Faith is the issue

[Ihateyoumike]

Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Any time I see a religious nut write about what science is, or what makes a good scientist or the like, I get a good laugh out of it. So thanks for that.

Oh, and you have heretofore been impossible to take seriously in any of your posts.

[McQ]

It's become increasingly clear to me that the crucial difference between most theists and most atheists is epistemological.  Here's my epistemology: "Empiricism and logic, with intuition as a powerful source of hypotheses, are the sole path to knowledge."  Few theists would agree with that.  Few atheists would disagree.

If two people agree on epistemology, they can debate most any topic fruitfully.  If they disagree on epistemology, they will never get anywhere with any debate unless and until they debate epistemology itself, and reach some resolution or compromise that both can buy into.

Well put.

[McQ]

Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Any time I see a religious nut write about what science is, or what makes a good scientist or the like, I get a good laugh out of it. So thanks for that.

Oh, and you have heretofore been impossible to take seriously in any of your posts.

Whoa! Uncalled for personal attack. Achronos is allowed to explain this just as much as anyone else here. Additionally, he articulated it pretty accurately in layman's terms.

[Ihateyoumike]

Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Any time I see a religious nut write about what science is, or what makes a good scientist or the like, I get a good laugh out of it. So thanks for that.

Oh, and you have heretofore been impossible to take seriously in any of your posts.

Whoa! Uncalled for personal attack. Achronos is allowed to explain this just as much as anyone else here. Additionally, he articulated it pretty accurately in layman's terms.

My apologies to Achronos. No disrespect intended. I guess I shouldn't have used the term "religious nut" because it does come across as offensive.

That being said... I do laugh every time I see a person who is very religious attempting to explain what makes good science or a good scientist. The only reason that seemed to be aimed at Achronos was because he happened to be the religious person whose quote I had just read before having that thought and posting it. Really it could've been a quote from any of our religious members and it wouldn't have made a difference to me... I would've still had the same thought regardless.

And I realize the last line did come across as me being a jerk. Achronos is a good writer. The posts are well written and thought out. In my opinion however, I personally (speaking for nobody else) have a hard time taking the content seriously. Although well written and thought out, they are much the same as any religious person who is good at spinning everything to fit their religious agenda.

I guess what I'm trying to say in this bumbling mess of a post is that, while it didn't appear that way, I'm attacking the content and not the writer. Again, my apologies to Achronos.

[Davin]

Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date. Humans are not, nor will they ever be, omniscient. In every theory there is room for error. Any good scientist is open to the idea that there may be another later who contradicts his theory. Any scientist who doesn't is simply arrogant. Theory is the very goal of the scientific method! Contrary to what you may believe about science, it is not about proclaiming facts except as these facts are necessary for the articulation of theories to explain these facts.

Where did I ever say otherwise? I never said that science is absolute, the closest I came to it was saying that the scientific method will lead to the truth. This doesn't mean that those using the scientific method will find the absolute truth, just that the scientific method will always point those who use it in the direction of the truth.

When new scientific discoveries are made, for example new interpretations of Genesis must be allowed. St. Basil, although he believed in a flat earth, did not think the idea was important for theology. I think we can reconcile the fathers (priests) in this manner, by understanding that they did not have available what we have today. Thus, we have to be more sympathetic towards the Fathers and towards today's scientific discoveries. The more we take the Fathers' and the Bible's words literally, the more we (as Christians) ridicule ourselves and the Faith.

What you've said here demonstrates my point: science gets one to understanding reality as closely as possible, while faith has consistently led people away from reality. Those with faith had been going in the completely wrong direction. Those that use and trust the scientific method may have to adjust their course a little bit every once in a while, but those that put their trust in faith very often have to make 180° turns. Personally I'd rather make small course corrections than to change directions erratically.

[McQ]

My apologies to Achronos. No disrespect intended. I guess I shouldn't have used the term "religious nut" because it does come across as offensive.

That being said... I do laugh every time I see a person who is very religious attempting to explain what makes good science or a good scientist. The only reason that seemed to be aimed at Achronos was because he happened to be the religious person whose quote I had just read before having that thought and posting it. Really it could've been a quote from any of our religious members and it wouldn't have made a difference to me... I would've still had the same thought regardless.

And I realize the last line did come across as me being a jerk. Achronos is a good writer. The posts are well written and thought out. In my opinion however, I personally (speaking for nobody else) have a hard time taking the content seriously. Although well written and thought out, they are much the same as any religious person who is good at spinning everything to fit their religious agenda.

I guess what I'm trying to say in this bumbling mess of a post is that, while it didn't appear that way, I'm attacking the content and not the writer. Again, my apologies to Achronos.

Thanks, much appreciated.  

Seemed a bit out of character for you.

[Ihateyoumike]

Thanks, much appreciated.  

Seemed a bit out of character for you.

Yeah. Me and lack of sleep tend to equal grumpier-than-usualness.

[Gawen]

By your own admission:

Science is not truth; rather, it is our best observation to date.

and still has not found a god. Funny how 4 billion people can find gods without a lick of science...don't you think?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But I have always taken what it told me as a hypothesis to be tested, empirically if feasible, but at least logically.  Treating intuition's message as knowledge in itself never occurred to me.  

Agreed.  Intuition too can be wrong, and it took a few years for me to realize that trusting it implicitly is rarely a good idea.  My intuitions get the twice-over from my rationality due to the errors I've made by not doing so.

Interesting.  I was scientarian first, and only as a result, atheist.  Between adopting scientarianism and adopting atheism, a long phase of study and thought intervened.  I eventually concluded that scientarianism in itself precluded supernaturalism of any stripe.  Supernaturalism, for a scientarian, is (to use the term a second time) intellectual treason.  On principle I restricted my logic to naturalistic systems of thought.

Overcoming my Southern Baptist upbringing was an arduous process.  Thankfully, a private-school education overseas gave me the tools so that when I wanted to understand why superstition was BS, the task was fairly mundane and caused my little cognitive dissonance.