Religious people: You do realize that you can't choose to "believe or not" in science, don't you?

Question

It doesn't matter if you don't like what science has discovered, because it is what it is. Science is not influenced by politicians, the government, religious groups, or the world. Science is not even biased by the scientific community itself, because all observations and discoveries must be repeatable and free of bias, and are always checked by other scientists.

If scientists discovered that the Earth was going to die in 100 years, they certainly wouldn't like it, but they would still talk about it and do more research (oh wait, I think I've heard this before....was it called global warming?)

BONO ANSWERED MY QUESTION HOLY ROFL

OKAY good he's just a fake. I was having an out of body experience there, several question running through my head... why is Bono answering my question...he used the f word? wtf?... shouldn't he be out feeding people!?!...why is Bono such an a*shole?

Answer 1

They could chose not to believe, but it doesn't change the facts one bit. Everyone has an opinion on these things and you always have the choice to ignore presented facts.

I'm not sure how one ignores those huge bones at the museums... those dinosaur things? ^_^

Answer 2

Sometimes, assertions borrow the name "science" when they haven't earned it. I certainly agree that there are inarguable scientific facts (like, "what goes up must come down"), which if I chose to disbelieve them, would none the less be true, and I would simply be ignoring reality. But bear in mind science has had it's share of mistaken beliefs. People with a blind faith in the conclusions of science are almost participating in a religion of their own (where the reasoning power of humanity will overcome all our problems, essentially), and they've been misguided at times as well.

Also, don't imagine science is immune to political and economic influence. Sure, there is investigation purely for it's own sake, but every discipline is corruptible to the degree it's perpetuators can be tempted. What I mean is that scientists, even the well-intentioned ones, are merely human, able to misinterpret results and also to be swayed by the complex incentives that invade their sanctuary of pure reason. Also, it is simplistic to say science is simply repeatable, bias-free facts. There is a big jump between the verifiable experiments and observations of science and the conclusions which become scientific beliefs.

Conclusions are the tricky part. That's where we have so often made the huberistic mistake of thinking we've had all the relevant facts when in truth, we only understood one side of what we'd observed (in a tidy, repeatable, scientific manner), and made a bold pronouncement, brimming with scientific confidence, only to be debunked later when more complete observations were made.

I think your question is really more narrow, needling the topic of global warming, and you have good science on your side, although not all the conclusions have proper support at this time (which many scientists will concede). I'm a religious person who has no trouble seeing that global warming is occurring. Faith in the divine doesn't require a suspension of rationality for me. I also suspect human activity is at least a catalyst in this process, but I'll reserve judgement until there is more data all round. Heck, we're still thinking up new ways to observe the global changes in our climate, never mind what we're able to make of those observations. Cart before the horse.

Religion has at times served science well, and at other times impeded and strangled scientific investigation. Science at times has nobly fostered deeper understanding of our existance and alternately invented the tools for hideous devastation. No human activity, science nor religion, has proven to be all good or all bad. It's all a blend, because it's all human, and that's my repeatable observation.

Answer 3

Trust "scientists" do you? Trust me, there are few intellectually honest scientists about. Most of them have biases and agendas they try to prove, and call that science. They throw away data that contradicts their biases and keep data that supports them. True science doesn't care what the truth is, even if it is against personal bias. True scientists want to know what is, what the truth is. There is a huge difference between proving your bias and finding the truth. 99.9% of so-called scientists make fantastic leaps of assumptions if it supports their own personal beliefs. Then they print that as fact and gullible people believe it. Scientists are people just like everyone else. Some are honest; some are conniving; some are evil; some are liars, some are arrogant, some are liars and some are deceived. They vote Democrat, Republican or Libertarian or whatever. They poop and piss and shop at the grocery store. They are not sacrosanct. Yeah, some college student read something to me out of National Geographic one day. I heard an inaccuracy. I told him so. It had to do with the carbon dating of something that revealed it to be millions of years old. The student was set to argue with me. Now I don't argue; I state facts. It is not my responsibility to get anyone to believe it. I simply taught him the truth of carbon dating, the half life, the need for calibration, etc. Anyway, the facts moved him from blindly believing the article to considering facts. Once he knew the facts he knew it was impossible to use carbon dating for objects that old. Scientists do this all the time and use spurious proofs to prove what they want to prove. Critical thinking is sorely needed in this day of ours when students are being dumbed down.

Answer 4

Scientists keep saying that they know very little, if anything, about the universe. Albert Einstein admitted his findings were minuscule in comparison of what the world really is, Scientists often agree and disagree in almost everything they find. There will always be bias in any discovery or observation, since human beings have different experiences in their lives. Of course science is influenced by lots of entities. Scientists are not millionares, they need the funds to do research. Do you think an oil company is going to invest on scientists to discover new ways of replacing oil now? Do you think they will invest on scientists to find a cause of global warming?

Answer 5

My only worry about science is that man whether his intentions are good or not is the one that is creating these answers and quite frankly, we are not the best ones to be doing that. For every action there is a reaction and sometimes in our pursuit for knowledge we tend to forget about that.
Plus, no matter how many scientists check and recheck the data it doesn't mean that it's right it just means that it's right right now. Look at the dinosaurs just 10 years ago they thought they knew everything there was to know about them and now they find new evidence all the time. And seeing as man is also a pretty complicated animal whose to say the findings that are there now are not going to be obsolete in 10 years. And no man can say when the Earth is going to die no body knows that but God. That's why they are wrong so often.

Answer 6

Don't forget that science is always learning and changing. Remember the theory that the world was flat???? Oh, and that the earth was the centre of the universe? I love what we learn through science, and I honestly believe we will keep learning as long as we exist, but science isn't infallible. People do come up with incorrect theories. Evolution is a theory that most scientists don't even believe, yet it is still taught in schools. Go figure. But science is full of possibilities and all possibilities must be considered.

Answer 7

Science is always learning and relearning, growing and correcting, trying and retrying...shifting sands. Not really a permanent place to build your life on. What is true today could be changed with a new discovery tomorrow and be found totally wrong. It's like building your house in an earthquake zone and wondering why others won't.

Answer 8

What makes you think that science is incompatible with religion, especially with the Christian religion.

Remember that were it not for the Catholic Church, science never would have prospered and developed to what we have now -- especially during the Renaissance, when the Church was the primary patron of all forms of learning, including science.

I don't know why there's all this "science vs. religion" thought out there -- but I do know that most of this thought is propagated not by the "religious folks" but by the "opposite side."

Answer 9

dropping faith comes from more advantageous than doubt. it would want first of all doubt even if it takes position even as actuality sinks in and someone realizes the actuality. non secular people imagine a lot of stupid issues, that is fullyyt one in all many. and that i'm not puzzled, and that i ought to allow you to do not ignore that i actually resent your actuality to that outcome. How would you want it if I stated that the undeniable actuality that you would believe in an unproven entity shows that you're puzzled? See? that's impolite.

Answer 10

Science is sometimes a matter of opinion called a theory or hypothesis, now have you yourself performed these so-called tests? Didn't think so. Science says that man comes from monkeys, if that is so why are there still monkeys? Even now some science is proving Christianity, so now what?

Answer 11

Ok I'm religious I admit it, but I also KNOW that science is real and truthful. I know that many scientific findings do NOT prove there is no God, quite often it validates that there is. Jesus wanted us to be scientists, and 'seek the truth' - so why is everyone arguing? What do you call people like me, scientifically religious?