[Edward Bradshaw]

Gah, too much to quote and too little time, so I'll take the liberty of freehand to clear a few things up.

First off, science and religion are historically two halves of the same whole.  Both began as knowledge-producing institutions to understand the world around us.

If an increase in knowledge is defined as a verifiable increase in understanding, then religion is not or ever was a knowledge producing institution.

Science, by contrast, which really emerged in the 17th and 18th centuries with the Enlightenment, is a rational answer to the failures of religion to accept new forms of evidence.  In many ways, science is the complete opposite of religion in its perpetual skepticism and acceptance of new facts modifying its original premises.  Whereas religion has entered a static and doctrinal state of affairs, science's basic premise ensures that understanding continues to be advanced.  (And this is a good thing /Martha).

Glad we agree there. 

Science's very premise is on perpetual skepticism and the continued requirement for proof, not to mention knowledge for the sake of knowledge, rather than power relationships.  (Yet a very bright man once said that knowledge is power, and vice versa).  However, since its modern foundations in the Enlightenment, Science has also become more and more entrenched into power politics.  That said, unlike religion, science has maintained most of its basic premise.  Where the danger signs come into play is on acceptance of science for science's sake.  Somewhere along the line, mainstream society lost their skepticism of scientific discovery, and much of it is now being accepted purely on the word of the researchers involved.  The vast majority of experiments are NEVER replicated, and when they are we often get different results.  It is becoming increasingly harder to modify some of the basic principles of science - we need only look at Newton's laws as an example of this (Einstein's work violated much of Newton's in its early stages, and took some time to be accepted by the scientific community at large).  Science is also becoming increasingly privatized, out of the view of the layman.  Instead, we depend on specialists to tell us what is true.  These specialists are not affiliated with religion so for the most part we take their word on some element of faith in their principles.  In addition, powerful lobby groups for science are infiltrating national power structures further and further so that science now influences government instead of religion.  This wouldn't be a problem (Science's goals are rationalism and the betterment of humanity) except for the specialist understanding, or priviledged level of knowledge, which scientists as a whole do not readily afford to the layman outside their cluster.

Like I said in my last reply to Trashman, if I wanted to I could read the peer reviewed literature, review and even repeat whatever experiments that were conducted to see if I can find flaws. I can submit my own papers for review and if its a well established consensus I have challenged, and Im right about it, I will gain much prestige.

Religion on the other hand has a lot of believers, but if I wanted to know why they believed all I would get directed to is their holy texts and subjective feelings. No objective evidence, no experiments to review or repeat to verify any of the claims they make, no way to validate anything. There are problems with PEOPLE in science, afterall they are only human, but thats not science itself.

To say religion is worthless while science is all knowing is to take a very specific and very naive historical story.  Both have a role to play, and both are more similar in ways that a great many on both sides of the spectrum refuse to acknowledge.  Ultimately, they both began as a means of knowing our world, and both have diverged from that original purpose.

Religion isnt dependant on evidence its dependant on faith, and faith can only be self  depective because it stops you questioning your beliefs. Faith can never help you gain knowledge but it will help you stay wrong forever. So no they arent comparable. If you dont agree then you'll need to show me where assuming a supernatural explanation has ever verifiably increased in our understanding. 

At any rate, for an atheist to say they do not believe in God because of the evidence is to have faith that the means of producing those evidence are entirely truthful and unflawed, which anyone with a serious science education can tell you is a line of crap.

Like I said before I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in one. That requires no faith.

[castor]

So yes you can try to throw the philosophical equivalent of the nuke into a thread on religion by claiming that since perception is subjective everything requires faith at some level but it's a rather pointless argument to make.

If that is the ground level on top of which even the atheist must build, how is it pointless? That part of reality can be ignored without fear of ill-effects?
As I see it, the existence of that fact doesn't make an atheist a believer in any way, but ignoring it is a step in that direction.

[TrashMan]

If an increase in knowledge is defined as a verifiable increase in understanding, then religion is not or ever was a knowledge producing institution.

Assuming God is the creator of the whole universe, than also means that without understanding him, true enlightenment/knowledge cannot be gained, no?

Like I said in my last reply to Trashman, if I wanted to I could read the peer reviewed literature, review and even repeat whatever experiments that were conducted to see if I can find flaws. I can submit my own papers for review and if its a well established consensus I have challenged, and Im right about it, I will gain much prestige.

Religion on the other hand has a lot of believers, but if I wanted to know why they believed all I would get directed to is their holy texts and subjective feelings. No objective evidence, no experiments to review or repeat to verify any of the claims they make, no way to validate anything. There are problems with PEOPLE in science, afterall they are only human, but thats not science itself.

???
Peer reviewed literature? Isn't that also what someone else wrote - something you have no first-hand knowledge off? In reality it's no different to believing what's written in some holy book. OTHER PEOPLES WORDS. Period.

Religion tends to answer different questions that science. Why is a question that you can keep asking over and over till the person you talk to runs out of answers. And it will eventually, no matter if it's a priest or a scientist...so repeating it is a fallacy in itself.

At any rate, for an atheist to say they do not believe in God because of the evidence is to have faith that the means of producing those evidence are entirely truthful and unflawed, which anyone with a serious science education can tell you is a line of crap.

Like I said before I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in one. That requires no faith.
[/quote]

A slight correction on one of your earlier assumptions - about religion ignoring evidence against it...O.k, some do. I'd be very interested to see some real evidence against my religion tough..havn't seen it yet.

and to clarify another thing - we all believe a lot of things we don't know for sure. It's normal. Most of the things we "know" we heard or read. We cannot be sure if it's correct unless we test everything ourselves. There are many things we can't test yet we still believe - like if there is intelligent life in the universe. Everyone has an oppinion on it, everyone belives there either is or isn't, alltough no one knows for sure.

[karajorma]

If that is the ground level on top of which even the atheist must build, how is it pointless? That part of reality can be ignored without fear of ill-effects?
As I see it, the existence of that fact doesn't make an atheist a believer in any way, but ignoring it is a step in that direction.

Suppose someone gave you a simple Kinetics question and asks you what speed an object would be travelling at after a certain amount of force is applied. You give them an answer and someone comes along and tells you that you've forgotten that the Earth is moving and you must add its velocity to whatever your result was. Velocity relative to what? Whatever point in space you take is completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless anyway.

 Suppose a lion chases a gazelle because it needs food and is hungry. Are you saying that the lion has faith that gazelles are food? To claim that faith applies to all animal behaviour is to stretch the definition of the word to a ridiculous level but much of human behaviour is based on the same instinct. We know that when we are hungry that food will stop that impulse same as an animal does. Are you saying that we take that on faith but animals are using something else? Or are you claiming that animals also have faith?

If you stretch the word faith to mean what you are trying to make it mean then the word becomes completely meaningless.

[castor]

Suppose someone gave you a simple Kinetics question and asks you what speed an object would be travelling at after a certain amount of force is applied. You give them an answer and someone comes along and tells you that you've forgotten that the Earth is moving and you must add its velocity to whatever your result was. Velocity relative to what? Whatever point in space you take is completely arbitrary and therefore meaningless anyway.

Yes. And in order to be able to say that, you need to be aware that there are no absolutes, only selected points of reference. Thats all I was saying in the first place.

[karajorma]

Yes but it's rather pointless to bring it up in a discussion in which everyone is using the same point of reference.

If someone says that an object has x Kilojoules of kinetic energy after a certain amount of force it's completely ****ing pointless to start bringing in zero point energy or how much energy it has due to the Earth's movement. The only reason to do that is basically to try to look like a smartarse.

Similarly the fact that we exist is implicit in any discussion about faith. It's completely ****ing pointless to bring up the fact you you might not exist. If we don't we wouldn't be here to have the debate. Bringing it up undermines the entire discussion and the only reason someone would do it is to try to look like a smartarse.

[maje]

and speaking of smartasses, how dare you call me out on making a clerical error in my communist-victim body count. 

Though I don't know where the hell 100,000 million came from.  That's three zeroes too many.  Anyways, its apparent I can't do math.   

anyways, I think that the breakdowns were 60 million killed by Mao, 20 million or so during the Bolshevik Revolution, 30 million during the Purges under Stalin, and we're not even getting into Adventures 'Round the world with Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, various South American regimes, etc.

[castor]

Riight. Well, good night in any case

[MP-Ryan]

If an increase in knowledge is defined as a verifiable increase in understanding, then religion is not or ever was a knowledge producing institution.

Knowledge does not imply understanding at any level.  If you do indeed have an education you should know that - it's the basics.

Like I said in my last reply to Trashman, if I wanted to I could read the peer reviewed literature, review and even repeat whatever experiments that were conducted to see if I can find flaws. I can submit my own papers for review and if its a well established consensus I have challenged, and Im right about it, I will gain much prestige.

That's a well-written paragraph, but that alone doesn't save it from that fact that it doesn't address my point in the slightest.  The privatization of science into a priviledged sector of knowledge occurs whether or not we can go read the peer-reviewed journals.  Repeated experiments, as I pointed out already, often lead to entirely different results - much of science is never actually replicated.  Whether or not you like to admit it, much of science's discoveries, especially in "softer" sciences, are taken entirely on trust.  Specialization of knowledge has put serious science well beyond the everyday comprehension of the layman.

Religion on the other hand has a lot of believers, but if I wanted to know why they believed all I would get directed to is their holy texts and subjective feelings. No objective evidence, no experiments to review or repeat to verify any of the claims they make, no way to validate anything. There are problems with PEOPLE in science, afterall they are only human, but thats not science itself.

Science is evidence-based.  I'm not disputing that.  But science itself DOES have flaws - the method was developed and is carried out by fallible human beings.  Science tells us a great deal about "how" but very little about the "why."  Science rarely gives us causal understandings in anything.  Not saying religion DOES, just saying that ab absolute belief in the infallibility of science is actually quite irrational.

Religion isnt dependant on evidence its dependant on faith, and faith can only be self  depective because it stops you questioning your beliefs. Faith can never help you gain knowledge but it will help you stay wrong forever. So no they arent comparable. If you dont agree then you'll need to show me where assuming a supernatural explanation has ever verifiably increased in our understanding.

You're not reading what I'm saying again.  You're talking about organized religions today, where I actually tend to agree with you.  That hasn't ALWAYS been the case though.  You need to recognize that both science and religion are historically situated.  Read some of the science that emerged in the earliest days of the Enlightenment.  It IS science, but it is a science based on philosophy, not evidence, yet this is what gave birth to the modern sciences.

Like I said before I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in one. That requires no faith.

Whether you care to admit it or not, your faith in the infallibility of science and evidence-based knowledge is contributing to that reason.

Any serious researcher will be the first one to tell you that science is very fallible and often misses huge parts of the big picture.  Consider genetics, a field I'm familiar with.  While Mendel first discovered genetic inheritance back in the 1800s, it wasn't until 1902 that his work was rediscovered. and it wasn't until the 1950s that we knew DNA was the responsible material.  Prior to that, all kinds of crazy theories were accepted as absolute truth (most notably the protein hypothesis).  Or consider gravity - Newton first published on gravity in the 1600s.  It wasn't until the 1900s that research in special relativity yielded a new understanding of gravity.

Every scientist has to admit to faith in his methods and conclusions, because error means that we can never, 100% of the time, be right about anything.  Yet we still consider it the best tool.  And it is without a doubt the best tool.  But that does not mean that we make an intellectual leap of faith in some part of each and every experiment and each and every conclusions that is drawn from them.  Ultimately, you're trusting that error isn't confounding the results.  Why?  Because you have faith in the methodology.  Sure, evidence to the present has shown that it works, but that doesn't mean it always works.  Science's basic premise tells us that we should actually question if it does work.

So don't try to tell me there is no faith involved in science - there is.  And it is a similar kind of faith to that required by religion.  Many scientists will try to claim that religion is worthless, but I continually argue that it is not.  If anything, religion is the biggest warning to science that the privilegizing processes of specialized knowledge are a dangerous thing - a lesson that we have thus far failed to take to heart to our own peril.

[Dark RevenantX]

My thought is as follows.

Religion: Governed by faith without "proof" for the benefit of the soul and spirit.  Religious ideas are rarely changed and even then are almost always changed by force or by necessity.

Science: Governed by either purposefully acquired or situationally found "proof" for the benefit of the body and mind.  Scientific ideas are readily changed, usually with no violence.

Religion without reason is dangerous, generally unproductive, and detrimental to the progress of knowledge.
Science without morals is hazardous, generally harmful to life, and detrimental to the progress of society.

In other words, one does not require science to lead a peaceful and happy life, but having some reason is definitely a must.  Similarly, one does not require religious to lead a successful and happy life, but having some morals is without doubt completely necessary.

[karajorma]

Science is evidence-based.  I'm not disputing that.  But science itself DOES have flaws - the method was developed and is carried out by fallible human beings.  Science tells us a great deal about "how" but very little about the "why."  Science rarely gives us causal understandings in anything.  Not saying religion DOES, just saying that ab absolute belief in the infallibility of science is actually quite irrational.

1) You assume there is a why. There may not be one. In which case science's inability to find it might not be a flaw in the method at all.
2) I doubt anyone will tell you that science has no flaws. But you seem unable to understand the difference between proceeding on a best guess and having faith that something is correct.

Any serious researcher will be the first one to tell you that science is very fallible and often misses huge parts of the big picture.  Consider genetics, a field I'm familiar with.  While Mendel first discovered genetic inheritance back in the 1800s, it wasn't until 1902 that his work was rediscovered. and it wasn't until the 1950s that we knew DNA was the responsible material.  Prior to that, all kinds of crazy theories were accepted as absolute truth (most notably the protein hypothesis).  Or consider gravity - Newton first published on gravity in the 1600s.  It wasn't until the 1900s that research in special relativity yielded a new understanding of gravity.

Every scientist has to admit to faith in his methods and conclusions, because error means that we can never, 100% of the time, be right about anything.  Yet we still consider it the best tool.  And it is without a doubt the best tool.  But that does not mean that we make an intellectual leap of faith in some part of each and every experiment and each and every conclusions that is drawn from them.  Ultimately, you're trusting that error isn't confounding the results.  Why?  Because you have faith in the methodology.  Sure, evidence to the present has shown that it works, but that doesn't mean it always works.  Science's basic premise tells us that we should actually question if it does work.

Yes, and surely you can see that questioning the basic premise is the very antithesis of faith. There is nothing in science that is trusted. Even the very basics of the scientific method are questionable. If you want to claim that's a house of cards and that the entire thing would fall down if you can disprove the scientific method then I'll agree with you. But that doesn't mean that belief in the scientific method is taken on faith. You yourself are a scientist and say that it must be questioned. How is that faith?

You're pointing to the specialisation of science as if that means science is faith based. Again you're wrong. Single non-repeated experiments are not the very basis of science after all and are a much more modern product. The basics upon which they are built are much more heavily tested. To use the house of cards analogy again it's like a couple of cards on the top deck collapsing and you knocking down the entire thing saying "It doesn't work! The house can't be built without some form of external support!" You shouldn't ignore the fact that the bottom decks are quite sturdy and can take the weight of the upper layers as long as you build them correctly.

Yes there is a lot of specialisation in more modern science but that doesn't mean the entire thing is taken on faith. All it means is that more repetition of experiments is needed and that you shouldn't take something from a single paper as necessarily being 100% accurate. Guess what? Scientists don't. I know I certainly never trusted any methodology from a paper as true when I was working as a researcher. As far as I was concerned it wasn't true until I could reproduce it and I'd expect anyone following my results to have displayed the same amount of scepticism over the validity of my results. If you don't work on that assumption for anything that hasn't seen a very large amount of repeated experiments then you are a poor scientist.

Many scientists will try to claim that religion is worthless, but I continually argue that it is not.  If anything, religion is the biggest warning to science that the privilegizing processes of specialized knowledge are a dangerous thing - a lesson that we have thus far failed to take to heart to our own peril.

By that logic we need keep Gengis Khan around to stop us from rampaging across Asia? Just because something is a warning doesn't mean we need to keep it around in its current form. Religion would still be a warning if it disappeared completely tomorrow as long as people remembered about it.

[WMCoolmon]

By that logic we need keep Gengis Khan around to stop us from rampaging across Asia? Just because something is a warning doesn't mean we need to keep it around in its current form. Religion would still be a warning if it disappeared completely tomorrow as long as people remembered about it.

I don't have a clue what Genghis Khan rampaging around Asia has to do with the scientific method, so maybe we should have kept him around after all.

Oh, and have you ever considered that maybe you're the one missing the point? I've read over your post twice, and I can't see where you actually addressed MP-Ryan's main point. It's like you turned it into an attack on science while paying lip service to what he was actually saying.

Your condescending tone and arrogant attitude in this thread have really made me start to wonder if you care about having an intelligent debate after all, or if you're just being intentionally manipulative to make everyone agree with you, whether you're right or not.

In fact, I believe that the pattern of your style of debate completely contradicts the scientific method. You've started off a number of posts with saying how someone is completely wrong or is misunderstanding you or is 'unable to grasp' something, without ever seeming to consider the possibility that you're wrong, or that neither of you have enough information to say with any certainty. If you're trying to represent your side in the debate, you're doing a better job of representing a politician than a scientist.

Sorry to everyone else. I'd rather take the public shame if I'm wrong than be politely ignored in private.

[karajorma]

I don't have a clue what Genghis Khan rampaging around Asia has to do with the scientific method, so maybe we should have kept him around after all.

You do not need to keep around an actual live example of someone who has committed genocide in order to know not to do it. In a similar fashion you do not need to keep around religion in order for it to serve as a warning what science shouldn't do.

I might not be arguing that the world would be a better place without religion but I'm not going to use keeping it around as a poster child for what we shouldn't do as a reason why it should continue to exist.

Oh, and have you ever considered that maybe you're the one missing the point? I've read over your post twice, and I can't see where you actually addressed MP-Ryan's main point. It's like you turned it into an attack on science while paying lip service to what he was actually saying.

Funny cause that's not what I did at all. MP-Ryan stated that science is based on faith that the scientific method will give the correct result. I've said that it's not faith at all and given my arguments as to why it isn't.

How about we simply wait and see if MP-Ryan got it? If he did the lack is in you.

[WMCoolmon]

Funny cause that's not what I did at all. MP-Ryan stated that science is based on faith that the scientific method will give the correct result. I've said that it's not faith at all and given my arguments as to why it isn't.

Which is exactly what I said you did: "It's like you turned it into an attack on science...".

How about we simply wait and see if MP-Ryan got it? If he did the lack is in you.

I'm not basing this solely on your discussion with MP-Ryan, I'm basing this on the direction this thread has gone and the direction that your posts have seemed to take it, in addition to the various comments you make about people misunderstanding you, being wrong, being unable to grasp things, etc etc.

In addition I'm basing this on your claims to be a scientist and to be neutral on this issue, and then resisting everything that someone affiliated with a religion says. As a scientist, I would have thought you would be interested in gathering information, not using it to beat people over the head with until they agree with you in an internet debate. Unless you believe that everyone else is so ignorant that they can't possibly contribute something that you don't already know.

There are two people who have represented themselves as having a religious point of view, and those seem to be the people that you've listened to the least. Since they're in short supply around here, why haven't you attempted to learn from them why they think religion is worth it?

[karajorma]

Which is exactly what I said you did: "It's like you turned it into an attack on science...".

Then you've drawn the wrong conclusion. I don't consider anything in MP-Ryan's post to be an attack on science. Nor have I responded to it as if it is one. If he considers acceptance of the value of the scientific method to be based on faith where as I consider it based on reason that doesn't mean that we don't both accept the validity of the scientific method.

I'm perfectly well aware that MP-Ryan is a scientist and as such unlikely to be responsible for an attack on science. Even though I have a philosophical disagreement with him about what science is derived from that doesn't mean I believe he is attacking it. And I doubt that he believes I said that either. We'll have to wait and see what he says on the matter. 

[Edward Bradshaw]

If an increase in knowledge is defined as a verifiable increase in understanding, then religion is not or ever was a knowledge producing institution.

Knowledge does not imply understanding at any level.  If you do indeed have an education you should know that - it's the basics. 

Aside from in increase in understanding, the only other definition of knowledge I can find is an increase in facts.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/knowledge
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/knowledge?view=uk

What verifiable facts does religion give us?  I dont think you could point to any examples, but even if you did what verifiable facts does religion give us that science inherently cant? 

That's a well-written paragraph, but that alone doesn't save it from that fact that it doesn't address my point in the slightest.  The privatization of science into a priviledged sector of knowledge occurs whether or not we can go read the peer-reviewed journals.  Repeated experiments, as I pointed out already, often lead to entirely different results - much of science is never actually replicated.  Whether or not you like to admit it, much of science's discoveries, especially in "softer" sciences, are taken entirely on trust.  Specialization of knowledge has put serious science well beyond the everyday comprehension of the layman.

I really dont believe that "much" of sciences discoveries are "entirely" taken on trust, because that implies faith. I'd like to know which discoveries and long held consensus' you believe are are taken "entirely" on faith. But forgetting that for the moment you're talking about about failures of the Scientific Community not science itself. When faith and bureaucracy cause scientists to fail to question their results even with peer review, when scientists dont question each other enough, then people are failing to do science properly. Its the scientific communities job  to make sure that doesnt happen. OTOH religion is flawed from the core.

But with your same logic here the Bible is flawed because of how the Vatican, The Church of England or The Evangelical Christian right conduct themselves. Dont get me wrong the Bible is flawed for many reasons, but this argument cannot be an argument against it.

Science is evidence-based.  I'm not disputing that.  But science itself DOES have flaws - the method was developed and is carried out by fallible human beings.  Science tells us a great deal about "how" but very little about the "why."  Science rarely gives us causal understandings in anything.  Not saying religion DOES, just saying that ab absolute belief in the infallibility of science is actually quite irrational.

So what are the flaws of the scientific method, and how can we make it better? If religion coulld really verifiably increase our knowledge in ways science cant, then the scientific method must be lacking in something.

And I dont like this "science teaches us how not why" argument for religion. I assume when anyone says this they dont mean "why do the leaves change colour in Autumn?" or "why is the sky blue?" or "why do children look different to their parents?" questions becuase science can certainly answer the "hows" and "whys". I assume they are looking for at a more metaphysical or spiritual question with "why". Now its very admirable to ask these quesion and want to know the answer and fun to come up with flights of fancy. I do itmsyelf. But unless you have any evidence all you are doing is making things up. We really could be living in The Matrix and its fun to discuss it as if it is so long as you know thats all you're doing.

Basically what you are really seem to be advocating is philosophy which Im all for, but thats not religion and thats not faith.

You're not reading what I'm saying again.  You're talking about organized religions today, where I actually tend to agree with you.

No actually Im not talking about organised religion but what is fundamentally wrong with religion itself.

That hasn't ALWAYS been the case though.  You need to recognize that both science and religion are historically situated.  Read some of the science that emerged in the earliest days of the Enlightenment.  It IS science, but it is a science based on philosophy, not evidence, yet this is what gave birth to the modern sciences.

Religion and science used to be intertwined, I know that. But whatever scientfic advancements they made they did so using the scientific method. Religon only hindered their advances if it conflicted with their faith. You have yet to show me how religion specifically can help or has ever helped advance our knowledge in a verifiable way that science inherently was unable to do. Also, theology and philosophy are different.

Like I said before I am an atheist because I see no reason to believe in one. That requires no faith.

Whether you care to admit it or not, your faith in the infallibility of science and evidence-based knowledge is contributing to that reason.

I dont believe science is infallible and I dont know why you just assumed thats what I believed. I see science as the only verifiable method we have of increasing our knowledge. If you know of a better way, or how science could be improved to do that better than I'd love to hear it.

And it sounds like you're joking when you say I am somehow stuck trusting in "evidence-based" knowledge but I guess you arent. What else is there other than just wishfull thinking and wanting something to be true?

Any serious researcher will be the first one to tell you that science is very fallible and often misses huge parts of the big picture.  Consider genetics, a field I'm familiar with.  While Mendel first discovered genetic inheritance back in the 1800s, it wasn't until 1902 that his work was rediscovered. and it wasn't until the 1950s that we knew DNA was the responsible material.  Prior to that, all kinds of crazy theories were accepted as absolute truth (most notably the protein hypothesis).  Or consider gravity - Newton first published on gravity in the 1600s.  It wasn't until the 1900s that research in special relativity yielded a new understanding of gravity.

Once again you are talking about the Scientific Community. But speaking of which sometimes it may take a while to challenge the dominent theory but if the evidence is behind you it will eventually change it and if its something really big like a big change in the theory of gravity or when Hawking challenged Steady State much prestige and fame is gained by doing so. Mendel was just unlucky to have died never knowing how important his research was.  None of this is still in any way comparable with anything in religion.

Every scientist has to admit to faith in his methods and conclusions, because error means that we can never, 100% of the time, be right about anything. 

Of course honest scientist will admit they could be wrong or that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty. But many things are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thats why scientific "Theories" are the highest point of investigation because theres always more to learn. Evolution is probably the most well supported theory in science but Im sure it is wrong in some way and we'll continue to learn and improve upon it in the future. It could be totaly wrong, and all the evidence could just be some unbelievable coincidence, but thats not too probable. 

Yet we still consider it the best tool.  And it is without a doubt the best tool.  But that does not mean that we make an intellectual leap of faith in some part of each and every experiment and each and every conclusions that is drawn from them.  Ultimately, you're trusting that error isn't confounding the results.  Why?

Well Im not, so Im not sure why you assumed all this about me in order to ask the question.

Because you have faith in the methodology.  Sure, evidence to the present has shown that it works, but that doesn't mean it always works.  Science's basic premise tells us that we should actually question if it does work.

Yes I know and if I drop an apple there is a chance it could fly up into the air instead of fall to the ground. We could all really be in the Matrix or just be apart of some Zen dream but that isnt likely and science isnt going to pay much attention to such philosophical post-humanistic masturbation without a good reason. Lots of things are possible but far less things are probable. Gods could be real, Im certianly not denying that, but I also dont think its at all probable enough to believe in. So, I dont believe in Gods, since I see no reason to believe in one.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm perfectly well aware that MP-Ryan is a scientist and as such unlikely to be responsible for an attack on science. Even though I have a philosophical disagreement with him about what science is derived from that doesn't mean I believe he is attacking it. And I doubt that he believes I said that either. We'll have to wait and see what he says on the matter.

Oh my...

No, I don't think you're twisting me into an attack on science but I do think you've missed a couple of the things I've said (which were mostly in reply to Ed).

Essentially, every scientist out there should be skeptical of the scientific method, and the experiments which gave us our results.  Statistics try to eliminate random chance but you and I both know that probability-based measures just reduce the liklihood of randomness, they don't eliminate it.  Perhaps for the most part we all do question our methos and results, and those of others, but at the end of the day we're all accepting these as reasonable guesses (as you said).  But why do we accept those as reasonable guesses?  We really have no proof one way or the other if they are - we're basing our judgement on past history, but science itself tells us that past findings are in many cases meaningless, full of error, or completely wrong (and I don't think I need to cite you examples of this).

Scientists ultimately point to rationality in the method as the reason wy they believe it yields best guesses most of the time, but if we take a survey of scientific findings over history we find that most of the guesses were actually wrong, which led us to the correct ones - or rather, what we accept as correct at this point in time.  Ultimately, they will probably continue to change.  That's the reason we accept science as a somewhat flawed though valid method, because it builds and changes its premises according to fact.  The method itself isn't actually rational, given the amount of error in it.  It's an approximation of a perfect rational method in which all variables are accounted for or eliminated.

It doesn't matter how far we reduce the basic intellectual components required for science, we will always find an unaccounted factor that mucks up results and leads to a lot of erroneous conclusions, even in modern science.  Yet pretty much every scientist reaches the conclusion that says "even though we know this data isn't actually true, we're going to accept it as our best guess because its all we have, and past guesses have led to improvement in understanding even if they were false).  It's the equivalent of an intellectual leap of faith - we all believe in the method and the results that it produces in the long term and larger scheme of things to such an extent that we knowingly overlook its flaws.

That's faith, and it is very similar to the faith required by religion.

The only real difference between science and religion is acceptance and change of facts - religions have moved to the point where change is rarely possible or accepted because of doctrine.  Science is also slowly moving in that direction, but it has 1500 years to catch up to where religion is today.  That's worrisome.

I never actually addressed the original premise of this thread:  do I think the world would be better off without religion?  The short answer is that I believe the world would be better off without religion that is entangled heavily in power structures and relationships.  Religion, without those social trappings, is an important guiding principle for many people.  Religion has done a lot of good in this world; religious power structures have done far more evil.

[Edward Bradshaw]

Im skipping much of this as I have still have my other post and I wouldnt want to cover old ground.

But why do we accept those as reasonable guesses?  We really have no proof one way or the other if they are - we're basing our judgement on past history, but science itself tells us that past findings are in many cases meaningless, full of error, or completely wrong (and I don't think I need to cite you examples of this).

Well no I do think if you're going to make this kind of claim you should tell us what kind of thing you're talking about.

It's an approximation of a perfect rational method in which all variables are accounted for or eliminated.

You know its almost like you are just arguing against the belief that science is perfect and 100% infallible something Ive never heard any scientist profess to believing even though Im sure they must exist somewhere.

The second issue I think is a seperate issue and its that you claim religion is also a knowledge producing institution. I think even if science was 100 times worse than you make out religion would still be inherently useless as a knowledge provider.

  Yet pretty much every scientist reaches the conclusion that says "even though we know this data isn't actually true, we're going to accept it as our best guess because its all we have, and past guesses have led to improvement in understanding even if they were false). 

Oh come on, who says that and about what? You should be able to inundate me with examples since you say its pretty much all scientists that say that. Ive never heard this claim except by Creationists, so it baffles me that you are making some of the same arguments. I hope you arent going to claim that scientists tentatively accepting a hypothesis for the sake of research is the same thing as what you're talking about.

[MP-Ryan]

What verifiable facts does religion give us?  I dont think you could point to any examples, but even if you did what verifiable facts does religion give us that science inherently cant?

Ever sat down and read the entirety of Genesis in the Christian religion?  It's an excellent metaphorical version of Big Bang theory as its understood today.  Verifiable fact?  Not really.  A useful interpretation of the existence of the world at the time of its writing?  Absolutely.  Religion does not yield verifiable facts as science does, which is why science has evolved as the method of choice for understanding the world - something I'm not disputing (if I were, I should be a priest, not a scientist).

I really dont believe that "much" of sciences discoveries are "entirely" taken on trust, because that implies faith. I'd like to know which discoveries and long held consensus' you believe are are taken "entirely" on faith. But forgetting that for the moment you're talking about about failures of the Scientific Community not science itself. When faith and bureaucracy cause scientists to fail to question their results even with peer review, when scientists dont question each other enough, then people are failing to do science properly. Its the scientific communities job  to make sure that doesnt happen. OTOH religion is flawed from the core.

But with your same logic here the Bible is flawed because of how the Vatican, The Church of England or The Evangelical Christian right conduct themselves. Dont get me wrong the Bible is flawed for many reasons, but this argument cannot be an argument against it.

I addressed this more with karajorma, but science is an approximation of a pure rational method, not a rational method itself.  The majority of scientific discoveries at this point in time are never verified by replication; rather, they are tested when others base their premises on that work and the whole thing collapses (or not).  We trust that published discoveries are true to the extent they can be by the method until we see otherwise.  The perpetual skepticism of science has been greatly reduced since its earliest days.  Ultimately, we tend to accept things as true until shown otherwise, rather than accepting things as false until given convincing data in support of them as the scientific method tells us to.  There is a degree of trust and certainty in every scientific discovery and experiment, which equates to faith as you yourself stated.

I never said the Bible wasn't flawed; it's a greatly flawed document, great story but not even an approximation of history.  metaphorically we can see how its meaning fits modern theory, but there are large chunks of the Bible that were cut to essentially fit the political nature of the period.  Do not interpret my saying that science requires faith at some level to mean that I believe religious texts are a better way of understanding the world.

So what are the flaws of the scientific method, and how can we make it better? If religion coulld really verifiably increase our knowledge in ways science cant, then the scientific method must be lacking in something.

The scientific method is incapable for accounting for all the variables in a problem; as such, we need either a way to include all the variables (which an understanding of chaos theory tells us is essentially impossible; variables are not finite) or a way to reduce their effects to an extent that in practice removes all error from conclusions (again, a practical impossibility).  The scientific method is an approximation of rationality, and I personally can't comprehend a method of perfect rationality; I'm inclined to think that one doesn't exist, or may only exist at levels beyond our comprehension.

Basically what you are really seem to be advocating is philosophy which Im all for, but thats not religion and thats not faith.

You've drifted away from my argument again.  Science requires a level of faith is all I'm saying.  I'm not advocating for religion outside of an understanding of religion that makes people see where it "fits" in our historical understanding of the world.  Science could not exist without religion, and religion AND science will exist so long as humans are willing to use some element of faith in their understanding.  If/when that ceases, a new method will likely emerge.

Like it or not, science was born of religion.

No actually Im not talking about organised religion but what is fundamentally wrong with religion itself.

Without religion in the earliest days of our history, we would not have science today.  There was nothing fundamentally wrong with religion (it was a knowledge-producing institution) until power entered into it.

Religion and science used to be intertwined, I know that. But whatever scientfic advancements they made they did so using the scientific method. Religon only hindered their advances if it conflicted with their faith. You have yet to show me how religion specifically can help or has ever helped advance our knowledge in a verifiable way that science inherently was unable to do. Also, theology and philosophy are different.

Philosophy was born of religion, and science is derived from philosophy.  The earliest science (not necessarily modern/Enlightenement science) came out of religious understanding (consider stonehenge, Macchu Pichu, and other ancient celestial sites).  It is true that as of the Enlightenment religion began to hinder science, but if anything that hindrance led a great many curious and stubborn soles to outright defiance and scientific discovery.

Religion led mankind to question and to wonder, and to seek answers before science ever existed.  Today, that role is entirely different, but it was necessary to where we sit in contemporary society.

I dont believe science is infallible and I dont know why you just assumed thats what I believed. I see science as the only verifiable method we have of increasing our knowledge. If you know of a better way, or how science could be improved to do that better than I'd love to hear it.

And it sounds like you're joking when you say I am somehow stuck trusting in "evidence-based" knowledge but I guess you arent. What else is there other than just wishfull thinking and wanting something to be true?

Just because science is the sole institution producing verifiable fact today doesn't mean that it requires no faith; one does not negate the other.  You have faith in the evidence, even though science tells us the evidence is only an approximation of reality.  I won't dispute that evidence-based knowledge is the sole primarily useful form of knowledge, but we have erroneous or a lack of evidence in a great many things, yet you fundamentally accept those things as true.

We have no evidence that supports existence on a higher plane of existence (call it what you will) at present but that does not necessarily mean it will always be so.  Similarly, at one time we had no evidence that the atom was divisible, yet subsequent discoveries made that possible.

I don't pretend to know one way or the other about a great many things, including higher planes of existence, but I don't pretend that I can dismiss the possibility outright, just as I don't dismiss the possibility tthat our understanding of gravity is flawed.  We just don't know.  I work based on the evidence we have at present, and skepticism prevents me from accepting possibilities that seem patently ridiculous at present, but this does not mean I have absolute conviction that the evidence to date is completely true.

Once again you are talking about the Scientific Community. But speaking of which sometimes it may take a while to challenge the dominent theory but if the evidence is behind you it will eventually change it and if its something really big like a big change in the theory of gravity or when Hawking challenged Steady State much prestige and fame is gained by doing so. Mendel was just unlucky to have died never knowing how important his research was.  None of this is still in any way comparable with anything in religion.

I'm not talking about religion, I'm talking about the fallibility of the scientific method and the scientific community that uses it to demonstrate that complete trust in scientific evidence amounts to faith.

Of course honest scientist will admit they could be wrong or that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty. But many things are proved beyond reasonable doubt. Thats why scientific "Theories" are the highest point of investigation because theres always more to learn. Evolution is probably the most well supported theory in science but Im sure it is wrong in some way and we'll continue to learn and improve upon it in the future. It could be totaly wrong, and all the evidence could just be some unbelievable coincidence, but thats not too probable. 

Nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  Probability does not at all equate to near-certainty.  We can only support theories, not prove them or near-prove them, something a lot of believers in science tend to overlook.

Well Im not, so Im not sure why you assumed all this about me in order to ask the question.

Your responses to date have shown a reluctance to accept the fluidity of scientific discovery.  You seem to believe the evidence is usually right, whereas I believe the evidence is usually wrong and its only a matter of time until it is improved upon.

Yes I know and if I drop an apple there is a chance it could fly up into the air instead of fall to the ground. We could all really be in the Matrix or just be apart of some Zen dream but that isnt likely and science isnt going to pay much attention to such philosophical post-humanistic masturbation without a good reason. Lots of things are possible but far less things are probable. Gods could be real, Im certianly not denying that, but I also dont think its at all probable enough to believe in. So, I dont believe in Gods, since I see no reason to believe in one.

Ah, but science does pay attention to the improbabilities - that's how new influential discoveries are usually made.  Not to mention, improbabilities have a real nasty way of screwing up experiments.  Error/improbability/uncontrolled variables are the most important part of science.

[MP-Ryan]

Well no I do think if you're going to make this kind of claim you should tell us what kind of thing you're talking about.

Are you serious?  Do you really want a history of scientific failings?  I'll compile a short one (eventually, it'll take a while) if you insist but if you have any training in the sciences at all you should be able to come up with at least three big ones.

You know its almost like you are just arguing against the belief that science is perfect and 100% infallible something Ive never heard any scientist profess to believing even though Im sure they must exist somewhere.

There have been meanderings in that direction in this particular thread, so I wanted it cleared up.  People are far too ready to jump to a conclusion that science is rational and produces good evidence most of the time, which isn't true.

The second issue I think is a seperate issue and its that you claim religion is also a knowledge producing institution. I think even if science was 100 times worse than you make out religion would still be inherently useless as a knowledge provider.

Religion WAS a knowledge-producing institution is the only claim I've made, and I've never said it was even close to or superior to science.  Don't put words in my mouth.... er, text.

Oh come on, who says that and about what? You should be able to inundate me with examples since you say its pretty much all scientists that say that. Ive never heard this claim except by Creationists, so it baffles me that you are making some of the same arguments. I hope you arent going to claim that scientists tentatively accepting a hypothesis for the sake of research is the same thing as what you're talking about.

Every single experimenter *boggle*.  When we perform experiments, we know:
1.  We haven't identified, nevermind controlled, all relevant variables.
2.  There could be errors in our experimental design.
3.  There could be errors in our statistical significance due to (1)
4.  Better discoveries come from old discoveries, even if they weren't true.
5.  We cannot measure reality without manipulating it, and we cannot measure it perfectly (Heisenberg Pricniple)
6.  While the simplest explanation may not be the real explanation, we accept it as such (Walter's Canon)

Creationists don't subscribe to that line of thinking.  Typically, Creationists try to poke very selective holes in the evidence with the idea to collapse the theory, but usually it's due to a lack of understanding of the theory itself and mechanisms behind it.