Why do so many Atheists treat the collective theories of Science like they're 100% accurate?

Question

Though not all Atheists are so gullible, many are. Science is merely a collection of theories, not facts. It just so happens that many of the theories have practical usages. There are, however just as many theories that are totally useless and just waiting to be disproven by later generations. Real Scientists aknowledge this, shouldn't they?

You remember, I'm sure, that Scientists are the guys that taught us that the world was flat. It was the opinion of science that people with fevers were "on fire" on the elemental level. The same Scientists developed a periodic chart that looked like a value system for a Role Playing Game. Fortunately for all of us, their equipment became more advanced, and their accuracy increased dramatically.

Modern Science is by no means 100% accurate. If the people from Moses's time had access to the information we have today, the Bible would undoubtedly have fewer metaphors and symbolic references and more scientific, modern references.

Adder_Astros
Powerful Member of the House of Light.
[]xxxxx[];;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;>.
adderastros.com is temporarily down for renovation.

Answer 1

Science changes every day, as new facts are discovered. Who can tell...tomorrow someone may discover a new fact that will completely change everything science thinks it knows today.
And that is as it ought to be.
For those who make science their religion, this could be incredibly embarrassing, especially if new facts are discovered that refute some old but treasured "theory".
Perhaps it is time we set up a "separation between church and science"????????

Answer 2

Lots of misinformation here...

Firstly, generalizing atheists like that is fairly trite. Atheists don't believe in god -- period. Anything else you add on top of that is being disingenuous to the term. I know a few angry, irrational atheists who think science is mostly bunk, so it's certainly not a "requirement" of atheism to love science.

Second, anyone who knows anything about science treats theories as theories, and facts as facts. Accepted scientific theories are fundamental models that explain most, if not all, of the observed facts. So making a statement like "Science is merely a collection of theories, not facts," misses this very critical connection between the two, and displays a good bit of ignorance about science. Further, you make an unsupported statement about useless theories that will eventually be disproven -- I ask that you please list a few of these "useless theories" -- cause I don't know of any.

Third, scientists did not, in fact, say the world flat. Religion did. Even today, what's left of the Flat-Earth Society is a bunch of bible-thumpers who base their erroneous belief off of reading things in the Bible. There's no "Scientists for Flat-Earth" group, because science has no problem abandoning ideas that are proven false.

Experimental science more or less began with Galileo and his telescope. Up until then, Aristotle's view of the world had gone unchallanged. The fact that you know the world is round and not stationary is DUE to science done by Galileo, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, etc... Using the results of science to argue that science can't produce results is rather illogical. The same holds true for medical science (the reason people don't think sickness is due to sin is because of medical advancements and *gasp* Germ Theory).

Finally, it should be noted that while science (and basically all knowledge) is not 100% accurate, it does not imply that it's somehow unreliable or in doubt. There is this general feeling that science flip-flops theories willy-nilly, which is most likely due to how the media portrays the results of studies as scientific concensus. ("Study shows caffeine is actually good for you!" -- those kinds of misleading headlines). Since the days of experimentation though, science has rarely, if ever, reversed its mind. Theories generally become REFINED, not replaced. And that's an important distinction to make.

Answer 3

Your diatribe is loaded with bad information and fallacies.

"Science is merely a collection of theories, not facts. It just so happens that many of the theories have practical usages. There are, however just as many theories that are totally useless and just waiting to be disproven by later generations. Real Scientists aknowledge this, shouldn't they?"

<
"In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms." ~ Stephen Jay Gould>>

"You remember, I'm sure, that Scientists are the guys that taught us that the world was flat. It was the opinion of science that people with fevers were "on fire" on the elemental level. The same Scientists developed a periodic chart that looked like a value system for a Role Playing Game. Fortunately for all of us, their equipment became more advanced, and their accuracy increased dramatically."

<< Essentially, you are full of crap. The Greeks knew, around 500 BC, that the earth was a sphere, and around 260 BC, it was known that the planets orbited the sun (Aristarchus of Samos), and this was generally accepted around the time of Christ. However, when Christianity was in its ascendency, such knowledge was suppressed and destroyed. The early church destroyed all the 'tainted' (non-canonical) writings, which were in conflict with dogma... Greek philosophy, medicine, mathematics, astronomy, engineering... all the good stuff. By this means, Christianity dragged humanity directly into the Dark Ages.

With regard to scientists being the "...guys that taught us that the world was flat"... well, that's just a plain dumbass lie. That was the Church. And 'science guys' did not even exist until 1620, when Francis Bacon outlined a new system of logic to improve upon the old philosophical process of syllogism. Then, in 1637, René Descartes established the framework for a scientific method's guiding principles in his treatise, Discourse on Method. These are the key events that differentiated 'science' from 'philosophy'.

With regard to the 'Periodic Table'... I've got no idea what you're babbling about. Mendelev's 'Periodic Table' is still in use today. There is no reason to replace it.>>

It seems to me that you are just a Luddite, squawking about things that you don't understand.

Answer 4

That is partly true. Science is very dynamic, that is its greatest strength. Science is not merely a collection of theories. It is a composite of fact, laws, and explanations for observed phenomenon. A theory is not a hypothesis, as the term is used in social discussion.

Theories and hypothesis will come and go. Some will evolve while others will be completely rethought or abandoned.

In any case, science is man's best and only real tool to understand the universe and our place in it. I will accept scientific explanations for existence (regardless of how temporary they are) over theological explanations any day.

It should also be worth noting that although pre-grecian philosophers thought the world was flat, the catholic church would imprison and kill those who claimed the earth wasn't the center of the universe. Theism has ALWAYS stood in the way of scientific knowledge and progress, just as it is doing today.

Answer 5

What you don't understand is what the term "theory" means to a scientist. You are confusing "theory" with "hypothesis".

You also speak of "scientists" that taught us the world was flat and fever = fire, but the fact is, they weren't scientists.

There's a new sherrif in town, and it's called "the scientific method". This is how we are sure when something becomes a theory, it's pretty solid. But I"m sure looking into that would just be logical and wouldn't support whatever dogma you are supporting.

Fact: you are communicating through a medium that would not be here were it not for the modern scientific method, and peer reviewed journalism.

Answer 6

Why do so many Christians treat the collective theories of the bible like they're 100% accurate?? There is no more 100% definitive proof of stories from the bible than there are scientific theories. At least there is more in the way of physical evidence with science (fossils, etc.). Not bible bashing here but it's the truth..........

Answer 7

Are you saying the bible is 100% accurate? Or more accurate than science? And how many times has the bible been re-written to serve their own interests.

I don't think even scientists themselves believe that scientific theories are 100% accurate. That is why they are called THEORIES..
There are dumb atheists out there just like there a dumb fanatical religious people as well.

Answer 8

A better question might be "Why do so many Christians treat the bible like it's 100% accurate?"

Alot of science is fact, you cant sit there and say that every piece of science in theory, because it isnt. So, though many theories atheists look to are, infact, theories, they still have fact backing them up.

Answer 9

They don't. Its just they think that its better to use the theories that smart educated people have thought up, and used actual facts as justification as a philosophy as opposed to a book written by who knows, and changed to fit what ever agenda someone had. No one in science accepts any theories as facts, they are just ways to explain what is happening, based upon collected data. Sometimes theories conflict, change overtime, and evolve, and anyone is free to reinterpret the evidence. You just have to back up your logic with real facts. Better system than religion if you ask me. You can say anything you want, just be prepared to back it up. No God, no problem.

Answer 10

You seem to be overlooking the quality that makes science what it is, the capacity to accept "adjustment". In fact, the difference between a scientific and a theological viewpoint is that if something is shown wanting in a scientific thesis, it is adjusted to better suit reality. This contrasts with the unchanging "word of God", the Bible, which still teaches in 1 Kings 7 that pi has a value of 3. LOL!

Answer 11

Athiests treat theories as theories and facts as facts. Religious people can't wrap their brains around this so they make questions like this one.

Science is simply the best way humanity has ever devised to find facts and acquire testable information about the real world. The sceintific culture is set up so that every assertion is constantly challenged, tested, and put to use.

Religious truths are propositions, but are not set up in a way that they can be tested or developed into scientific theory. That is why athiests reject them.