Limits Are Not a Bad Thing.

[Guy Threepwood]

"

You have not established that there is a pattern, but you believe there is a pattern without any real proof. Then you go on to say, "Blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself" and "our individual beliefs, are just that- beliefs not facts."

.

So we agree; denying the limitations of our own beliefs impedes scientific progress, if prevents us from moving beyond them.

A couple of examples for you from a couple of prominent atheists.

[Hoyle] found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms" and hence rejected the evidence till his dying day

“Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact..." Dawkins


Whereas notable skeptics of atheism like Lemaitre and Planck, agreed more with you and I, on the problem of scientific dogma.

A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. Max Planck

 

[Jeremiahcp]

So we agree

Not entirely. I am not generalizing people like you are.

 

[Father Heathen]

It's not science that's limited, but rather our own knowledge and understanding, but those limitations shrink as we continue to learn. Despite not having the whole picture, however, we should still base belief on a rational, objective analysis of what evidence is currently available rather than blindly following what others had pulled from their ***.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Having limits and recognizing their limits are different things

The scientific method and scientific historical approaches are different things

Science and hidden assumptions taken a priori are different things

 

[whirlingmerc]

Well science is open to it, as it is just a rational methodology. Anyone who puts in the effort can apply it, but I think you may be talking about people rather than the scientific process.

Well.. no... science have assumptions taken a priori... and so sometimes what is called 'science' carries faith assumptions such as atheistic faith assumptions

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Well.. no... science have assumptions taken a priori... and so sometimes what is called 'science' carries faith assumptions such as atheistic faith assumptions

I am sorry, but I am not really clear which part of my post you are saying no to.

 

[whirlingmerc]

you said science is strictly rational.... sort of true... sort of not... there are assumptions taken a priori, basically a set of faith assumptions

any form of science has its own faith assumptions

I'm saying that "it is just a rational methodology" is not quite true... it's a rational methodology on top of a set of faith assumptions

 

[Jeremiahcp]

you said science is strictly rational.... sort of true... sort of not... there are assumptions taken a priori, basically a set of faith assumptions

any form of science has its own faith assumptions

"you said science is strictly rational..."

Actually, I said it is a rational methodology. I picked these words for a specific reason, because, as far as I am concerned, it is not about assumptions or beliefs, it is a method.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Scientists are far more humble than the religious. Scientists admit to what they don't know, the religious often pretend to have all the answers.

Some scientists can be just as egotistical and fraudulent as some religious frauds.....weak human nature is the common denominator.