• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Why do reasonable people doubt science?

Junebug said:
Why do reasonable people assume that science provides answers to everything?
Click to expand...

Reasonable people assume science provides a way to answer everything and that we should keep working towards finding those answers.
 
Junebug said:
Why do reasonable people assume that science provides answers to everything?
Click to expand...

1) Nobody does
2) If someone does, it's the most reasonable epistemological framework we have
 
A healthy dose of skepticism is fine. Ignoring an entire body of work on a topic which is the result of years and years of research, testing, and experimentation from the foremost experts in the world on a certain topic because it either conflicts with some anecdote you have from one time in your life or because your parents took you to church from the day you were born is not good practice at least in my opinion.
 
Junebug said:
Why do reasonable people assume that science provides answers to everything?
Click to expand...

Because it does.*

*The caveat is that when science tries to get too big for its britches, it gets into trouble. But there is absolutely no reason why we shouldn't look to science for questions of physics, biology, astronomy, etc. When we get into social sciences, we just have to be aware of the limitations of being humans trying to get outside of humanity to study it objectively. There should also be an understanding that science, like philosophy or religion, is trying to answer questions that are bigger than ourselves, so no one field will yield the fullest expression of truth. We really should be trying to synthesize our various ways of looking at the world. In fact, the word "religion" itself means "to bind together."

What I don't understand is this- if theists (meaning all those who believe in the concept of "god") believe that God created everything, and from God all knowledge flows, then what is so problematic about these God-created creatures using God-given knowledge to better understand the God-made universe? The more we know about Creation, the closer we get to God. What's the problem with that? You can buy the science of Hawking or others, but just as easily reject the claims that go beyond science (there is no need for God).

Also, science can be wrong about things (bad readings/experiments/equipment, or limited knowledge, or flawed assumptions- but these are often remedied with time)- but that doesn't mean that the problem is science, but rather the humans doing science. Not all that different than religion. God isn't the problem, but it is our flawed attempts at religion that cause the problems.
 
Humans doing science get too big for their britches.
 
Junebug said:
Or, phrased differently, "because it doesn't."

In truth, I agree with much of what you say here. But I think that because science so aggressively gets too big for its britches, particularly in connection with religion and human existence, that it's scope is better phrased in the negative as opposed to the positive.
Click to expand...

Can we get some examples?
 
Junebug said:
Or, phrased differently, "because it doesn't."

In truth, I agree with much of what you say here. But I think that because science so aggressively gets too big for its britches, particularly in connection with religion and human existence, that it's scope is better phrased in the negative as opposed to the positive.
Click to expand...

The problem is the scientists, not the science. Bad scientists (or ego-maniacs who do science) can produce good science, so I think we would do well to accept their good (and peer-validated) work and discount their unneeded conclusions about how their science affects theology. For example- evolution is absolutely neutral to religion. It doesn't prove or disprove a thing about God or Scripture. And it's also true. But the application of that scientific truth to religious truth can be up for debate- and that's good and healthy. But casting aside the science because one doesn't like the opinion of the scientist doesn't make sense to me.
 
I'm really trying to think of an area where science has objectively overstepped its bounds vis-a-vis religion.
 
So basically you're saying that you are beginning and ending with the assumption that God exists and that even if science suggests one way or the other that this isn't the case, you're not going to believe that?

I wonder if you would ever do that while evaluating the merits of something in your own field?
 
Junebug said:
I see it time after time in posts on this board where people bring a scientific mindset to the question regarding the existence of God. It's well and good to note that you can't see, touch, hear, etc. God in the same way you can physical substances, but if your epistemology on this issue is limited to the scientific method, you are asking the wrong questions.

The same is true regarding human existence. If you try to define love, for example, solely by resort to evolutionary processes, the movement of chemicals, etc., then you are missing something fundamental.

The problem I have with science in this regard is that it not only purports to answer these types of questions, but it purports to tell you it is the only way to look at things. From an existentialist standpoint, if given the choice between scientific materialism and mythological hocus pocus, I'd pick the latter every time.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking about regular lay opinion, we were talking about science getting too big for its own britches, no?
 
Another thing to keep in mind- and one of my pet peeves. Science isn't a "thing," in that it doesn't actually exist (government too, while we're at it). It's an approach, a set of actions, a worldview- however you want to define it. But it's the people that purport "to tell you it is the only way to look at things." Science doesn't tell you to do anything. Again, science is simply a path to knowledge, which I'd claim ultimately flows from and resides with God. So science, or a scientific approach, is absolutely compatible with faith.
 
I like that Reverend. In that way, science is religion. The science is, in fact, God.
 
Junebug said:
I see it time after time in posts on this board where people bring a scientific mindset to the question regarding the existence of God. It's well and good to note that you can't see, touch, hear, etc. God in the same way you can physical substances, but if your epistemology on this issue is limited to the scientific method, you are asking the wrong questions.
Click to expand...

What questions should a person who doesn't believe in God be asking then?

For someone who hasnt been indoctrinated into Christianity, how are they supposed to be fine with the existence of God? What if they want to believe but have never felt his presence?

I think your whole premise is utter garbage. There are a whole hosts of fairy tale creatures who would like to have a word with you about their existence.
 
Junebug said:
No, it's not an "assumption" that God exists. It's a belief arrived at by an epistemological method different from the scientific one.
Click to expand...

How are you supposed to convert those who don't view the world via that method?
 
I could have gone to Heaven...but Junebug wasn't interested in converting me.

nationwide-dead-kid.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top