Faith and Reason.

[thatwasnifty]

why Science is so hard to believe for most?

I think because it's not meant to be believed in. It doesn't matter what you (general you, not you specifically) think, what matters is what experimental data and conclusions say. A few years ago when scientists and the pharmaceutical industry were testifying before Congress about whether or not vaccines contribute to autism (they don't), one Congressman asked a scientist if he believes a link between vaccines and autism exists. The scientist replied that it didn't matter what he believed because the dozen peer-reviewed epidemiological studies published thus far strongly denied such a link, and as far as science is concerned, that's what's important. (I forget the names, but I read it in Paul Offit's book "Autism's False Prophets.")

The fact that science is not up for belief, that it is meant to be falsifiable and changeable as new things are observed and inferred, makes it difficult to accept for people who want consistency. I actually copied and keep this passage from Offit's book because it's one of the most insightful comments I've ever read:

Sometimes the public is confused and disillusioned when a much-heralded study fails to survive closer scrutiny, believing that science cannot be trusted to get it right. 'It is important to recognize the fallibility of science and the scientific method,' wrote Michael Shermer. 'But within this fallibility lies its greatest strength: self-correction. Whether a mistake is made honestly or dishonestly, whether a fraud is unknowingly or knowingly perpetrated, in time it will be flushed out of the system by lack of external verification.' Unfortunately, some people are uncomfortable with the fluidity of science, looking for something immutable and certain. 'When better information is available, science textbooks are rewritten with hardly a backward glance,' says Robert Park, professor of physics at the University of Maryland and the author of Voodoo Science: The Road to Foolishness and Fraud. 'Many people are uneasy standing on such loose soil; they seek a certainty that science cannot offer. For those people the unchanging dictates of ancient religious beliefs, or the absolutely assurance of zealots, have a more powerful appeal.'

[Melchiah]

I got beaten to a rebuttal of the wind argument, twice. Damnation.

I think the reason the God concept is so repugnant to the rational is because it has been set up to defy any type of question or analysis.

Honestly though, I'd expect a lot more from Billy Graham than an argument as flimsy as the wind one.

To use his argument as it should be used: The combination of Hydrochloric Acid(HCl, stomach acid) and Sodium Hydroxide(NaOH, Lye, Drano) is known through theory and proven experimentally to produce heat, water, and table salt(NaCl).

HCl + NaOH -> NaCL + H₂O

The human eye is not sharp enough to detect the inter-molecular reactions when those two compounds are mixed, however the theory is proven by the by-products which can be analyzed for composition, and the heat generated which can be not only felt, but quantified with a thermometer.

This is the appropriate use of that argument. Occam's Razor works best when considering human motivations and lines of thought. It does NOT work when trying to describe the natural world. The God concept is I dare say the original use of Occam's Razor, and it still isn't right.

[thatwasnifty]

Faith that it would work dropped them on Japan

Dunno if you're being facetious or not, but if not then I disagree. The military had good reason to expect the bombs would work because they'd already run several tests and dropped experimental bombs. There was no faith involved.

[Melchiah]

That is some very terrific logic and expresses in two sentences what I said in twenty.


That is just bad logic, unfortunately. You can measure the wind and observe its effects. Just because you can't "measure" God or any god does not mean you cannot observe his effects. That, my friend, is poor critical thinking to think otherwise.

I can't let this one go. It's poor critical thinking to attribute everything that we cannot observe to a concept of God, and thus accept it as unknowable and unobservable. That is just plain simple, and I will have none of it.

[thatwasnifty]

That is just bad logic, unfortunately. You can measure the wind and observe its effects. Just because you can't "measure" God or any god does not mean you cannot observe his effects. That, my friend, is poor critical thinking to think otherwise.

But you can't ascribe any effects to the divine that you can't to natural, observable processes.

[Mizango]

I think because it's not meant to be believed in.

Poor wording on my part, I didn't mean believe as in the delusional sense. What I mean was to say that most people write science off as bogus or completely turn a blind eye to it. I mean who doesn't want to take a step back and know whats going on around them and why?

That's purely a rhetorical question.

[Melchiah]

Dunno if you're being facetious or not, but if not then I disagree. The military had good reason to expect the bombs would work because they'd already run several tests and dropped experimental bombs. There was no faith involved.

The weapon exploded at the Trinity Test was a Plutonium implosion-fission bomb(same type as Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki). The weapon detonated over Hiroshima was a Uranium gun-type bomb that was never tested before the first deployment. We knew that the implosion bomb worked, but there was no experimental detonation of the gun-type weapon before Hiroshima. Oppenheimer and the rest of Los Alamos were sure enough of the design that it was never tested.

[thatwasnifty]

Poor wording on my part, I didn't mean believe. What I mean was to say that most people write science off as bogus or completely turn a blind eye to it. I mean who doesn't want to take a step back and know whats going on around them and why?

That's purely a rhetorical question.

Because it's far simpler to just accept something is as it is than to question it =/

The weapon exploded at the Trinity Test was a Plutonium implosion-fission bomb(same type as Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki). The weapon detonated over Hiroshima was a Uranium gun-type bomb that was never tested before the first deployment. We knew that the implosion bomb worked, but there was no experimental detonation of the gun-type weapon before Hiroshima. Oppenheimer and the rest of Los Alamos were sure enough of the design that it was never tested.

Gotcha, my mistake. In any case, they did know its general principals. It's not like they haphazardly threw together chunks of uranium and metal and hoped it'd detonate.

[Brill Weave]

This is quite posssibly one of the best threads made on the site ever. Myself personally, I'm agnostic. I choose to believe in a higher power, but I'll be damned if I know what it is. My wife on the other hand is a devout Christian who believes you should always have faith in Him because he guides everyone and everything.

I got into the theological argument once with my wife and she refuses to talk about it ever again. Her entire stance is made up of believing. I like to consider myself a fairly objective person, but I am also a science type. If I can see it, touch it, it's real. I asked her what proof did we have that God/Jesus existed she immediately replied The Bible. I asked her how did she know who wrote it? She just "knows."

After about a half hour conversation she refused to talk about it anymore. Her reason was because I take an analytical stance regarding things of this nature, I was able to shake her faith a little bit. Which I'm not happy I did, but I would much rather have my wife able to think for herself rather than having over 25 years of religion crammed down her throat.

I won't knock anyone for having faith or believing. But I will ask why you believe when there's as much proof of God as there is UFO's etc. It's your personal choice to believe. Just don't cram it down my throat or pass it on to my children unless they choose to believe it on their own.

[Meian]

^^^^ This is the point I was trying to make earlier (too far gone to try to pick up again I think). If you don't need or don't accept religious text, which insists upon itself being the ultimate and only truth, then why do you need religion period?

Not really, there are different Christanity types after all. Catholic believe in faith and good works, while Protestant (I think it was them) believe in "only" in the Bible. Not to mention the concept of "purgatory" is more accepted among Catholics (not quite mentioned in the Bible) than such as Protestant.

To whoever's post about why people can't accept science, I am unsure how extreme you are asking this question but I am hoping you aren't thinking that religious people think there is no scientific explanation to, as said earlier, how the wind works and it can only be by God and any other proof otherwise is false.

Edit: For Brill, the poster above, didn't they "prove" that Jesus existed? Can't remember where I heard this I'll have to look it up just to be safe later.

[kuronosan]

But you can't ascribe any effects to the divine that you can't to natural, observable processes.

I didn't say you could. I don't believe God created the universe in an instant. I do, however, choose to believe that something that can be construed as God happened to create a series of chemical reactions leading to the beginning of and evolution of life.

I know they've created life in test tubes using similar circumstances. I know about observation, etc, etc. I've conducted lab experiments. I get the concept. I don't choose to explain away things by saying "oh lordee gawd must have done it lawl" every time there's no explanation. I'm saying as a gut instinct some things cannot be explained and until then I rationally choose to believe the possibility a higher power did it.

Again - there is nothing ignorant or wrong with that belief.

I can't let this one go. It's poor critical thinking to attribute everything that we cannot observe to a concept of God, and thus accept it as unknowable and unobservable. That is just plain simple, and I will have none of it.

Nobody is attributing 'everything' to a concept of God. I never said I accept it as unknowable and unobservable. I think what my exact words were left the impression that what I believe is that God is just another aspect of scientific knowledge that has yet to be disproven. In a religious way, his existence can probably be snuffed out in terms of how the Christians, Muslims, and Jews view him in their books. However, those stories had to come from somewhere and someone (unlike Dianetics) didn't just make it up out of nowhere to scare people. It simply evolved that way.

People tell stories to make sense of what they see (similar to how people dream to make sense of what occurred). Think back to how long ago humanity first got its start and think to how far they've evolved and changed over the years. To imagine that it was all random is nothing short of ignorant and magnificent at the same time.

Yes, it is fascinating that the possibility everything that has happened, including the conversation we are currently having, is nothing more than random chance. I choose to believe otherwise. It's a choice I make. I've simply been too fortunate to choose to believe that my life is random.

Scientifically, it's a matter of probability and I understand that. However, my spirituality has made me a better person and a more cautious and thoughtful person because of the lessons I learned from the bible when I was growing up. The same can't be said about everyone but I still maintain that it is just as ignorant to try to debunk someone's spiritual beliefs and ask them to explain it as it is to get angry when people try to force their beliefs on you.

The fact that you 'cannot let this one go' and 'won't have it' simply displays that you and anyone who argues like you is not simply just looking to debate religion and its existence. You are looking to prove people wrong with your scientific knowledge and try to back them in a corner so that they'll get mad and gargle out some angry thoughts so you can be right.

If you truly were scientifically looking to debate, you would accept another's explanation as a possibility. That is what the foundation of science is. If nobody did that, ever, then we wouldn't have discovered shit. SOMEBODY believed Galileo's crock shit theories in his time. SOMEBODY believed Columbus would make it to the other side of the world.

I'm sorry, but sometimes while you don't have to believe what other people believe you really need to learn to accept the possibility of another person's point of view being accurate (even if it isn't precise).

I'm not saying there is a Heaven or Hell or angels or Jesus (as I said in my first post). I am simply saying that I believe in some cases that a higher power might just possibly exist. You don't ALWAYS need scientific evidence to prove it and if you had travelled back to 500 years ago before bacteria was discovered and tried to tell people without the instruments necessary to measure them that they existed, you would have been laughed out of the auditorium.

[Brill Weave]

Let's just go back to worshipping fire.

[kuronosan]

No. I want to worship hookers.

[Eratosthenes]

So I got to page 5 before I had to post quick before going into work. I have 2 questions and I will respond later when I get a chance.

Question 1: For the people that are saying they don't support religion, how do you decide what is right and what is wrong?

Question 2: If you must see something to believe in it, do you believe there is such thing as the wind? The quote that goes along with why I ask this is by Billy Graham, he was asked how he can believe in God and he respond (paraphrased), "I've never seen the wind, but I've seen the effects of the wind, just like I've never seen God, I've seen the effects of God."

1. Even the people who wrote Genesis knew that humans have an innate moral sense. They tried to explain it by saying we got it when the first people ate fruit from a magic tree. I try to live by the golden rule. It does not depend on the existence of any god or afterlife, but on the existence of other people. If I deprive another person of any of the rights I expect to have, that is immoral.

2. We know what wind does, and we know what it can't do. It behaves reliably. Most Christians like Billy Graham believe that God can do anything, and in that case, anything can be interpreted as an effect of God. Arguments made with this premise are inconclusive, as any religion can claim their god is responsible.

EDIT: There's no objective way to observe God or the effects of God, is what I'm trying to say.

[Dimmauk]

What do you say when Science discovers and releases photos and a story on how we have found a Tropical plants, Tropical trees and tropical animals under thousands upon thousands of feet of solid ice and glaciers?

How is Science so bogus? I have not once read anything in the bible once about Dinos, a tropical arctic or any such things of that nature. Article below related...

Ancient Turtle Migrated From Asia To America Over Tropical Arctic

Just like Dinosaurs, the Devil put that turtle in the ground to confuse and create doubt about God and Religion.

That was always my favorite answer I got in Sunday school when I asked about Dinosaurs.

[Mizango]

Let's just go back to worshipping fire.

I could go for a steak actually.

Just like Dinosaurs, the Devil put that turtle in the ground to confuse and create doubt about God and Religion.

That was always my favorite answer I got in Sunday school when I asked about Dinosaurs.

I got the same answer I used to love Sunday school when I was little lol. Talk about let down.

[thatwasnifty]

I'm saying as a gut instinct some things cannot be explained and until then I rationally choose to believe the possibility a higher power did it.

And I'm saying that that's not rational. You're saying that because you don't know the answer now, that something completely outside the realm of the natural is responsible. But if you do come to understand it, then your suddenly God isn't responsible? You're making God into a placeholder for your own ignorance or misunderstanding.

[Melchiah]

You don't ALWAYS need scientific evidence to prove it and if you had travelled back to 500 years ago before bacteria was discovered and tried to tell people without the instruments necessary to measure them that they existed, you would have been laughed out of the auditorium.

You are contradicting yourself with this statement. Either you need proof or you don't.

I think you are arguing the same position that I take, which is that the unknown is not unknowable. However, your hard-line religious folks argue quite the opposite, that a vengeful yet loving being who looks like us but all-powerful sent his only son, who is actually himself, down to earth to die and rise again as a zombie jewish carpenter to save the world from it's own sin, which is defined as anything that God might disapprove of. Not to mention the whole concept of original sin... it's just bunk man.

I will totally get on board with the idea that there might be forces at work that as of right now we can't identify or observe or understand, but what I will NOT concede is that there is some magic father figure up in the sky who shat us all out because he was lonely or just wanted an ant farm for kicks, and that he is removed from our understanding not by distance or time, but by his very nature. That's just a cop out to avoid admitting they might be wrong.

[Brill Weave]

Honestly Meian, I don't know. But if they did, how did they find out he existed? Science baby!


I'm sorry I couldn't resist that one

[Alleya]

Not really, there are different Christanity types after all. Catholic believe in faith and good works, while Protestant (I think it was them) believe in "only" in the Bible. Not to mention the concept of "purgatory" is more accepted among Catholics (not quite mentioned in the Bible) than such as Protestant.

What part of doing good requires the threat of punishment? Why is it OK to cherry pick passages from a book to support your points, then chalk it up to interpretation when someone points out a passage from the same book contradicts your core moral values? Why do you need religion at all if you admit that religion is not required to be moral, if not to provide yourself with an excuse to remain ignorant or force your own standards on others?

Edit: For Brill, the poster above, didn't they "prove" that Jesus existed? Can't remember where I heard this I'll have to look it up just to be safe later.

Two things. One, even if Jesus existed, that proves nothing. People have been walking around calling themselves the son of god and prophets since the dawn of humanity. If there was a Jesus there was nothing exceptional about him, except that his followers succeeded where other cults failed.

Second, I highly doubt there's any such proof that has any archeological veracity whatsoever. There are people who discover a plank of wood on a mountain side and conclude that it must be a piece of the Ark, I have a feeling any such proof would be in the same vein. It just seems so odd to me that there was this charismatic, larger than life figure walking around the ancient world, performing miracles, drawing huge crowds, building a huge following, suffered a spectacular death, and absolutely no one bothered to write about him until hundreds of years later.