I have two questions for Atheists (or anyone else)

[Jimmy_B]

Well, the thing is I don’t recognize the situation that you outline in your question about the behaviour of scientists - other than as cliche.

I know people in the “science community” and beliefs in God and in “UFO‘s” are frowned on…even though the science community has been spending billions, trying to find, “intelligent” or otherwise, extraterrestrial life forms for years… Go figure…

There are a lot of atheists in the science community… Science is good in many ways but it also seems to have a problem with the existence of God, in many ways…

BTW, I don’t believe in UFO’s but I also, don‘t have a problem with science or NASA funding…

True science and God should be able to co-exist.

 

[Kaninchen]

I know people in the “science community” and beliefs in God and in “UFO‘s” are frowned on…even though the science community has been spending billions, trying to find, “intelligent” or otherwise, extraterrestrial life forms for years… Go figure…

There are a lot of atheists in the science community… Science is good in many ways but it also seems to have a problem with the existence of God, in many ways…

BTW, I don’t believe in UFO’s but I also, don‘t have a problem with science or NASA funding…

True science and God should be able to co-exist.

The trouble is that you seem to want science to answer questions that are orthogonal to science and the scientific method.

The position of a scientist is, in a sense analogous to the Catholic view of the Pope, ie you should listen to him over some things but you can quite safely ignore him on others - his view on ‘Mary’ is significant, his view of broccoli irrelevant.

 

[kingal86]

1. Has anyone ever seen a Black Hole?

I’m not really an atheist, but I see where you’re going with black holes (believing things you haven’t seen on authority). Most of the public believes, on authority, when most physicists when they say that empirical observation, algebra etc. gives persuasive evidence that black holes may exist.

This is a bit different from believing on authority that the Catholic Church goes back to St Peter, or that everything in the Gospels is true, or the truth of the Resurrection etc. For one thing, there are many different theories that claim to explain the universe better, but the proponents (usually) don’t claim it to be the One True Theory (though I guess pro-evolution & climate change scientists can sometimes go that far), and even if they did they don’t usually say you risk your soul/salvation if you believe in the wrong theory.

If someone underwent enough training in physics, mathematics and astronomy then–presumably–they could also deduce black holes, atoms etc. most likely exist, at least until more data is collected which challenges that assumption enough for a new theory to make more sense.

Of course, since scientists are human it doesn’t always work like that, and people get attached to their theories For example, the man who first suggested continental shift was apparently dismissed as a heretic by mainstream science.

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’m not really an atheist, but I see where you’re going with black holes (believing things you haven’t seen on authority). Most of the public believes, on authority, when most physicists when they say that empirical observation, algebra etc. gives persuasive evidence that black holes may exist.

This is a bit different from believing on authority that the Catholic Church goes back to St Peter, or that everything in the Gospels is true, or the truth of the Resurrection etc. For one thing, there are many different theories that claim to explain the universe better, but the proponents (usually) don’t claim it to be the One True Theory (though I guess pro-evolution & climate change scientists can sometimes go that far), and even if they did they don’t usually say you risk your soul/salvation if you believe in the wrong theory.

If someone underwent enough training in physics, mathematics and astronomy then–presumably–they could also deduce black holes, atoms etc. most likely exist, at least until more data is collected which challenges that assumption enough for a new theory to make more sense.

Of course, since scientists are human it doesn’t always work like that, and people get attached to their theories For example, the man who first suggested continental shift was apparently dismissed as a heretic by mainstream science.

I agree with most of this and I believe that for the most part, you understand where I’m going with this.

However, I would like to add that there will always be just one truth.

When two people disagree about a truth, whether it is in science or in religion, they cannot both be correct.

Some may be partially correct but when it comes to the full understanding of any truth, there can only be one version of the whole truth…

In science, people need faith, to believe in those things that they can’t see and in religion, people need faith to believe in those things that they cannot see.

In science, people need to trust those leaders in science for the “truth“, sort of a, science version of, “infallibility”. In religion, people need to trust those leaders in religion for the “truth“.

There exists a certain degree of “infallibility” in every religion and denomination and there is also a degree of “infallibility” in science.

Is science a religion? I think for some, it is.

Your thoughts.

 

[Kaninchen]

I agree with most of this and I believe that for the most part, you understand where I’m going with this.

However, I would like to add that there will always be just one truth.

When two people disagree about a truth, whether it is in science or in religion, they cannot both be correct.

Some may be partially correct but when it comes to the full understanding of any truth, there can only be one version of the whole truth…

In science, people need faith, to believe in those things that they can’t see and in religion, people need faith to believe in those things that they cannot see.

In science, people need to trust those leaders in science for the “truth“, sort of a, science version of, “infallibility”. In religion, people need to trust those leaders in religion for the “truth“.

There exists a certain degree of “infallibility” in every religion and denomination and there is also a degree of “infallibility” in science.

Is science a religion? I think for some, it is.

Your thoughts.

Part of your problem is the question of what the word ‘truth’ means in different contexts.

 

[Zatzat]

In science, people need faith, to believe in those things that they can’t see and in religion, people need faith to believe in those things that they cannot see.

Incorrect. Good science is observable, testable, repeatable and falsifiable. All of which require ZERO faith.

 

[Redratfish]

ScrapeTV | Online Pop Culture Magazine

I have two questions for Atheists… or anyone else, who wants to jump in.

1. Has anyone ever seen a Black Hole?
2. Has science, for many, become a religion?

Of course black holes have been seen. Well, sort of.

Black holes take away all light, we can tell where a black hole is based on the fact that light is getting sucked into it. I’m not going to go searching online for pictures of “black holes” for obvious reasons, but to answer you question yes, I think we have seen them with the hubble telescope perhaps.

To answer your other question, yes. Science has become a religion. That being said, science and religion can go hand in hand.
Eg. I personally believe in God guided evolution, and the Big Bang.

Remember, Thomas Aquinas said that truth cannot contradict truth. That being said, nothing can ever disprove God. If God is supposedly proven fake, we obviously have come into error, and must look closely at what science is telling us, and how God interacted through that science.

 

[Zatzat]

Science has become a religion.

Are you going to explain why you feel this way?

 

[Jimmy_B]

Part of your problem is the question of what the word ‘truth’ means in different contexts.

Hello again Kaninchen,

What is the correct context then? Just because the word “theory” is added to a science conclusion, doesn’t mean that in reality, these things in science aren’t thought of, preached and taught as the truth, they often times are. The term, “widely accepted” is routinely added to “theory”; “This theory is widely accepted”… Meaning, “widely accepted” as being the truth…right?

 

[Kaninchen]

Hello again Kaninchen,

What is the correct context then? Just because the word “theory” is added to a science conclusion, doesn’t mean that in reality, these things in science aren’t thought of, preached and taught as the truth, they often times are. The term, “widely accepted” is routinely added to “theory”; “This theory is widely accepted”… Meaning, “widely accepted” as being the truth…right?

One might say that, on boards like CAF, ‘context’ is what the protagonist is trying to ‘prove’ to their own satisfaction - so you describe science as a ‘religion’ and being ‘preached’ and so on because that’s what you’re trying to establish by getting people who agree with you to say that they agree with you. This is all very well and good, I’m sure, but it’s not going to get people who disagree with you to agree with you and ‘science’ threads tend to end up with “OH, yes it is! OH, no it isn’t!”

Scientific theories are not ‘true’, they’re ‘something like the truth in that it’s the best explanation we have come up with that hasn’t been falsified yet’.

 

[Jimmy_B]

Are you going to explain why you feel this way?

Hello Zatzat,

Well, to anwser your question, it might be in part, because there are images of Black Holes, for example, like the one I posted here that people are expected by science, to accept and there are constant cable TV shows about Black Holes that we are all suppose to accept and so on… I know that no one has ever seen a Black Hole… Isn’t a certain amount of “faith” involved here?

I believe that science and God can co-exist and that if Black Holes do exist and it looks like they probably do, then they exist because of God‘s will and not by accident.

That‘s the difference between science and religion. However, “faith” is a concept share by science and religion and my belief is that it is possible that they co-exist.

I also know that there are some in science who are looking for another explanation of the universe, other than God, or “disproves” the existence of God.

Whenever anyone talks about how the universe was created, for example, peoples beliefs vary.

One can either believe that God created the universe, or that it was by accident, explained by science. For some, “God created the universe“, for others, “The universe was created by the Big Bang”… and many believe that God cause the “Big Bang” and thereby, created the universe and so on…

However, no matter your belief, God is part of the equation, or removed from the equation… Is He not?

This is why I also believe that Atheism is a religion, because God’s name is invoked, even if it is to say, “I don’t believe in God”…

Thank you for your post.

Your thoughts?

 

[Kaninchen]

I believe that science and God can co-exist and that if Black Holes do exist and it looks like they probably do, then they exist because of God‘s will and not by accident.

That‘s the difference between science and religion.

It isn’t any such thing. Science doesn’t deal with questions like whether something exists through God’s will or not.

I also know that there are some in science who are looking for another explanation of the universe, other than God, or “disproves” the existence of God.

How do you ‘know’ this?

However, no matter your belief, God is part of the equation, or removed from the equation… Is He not?

This is why I also believe that Atheism is a religion, because God’s name is invoked, even if it is to say, “I don’t believe in God”…

This is just a linguistic game, Jimmy B.

 

[Jimmy_B]

One might say that, on boards like CAF, ‘context’ is what the protagonist is trying to ‘prove’ to their own satisfaction - so you describe science as a ‘religion’ and being ‘preached’ and so on because that’s what you’re trying to establish by getting people who agree with you to say that they agree with you. This is all very well and good, I’m sure, but it’s not going to get people who disagree with you to agree with you and ‘science’ threads tend to end up with “OH, yes it is! OH, no it isn’t!”

Scientific theories are not ‘true’, they’re ‘something like the truth in that it’s the best explanation we have come up with that hasn’t been falsified yet’.

Thanks…that makes sense…

However, I still believe that there are people who have replaced science for religion and replaced “accidental occurrences” for God’s will… So, doesn’t that make science, in a sense, a religion that explains the mysteries of the universe for some? I also believe that science is present, when researching religion and that, in science and religion, faith, authority and sources of information, are all important…

Do you believe that God created the universe? And, do you believe that science and religion can co-exist?

Your thoughts?

 

[Kaninchen]

Thanks…that makes sense…

However, I still believe that there are people who have replaced science for religion and replaced “accidental occurrences” for God’s will… So, doesn’t that make science, in a sense, a religion that explains the mysteries of the universe for some? I also believe that science is present, when researching religion and that, in science and religion, faith, authority and sources of information, are all important…

Do you believe that God created the universe? And, do you believe that science and religion can co-exist?

Your thoughts?

I’ve spent my entire life surrounded by scientists (mostly university academics - some believers, some not) and I live in a society where atheism and agnosticism are quite normal. It’s never bothered me - science deals with ‘how?’ not ‘why?’, my religion takes care of the ‘whys?’.

Perhaps in a society of ‘loud’ believers, like the US, atheists have to be more assertive? Most atheists I know only argue about it when somebody wants to ‘prove’ the existence of God to them.

 

[Zatzat]

Well, to anwser your question, it might be in part, because there are images of Black Holes, for example, like the one I posted here that people are expected by science, to accept and there are constant cable TV shows about Black Holes that we are all suppose to accept and so on… I know that no one has ever seen a Black Hole… Isn’t a certain amount of “faith” involved here?

No, none. Science is testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable. I trust that the scientists and astronomers who’ve put forward blackholes, have done so based upon testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence.

I believe that science and God can co-exist and that if Black Holes do exist and it looks like they probably do, then they exist because of God‘s will and not by accident.

Black holes can be proven to exist, without faith. God cannot be proven to exist, one needs faith.

This is why I also believe that Atheism is a religion, because God’s name is invoked, even if it is to say, “I don’t believe in God”…

If I say ’ I don’t believe in God’, you’re saying that my statement is evidence that I am involved in a religion of unbelief…and all because I invoked the word ’ God’.???

 

[Jimmy_B]

No, none. Science is testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable. I trust that the scientists and astronomers who’ve put forward blackholes, have done so based upon testable, observable, repeatable and falsifiable evidence.

Black holes can be proven to exist, without faith. God cannot be proven to exist, one needs faith.

If I say ’ I don’t believe in God’, you’re saying that my statement is evidence that I am involved in a religion of unbelief…and all because I invoked the word ’ God’.???

] "If I say ’ I don’t believe in God’, you’re saying that my statement is evidence that I am involved in a religion of unbelief…and all because I invoked the word ’ God’.???" *
**
Yep … *

 

[Jimmy_B]

I’ve spent my entire life surrounded by scientists (mostly university academics - some believers, some not) and I live in a society where atheism and agnosticism are quite normal. It’s never bothered me - science deals with ‘how?’ not ‘why?’, my religion takes care of the ‘whys?’.

Perhaps in a society of ‘loud’ believers, like the US, atheists have to be more assertive? Most atheists I know only argue about it when somebody wants to ‘prove’ the existence of God to them.

“…my entire life surrounded by scientists (mostly university academics - some believers, some not) and I live in a society where atheism and agnosticism are quite normal.”

Wow… I finally dragged it out of you…That was like pulling teeth :doh2:… And you still don’t believe that for some, science is their religion?

 

[Kaninchen]

Wow… I finally dragged it out of you…That was like pulling teeth :doh2:…

It’s all in the questions, as I’d said.

And you still don’t believe that for some, science is their religion?

Rather depends on what you mean by ‘believe’, ‘some’, ‘science’, ‘is’, ‘their’ and ‘religion’.

 

[benidict]

you two have probably had the best exchange on CAF, i have ever read. i must say. i was highly entertained. that was awesome! by all means please continue it. peace

 

[Babushka]

Science is not a religion. And I did not see black hole))