You forgot the bias associated with the programing of education. The thing that stops people from searching for an answer is "knowing" it. Science still can not do what they say happened to create life. It is a fairly simple experiment but it never works. Yes I know "millions of years" but in a laboratory you can select for the exact components you want as they do with gene mutation effectively eliminating the "millions of years".
Any and all bias effect not only the direction of inquiry but also its outcome.
2007-02-15 01:56:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by Tommy G. 5
·
2⤊
0⤋
The real obstacle is the lack of complete defineability of God by current scientific methods and criteria. If one cannot define what one is looking for, one cannot find or not find it. Religion is based upon faith, the acceptance of things not seen as if they were truth. Atheism takes the known world and bases the conclusion that there is no God on physical criteria (some on logical criteria). The fundamental split is the data examined and of course, the conclusions drawn. The religious would draw conclusions from circumstantial evidence in order to reinforce an already-held belief. An atheism would draw the same conclusions but from an altogether different data set. Both reach a conclusion based on insufficient evidence.
As other answerers have said, even agnostics have hangups that might color their interpretation of "evidence." However, until all groups can agree on what constitutes "God," then all the evidence in the universe will not be enough to be conclusive.
Also, many atheists say they are not contending that "God doesn't exist," but that they "don't believe in God." I am wondering how that is different, unless they really mean they choose not to subscribe to a religious belief without explicitly rejecting the possibility of the existence of a "God."
P.S. You make a valid point about observational interference, Earl D. The energy required to observe an electron knocks that particle into a different orbit, thus changing the observation by the very act of observing it. Weather systems were the first chaos systems derived. The truth is complex and multifold. The fact that folks try to reduce multifold evidence to one truth bespeaks a peculiarity of Man that ensures that he will fight over minutiae for eternity. A pity.
(On a tangential note, there was an article long ago in Fate Magazine of all things, that implied that the laboratory setting suppressed the manifestation of paranormal abilities on the part of those being tested. I always interpreted this as a form of observational interference...I am in no way claiming the validity of such experiments or so-called "paranormal science," but pointing out that this uncertainty seems to flow across lots of different laboratory-based experimental protocol. )
2007-02-15 02:06:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by Black Dog 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Holding or not holding any particular religious belief has no impact on a person's reasoning. What does impact a person's reasoning is
A) Superstition. That is, any blindly accepted belief (e.g., Heaven and Hell exist; science will someday cure all social ills).
B) Dogmatism. The arrogant assertion of opinions as truths (e.g., The sun revolves around the Earth because Ptolemy said so; religion is infantile self-delusion because Freud said so).
It was this mindset which led to the Dark Ages when the Church, which had previously been a center of learning, refused to allow new knowledge to be introduced which conflicted with previously-set patterns of interpretation. It is this same mind-set which causes materialist-reductionist organizations to put pressure against potentially beneficial research into areas such as remembered wellness and noetic phenomena.
2007-02-15 02:22:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The acceptance of scientific evidence (no mater how obvious and simple) by any body depends on how strongly they are holding to their preconceived ideas.
Many years ago many Christians thought the earth was the center of the universe and to think otherwise was a heresy to the Church. It took Galileo to show how the universe is, and the Christians then found that their belief was still true.
An Atheist can look at a rock with footprints of a dinosaur and a human in it and say that it is not a human footprint, yet no one has yet taken credit for discovering a two legged, 10 toed dinosaur with feet the shape of humans that knew how to make moccasins!!
2007-02-15 02:07:25
·
answer #4
·
answered by tim 6
·
1⤊
1⤋
i do believe that our beliefs may impair evidence yes Jim
from each end of the scale ( religious and atheist )
and yes i do believe the agnostic to be in a good place to judge the evidence fairly
and that is why even as a theist i try to look at any evidence presented with an agnostic mind set
edit
beta .... some religions and religious people DO look to science for evidence
2007-02-15 01:52:05
·
answer #5
·
answered by Peace 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
According to Dr. Planck simply observing impedes or alters something, hence there is no untainted empirical scientific evidence and he's one of your Atheist scientists!
Something as simple as looking through a microscope or telescope changes things, according to him.
Now, according to Einstein "Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind."
Science is here to explain how things work, not to conjure up "educated old wives tales."
In 1965 in school in a publication that still exists today called Weekly Scholar they had an article about weather forcasting in 1985. Tomorrow there will be rain starting at 2:05 pm and lasting until 3:12.
The fact of the matter IS weather forcasting is no more accurate TODAY than it was in 1965. The weatherman is going to predict rain or snow for tommorow THEN when it doesn't happen he's going to tell you why it did happen!
2007-02-15 01:59:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
It may "color" your interpretation of scientific evidence. But if you "prejudice" happens to be in the right direction, it might actually aid in your understanding.
Religion is not that only "prejudice" which can and does "impair" interpretation of data. So even an agnostic can be affected by his beliefs.
2007-02-15 01:51:41
·
answer #7
·
answered by dewcoons 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree with you. Athiests in general, as most are true skeptics, would not even consider any hypothesis that would possible include anything ot the metaphysical or supernatural. Not that most things have anything to do with it, but in some things perhaps a litle more of a mindset that something else might be present could perhaps bring more insight.
Agnostics would be great scientists.
2007-02-15 02:16:21
·
answer #8
·
answered by Sage Bluestorm 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I have little problem integrating scientific FACT, not theory, into my beliefs as a Christian. I believe that many animals, plants, and organisms have evolved as nature changed around them. I believe that the Earth is as old as scientists say, as God's days, during creation, may not equate with our earth days. God's days could have been millions of our years.
The only place we may disagree is that God created man in His image, in order to have a relationship with Him. In this I have faith, just as the Atheist has faith that all of this came out of nothing. Little difference in mindset there. Both require an equal amount of faith, just placed in different places.
2007-02-15 02:08:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by J.R. 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes. The scientific method, while being one of precision, is flawed. My religious belief does override certain scientific "truths" that have been brought to light. Mankind will always be impaired one way or the other. Who can be an impartial judge when it comes to one's own beliefs?
2007-02-15 02:20:11
·
answer #10
·
answered by Diesel Weasel 7
·
0⤊
0⤋