Poll: “Science has proven” and “God says”

[Jim]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

 

[Samael_Khan]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

Both ways of thinking are wrong, but with the scientific method one can prove that certain things are not true.

Science doesn't prove anything because in order for it to do that we would need access to all the knowledge on the world which we do not have. Our understandings of science are ever evolving based on the evidence we discover.

God says is a different issue but the same problem with phrasing.

 

[Hawkins]

It all begins with humans lacking the ability to tell a future. Science is the discovery of a set of rules governing a repeatable phenomenon. When we said "it is proved" it means we can tell a future by using the theory. It is thus a truth beyond doubt as it repeatedly predicts the repeating pattern without an error. We land our spacecraft to the surface of moon because this action is predictable to an extent with no error. Whenever we failed we thus won't say that our physics failed. It is always something else which caused the failure but not the scientific theory itself, including human errors, unpredictable issues from engineering or applied science such as the fuel burning behavior and etc.

May be to your surprise, God says in the same manner. It is out of human capability to tell a future. God thus said a prophecy to His chosen witnesses for them to recognize a truth from God. That's actually the main reason why His witnesses are called the prophets. God authenticates the prophets by giving them the ability to tell a future. They thus know God is true in the same or a similar manner how science says what a truth is.

All left is for the prophets to convey this truth to the rest of human kind across history by means of the testimonies gathered from them (the same manner as how human histories are conveyed). This is actually the same manner how science is conveyed through the majority of humans too. It is in a form of testimonies from our small group of scientists as eyewitnesses. Humans in majority thus can get to a scientific truth by faith, say we as modern humans all know for a fact that black holes exist without actually gathering the evidence (evidence can only be available from expensive equipment which only scientists have the privilege to access).

 

[Left Coast]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

The biggest issue with, "Science has proven..." is that it's playing fast and loose with language. Science does not "prove" anything, that's the realm of math and logic. Science deals in probabilistic evidence.

The biggest difference between "God says" and "Science says" is that science's methods are demonstrable, empirical, and independently verifiable. I've found no such luck trying to verify anything that any deity has ever allegedly said. It's always communicated through humans who want to tell me their opinion of what they think a god said.

 

[HonestJoe]

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

My main problem is that these are two entirely different topics that have no place in the same thread. There is no valid reason to try to compare, contrast or equate "God" and "Science".

 

[Jim]

My main problem is that these are two entirely different topics that have no place in the same thread. There is no valid reason to try to compare, contrast or equate "God" and "Science".

I’m not trying to compare, contrast or equate “God” and “Science,” or asking anyone to do that.

 

[shunyadragon]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

I have difficulty with the wording of the post title and the choices offered. The proposal of your opening post is to contrast science and God.

Science does not prove things, because it falsifies hypothesis and based on the natural predictability of objective verifiable evidence.. Beyond this I believe in the Harmony of science and religion. To believe in any other synario, would be a contradiction concerning the Nature of our physical existence and God as the Creator. Creation reflects the consistent natural attributes of God through Creation. Science is the objective description of our physical existence through scientific evidence and objective verifiable evidence. Scientific knowledge increases and evolves consistently.

 

[Heyo]

Neither science nor god say anything. People, scientists and believers say things. They rarely speak about the same things. When they do, the scientists win.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

NOTE: My reason for posting this in a debate forum is not to debate about it, myself. It’s to allow as much freedom as possible for people to say what they think.

Sometimes people think that something Is true because they think it has been proven scientifically. Sometimes people think that something is true because they think it’s what their scriptures say. Do you see problems with one way of thinking that you don’t see with the other? If so, please say what they are. If you see problems with each one, that you don’t see with the other, you can check both of those answers.

Science doesn't "prove" things; science only establishes that things are likely true based on the preponderance of available evidence.

... but the only thing that refutes a scientific conclusion based on the evidence is better science based on more or better evidence.

 

[Altfish]

The biggest problem I have with "God says ..." is that it is static, fixed, it will never change.
Whereas, given new evidence "Science says..." changes.to reflect the new discoveries.

 

[shunyadragon]

Neither science nor god say anything. People, scientists and believers say things. They rarely speak about the same things. When they do, the scientists win.

In my view there is Harmony between Science and God's Creation. It is humans clinging to ancient agendas that see conflicts between science and religion. Science reveals the knowledge of the attributes of God's Creation.

 

[shunyadragon]

The biggest problem I have with "God says ..." is that it is static, fixed, it will never change.
Whereas, given new evidence "Science says..." changes.to reflect the new discoveries.

Not from the perspective of the Baha'i Faith. Claiming God says from ancient religious perspectives are indeed static and are based on ancient human perspectives that claim "God says" and therefore doe snot change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The biggest problem I have with "God says ..." is that it is static, fixed, it will never change.

I've found that "God says" changes quite a bit, just not in a way that's systematic or error-correcting.

 

[Heyo]

In my view there is Harmony between Science and God's Creation. It is humans clinging to ancient agendas that see conflicts between science and religion. Science reveals the knowledge of the attributes of God's Creation.

I'm more a fan of Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria" to avoid any kind of possible conflict.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm more a fan of Gould's "Non-overlapping Magisteria" to avoid any kind of possible conflict.

The issue with NOMA is that religion doesn't seem interested in avoiding the overlap.

And as a secularist, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to stop religions from commenting on factual matters that are within the purview of science. They have every right to have false beliefs; I just demand that we keep our right to point out when these religious beliefs are wrong.

Edit: but as a "fan of NOMA," are you talking about putting limits on science or religion (or both)?

 

[ChristineM]

Other, science doesn't prove, it evaluates evidence

But i will take the evidence of science over the faith of god.

 

[exchemist]

Your poll does not say "Science has proven". And a good job too, since "science has proven" is not something

The issue with NOMA is that religion doesn't seem interested in avoiding the overlap.

And as a secularist, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to stop religions from commenting on factual matters that are within the purview of science. They have every right to have false beliefs; I just demand that we keep our right to point out when these religious beliefs are wrong.

Edit: but as a "fan of NOMA," are you talking about putting limits on science or religion (or both)?

That depends on what version of what religion you are talking about. Mainstream Christian belief is content not to try to overlap with science. It has in the past burnt its fingers doing that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That depends on what version of what religion you are talking about. Mainstream Christian belief is content not to try to overlap with science. It has in the past burnt its fingers doing that.

Not just Christian belief.

And I'm not talking about any particular religion. I'm talking about Stephen Jay Gould's idea of "non-overlapping magisteria:" that there's a limit beyond which science shout not go and a limit beyond which religion should not go, so if everyone does what Gould thought they should, we'd never be in the situation that religion and science make conflicting claims about the same issue.

(Of course, part of the issue is he never really spelled out where the line should be, so both sides expect that it's the other that should be limited to achieve the goal of "NOMA")

 

[Heyo]

The issue with NOMA is that religion doesn't seem interested in avoiding the overlap.

And as a secularist, I have no interest whatsoever in trying to stop religions from commenting on factual matters that are within the purview of science. They have every right to have false beliefs; I just demand that we keep our right to point out when these religious beliefs are wrong.

Edit: but as a "fan of NOMA," are you talking about putting limits on science or religion (or both)?

I'd prefer both could agree on NOMA for their own improvement. When religion speak about science or when scientists speak about religion, it usually ends in embarrassment.
I see no reason for putting limits and I see no way to enforce them.
If that means that some groups can't overcome their greed and/or hubris at least those who "signed" the contract, can point their fingers.

 

[HonestJoe]

I’m not trying to compare, contrast or equate “God” and “Science,” or asking anyone to do that.

You know what I meant! You are asking people to compare the phrase "God says..." and "Science says...". That is encouraging people to compare, contrast or equate the two concepts and that is pointless at best and intentionally divisive at worst.