science wrks towards disproving proven truths, yet followers of science refuse to accept the existence of?

Question

sumthng beyind science.....y????






i am an atheist dont talk to me abt spirituality

Answer 1

just a question: does science explain emotions that seemingly go beyond animalistic nature?

Answer 2

It does? Because given the nature of proven truth, I would think that that would be an impossible task. I think that a better account of what science works towards is knowledge.

Perhaps, then, your question should read something like this:

If science works towards disproving commonly held opinions, then why do the followers of science refuse to accept the existence of something beyond science?

Let me know via additional details in your question whether or not this is a good paraphrase of your question. Then I'll try to come back and answer it, because I like this question.

Answer 3

Science does not work to disproving proven truths. Science in the broadest sense refers to any knowledge or trained skill, especially (but not exclusively) when this is attained by verifiable means. The word science also describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from such study. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on empiricism, experimentation, and methodological naturalism, as well as to the organized body of knowledge humans have gained by such research. People verify things that exist by using their "senses" by imposing order in chaotic universe.

Answer 4

First of all, science is not something that you "follow". It is not a religion, and it is not a way of life. Science is a method for learning about the natural universe - that's it.

Science deals with the natural universe; stuff that you can detect, directly or indirectly, with your senses. And you can take "indirectly" to huge extremes, and still be able to gather useful information.

If you interact with something, in any fashion, you can detect it. Otherwise, "interaction" has no meaning. So, therefore, i ask: if you cannot detect it, can it even be said to exist at all? In what sense can something be said to exist if it *never*, in any form or fashion, affects you?

You can certainly imagine all sorts of fanciful things that could exist. But if you cannot, and do not, detect/observe these things, then it is unreasonable to claim that they do, in fact, exist. It's not a matter of "science"; it's a matter of "logic", or "rationality". Just because you can imagine something does not mean that it exists.

There are undoubtedly phenomena that we haven't yet detected. But if they exist, then we *can* detect them, and if we can detect them, we can study them.

The supernatural is, in real life, a nonsensical concept.

Answer 5

I thought science was open to new theories, to test and prove that they are true, knowing that the 'truth' will change with new evidence... Something beyond science would be something beyond the big bang for instance....there's no truths on what was before the big bang based on science, but they're looking.

Answer 6

Well what else would be beyond science. Personally i dont beleive in any organized religion. Howver i wouldnt call myself an athiest you should never Put yourself into a catergory like this society wants you to do **** THAT

Answer 7

Science does NOT work to disprove "proven" truths, that's just nonsense.

"followers of science"--do you mean scientists, perhaps? are not all alike. Some believe in things they can't prove, others don't.

Answer 8

To many, science IS a religion.

Answer 9

Being an athiest don't make God go away.
Evolution is faith in science model until another model comes along then another model........