You are one of the most relentlessly dishonest posters I have ever seen on here. The generic lies and insults aimed at atheists here is of course how you started your campaign of dishonest trolling, at least I no longer have any compunction about treating your trolling with anything but the contempt it deserves.
FYI we know you’re lying here again, as you earlier claimed you were not here to convince any atheists, but to sway neutral observers, so the lie of that last claim is again manifest. As demonstrating examples might convince those neutral observers you weren’t just espousing dishonest and unevidenced rhetoric, its hard to see how they could infer anything else now though.
Again, I disagree with you. Even basic assumptions in mathematics and physics are subject to review, and are–on occasion–revised, and/or discarded.
As an example, Euclid’s 5 postulates were graven in stone and accepted as an inalienable, unquestionable mathematical fact for almost 2,000 years . . . and they never failed us.
Yet if we modify the 5th postulate (which concerns parallel lines on a plane), we have a mathematically consistant non-Euclidean geometry.
Nikolai Lobachevsky made considerable advancements in mathematics because he challenged a “mathematical fact,” Paul Dirac made many contributions in physics when he worked with non-Euclidean geometry, and–of course–we have Albert Einstein, who used non-Euclidean geometry in describing the intricacies of Special and General relativity . . . and how the Universe may be “shaped.”
So, scientists may accept things on faith . . . but are not above changing where they place their faith.
The only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths.
Or he was talking about a category of beliefs that are entirely subjective, like religious faith for example.
Unless you want to falsely claim there is scientific evidence for a deity using a discredited creationist as an appeal to authority fallacy of course. As I said I’d bet every penny I have that you go to a doctor when you’re sick, and that trust as you put it is based on the inherent understanding that the doctor is a) properly credentialed and qualified, and b) that those credentials involve knowledge of objective medical facts.
This mendacious attempt to pretend science is not different to subjective religious beliefs is a tire old canard of apologetics, it is not at all compelling for the reasons stated, and of course the minute apologists strat this dishest rhetoric the clock is ticking until they accuse you of scientism, as @Sherlock-Holmes has already done of course in atheist bashing thread, that is one the funniest own goals I have seen in a while.
Indeed, but two important points here, firstly the word faith there is the primary definition (complete trust or confidence in someone or something.) and is only a starting point in the methods of science, it would never be sufficient on its own to validate new ideas. Secondly religious faith is very different, as it is defined as strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. Though the word is the same the meanings are not at all comparable, though it seems in vogue with religious apologists to dishonestly equate the one with the other.
It’s this simple, theists can design and build a plane based solely on their religious faith, and scientists can use their faith in the axioms of science, and lets see which one theists are keen to take a trip in, that would neatly expose the hypocrisy in conflating the two different definitions of the word faith.
Now do they use something for that, like an arbitrary decision by an Inquisition, and then torture people to death they don’t agree with? Does the accepted knowledge move forward based on who has the most power to enforce their own subjective doctrine? So again you are right to disagree, as these duplicitous attempts by apologists to compare religious faith and belief, with the rigorous, robust and objective methods of science is demonstrably laughable.
NB All scientific ideas must be falsifiable, religious apologetics generally have an unfalsifiable concept at their core, and it’s hard to imagine that is an accident.
Thank you for responding to my post, and I agree with your points.
I also admit that I was using the word “faith” in a different context than Sherlock-Holmes. I reviewed Sherlock’s post again, and he seems to try using the idea of “faith” from science interchangably with “faith” in religion.
It seems to be a common tactic with apologists, as I see them constantly using terms borrowed from science when discussing God’s existence . . . perhaps to add legitimacy to their arguments.
I also see them name-dropping famous scientists, with frequent references to their academic credentials. It seems that almost everyone is a “doctor” of some sort.
I conclude that they want the credibility of science without the substance of science . . . so talking to these clowns is like debating the merits of astrology.
A good example that supports this last point is the Church of Christian Science, where they use big words like “malicious magnetism,” and books like Science and Health with Key to Scriptures. They use terms borrowed from science because it adds validity their religious claims. This is rather like the Tylenol (paracetamol in the U.K) commercial that informs us that capsules have “laser-drilled holes” to “precisely deliver the powerful, pain-relieving medicine when you need it most.”
It sounds much more effective than piercing holes in a capsule with a pin, but does the idea that they use a laser to poke holes in a capsule make the medicine more effective?
People who don’t know science get taken in by this advertising confidence game without even knowing it, and I’m convinced that religious apologists are doing the exact same thing when they borrow terms from science to legitimize their position . . . and people get taken in by it.
Organized religion is, therefore, a confidence scheme on par with selling the Brooklyn bridge to some trusting yokel.
I feel your pain, but he @Sherlock-Holmes has said one thing that is true, that there might be neutral observers reading these exchanges. Of course he also thinks his poorly reasoned and unevidenced religious rhetoric will sway them to his superstitious beliefs, which is insanely funny. However it is what I remind myself when I have to spend a few hours reading his tediously duplicitous fabrications. I am only human though, and sometimes a little payback is inevitable.
Indeed, a past commentator on a different forum, offered up the idea that creationists in particular want to enjoy the imprimatur of science, while simultaneously rejecting all findings thereof that destroy precious and “sacred” doctrinal assertions.
However, I am now sincerely grateful to @Kevin_Levites for providing an eloquently succinct encapsulation of the relevant mischief.
The term “faith” just means “taken on trust” as opposed to being proven in some way. Scientists take claims on trust all the time, so I don’t really see any context here. Any claim about reality that is accepted as true without proof is an example of faith.
For example the belief that everything we observe can somehow be explained scientifically is a belief held by many atheists yet is simply a belief, taken on trust.
It’s true that there are many theists who’s understanding of science is poor but that is only relevant insofar as their comments about science are concerned. One doesn’t need to be schooled in the ways of the scientist in order to play the piano or teach ballet or hold moral views and so on.
Consider the number of atheists we see who routinely comment on the Bible, Jesus, God, theology yet know as little about theology as do the fundamentalist Bible bashers we see.
With just a little clear thinking one can readily see that science and theology are not at odds in any way, they address different questions, they are different subjects and wholly compatible.
As I’ve shown before the vast majority of seminal scientists that gave way to the scientific revolution were theists, they saw no conflict between these two modes of thought.
I completely disagree. The books held as holy by theists speak about, for instance, how the earth came about. So does planetary science. The two provide distinctly different answers to that question. Those answers are not, as you claim, wholly compatible.
Yes that’s true, but how we interpret that is an open question.
Again one can choose to interpret things in order to manufacture a conflict if that’s what one seeks to do.
For example how does “In the beginning God created the heavens” conflict with any physical observation? It doesn’t and one can readily see that by looking the history of astronomy and the many theists who drove those studies.
We have no idea whatsoever what led to the presence of the universe, the presence of laws and determinism, these - the engines of science - cannot themselves ever be explained scientifically.
