in science as solid factual truth? I could be wrong but it seems as if atheists base their beliefs on science in which is impossible to be ultimate truth. If you do in fact put your trust in science why? Everything that speaks of how the world began and even how long we've been here, and where we come from are "THEORIES" Why put so much trust in a theory?
I really want solid answers not ignorant response's
2006-12-10 12:07:22 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Many people are very analytical & rationale, thus if it can be tested, although it's simply a theory, it's more substantial than something that can not be tested, such as the existence of a god.
2006-12-10 12:12:49 · answer #1 · answered by NautyRN 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No one ever said that science was "solid factual truth". Science is ever-changing; they could come out tomorrow and say that they've made a mistake and some widely-accepted scientific fact is actually wrong, because of some new discovery that was just made. As knowledge increases, scientific knowledge changes. But that's a good thing; you're always assured that you're getting the best possible interpretation based on the facts that we know now. Religion, on the other hand, hardly EVER changes. If they make a discovery tomorrow that goes against religion, religion will lie their way out of it, or deny it, or avoid it altogether, and continue with the original (wrong) explanation. Which would you rather put your "faith" in: Something that will admit it's wrong and work to correct the error, or something that will deny that error even hundreds of years later?
2006-12-10 20:13:26 · answer #2 · answered by . 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not all sciences are fallible, but you are right in saying that there are those who consider non-testable sciences as fact or law. It is for this reason that the infallibility of science spreads to all sciences for some people.
Sciences that study things that can not be tested or have a lack of evidence should never be accepted as fact but as theory. These include Astronomy (purely visual observations outside our solar system), History (recorded only by a few), Psychology (one can never truly know or understand the thoughts of another), and there are some more.
Studies of things that are based entirely on evidence or experiment can be accepted as fact, but one should always make sure to use proper reasoning and common sense first. These can include Literature (studying solid evidence i.e. writings) , Arithmetic (simply stating observations), Chemistry (characteristics observed from experiment).
2006-12-10 20:17:25 · answer #3 · answered by phoenix_slayer2001uk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
For the same reason that Christians and other religions believe God to be the ultimate truth. It feels right. I would have to say from what I see and read on here, that even being agnostic, I lean more towards atheism. Seeing how some of the "Christians" on here act, and hearing "proof" from both sides is pushing me that way. The points that atheists bring up make more sense to me. And, honey, since no one can prove the existence of a God, that is a theory too. You put your faith in a theory too, just like everyone else.
2006-12-10 20:15:41 · answer #4 · answered by Amanda D 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science itself is not a truth. It is, in its most broad definition, intellectual rigor to find truth. Science is also, again, not ultimate truth, but a methodology for discovering ultimate truth.
You again, don't put infinite trust in a theory, like you DO put infinite trust in faith. You just accept that a theory is the "best theory" available. Big bang isn't perfect, but it's all we've got. Same for evolution.
Frankly if you have a better method, I'd like to hear it.
2006-12-10 20:10:33 · answer #5 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Science is a study of the laws of nature, if can be backed up my experimential data, we know that theories are just theories waiting to be proved. The thing is with experimential data you can repeat the events. With a thing like the bible, you can't you only have the writers word for it and for much of the stuff in it we have no idea of how many years after the event it was written. If all good in saying that prophieies came true, but how do we know that it was not written after the event and was changed.
2006-12-10 20:13:58 · answer #6 · answered by Mr Hex Vision 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
what?!!!
OK, think about what you asked. "Why do atheists put their ideas into theories?"....The answer is because all we have are theories. We chose to base our faith (or lack there of), on logic. Putting one's faith in a book that is full of things that science can prove as false would be a lesser choice since there is no evidence to back up any of the claims in said book. You are right that science can not give us ultimate truth, however this truth it can give us will be a lot closer to reality than the "truth" (or again lack there of) that the Bible or other religious texts can give us.
2006-12-10 20:09:52 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Science, always changes in proof of new evidence. Theories are treated as possible truths until then. What makes it convincing, that most scientific fields support one another.
However, for me, to regard the bible as the one and only truth is tad unbending. Already, one would have committed to regard the realities of the story, even though new evidence does not support the claims made by the bible and Church.
I know that these claims are prone to different interpretations and are phrased differently, but for me, Science is more accomodating than religion.
2006-12-10 20:17:43 · answer #8 · answered by Dumbguy 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you consider someone telling you the words in an ancient book are 100% solid truth? Now go to science class.
2006-12-10 20:11:21 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
firstly, (serious, honest, solid answer)
do you understand what it means for something to be a Scientific theory? it does not sound like you do.
it takes *ALOT* for something to be a scientific theory.
I think Scientific-minded people consider it factual truth because is something that has been physically, empyrically observed and proven, verified objectively by many people in agreement.
now, I know the non-provable things I believe are true, and I do not need them to be emperically proven in order for me to consider it fact.
bottom line is that what is, is. and the method of which to verify that is the question. science is a very consistend, methodical means of verifying this.
2006-12-10 20:14:14 · answer #10 · answered by RW 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, from a logical standpoint, it makes far more sense to "believe" in something that has actual evidence to support it (like scientific theories) than something that has little to no evidence to support it (like many Christian beliefs).
What I don't understand is how Christians believe in the Bible at all when their core reason for doing so is that it says you should... in the Bible. There is no comparison between that kind of fallacy and "believing" in facts that have been proven to you before your very eyes.
2006-12-10 20:13:48 · answer #11 · answered by Huddy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋