Factional Science Faith

[sayak83]

I like it that you think of science as something that people do.

As a scientist myself I should know...

 

[osgart]

I think everyone tries to back up their philosophy with what science says. I have seen where the philosophies are considered science and an aggressive agenda is pushed. The philosophy is pushed as science fact and in the name of science, philosophy is pushed into a corner as if it is useless to do.

Just reading through rf you will find many people who push their anti religious message in the name of science, when really they are just pushing their philosophical agendas.

Personally i think the philosophy of religion has a lot of juicy science facts to convey their position well. Iow, they have a lot of fuel to light their fires.

Facts can be manipulated though to construe whatever one wishes. Mob rules i guess.

 

[Jim]

@Audie What I'm saying is not about the research itself, or about science in general. It's about some ways that I see people using the research and the word "science" sometimes, in Internet debating and in media stories. A lot of it looks to me like all the worst ways that I see people using religious scriptures, and the word "God." The reason I posted that was because it answers some questions for me about what I've been seeing, and I thought it might do the same for some other people. It looks to me like some other people have been seeing what I've been seeing.

 

[viole]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

I don’t like it when people compare science to a religion.

It’s much more than that. And much more powerful than any god. Science is above any god and religion. By far. If I were a god, I would retreat in shame when compared with the greatest scientists.

For instance,try to communicate almost instantaneously with me, like you are doing by posting here, by using communication means that strongly depend on quantum mechanics, optics, etc... only by praying to Ba’ah or whatever other god. And tell me the outcome.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I don’t like it when people compare science to a religion.

It’s much more than that. And much more powerful than any god. Science is above any god and religion. By far. If I were a god, I would retreat in shame when compared with the greatest scientists.

For instance,try to communicate almost instantaneously with me, like you are doing by posting here, by using communication means that strongly depend on quantum mechanics, optics, etc... only by praying to Ba’ah or whatever other god. And tell me the outcome.

Ciao

- viole

Comparing science to religion / god is as bit
weird, but near as I can tell, it reflects a certain
mindset on the part of the religious. That being,
that "god" as central to all reality is so deeply wired
in the that they can no more conceive of how we
could get by fine without, then a tent could stay
up without its centerpole.

So..we must have a centerpole (god); every tent
does. Maybe you make yourself "god" or science
is, but, it is all versions of the same thing. They
gots the right version, the others are misguided.

What do you think?

 

[Audie]

@Audie What I'm saying is not about the research itself, or about science in general. It's about some ways that I see people using the research and the word "science" sometimes, in Internet debating and in media stories. A lot of it looks to me like all the worst ways that I see people using religious scriptures, and the word "God." The reason I posted that was because it answers some questions for me about what I've been seeing, and I thought it might do the same for some other people. It looks to me like some other people have been seeing what I've been seeing.

See my comments about those who cannot conceive
of there being no god.

Also-you see some really really dumb stuff said in forums.
Maybe you take it too seriously, make too much of it?

FTM, while I see some of the atheists here make science
related statements that are a bit off, they are but nothing
compared to the wild craziness of those theist sorts
who try to use science to back up their cultish notions.

Surely you have noticed Are those the ones you refer to?

I've not seen anyone with a reasonably level head and
some background in science doing anything like what
you describe.

 

[viole]

Comparing science to religion / god is as bit
weird, but near as I can tell, it reflects a certain
mindset on the part of the religious. That being,
that "god" as central to all reality is so deeply wired
in the that they can no more conceive of how we
could get by fine without, then a tent could stay
up without its centerpole.

So..we must have a centerpole (god); every tent
does. Maybe you make yourself "god" or science
is, but, it is all versions of the same thing. They
gots the right version, the others are misguided.

What do you think?

I think they feel lonely. So, they start thinking that atheists and supporter of science are also religious.

What they mean is: you are not better than us worshippers of something obviously overrated.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

I think they feel lonely. So, they start thinking that atheists and supporter of science are also religious.

What they mean is: you are not better than us worshippers of something obviously overrated.

Ciao

- viole

I've heard it enough that nobody is really an
atheist, in their hearts everyone believes. See
'atheist / foxhole".

Atheists are like them in regard to belief,
and a god being central to reality, but is a
wilted weed compared to their glorious rose.

 

[viole]

I've heard it enough that nobody is really an
atheist, in their hearts everyone believes. See
'atheist / foxhole".

Atheists are like them in regard to belief,
and a god being central to reality, but is a
wilted weed compared to their glorious rose.

Well, that atheist foxhole thing is an irrational joke.
It is like saying: look, if you are afraid enough you will also believe in Allah, Zeus, Jesus, or whatever God the foxholes occupants are supposed to believe.

What is mind boggling is that they do not realize how self defeating that is, even if it were true.

But we do see that clearly. And that is why are generally considered smarter.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Audie]

@Audie What I'm thinking of is in the debating that I've seen in Internet discussions and media stories. The factions that I'm thinking of are the echo chambers on one side or another of each debate, people endlessly repeating the same things in the same words, things that they've read or heard somewhere. Sometimes in those debates, I see people using research reports in all the worst ways that I see people using religious scriptures, and using the word "science" in all the worst ways that I see people using the word "God." In that debating, the word "science" has no more meaning than the word "God." If you ask five different people what they mean by "science," you'll get five different answers. It's just a word that serves the same psychological and social purposes sometimes as "God" does sometimes, for example to feel vindicated in what they're saying, for virtue signaling, or to try to shame or intimidate people into submission. Sometimes I see people saying "science has proven," or that some view is "against science," again not actually communicating anything, but in the same way and for the same reasons that people say "the Bible says," or that some view is "against the Bible." The people saying "science has proven" or that some view is "against science," are talking about some research reports that they've never actually read. They're trusting other people to tell them what the research says, which is rarely or never what the research actually says. It's always some kind of factional misrepresentation and often even falsification of what the research says, just like what people think that their religious scriptures say.

IF you are concerning yourself with people who say
"science has proven", you are concerning yourself
with stupid /uneducated people who know nothing
of what they are trying to talk about.

The only people I ever see in a debate forum using
"science" as you describe are fundys.

"Science has proven that abiogenesis is impossible"

"Second law of thermodynamics proves evolution is
impossible"

"Science proves the great flood really happened"

I challenge you to show me one post where science
is misused as you describe, written by someone other
than fundys, or some other sort of "theist" trying to make
a point.

I dont think you can do it. Cease posting on this topic
until you do, and we will have heard the last of this.

 

[paarsurrey]

“Great indeed is the claim of scientists… on the peoples of the world,” Bahá'u'lláh observed.

Personally I see it as a good thing that people are gradually preferring hard research to blind tradition

Please provide references of the original book/s (not from the compilation of excerpts) written by Bahaullah on science and or scientists.

Regards

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I don't doubt there are people who do this. However, these reports are tried and tested again and again and again. It only takes one person to point out a fatal flaw, and theyre scrapped.

This point is usually made by people who characterise science as some sort of entity. It's a process which is driven by not having faith in any single conclusion.

To give an example; evolution. Now i'm not going to get into evolution v creationism. I'm going to tentatively assume you're ok with evolution as a premise.

We start with observable fact. Species change over time. Humans are taller than they were 1000 years ago. Simple, observable facts.

Theory one: (forgotten his name) evolution. Essentially, traits gained by the parents are passed on to their kids - e.g. if you are a bodybuilder, your kid will be strong. We know that's false through observation and testing.

Theory 2: Darwinian evolution by natural selection. Genetic code is passed on with tiny flaws. The vast majority of these flaws are either bred out or lead to the death of the animal. The tiny, tiny percentage of advantageous flaws are passed on through genetic code. Repeat for millenia.

Scientific theory is falsifiable - if we found a fossilised human that we can date to the jurassic period, and we cant come up with a reasonable explaination, it's back to the drawing board for Darwin's theory. It hasn't happened yet, despite numerous attempts (which is good, attempts to disprove is how science moves on) so we're reasonably assured of its veracity. Not entirely convinced, but reasonably assured.

I believe in Darwinian evolution. Not through faith in something without evidence, but trust in those people who are qualified to produce that evidence and are sceptical about it. There's nothing wrong with trust when balanced with available evidence. I understand the theory.and am ok with the premise of it.

I'm not ok with christian science, and do not trust the scientists who would practice it. They have an ulterior motive - true science is led by the evidence not the conclusion. It doesn't have preconceived notions about truth.

So, when you say people have faith in science, you're misunderstanding science. (Most) people place trust in the system of science based on available evidence, and do not place trust in conclusions where the methodology is flawed.

Its like saying you can cross the road without looking, because you have faith in the system. In reality, you check the available evidence (looking both ways) because you want to be right.

This is a very good post in this thread. The one wee change I might suggest is in Darwinian evolution, rather than say genes are passed on with tiny flaws, I might prefer "variations." The result is the same, but it seems slightly more accurate. (Note: I realize this is quibbling, but I'm a quibbler.)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

That doesn’t look to me like anything I was thinking. What I was thinking about scriptures was that sometimes I see people using research reports in all the worst ways that I’ve seen people using religious scriptures. For example, not actually reading them, and trusting their faction leaders to tell them what they say..

Ah, well those would not be people doing science, but rather people using the scientific work of others for their own purposes. Those who actually do science don't typically behave that way (though I imagine there are exceptions, but they would generally be pretty poor scientists).

Those who are truly into science don't read the published papers of others in any way like scripture at all. Rather, they study with full intent to falsify them, to show where they are incorrect, if the can. Or to replicate the findings themselves, in their own way.

Maybe I can show you what I mean: This week alone, in the news:

• News outlets are misreporting a science news release and claiming that eating fish will prevent Parkinson's.
• Companies are now selling collagen as an anti-aging dietary supplement.
• CNN reports that eating 3 eggs a day will shorten your lifespan
• There are companies advertising "GMO-free sugar," which is ridiculous, since sugar is a crystal, and doesn't have genes.

This is not science, it's pop culture "woo." And the people making the claims are not doing science, but abusing legitimate science for their own ends.

 

[Jim]

I don’t like it when people compare science to a religion.

If you're talking to me, that isn't what I was doing.

 

[Jim]

I see something that needs to be clarified. I'm not comparing science to religion. I'm comparing what people do with science sometimes to what people do with religion sometimes.

 

[Jim]

See my comments about those who cannot conceive
of there being no god.

That might be the way some people are thinking. I have seen people arguing that atheists really believe in God, without knowing it.

Also-you see some really really dumb stuff said in forums.

Not only do I see it, I do it myself sometimes.

FTM, while I see some of the atheists here make science
related statements that are a bit off, they are but nothing
compared to the wild craziness of those theist sorts
who try to use science to back up their cultish notions.

Maybe. I wasn't thinking of atheists in particular. I was thinking more of religion/anti-religion debating. I don't equate atheism with anti-religion.

Surely you have noticed Are those the ones you refer to?

I've noticed it on the religion side, and that's part of what I had in mind. I haven't thought about how much abuse of science there is on one side compared to the other. The point is that I see it happening on all sides.

 

[Audie]

That might be the way some people are thinking. I have seen people arguing that atheists really believe in God, without knowing it.

Not only do I see it, I do it myself sometimes.

Maybe. I wasn't thinking of atheists in particular. I was thinking more of religion/anti-religion debating. I don't equate atheism with anti-religion.

I've noticed it on the religion side, and that's part of what I had in mind. I haven't thought about how much abuse of science there is on one side compared to the other. The point is that I see it happening on all sides.

It is not a "might- be", I have heard it a thousand times.
"In their hearts evrryone brlieves in god"

We all say dumb things. It is the human condition.

As for idiotic misuse of science, the only people I see doing it
in thid context are fundamentalists ttying to support their silly
fables with "science".

Plz supply examples of that about which you complain.
So far, pardon me, but it seems this is all in your imagination-
or so rare as to not be worth mentioning.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've posted about this before, but that thread is six months old, and I might have a better way of explaining it now. What I mean by "Factional Science Faith" is blind faith in whatever a person's faction is calling "science." I see it as functioning in all the same ways, psychologically and socially, as a religion, substituting research reports in the place of scriptures.

I am trying to understand what you are getting at here. The best I think I can come up with is the idea that some possible group of people--not an organized group--could view science as dogma without actually understanding the science.

As you note, you have posted about this before and it has also come up in other recent threads including one about so called scientism and another about science as religion.

It is certainly true that there are concerted efforts to co-mingle science with religion to provide a cloak of realism to religious beliefs, but this is still just religion.

In my limited experience on here, the atheists that I have seen defend and report science have done so in the context of science and not as some religious world view. But I have not read the posts of every atheist or all of those concerning science, so there may be examples supporting the idea of your position that I have missed. Though I cannot imagine there would be many or that the number would be significant.

The biggest problem that I see regarding faith and science are from those that are opposed to science on the grounds of faith. This seems largely to stem from the validity of faith in claims arising from religious dogma and documentation and not regarding a threat to faith in the existence of a deity.

One can have faith in light of science. There is no inherent threat from science to a persons personal belief in the existence of God or any other god or deity.

 

[Jim]

@Dan From Smithville Thanks for posting. I only posted this because it helps answer some questions for me, and t thought it might do the same for some other people. I don't want to spend any more time trying to explain it. I think that what I've said is enough for anyone who might get any benefit from it.

 

[Jim]

There is no inherent threat from science to a persons personal belief in the existence of God or any other god or deity.

What about the other way around? Would you agree that there is no inherent threat to science from a persons personal belief in the existence of God or any other god or deity.