Question for all atheist?

Question

I have noticed that "most" atheist here believe that science is better that religion because it is not a blind faith. but does science have some blind faith to it? are you as an individual suppose to take the word of a scientist as fact, just because he said it. unless you see it with your own eyes in person how do you know what science says is true. how can anyone "prove" with 100% accuracy that anything is certain. if one says it is a scientific law how do you know with out seeing the effect of the law in every part of the universe. In order to "prove" anything don't you need to know everything.

Answer 1

I am a scientist. I see how science is done and I perform science. Although I do have faith in my colleagues, they also back up their claims with data and statistics. With a basic understanding of statistics, you can figure out whether they're "lying" (fudging their data) or being truthful. Science articles are also subjected to anonymous peer review before they're put in respected journals. As a result, fraudulent claims which do not back up the data are essentially nonexistent.





Edit:

You have a masters in *what*?



I'm sorry, of course I'm just yanking your chain, but tampering with data is extremely unethical. I've never known anyone to tamper with their data, but I guess that's where the faith element comes in. You rely on other scientists not to tamper with their own data so that it refutes what they'd like it to. I honestly can't see this being a large problem in the scientific community, but again, maybe that's my "faith".



Generally speaking, though, there's as much allure within the scientific community to provide data which confirms hypotheses as well as refutes them. If you could show that some generally accepted theory, such as the theory of evolution by natural selection, were false and this was further supported by reproduction of the original experiment, then you'd be famous. True and false, as long as statistically significant, have an equal desirability and I've seen enough researchers look at their insignificant data with frowns and slumped shoulders to believe that there's a sizable number of malevolent scientists who are skewing their data for trivial gain.

Answer 2

Science does not require faith, blind or otherwise. It is tested. Continually. If it is found to be in error the theory is amended. Scientists & scientifically-minded rational thinkers are not wedded to any "truth". If it's wrong, out it goes.



Scientists words are not taken as fact. Every high-school student confirms the basic workings of the scientific method & the results of experiments for themselves for this very reason. So unless you are home-schooled or attend some weird anti-science religious school you DO see with your "own eyes in person" that the "claims" made by science are accurate.



Individual scientific laws do not affect every part of the universe, only that part that is within its sphere of influence.



You don't need to know everything to be pretty sure you are right. You can test. That is what experiments are for. Experiments are deliberate attempts to disprove a theory. This is how science works. A fact you would know IF you had a masters in psychology. Or did you sleep through that lecture?



No-one has faith that the scientists are right or honest, not even other scientists. As soon as a theory is developed the others rush to disprove it. Again, you would know this if you had even a passing aquaintance with scientific methodology.



Clearly you do NOT understand the scientific method.

Answer 3

I guess the best answer here is to consider motive (like any crime).



What reason would a scientist have to lie about his research?

If he is lying about some insignificant detail, which makes no real difference to the findings, then he might as well just not lie. If he is lying about some large and significant information, then he will always be found out!

Why? Because other scientists will attempt to repeat such significant findings, and they will find out that the original researcher's findings were wrong (or at least, wrongly reported). And being found out to be dishonest in reporting your results spells doom for your career as a scientist.



This is the basis of peer-review and citation, and is why all scientific publications must submit to that process.



So yes - on one, initial level, you must accept on faith that any particular scientist is honest about his findings.

But to accept scientific findings *in general*, you only need to understand that scientists work in collaboration and competition with each other: the scientific community in general will not permit fraudulent research to continue. What would they possibly have to gain?



> "SCIENCE REQUIRES FAITH. faith that the scientists are right, and honest."



Scientists should only even think that they are "right" in the loosest possible sense: remember that nothing is ever proved in science, so the best that we can hope to acheive is as close an approximation of what we think is happening as possible.



> "the every day person, working 9 to 5. the teacher, the house wife, ect... are they just supposed to take the word of scientist they never met for fact, just because they say it is fact."



The only "facts" in science are the observations. Most of science is theory - which is not, and can never become "fact".

Of course, just because it isn't a fact that germs cause disease (but is a theory - "The Germ Theory of Disease") does not mean that you should stop taking antibiotics because you don't believe in bacteria.

Answer 4

You don't have to take anyones word for anything when it comes to science.



You can research, get a degree, and do the experiments yourself if you're so inclined.



As for nothing being provable, in theory that may be true but in practice you can prove plenty of things with 99.999% certainty, and thats more than enough for me.



Edit:

To explain the 99.999% thing:



I'm a male. I pretty much know that for certain. I meet the definition of the word perfectly. Theoretically I suppose its possible that I was born a girl and had sex change before I was old enough to remember and somehow I still have ovaries but my parents never told me.



That, I would say, is very unlikely. I would estimate the percent chance for that being true to be about 0.00001%, but it is theoretically possible.



Quote: "is taking the word of a scientist or group ( without you witnessing the event yourself ) any differnt than religon."



Very much. Scientist review each others work, and base experiments on each others findings. For one to lie many would have to lie. The odds of so many lying and no one coming forward is slim since science rewards the ones that disprove the others.



And as quarble pointed out, science has results. If the theories weren't right the technology that were using now wouldn't exist, so science has a good record.



Religion has a bad record. Most religions contradict each other so no matter what, the vast majority HAVE to be out right fabrications.

Answer 5

You said: "..what i am saying is at the end of it all. the every day person, working 9 to 5. the teacher, the house wife, ETC... are they just supposed to take the word of scientist they never met for fact, just because they say it is fact."



Answer: No. Not the word of one scientist. The word of all scientists (shoddy journalism aside).



It is a completely reasonable judgment to make that all scientists in the field (or peripheral to it) are not in a conspiracy to present false information to the public, particularly given how the scientific process works.



I hope you are not trying to imply that a 99.999% confident judgment is equivalent to the total blind faith required by religion. Because that would be a pretty dishonest word-game.



Anyone who is logical accepts that nothing - absolutely nothing - is 100% certain. Science, certainly, is based on that reality.



Only religion requires people to believe that something is 100% certain. Yet ironically (though perhaps not coincidentally) it does so in the absence of evidence.



They couldn't be more different.

Answer 6

There is the scientific method which goes through various TANGIBLE step to come to some sort of conclusion. Science cannot prove a lot of things with 100% certainty, but with the current beliefs of fundamentalist Christians, not everything can be explained with 100% certainty either.



Religion does not require tangible evidence. It requires faith there is a God and that the Scriptures are true and contain the word of God. There isn't really an accepted method of coming to know something is true. Some say pray. Some say fast. Some say read the Bible. Some say the Spirit will do a bunch of things to you like make you dance, speak in tongues or convulse.



I can see why atheists have given up on being theists. There is no consistancy like there is in science.

Answer 7

"suppose to take the word of a scientist as fact,"



It doesn't work like that.

For anything a scientist publishes, there are a dozen *in his field* ready to check, criticise and refute his work.

In part that's science, but it's also the ones that win the arguments get the better posts and more research funding. A self-checking mechanism.

It's not clear anything in any field gets to 100% certain (there are epistemological limits) and 100% sure isn't always equivalent to 100% right, as history has shown.



The Big Bang theory survived and finally flourished after more than 25 years of attack *by scientists* as the minority opinion in cosmology.

That confers a degree of reliability in its predictions.

No blind faith or taking things on simple trust.



"In order to "prove" anything don't you need to know everything."

No, basically.

In fact it's gone the way: with the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Godel's incompleteness theorem, we can be perfectly sure about a degree of uncertainty and unprovability.



Edit: "SCIENCE REQUIRES FAITH. faith that the scientists are right, and honest." And you with a master's in psychology...

The truth emerges not because people are fundamentally honest, but because they like catching liars.

You are wrong in the fragility of the scientific system, which can deal with both crooks and errors (consider the methods of ony other approach in that respect)

And in not allowing for provisional belef, with very varying degrees of withheld certainty.

And in this strange idea of 100% true or reliable.

I can't prove there will be a dawn tomorrow, but the possiblity that there will not does not trouble me except and only when, for purely epistemological purposes, I choose to examine it's degree and nature.

If you are saying bridging that gap to achieve certainty the sun will appear tomorrow requires "faith", you are pushing the term almost beyond its (admittedly varied ) usage.

Answer 8

Science requires multiple validation. Any scientist who produces work that does not stand up to the scrutiny of their peers will not have their work accepted.



I don't accept what scientists say on blind faith. Often enough the very complex ideas I don't understand at all, but the very fact that numerous different scientists, with no reason at all to lie about their findings, agree on something and can get their work published through peer review is highly suggestive of the accuracy of their information.



By your logic, you'd simply never know anything. Science changes constantly as new information is found. This is the way it should be, and is part of the reason faith is not required for science.

Answer 9

No, I don't accept the conclusions of science because "some scientist" tells me to. But the methods of science are transparent, the research is available to be read, the experiments are able to be duplicated by disinterested parties, and the conclusions are subject to peer review and debate. So science is a self-correcting methodology.



Also, science doesn't "prove" anything; proofs are used in mathematics. Science uses facts to support theories. In science, facts describe and theories explain.



I trust the method, not the mere assertions of the scientists themselves, and it many people of faith do as well. To set science up as being mutually exclusive to belief in god is to assert a false dichotomy.



Edit: You are correct, without absolute knowledge we cannot obtain absolute certainty. So why then should we bother with scientific discovery at all? Because it is the best method for arriving at a good approximation of reality. By your logic, we could never convict someone of a crime, because we can never "prove" they did it. Men have been sent to prison on less evidence than what a scientific theory requires for wide-spread adoption.

Answer 10

As a Christian, I have no problem respecting and believing in scientific theory. It does not conflict my faith. Science does not attempt to prove or disprove the existence of God.



Science uses physics and math to prove the unseen and untouched. I will give you an example. Before the lunar landing, how did we know what the moon was made out of? It really could've been made out of cheese for all we know. But, science proved what the moon was made of before we landed to verify it. How? Like you said, unless you see it with your own eyes in person, how do you know what science says is true. Heck, 100 years ago the moon looked like it was made out of swiss cheese to the naked eye. How did we know it wasn't. Simple mathematical measurements told us how large the moon was. In addition, cheese is a man-made substance, therefore, the moon would've had to have been man-made. Also, the laws of physics and geology tell us which substances could've formed to withstand the gravity involved to suspend a mass that large in orbit. All these factors are put through a rigorous test of math and logic called the Scientific Method, once the idea passes the test it becomes a theory. Very few theories have benn proven wrong and more often than not, they are eventually verified by sight and touch.

Answer 11

This is kind of a tricky question. For me I have been struggling with the question of God's existence. I am about to become a godparent to my nephew and I feel like I should be more religious.



However, I find that the more I study religion the more I realize that it is a form of primitive government control. Fro example Christianity adopted many pagan rituals and holidays. This made it easier for pagans to convert. That is whyChristmas and Easter coincide with the winter and spring solstace.



For me, I have seen how technology works, and I understand how the theory of evolution works. These theories make more sence to me then anything else I've heard. Naturally, no one can prove with 100% accuracy how science works, but then no one can prove with 1% acuracy that God exists.



I find that religin should be a deeply personal decision. I find it deeply regrettful that people feel like they need to force their beliefs on others. Personally, I feel that if we were to embrace and accept peoples different beliefs I think youd find that everyone wants the same thing; love, family, and happiness.

Answer 12

OK, Scientific laws are different from scientific theory. Most laws are proven facts. Some theories are proven also, but many are not. I assure you that I am nearly as skeptical about an unproven theory as I am about a God. I am more willing to take a scientist's word about something than I am to embrace religion, though.

Just an example of a scientific law: Gravity. I'm pretty sure that you KNOW this exists. It is also extremely certain.

Kookoo

Answer 13

Science is about learning through empirical studies. Nothing can be proved or disproved by 100% but that doesn't make it anything similar to the assumption "there must be a deity outside of time and space" that religions make without evidence.

Answer 14

Thus far, everything I have learned of science has been reinforced by observation.

I see Bernoulli's Principle in effect quite often, as well as Newton's first and third laws.

I have never encountered a situation where I've seen or experienced something that is contrary to physics, biology, chemistry, etc. Gravity behaves precisely as science claims.

G-force and inertia act as expected.

There has never been one single piece of empirical evidence for the existence of ANY god. None of the 1000's of supposed deities has ever effected anything in our physical world.



Yes, you don't need to 'prove' anything. Science takes care of that.

Answer 15

There are a number of logical problems with your argument:



1) Science doesn't "prove" anything, especially with 100% accuracy. Anyone who knows anything about science will tell you the exact same thing.



2) Science is rarely simply an observation. It consists of testing things against variables, testing things within certain limits, and seeing how these experiments lead to a deeper understanding of the truth about natural phenomenon.



3) There are relatively very few things that most scientists would consider a universal "law" of nature. The things that happen on this planet are only a minute fraction of a percent of what is going on in the rest of the universe. Scientists just happen to be able to perform their experiments easily on this planet, since, you know, we live here and are acclimated to the environment.



4) Most of the sciences base some of their less testable hypotheses on what is called deductive reasoning. If a large number of observations and experiments point toward one conclusion, and few or no observations or experiments contradict this conclusion, then deduction and the rule of parsimony (better known as Occam's razor) dictates that the conclusion based on the large number of observations and experiments is correct.



5) No scientist (or, no decent practicing scientist) is ever locked into one conclusion ever being the only right answer. Science is not based on dogma, but evidence. As evidence accumulates, better explanations (and deeper understandings) can be achieved. Scientists understand and accept this up front. Evidence that challenges what "we think we know" is usually many magnitudes more interesting than those that confirm what we already know. You don't see this with any religion I know of. This is also the reason that creationist arguments come from "bad" science. The conclusion is already presumed, and all observations or tests of nature either confirm the presumed, or are anomalies that must be explained away.



For all of these reasons, and many more, scientific evidence is much more objective and much more valid than anything that is faith. Show me a scientist that claims natural laws based on faith, and I'll show you a bad scientist.

++++++++++++++++++++++++

Edit to additional details:



"also documents can be falsified photos and video edited"



>>Sure, that is always possible. But the great thing about scientific evidence is that it is always being scrutinized. Any good, documented evidence that is falsified will inevitably be caught and exposed. It's happened numerous times throughout the history of science.



"how can you say that science comes close or is 99.99999% accurate without knowing everthing to compare it."



>>Again, who claims to know everything? People who claim absolute truth, no matter what side they preach from, can generally be shown to be, at best, inconsistent, and, more probably, just plain wrong. And all scientific theories are assumed that they could be wrong with the advent of new or undiscovered elements. Finding that gravity works different outside our solar system would definitely change the framework of just about all of physics, for example. Finding life on another planet that doesn't have the same evidences of evolution would surely re-write many of the biology books. At the very least, they would cause addendums to be added to most theories stating "as far as has been observed on planet Earth."



"How can you AS AN INDIVIDUAL take the word of another ( 1 person or a group) as fact if you are not there to witness the event."



>>That statement is oh so true. How can we trust others? Well, science thought of that with the implemenation of the scientific method. All scientific measurements, observations, experiments, etc. must, eventually, be ***objectively validated*** by the rest of the scientific community. Any work that is published must be repeatable under the same circumstances as the original to be accepted into any sort of theoretical framework. Scientific theories and laws don't come about because one person or another says so.



"is taking the word of a scientist or group ( without you witnessing the event yourself ) any differnt than religon."



>>Simply put, yes, due to peer review. All science is put through the same ringer--the scientific method. The scientific method is the most objective and valid (and least anthropocentric) way that has come about to realize understandings of the natural world. If you have a better way, by all means, share it with the rest of us and claim your Nobel Prize.



"George K -

you hit the nail in the head. that is the message i have been trying to get through. and that is SCIENCE REQUIRES FAITH. faith that the scientists are right, and honest."



>>Again, no, that is illogical. Science is built from evidence that is verified objectively and impersonally by anyone that cares to investigate it. All the evidence that science has for anything built into a scientific theory is there for anyone to test, no matter what their claim is. This is something I make absolutely sure my students understand the first few weeks of class. If you don't (or can't) accept what science says, go out and find the evidence that disputes it.



++++++++++++++++++++++

One last note:



The only thing that I would consider even remotely resembling faith in science is faith that the scientific method yields the most objectively verifiable understanding of the natural world. Again, if there is a better way of coming to this understanding, by all means, submit it to a journal and get ready to accept the Nobel Prize.



++++++++++++++++++++



"no one is getting what i am trying to say

i understand the scientific process. i get checks and balance. what i am saying is at the end of it all. the every day person, working 9 to 5. the teacher, the house wife, ect... are they just supposed to take the word of scientist they never met for fact, just because they say it is fact."



>>I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think you are getting what many of these other respoders are trying to tell you. Things that scientists say aren't facts JUST BECAUSE THE SCIENTISTS SAY THEY ARE FACTS. They are facts because they have been thoroughly and independently tested by a number of people, because one or a few people do not make a consensus. They are objectively investigated, without personal bias...because if personal bias played a part, the system, the method, of science falls apart.



Scientists don't expect every lay person to have first hand personal knowledge of what they do in the lab every day, and I will be one of the first to admit that some don't do a very good job of conveying that information to the general public. But inherently not trusting the system of science is somewhat hypocritical, seeing how science has pretty much provided for every convenience you enjoy, including writing this question on a computer to make it available to anyone else in world to read. Science has probably kept you alive at least once in your life. Science makes it possible for you to enjoy free time instead of working to find food or shelter or warmth every day and night.



If science didn't work, and scientists were not to be trusted, why use the fruits of those sciences? All sciences, whether physics or chemistry or biology or cosmology or geology or anything else, work on the same basic premise: the scientific method, peer review, and objective verification of the information. If you truly did understand this, you would understand there isn't any faith involved in the matter. People don't have to trust the scientists, they only have to trust the scientific process works, which it has, swimmingly, for a very long time.



The only other reason I can think of for you to keep bringing it up is that you must think there is some grand conspiracy among ALL scientists to try and fool everyone else. If that's the case, then there's probably nothing that anyone could say that would sway that belief.

Answer 16

I believe you are a criminal. I believe you stole money from your job, and since I didn't see you NOT steal it, then I can assume that you did. After all, I have no evidence to the contrary.



*rolls eyes* Stop with the games, already.



I'll put my trust in a bunch of smart, educated, competitive people who would like nothing more than to prove each other wrong - when THEY agree on something, and it fits with evidence that I can see, then yes, I'll accept it. I'll Accept it a LOT more than the statements of uneducated people who believe in one of 100 different versions of religions, and believe their version is correct and all the others are wrong, and NONE of which have a shred of actual evidence other than the eyewitness accounts of other true believers.

Answer 17

Science is just the study of the universe through observation and experimentation. It is not based on blind faith as scientific theories can be tested and retested to determine their accuracy.

Answer 18

I don't listen to ONE scientist. I listen to the fact that the item has been researched, studying and has been reproduced over and over again. In most cases the conclusion has been used numerous times to predict the outcome of some event and is always right.



The bible isn't even close... there is no faith involved...



but you obviously want to believe there is so it won't matter what we say...

Answer 19

I suppose you're a subject matter expert.



What do you know of science? Or are you just science bashing because you don't understand it?



If you understood science as well as you think you understand religion, then you would have an argument. But ignorance is a poor argument to disprove anything.

Answer 20

Science is rigorously tested. We don't take the word (at least, most of us, I hope) of *one* scientist, we take the words of the scientific community.



Any paper that's even to be *published* has to pass through peer review and be criticized by the smartest minds in the world.

Answer 21

I'm not an atheist, but you should know that science cannot prove anything for certain (hence the huge debate about evolution), it can, however, prove things beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other side, science cannot disprove anything for certain, only beyond a reasonable doubt. God bless!

Answer 22

If you refuse to take anything on the credibility of a smart person, then feel free to go live in a mud dwelling somewhere.



Science is, if nothing else, proven to be productive. Airplanes fly, medicine works, and I assume your computer is functioning.

No amount of praying could produce those results.

Answer 23

It's a scientist's job to be able to prove what he/she is saying. It's open to anyone to prove them wrong if they can do that. You don't have to take their word for it if you don't want to, but you have to be able to properly back up what you are saying.



Otherwise, you'll just have to accept that some people know more than you do.

Answer 24

Science automatically weeds out bad ideas and false claims.



It does this by granting fame and fortune to those who overturn established theory.

Answer 25

You're right, you can't really know anything for certain. But science comes pretty damn close. This uncertainty also goes for any deity as well.

Answer 26

well at least science is relevant

not the followings of a made up as we go along cult

which people devote there lives to to brainwash others who get forgiven if anything goes wrong.

Answer 27

Scientific proofs and research data are available on demand, and if you doubt their results, the beauty of science is that you can duplicate the experiment.

Answer 28

I'll take science over the supernatural any day.

Answer 29

Here's a diagram for you:

http://miscellanea.wellingtongrey.net/comics/2007-01-15-science-vs-faith.png



Science requires no faith. It works.

Answer 30

Someone who cannot realize that the plural of atheist is atheists is not smart enough to lecture about anything.

Answer 31

Try to wrap your head around this...



I'm an atheist.

I am NOT a scientist.

I don't worship science.

I don't dream about science.

Science does NOT equal Atheist.



Good crap on a cracker...

Answer 32

I can say with 99.99999999% certainty that science is right.



You can say with 0% certainty that the bible is right

Answer 33

i see now why you believe in god