A Person Believes in Science by Faith if...

[Dan From Smithville]

Sorry to hear that but I am not surprised.
How many times do you think we should repeat ourselves before we call it a day?

I started a policy of dropping the discussion with whomever it is that is doing that at the time. Less frustrating that way and I am not likely to get in trouble for getting aggravated. Before that, it seemed like there was no limit to how often I should repeat myself.

In the end, I will probably try to be flexible and repeat myself at least twice and then decide to move along or not.

 

[Trailblazer]

I started a policy of dropping the discussion with whomever it is that is doing that at the time. Less frustrating that way and I am not likely to get in trouble for getting aggravated. Before that, it seemed like there was no limit to how often I should repeat myself.

In the end, I will probably try to be flexible and repeat myself at least twice and then decide to move along or not.

That's good to know. We can learn from each other and the mistakes we make.
I tend to go the extra mile but my feet are all worn out.
I am kind if like the real estate agent who shows the house to everyone because eventually someone might buy the house.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's good to know. We can learn from each other and the mistakes we make.
I tend to go the extra mile but my feet are all worn out.
I am kind if like the real estate agent who shows the house to everyone because eventually someone might buy the house.

I probably would have held out longer, but I kept getting this arrogance/condescension vibe that did not help me want to hang with the latest example.

 

[Trailblazer]

I probably would have held out longer, but I kept getting this arrogance/condescension vibe that did not help me want to hang with the latest example.

Speaking of that, I am getting really close to closing up shop on his thread.
#2009 Trailblazer, 10 minutes ago
Last edited: 1 minute ago

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Speaking of that, I am getting really close to closing up shop on his thread.
#2009 Trailblazer, 10 minutes ago
Last edited: 1 minute ago

Must be something pent up over the last year that is bursting out of some people.

 

[Trailblazer]

Must be something pent up over the last year that is bursting out of some people.

That's possible.

 

[KerimF]

You have ignored the basic objections raised by many. People trust what scientists publish or write in textbooks because the work of the scientists have tangible effects that can be observed in terms of technology (computers, lasers, rockets, planes, cell phones, satellites, medicines etc.) So people trust what scientists say regarding the theoretical basis that made these technological developments possible. That appears to me an extremely logical and rational thing to do.

Apart from this, its always possible for a sufficiently motivated individual to actually go an look at the evidence oneself. Become a part of a science enthusiast group, take internships or summer courses in practical labs etc. and you can get to see the experiments and data yourself.

As a practicing scientist in an university, I obviously do not require much faith in any of this. If I am interested in a field, I can just invite myself in a colleague's lab meeting and see the data and the work as they are happening in real time. Most of the data today are usually reported in the supplementary files associated with a published paper. Not sure what else you want us to do in terms of public transparency??

I admit that I couldn’t be clear enough to most readers at the start.

It is obvious to me that without having good scientific knowledge, in any period of time, the material world (by design) cannot run, as it is supposed to do, properly and be progressed continuously by knowing how to build new things (in peace time, including giving birth to new humans) and destroy old ones as well (in war time, including killing humans, based on the golden rule ‘Survival of the Strongest').

On the other hand, it is always necessary that certain humans are created to play the powerful masters on others, in the material world. Also by design, most humans are supposed to follow their natural instincts, mainly what concern their survival as individuals, groups, and as species as well. But, humans differ from other living things which live in the wild jungle. They can’t see themselves submitted to other humans. This fact was known, in all times, by those who had to play the masters on their subjects. They knew always that their multitudes were ready to submit to the will of anyone but a real human Naturally, notions of supernatural rulers (gods and the like) did the job and, by these notions, it was possible creating many earthly great kingdoms, each of them was ruled by a certain law claimed being inspired by a supreme ruling judge/god.

But, the human perception of life evolved (also by design) and the notion of 'Ruling Gods' had to be replaced by new ones. The best modern notion that replaced them is the ‘Ruling People’ (The People rules itself). This new notion worked very well and almost every human in the world didn’t mind believing in the existence of ‘We, The United People’ even if all families, he knows (including his), are divided

Conclusion:

In religious systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to certain holy books claimed being approved by Heaven..
In political systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to facts claimed being approved by scientists

After all, controlling billions of intelligent beings (humans) by fooling them is not easy at all. But, there are always certain geniuses (though should belong to a powerful rich group) who know how to do it in the name of powerful supernatural rulers OR in the name of immortal scientists whom no one in the world can control.

For example, who, in the world, can imagine that almost all stories of AIDS were fairy tales made for adults though the possibility for someone to lose (partially or fully) his body’s immunity system is REAL?
Yes, it is impossible for a believer of AIDS to understand or accept that controlling the function of our immunity system was made possible, since a few decades ago, by great medical discoveries (which were real necessary for the operations of transplanting live organs to succeed).

Please don’t worry, at all, about me if you like ignoring all what I said (After all, it is safer for you to do it, mainly if you live in what is known as free world).

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Spontaneously, I was going to agree with them being quite different. But picking the below apart, may suggest elsewise:



There is no such thing as “objective observation”. We experience things from the perspective of human beings. This is obvious but not trivial because it reminds us that what we call scientific objectivity is actually more a matter of consensus.

We like to think that science evolves because we learn more, but the reason we do so is because our so called “objective” perspective [on reality] changes and, as we collectively redefine reality, new aspects become perceivable and understood in new light.

Finally, just like with science, many acquire faith in their spiritual path because when they practice it, it results in what they had expected. Trouble is that the payoffs of humility, for example, are invisible to the arrogant.

If you substitute the word "intersubjective" for "objective" then you can go back to your spontaneous reaction that "religious faith" and "faith in science" are two completely different things. Religion doesn't even have "intersubjective." Not hardly. Everyone has a different story. And I do mean everyone. Some of them may converge somewhat here and there, but there is always divergence, always.

But when dealing with observation of our reality as we can mutually experience it... well... that says it all right there. If something is the same between us mutually (the acceleration we experience due to the gravity of Earth for example), then there is no denying it without giving away the fact that you are a nutter. In religion, however, you can be as mad as a hatter, and all your fellow-religious-person can do is smile and nod if they want to continue spouting off with their own brand of insanity, or challenge you - and then the two of you can have a conflict over absolutely nothing at all. In scientific study, there is, at the very least, someone who is more correct, and whose ideas more closely resemble the reality we experience. Not so with religion. Not so at all. And that reveals a hefty chunk of the difference.

 

[KerimF]

Ah, thanks for letting me know that continueing to talk to you is going to be a waste of my time.

Thank you for being honest.

You remind me when I was a young adult and used to respect every girl whom I had the chance to meet and talk. Some of them were brave and told me something like:
"You are a honest intelligent boy, I also felt very well whenever I was with you. But I ended up realizing that I was wasting my time."

I didn't blame them. After all, all of them were right. I had to look a real boring boy in comparison to those who tried living various adventures with them.

I know this is not the case here. I mentioned it just to point out that I may be expert in wasting other's time

Wish you have a long happy life.

 

[rational experiences]

To think. I can.

If I were not indoctrinated first thinking would be easier.

Instead I have to question pre stated info and ask my own self to be honest.

I did.

I said if spirit were real then you will have to prove it. I said it out aloud believing I would be heard.

Now I understand hearing is a physical state. Humans hear. So do animals.

Yet subliminal hearing without hearing is termed psychic. Proven multi terms by my owned questions to be given correct exact answers.

I then asked why and how. Expecting answers.

I was given an explanation. The eternal owned change without wanting change.

Our lesson don't want and don't change. Advice inherited.

Life came out of the eternal body as it's loss was originally just a thin flat plane space.

The burnt body no longer belonged. It had formed it's owned existence.

Hence unconditional being could use human image and voice and give me answers. Which it did.

The answers always human owned by humans as the eternal being is not any human experience.

Hence eternal plus human was the dream experience. The human left a record that shared its human data with all other lived human experiences. And we were taught why.

The creator the eternal being never a human not any God. The creator its owned body moved into formation as the GOD movement. By burning.

We never travelled into creation as GOD mass had.

Our human father and mother the original first two humans became our memory of records. From eternal. Separated. Communicated directly from an eternal form. Very spiritual beings.

The records of them experienced multi times as a spirit recording is our human proof we had come out of a pre owned spirit body. We live. We record our self presence as a new parent memory.

We record and become shared human data. To teach ourselves.

 

[Polymath257]

In religious systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to certain holy books claimed being approved by Heaven..
In political systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to facts claimed being approved by scientists

You mean *politicians* here, not scientists.

After all, controlling billions of intelligent beings (humans) by fooling them is not easy at all. But, there are always certain geniuses (though should belong to a powerful rich group) who know how to do it in the name of powerful supernatural rulers OR in the name of immortal scientists whom no one in the world can control.

??? Immortal scientists?

You don't know many scientists, do you?

For example, who, in the world, can imagine that almost all stories of AIDS were fairy tales made for adults though the possibility for someone to lose (partially or fully) his body’s immunity system is REAL?
Yes, it is impossible for a believer of AIDS to understand or accept that controlling the function of our immunity system was made possible, since a few decades ago, by great medical discoveries (which were real necessary for the operations of transplanting live organs to succeed).

No, it really has not been made possible. We know a fair amount about the immune system, but not in the way you seem to think.

Please don’t worry, at all, about me if you like ignoring all what I said (After all, it is safer for you to do it, mainly if you live in what is known as free world).

I'm more worried about you because what you say seems so disconnected with reality. I really wonder what your motivation is for believing this stuff. It must be powerful to make you go so far out on that limb.

 

[KerimF]

Every person believes in science by faith. Until one actually Discovers the Truth for themselves, it's a belief. On the other hand, science experiments can be copied. The information they speak of can be investigated and discovered.

Religion is not the same as science. Religion wants everyone to stop at beliefs because that is all they have. This is the reason science will Discover God before religion will. Yes, contrary to popular belief, science is walking toward God.

Truth is not always an agreeable thing. In addition, religion does not correct their mistakes because they think they do not make any. Further, religion never searches for new knowledge. This wanders one away from the Real Truth and God.

Science does correct the mistakes when they are found or when new knowledge is Discovered. This is a must for anyone who seeks or values Real Truth.

I think everyone should Discover what they really seek for themselves. If one really must follow, which is going to be the more reliable source? Science has it hands down.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

Yes, it is very clear and right.
I guess I couldn't be clear enough because my point was about something very different.

For example, I think you heard of AIDS. And you know that its various stories, spread worldwide by all ruling systems and for too many years, were all presented as being scientific.

Now ([please fasten your seat belt ) do you really think that you can believe that controlling the function of our body's immunity system was made possible, since a few decades ago, by great medical discoveries which were real necessary for the operations of transplanting live organs to succeed?

Sorry, but I know you can't believe it, even if you want you, for many reasons:

[1] It is always safer to believe whatever is approved as being true by all powerful ruling systems, religious and political, in the world (starting from the local one).

[2] If someone thinks it may be true, almost all those who live with him will ridicule his updated belief.

[3] No one dares revealing this in public (mainly via international TV channels) without risking his life, if not worse, because... sorry this will lead to politics.

And this is just one example of many beliefs, made in the name of science, to serve certain economical/political agendas.

 

[sayak83]

I admit that I couldn’t be clear enough to most readers at the start.

It is obvious to me that without having good scientific knowledge, in any period of time, the material world (by design) cannot run, as it is supposed to do, properly and be progressed continuously by knowing how to build new things (in peace time, including giving birth to new humans) and destroy old ones as well (in war time, including killing humans, based on the golden rule ‘Survival of the Strongest').

On the other hand, it is always necessary that certain humans are created to play the powerful masters on others, in the material world. Also by design, most humans are supposed to follow their natural instincts, mainly what concern their survival as individuals, groups, and as species as well. But, humans differ from other living things which live in the wild jungle. They can’t see themselves submitted to other humans. This fact was known, in all times, by those who had to play the masters on their subjects. They knew always that their multitudes were ready to submit to the will of anyone but a real human Naturally, notions of supernatural rulers (gods and the like) did the job and, by these notions, it was possible creating many earthly great kingdoms, each of them was ruled by a certain law claimed being inspired by a supreme ruling judge/god.

But, the human perception of life evolved (also by design) and the notion of 'Ruling Gods' had to be replaced by new ones. The best modern notion that replaced them is the ‘Ruling People’ (The People rules itself). This new notion worked very well and almost every human in the world didn’t mind believing in the existence of ‘We, The United People’ even if all families, he knows (including his), are divided

Conclusion:

In religious systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to certain holy books claimed being approved by Heaven..
In political systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to facts claimed being approved by scientists

After all, controlling billions of intelligent beings (humans) by fooling them is not easy at all. But, there are always certain geniuses (though should belong to a powerful rich group) who know how to do it in the name of powerful supernatural rulers OR in the name of immortal scientists whom no one in the world can control.

For example, who, in the world, can imagine that almost all stories of AIDS were fairy tales made for adults though the possibility for someone to lose (partially or fully) his body’s immunity system is REAL?
Yes, it is impossible for a believer of AIDS to understand or accept that controlling the function of our immunity system was made possible, since a few decades ago, by great medical discoveries (which were real necessary for the operations of transplanting live organs to succeed).

Please don’t worry, at all, about me if you like ignoring all what I said (After all, it is safer for you to do it, mainly if you live in what is known as free world).

You believe HIV is man made or something?

 

[KerimF]

Why not? Since they *are* free and independent, they are the most likely to be reliable.

Yes, you are right... though in case we insist to see the world as we like it to be
But, in general (the way the world is made), human's instincts guides people to listen to whoever represents a powerful (rich) group, religious or political. It is so, no matter if we see it right or wrong.
This explains why Jesus had to do miracles. He knew already this fact Now, miracles are no more important since his sayings (by which He revealed many crucial natural truths that no man dares repeating them clearly and loudly as He does on the today's Gospel) could be accessed/read by almost anyone in the world.

And, just to note, academic scientists are *often* consulted by outside sources for their honest opinions. One of the ethical rules *should* be that they get to publish their results no matter what they discover.

I believe it because, by this process, even free independent scientists/researches could be monitored; besides knowing continuously what they do.

By the way, I was supposed to submit my novel topology in voice/data communications as an MS thesis when I was at the American University of Beirut, AUB. But due to financial problems I didn't submit it and returned home to take care of my private small business (as a designer and producer of electronic controllers that the local market may need in every period of time). Even after about 40 years, my reliable low-cost simple topology is considered non-existing. This let FCC, since many years, not recommend using its communication system in almost all applications.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I admit that I couldn’t be clear enough to most readers at the start.

It is obvious to me that without having good scientific knowledge, in any period of time, the material world (by design) cannot run, as it is supposed to do, properly and be progressed continuously by knowing how to build new things (in peace time, including giving birth to new humans) and destroy old ones as well (in war time, including killing humans, based on the golden rule ‘Survival of the Strongest').

On the other hand, it is always necessary that certain humans are created to play the powerful masters on others, in the material world. Also by design, most humans are supposed to follow their natural instincts, mainly what concern their survival as individuals, groups, and as species as well. But, humans differ from other living things which live in the wild jungle. They can’t see themselves submitted to other humans. This fact was known, in all times, by those who had to play the masters on their subjects. They knew always that their multitudes were ready to submit to the will of anyone but a real human Naturally, notions of supernatural rulers (gods and the like) did the job and, by these notions, it was possible creating many earthly great kingdoms, each of them was ruled by a certain law claimed being inspired by a supreme ruling judge/god.

But, the human perception of life evolved (also by design) and the notion of 'Ruling Gods' had to be replaced by new ones. The best modern notion that replaced them is the ‘Ruling People’ (The People rules itself). This new notion worked very well and almost every human in the world didn’t mind believing in the existence of ‘We, The United People’ even if all families, he knows (including his), are divided

Conclusion:

In religious systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to certain holy books claimed being approved by Heaven..
In political systems, humans can be driven and controlled by referring to facts claimed being approved by scientists

After all, controlling billions of intelligent beings (humans) by fooling them is not easy at all. But, there are always certain geniuses (though should belong to a powerful rich group) who know how to do it in the name of powerful supernatural rulers OR in the name of immortal scientists whom no one in the world can control.

For example, who, in the world, can imagine that almost all stories of AIDS were fairy tales made for adults though the possibility for someone to lose (partially or fully) his body’s immunity system is REAL?
Yes, it is impossible for a believer of AIDS to understand or accept that controlling the function of our immunity system was made possible, since a few decades ago, by great medical discoveries (which were real necessary for the operations of transplanting live organs to succeed).

Please don’t worry, at all, about me if you like ignoring all what I said (After all, it is safer for you to do it, mainly if you live in what is known as free world).

What? I am not even sure where to begin. A suppose a couple of points. You claim that the knowledge obtained in science is necessary for the world to work by design. Apart from not making a lot of sense, there is nothing to support this claim. As I see it, it is saying that man designs the world by having scientific knowledge of the world.

Biological fitness is not survival of the strongest.

It is true that religion and politics can be used to control people. That is not much of a revelation. They can also be used constructively and positively too.

This sounds more like the beginnings of a manifesto about a tiny global elite that controls us all. And AIDS is a belief system that they put together to facilitate that control? This is a rather old baseless claim.

Understanding how our immune system works as we do now was made possible through observation and experiment using the scientific method. We do not know all there is to know about it yet. But the current level of knowledge and understanding did not kick the immune system into existence. That is what I am getting from your statements.

 

[KerimF]

I think it is a huge mistake to believe that all of the 'elites' of the world have interests that align. And, if the interests differ, there will still be power struggles within the elites and disagreements about what to do and say. In that context, it would be impossible to keep anything like this going for the decades you seem to think has happened.

In other words, I call garbage on this viewpoint. Any real analysis of the forces that would have to be involved shows quickly that they are not possible, even with today's technology simply because people are not uniform (and that includes the elites).

Indeed, I expect that most ordinary people in the world believe (actually they are supposed to believe) what you said "it is a huge mistake to believe that all of the 'elites' of the world have interests that align".

Yes, this belief 'was' very true.
But, now, all peoples in the world can be driven and controlled as if the world were just a small village; thanks to the various advanced technologies.

In this world's village, the powerful rich Elite, in any region/country, are not naive to be real rivals against each other anymore. But this doesn't prevent them to play this 'believed' role to fool continuously the ordinary people who live by them and/or abroad.

So even in America, its people were raised with the belief that their main two political parties are 'real' rivals. This is one of the best modern political tricks to keep the ordinary people in the state of confusion and hope for a better future, year after year (actually, the period was made 4 years). But this trick is not allowed to be applied in the submitted countries (unless the number of active parties are made big enough, as in Lebanon). In such countries, the ruling system has to be run by one royal family or one political party; so that when the decision is made to destroy one of them (usually a small/powerless one), all ruling systems (excluding the local one, of course) present its ruling system as dictatorial or of tyrants (this needs just a few hired snipers during a peaceful protest to provide the world all necessary solid proofs).

Could you believe what I say? I am afraid you can't for many reasons; one of them is that 'a good faithful believer in a well-defined group, religious or political, should reject automatically any idea not approved yet by his group's head(s).

I hope you agree with me that it would be silly from my side if I try convincing, in any way, good faithful believers about anything they are not familiar to.

 

[KerimF]

Even as a scientist, I cannot know all that is known in science or what all other scientists know. I have to place my confidence in the system and those scientists when they are writing about their areas of expertise. You could call that faith I suppose.

If what you hear from them could be useful to you in life, in one way or another, we can't call it faith because you know they are real after applying them.
If what you hear, as an idea (news) from them, has no real role in your life other than sharing its belief with some others (many or few), I guess we can call it faith (with the hope it will have a useful role in your life, even indirectly).

 

[KerimF]

I am not sure why you think I missed that.

I don't recall taking exams that way. If it reflected the way that I was taught, that would be the only homage to the teacher that taught me. I am not exactly sure what you mean.

I was simply describing my world. I have no sure idea of yours. So, me too, I am not exactly sure what you mean, as if we were on the Babylon Tower

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

A mature person believes in science by faith, much like a believer in a god’s law does, anytime he cannot trust his own observations/experiences and logical reasoning more than of anyone else, period

No.

Do I have the knowledge or understanding to write out and explain Einstein's relativity equations? Not even close.

Could I build a GPS satellite system? Wouldn't even know where to start.

Do I accept Einstein's theory of relativity? Yes.
Do I accept atomic theory? Yes.

Do I accept this on faith?
No........

2 obvious reasons:
1. nukes explode and GPS works. Clearly the theories (atoms and relativity) that underpin these technologies are rather accurate explanations of reality. Nukes wouldn't explode if it wasn't. GPS wouldn't be able to pinpoint my location. Nuclear power plants wouldn't successfully generate electricity.

2. I understand how science works. Meaning that I know that I can give a reasonable amount of trust to the conclusions that are derived from this scientific process, without actually having to get a phd in all those fields myself. It's comparable to how reasonable it is to accept a diagnose of some lump on your body by an oncologist as opposed to a car mechanic.

Appeal to expertise, is not a fallacy nor a problem.

 

[KerimF]

That is an idea that seems to be crawling out of the discussion of this thread. Another depiction of a conspiracy of some global elite that runs things and everyone knows, but no one knows. All these divergent elites that can come together unanimously on global control sounds more like a bad sci-fi plot than anything else.

Truth be told, if your reaction was different, I would be real surprised because billions are invested every year to let the world's multitudes forget for good what was revealed once as 'The New World Order'.

But nothing can be done if someone still believes, even after 20 years, that the horrible crimes committed on 9-11-2001 was planned because of jealousy and not for gaining continuously more legitimate rights and incomes (besides other bonuses when necessary). This person is simply made to be always ready to believe anything he is allowed to see and hear on his monitors. On the other hand, I bet that the stories of the investigators, at that time, were also supported by so-called scientific facts (that is, if we hit a big tower with a plane having enough gasoline to burn a few floors on it, the tower will scroll fully soon later. Yes, this was a scientific discovery of a new economical method to scroll down an old tower, unless the WTC ones were unique, instead of the old processes which are complex and costly; requiring professional companies to do it).

After all, who have time to wait the fruits of any event to show up then analyze them attentively and without being biased to discover if there are any hidden truths or not?

Conclusion:
Let us keep seeing all happenings in the world as each of us used doing.

Happy End. (as in movies )