10-16-2008, 04:29 PM
|
#16
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Rocky Mountains, USA
Posts: 10,218
|
Science isn't really geared towards belief. I accept the tenets of science, and I believe the methodologies used by researchers are sound, but in no way to I consider science a belief system.
"Science and Mother Nature are in a marriage where Science is always surprised to come home and find Mother Nature blowing the neighbor." - Justin's Dad
|
|
|
10-16-2008, 06:13 PM
|
#17
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
If science is a belief system then all its adherents are extreme heretics.
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
10-16-2008, 06:14 PM
|
#18
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 4,260
|
I'm sorry melissa, but because of your lack of understanding of modern science, you're going to have to start believing in god. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
"When science was in its infancy, religion tried to strangle it in its cradle." - Robert G. Ingersoll
|
|
|
10-17-2008, 12:27 AM
|
#19
|
Guest
|
Hello, i'm not a science person either. I studied history and religion, and think that I take a more social science view of religions. You can point out how absurd they are that way.
If you dont know an answer just say you dont know, but not knowing doesn't mean you're going to automatically jump to the conclusion that a mystical being did it.
|
|
|
10-17-2008, 01:30 AM
|
#20
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Norway
Posts: 1,347
|
Quote:
assilem wrote
Hi! I'm assilem, first time poster. I've been an atheist since my midteens.
I have one issue with atheism that I hope someone here can help me with. Can I be a good atheist if I don't really understand science? I'm geared more towards literature and art than math and science. (Yeah, stereotypical girl. I know.) I do believe science makes more sense than "God said so". It's just hard for me to back up my beliefs when a lot of science goes over my head. (Quite literally in the case of astronomy!) I've studied science, but my grades on the tests are terrible. (I really did study. Not just half-assed my way.)
Well, I look forward to making more posts here soon. Thanks for reading
|
Hi Melissa,
I'm certain you understand science. I'll just quote Wiki:
Quote:
Scientific method refers to bodies of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.
|
That is science, now, if you're feeling bad because you don't understand or have knowledge about all the various fields of science then stop right there because really nobody has a firm grasp of everything.
Secondly being unable to understand quantum physics does not change your position as an atheist. I would say you are on equal grounds as a literature and arts major as any scientist. Simply because you don’t understand or have all the answers in relation to various fields of science does not mean that a magical entity exists by default.
It seems that you are asking this question because you perceive your atheism to be a choice out of the ordinary and requires some sort of justification. The reason is clear; your culture is dominated by individuals who hold the opposite position. What you need to remember is that a belief in God(s) is a choice and something that requires reasoning and justification while atheism can be justified as being the default position. You were born an atheist as everyone is.
An atheist has no world view or general adherence; you can be an atheist for many reasons, for example:
1a. Lack of knowledge; a good example is at birth when you have no concepts of God or Gods and therefore you cannot believe in them.
1b. Lack of knowledge; in the scenario that any given God exists you are simply an atheist because you have no reason to believe in the God that actually does exist separate from your senses. It is the default position until you are shown that the God in question actually does exist.
2. Rejection of the God concept derived from logical thinking and your sense of common sense. This position is often easier to hold for scientists with a good understanding of the workings of the universe (if you assume that we actually have a good understanding of the universe). A scientists that work in the field of abiogenesis has a understanding of how life can arise on its own without need to infer the magic of God(s). Therefore it becomes a whole lot easier to understand that the creation garbage in the Bible is just that; garbage.
Just a few examples, welcome and enjoy your stay here.
|
|
|
10-17-2008, 03:25 PM
|
#21
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
assilem wrote
Hi! I'm assilem, first time poster. I've been an atheist since my midteens.
I have one issue with atheism that I hope someone here can help me with. Can I be a good atheist if I don't really understand science? I'm geared more towards literature and art than math and science. (Yeah, stereotypical girl. I know.) I do believe science makes more sense than "God said so". It's just hard for me to back up my beliefs when a lot of science goes over my head. (Quite literally in the case of astronomy!) I've studied science, but my grades on the tests are terrible. (I really did study. Not just half-assed my way.)
Well, I look forward to making more posts here soon. Thanks for reading!
|
Welcome. Nice introduction.
No, you don't have to understand a lot of math and science. The key is critical thinking about whatever issue you are trying to take a position on. Most of critical thinking is: questioning assumptions including those that have already been "decided", using reason and logic rather than magic or wishing to evaluate what you know and a healthy skepticism regarding any information given by any authority.
There are various ways to divide atheists. For this issue that you bring up, some atheists are that way because they were born into atheist families and got the same sort of early brainwashing as so many theists get. The other kind, the one who feels a duty of some sort to defend their non-belief tend to be skeptics (not to be confused with cynics).
Again welcome, and try not to pay too much attention to members who spout pages of verbose paragraphs at the least provocation.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
10-17-2008, 03:35 PM
|
#22
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
So, if you are an atheist who doesn't understand science are you believing in science on the basis of faith, or is it on the basis of authority ?
I know this sounds like a trollin' kind of question, but I think it's worth asking.
|
Also relevant is the distinction between "believing" in science by faith versus provisionally accepting the knowledge provided through scientific inquiry.
Do you "believe" that "E=MC^2" is true because Albert Einstein said it or because of the myriad things from radiation treatment for cancer to nuclear submarines that would not exist unless it had been tested and proven many thousands of times with no regard for who said it?
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
10-17-2008, 03:37 PM
|
#23
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
So, if you are an atheist who doesn't understand science are you believing in science on the basis of faith, or is it on the basis of authority ?
I know this sounds like a trollin' kind of question, but I think it's worth asking.
|
Remember that science is not a faith or a belief system and atheism is not a belief system or a religion.
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
10-17-2008, 03:39 PM
|
#24
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 23,211
|
Quote:
Victus wrote
I'm sorry melissa, but because of your lack of understanding of modern science, you're going to have to start believing in god. Again, sorry for the inconvenience.
|
Hey, Victus, how about tagging your satire somehow so you don't scare the newbie away?
"Those who most loudly proclaim their honesty are least likely to possess it."
"Atheism: rejecting all absurdity." S.H.
"Reality, the God alternative"
|
|
|
10-19-2008, 01:20 PM
|
#25
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
Sternwallow wrote
Also relevant is the distinction between "believing" in science by faith versus provisionally accepting the knowledge provided through scientific inquiry.
Do you "believe" that "E=MC^2" is true because Albert Einstein said it or because of the myriad things from radiation treatment for cancer to nuclear submarines that would not exist unless it had been tested and proven many thousands of times with no regard for who said it?
|
I'm not sure the distinction is really helpful. I think you are saying that it is OK to believe in science based on authority even without personal understanding or access to the evidence ?
Aren't there some drawbacks to this notion of believing based on the claimed effects ? After all, how does the non-understander choose between e=mc2 and e=mc3 as the fundamental science behind cancer treatment ? I think you are talking about faith based on authority ?
|
|
|
10-19-2008, 01:47 PM
|
#26
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
He's saying the exact opposite of that. If it were E = mc^3 then, for example, the threshold energy for pair production would be way higher, which is a very simple thing to measure (e.g., check the absorption of high energy gamma rays in lead). You don't have to take anything on faith because the data that causes experts to say that it is E = mc^2 are available for all to see. Whether all can understand it is another matter, but if you were really concerned you could learn enough to take a look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions. It is only faith based on authority if you simply accept it without considering the source, without looking at the evidence for yourself and give no regard to the scientific process wherein such concepts are constantly being tested and challenged. Now if it faith based on authority you want say hello to his holiness the infallible. You can't even look in the manual to find out the christy basis for many of his proclamations, and challenging his word is supposedly bad for your prospects in the afterlife (and it wasn't so long ago that it was very bad for your prospects of breathing).
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
10-19-2008, 02:03 PM
|
#27
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: The Mongrel Nation
Posts: 4,839
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
I'm not sure the distinction is really helpful. I think you are saying that it is OK to believe in science based on authority even without personal understanding or access to the evidence ?
|
I trust my doctor. If I have doubts I research, but mostly I trust. There is evidence to access.
thank goodness he's on our side
|
|
|
10-19-2008, 04:17 PM
|
#28
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
Choobus wrote
He's saying the exact opposite of that. If it were E = mc^3 then, for example, the threshold energy for pair production would be way higher, which is a very simple thing to measure (e.g., check the absorption of high energy gamma rays in lead). You don't have to take anything on faith because the data that causes experts to say that it is E = mc^2 are available for all to see. Whether all can understand it is another matter, but if you were really concerned you could learn enough to take a look at the data yourself and draw your own conclusions.
|
How many people have the opportunity to measure the absorption of gamma rays in lead ? How many people here have examined the experimental results and considered the proof ? Don't the rest of us just have to believe on the basis of authority ?
Quote:
Choobus wrote
It is only faith based on authority if you simply accept it without considering the source, without looking at the evidence for yourself and give no regard to the scientific process wherein such concepts are constantly being tested and challenged.
|
Surely it's faith based on authority if you believe it because somebody told you that either the proof was correct or that the evidence was correct ?
|
|
|
10-19-2008, 04:18 PM
|
#29
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,879
|
Quote:
dogpet wrote
I trust my doctor. If I have doubts I research, but mostly I trust. There is evidence to access.
|
Surely you mean that you *believe* there is evidence to access. Unless you accessed it how can you be sure ? It sounds to me like you agree with me that basing beliefs on authority is a reasonable and rational thing to do.
|
|
|
10-19-2008, 05:18 PM
|
#30
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: prick up your ears
Posts: 20,553
|
Quote:
thomastwo wrote
How many people have the opportunity to measure the absorption of gamma rays in lead ? How many people here have examined the experimental results and considered the proof ? Don't the rest of us just have to believe on the basis of authority ?
Surely it's faith based on authority if you believe it because somebody told you that either the proof was correct or that the evidence was correct ?
|
I couldn't say how many people have the opportunity to measure gamma ray absorption in lead. Certainly I was able to do so in high school. That was a trivial example and I could come up with many more, although all of them (with respect to e = mc^2) will probably require some sort of equipment not available from wal mart.
In general, experimental results are available for anyone to study in any university library if they so wish. If someone tells you the proof and or data is/are correct then you can get another opinion, or, if you really want to know but don't want to risk being hoodwinked by lying scientists, you can find out for yourself. Indeed, this process often leads to a career ini science (not usually due to distrust, but because it is fun to find out for yourself, and to discover new things).
I don't think you are so dim that you honestly believe that science is nothing more than faith based on authority. After all, you can claim that antimatter electrons exist and emit gamma rays when they encounter normal electrons all you want, but that won't make a PET scanner work if it aint true. If science was made up or untestable (like, say, religion) then it wouldn't be particularly useful. That it is quite a useful endeavour suggests that that is not the case.
You can always turn tricks for a few extra bucks. If looks are an issue, there's the glory hole option, but don't expect more than ... tips.
~ Philiboid Studge
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:45 PM.
|