable means of separating genuine science from pseudo science.

"Have you confirmed the mythological beings already in evolution theory as fact with no evidence or are you open minded that they may not exist?"

Care to point out a 'mythological creature' that is accepted by evolutionists as fact with no evidence?

"Cant take you true to your words unless you admit you're open minded that they may not exist."

Are you asking if I'd ever be willing to admit that the ToE is wrong? Absolutely, but ONLY if an alternate theory is proposed that can account for the mountains of evidence we have thus far that supports the current theory. I'd be willing to entertain ANY theory, as long it has evidence that can be reliably replicated. That's what the scientific method is all about, adjusting our understanding of the universe as new verifiable evidence comes to light.

"Because it mixes what in actuality is true with tiny subtle portions of fiction that also sound realistic and clever.. but are nothing more than fiction. Same spell, same effects. It's a struggle as is to even understand what's observable and measurable. "

Again, please do provide an example of this, because I'm starting to think that you really don't have the slightest clue how the scientific method works. Science wouldn't have gotten us to a place where we can manipulate electrons to the point where the two of us can communicate on this forum by 'mixing tiny subtle portions of fiction' into scientific theories. That has to be one of the most ignorant claims I've ever heard.

That is too easy, all of the mythological creatures that are missing in a left to right linear timeline. Now, you either have faith/confidence that they exist or they don't exist. Which is it? An issue is claiming them as fact with no evidence. It's also an issue to admit that it's by faith/confidence that they existed. It's also an issue "accepting" or using "could have's" without being honest that this is faith/confidence. At least be honest, I am aware of how hard it is for many to admit/acknowledge this. Once camp has faith they don't exist and another has faith that they do exist. No difference. I personally don't know if they exist, nor care. If I were to choose a camp, it would an honest admission of faith/confidence of their existence. No hiding.

Of the many, one would be the theory of gravity. It cannot hold without the fictitious glue of "dark matter." There is no evidence for either that can't be refuted with what we already know and have knowledge of exists. Science refutes and questions science. Where are all of these reliable replications in a lab?

One of the most ignorant claims ever is giving an example of sound science and claiming all of them to be sound with no "maybe's, could have's, "thoughts that," "faith/confidence in predictions." Science didn't get us anywhere, intelligence/morality within humans have done the work collectively. As many have done and do, they take sound science and in parallel mix in faith/confidence in the rest.

 

[Profound Realization]

"Because the mind doesn't actually require verification in order to believe a thing to be true.
I know that as high-thinking, logical, reasoning, scientific beings that we'd like to think that we only believe things that have evidence, but we don't actually work that way. There's one Spock in a ship full of emotional beings. We actually have a fundamental ability to accept things as being true without proof."

I agree 100% that people are quite capable of believing in all sorts of things on faith without verification. The question was, is faith a reliable means of reaching the actual truth? As for your example of a sword maker adding rice and prayer to his sword making process, that hardly sounds like faith to me. We have a sword maker who has learned from EXPERIENCE that certain methods create better steel for swords. That's certainly not the same as accepting something on faith.

I have faith that human intelligence, knowledge, knowing, awareness will expand and we will come to know the truth of our inner nature and external nature more with time. Do you not?

 

[Profound Realization]

I perceive that many are offended by confidence or trust in something, and unaware of themselves and their own confidence and trust in things. . become defensive when the the confidence/trust is revealed amongst their beloved models in mind. Perhaps it's due to emotion and distaste for religions that a simple word that pertains to themselves offends? And people may be too enamored in learning about their external environment rather than knowing themselves?

 

[QuestioningMind]

That is too easy, all of the mythological creatures that are missing in a left to right linear timeline. Now, you either have faith/confidence that they exist or they don't exist. Which is it? An issue is claiming them as fact with no evidence. It's also an issue to admit that it's by faith/confidence that they existed. It's also an issue "accepting" or using "could have's" without being honest that this is faith/confidence. At least be honest, I am aware of how hard it is for many to admit/acknowledge this. Once camp has faith they don't exist and another has faith that they do exist. No difference. I personally don't know if they exist, nor care. If I were to choose a camp, it would an honest admission of faith/confidence of their existence. No hiding.

Of the many, one would be the theory of gravity. It cannot hold without the fictitious glue of "dark matter." There is no evidence for either that can't be refuted with what we already know and have knowledge of exists. Science refutes and questions science. Where are all of these reliable replications in a lab?

One of the most ignorant claims ever is giving an example of sound science and claiming all of them to be sound with no "maybe's, could have's, "thoughts that," "faith/confidence in predictions." Science didn't get us anywhere, intelligence/morality within humans have done the work collectively. As many have done and do, they take sound science and in parallel mix in faith/confidence in the rest.

"That is too easy, all of the mythological creatures that are missing in a left to right linear timeline. "

What the heck are you talking about? You have a left to right time line of make believe creatures?

"Of the many, one would be the theory of gravity. It cannot hold without the fictitious glue of "dark matter." There is no evidence for either that can't be refuted with what we already know and have knowledge of exists."

Okay... so in your delusional world, gravity doesn't exist. Let me guess, you don't believe that massive objects exert a force called gravity, but that the Earth just SUCKS and that what keeps us all from floating away. Got it!

"One of the most ignorant claims ever is giving an example of sound science and claiming all of them to be sound with no "maybe's, could have's, "thoughts that," "faith/confidence in predictions.""

Yes, making such a claim WOULD be phenomenally ignorant. Of course, YOU are the only person I've ever heard make it. ALL science uses the same scientific method to reach their conclusions. You can't accept the scientific method in one area of science and then reject the exact same scientific method in another area of science, simply because you don't like the conclusions that the method reached.

Your responses make me seriously doubt that you even comprehend how the scientific method works.

"Science didn't get us anywhere,"

Okay, now I KNOW you're clueless as to how the scientific method works. I'm dumbfounded that you can sit and communicate on this device that only works because SCIENCE figured out how to harness electrons and claim SCIENCE DIDN'T GET US ANYWHERE! Electricity... vaccinations... cancer treatments... the CAR you drive around.... ALL are products of the scientific method and its ability to show us how the world works.

You truly DO live in a world of delusion, don't you?

 

[Profound Realization]

"That is too easy, all of the mythological creatures that are missing in a left to right linear timeline. "

What the heck are you talking about? You have a left to right time line of make believe creatures?

"Of the many, one would be the theory of gravity. It cannot hold without the fictitious glue of "dark matter." There is no evidence for either that can't be refuted with what we already know and have knowledge of exists."

Okay... so in your delusional world, gravity doesn't exist. Let me guess, you don't believe that massive objects exert a force called gravity, but that the Earth just SUCKS and that what keeps us all from floating away. Got it!

"One of the most ignorant claims ever is giving an example of sound science and claiming all of them to be sound with no "maybe's, could have's, "thoughts that," "faith/confidence in predictions.""

Yes, making such a claim WOULD be phenomenally ignorant. Of course, YOU are the only person I've ever heard make it. ALL science uses the same scientific method to reach their conclusions. You can't accept the scientific method in one area of science and then reject the exact same scientific method in another area of science, simply because you don't like the conclusions that the method reached.

Your responses make me seriously doubt that you even comprehend how the scientific method works.

"Science didn't get us anywhere,"

Okay, now I KNOW you're clueless as to how the scientific method works. I'm dumbfounded that you can sit and communicate on this device that only works because SCIENCE figured out how to harness electrons and claim SCIENCE DIDN'T GET US ANYWHERE! Electricity... vaccinations... cancer treatments... the CAR you drive around.... ALL are products of the scientific method and its ability to show us how the world works.

You truly DO live in a world of delusion, don't you?

I have yet to discover science doing anything, what I do discover is human intelligence/morale performing the work. All are products of human intelligence. Or am I missing your assertion that science itself is a living entity somewhere?

As for the rest, I am not sure what you're imagining was rejected. It's a matter of selection for you based on sound science and mixing confidence/trust with the rest. That may be your personal battle, and lack of acknowledgment.. try not imagine that on others.

If the best you can do is call another delusional, tell them what they can and can't do while doing them yourself and not being aware of it, call someone clueless, create imaginations for responses for things never said due to inability to read, listen, understand, and respond rather than attack...
So be it, in your world you are correct and can't be wrong, others must need to bow down to your supreme rules and control of a conversation to be on the same level. Too much in defensive mode. Take care now.