Why do some people believe that knowledge about the nature of the universe based in scientific reasoning...?

Question

... is superior to one based on spiritual belief?

I see a lot of "atheists" (truly inappropriate generalization) purport to know a "truth" (e.g., God doesn't exist) for one of two reasons:

1. The scientific evidence doesn't lead one to that conclusion
2. The burden of proof is on the "believers in the divine"

I'm not sure how a belief in the underlying axioms of a particular scientific dogma are any different than those of a religious dogma. For example, I've stated before on this forum that the cosmological principle is a fundamental axiom upon which a number of astrophysical principles are based, including the Big Bang hypothesis. Similar axiomatic structure exists for all scientific endeavor.

The fundamental nature of the universe in my opinion cannot be known by humankind because we are within the system we intend to measure. The origins of the universe, whether it was "designed" or not, etc I believe are beyond our ability to understand.

What say you?

Jsts22: My question isn't related to a particular religious dogma but instead the "theism v atheism" debate each of us has at some point. Since by its nature this is a spiritual debate science (which deals with principles of the natural world) cannot tread here. The best that science can do is measure the effects of various hypotheses about the universe's nature on the natural world. But doing so, in my opinion, cannot lead to a definite conclusion about the existence of (at least) a creator god.

Busch: Exactly my point! The debate is meaningless, in my opinion. The inference/conclusion one comes to is essentially a realized path from a bifurcation in one's beliefs. Whether one chooses to believe in god or not cannot fundamentally come down to a decision based on objective "evidence" but rather is a product of one's background, experiences, etc.

(Hmm... not sure I've expressed myself precisely here but we'll see if my thoughts are understood.)

To those who used 'observation' in their response: The nature of observations is as a physical phenomenon that begs a physical explanation. However, please tell me what physical observation you can point to that tells whether or not a divine being created the universe.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that "God" created the universe -- I don't know. And I'm certainly not limiting myself to a particular religious dogma (i.e., I'm not saying the Abrahamic God created the universe as laid out in Genesis or anything).

Jim,

I extorted no "theory" but if that's what you want to call it, that's ok.

Suppose the man in your example was enclosed in a cell that had no opening to the outside world. The walls are opaque and no light comes from the outside. The man has no recollection of events outside the cell itself. The man has absolutely no perception of the world outside the cell; indeed, the very concept of "outside the cell" may be foreign to the man. Now, can the man claim what the nature of the cell is, its origins, its purpose, etc from his own experiences and observations? My answer to this is no. Do I claim that the man cannot understand his own cell's mechanisms and internal nature with enough time and effort? I do not but this isn't the question before us. The question I was addressing was his knowledge of the cell's origins and its purpose (if there is one). If these things existed outside his 4D experiences then I claim he cannot know them from scientific inquiry.

Dan,

Your personal attacks on me are unwarranted for a number of reasons but first and foremost I am neither a Catholic nor a member of any other organized religion. Additionally, I am fully aware of scientific progress. I hold a BS in physics and an MS in astronomy/astrophysics in addition to 4 other degrees (not in the hard sciences).

My question is motivated by the ignorance that those who purport to know and understand the subtleties of science display either unabashadly or unknowingly.

I cannot say this enough:
Fundamentally the scientific method as applied across a variety of fields including cosmology has at its foundation a set of axioms that allow for inferences to be made from finite observations and furthermore allow the infinite set of explanations available given a data set to be pared down to a finite set, perhaps containing a single theory. For a scientist to claim otherwise is either disingenuous or ignorant. Can science be done otherwise, though? No.

Answer 1

Why do you believe that the words of an archaic text, the bible, and the teachings of an out of date religion are so much more correct than scientific reasoning?

Faith is the belief in something that you can't prove. So I can't shake your belief and I am not even going to try, I will only feel pity for your closed mind.

I was raised in the Roman Catholic Church so I have the benefit of a good religious upbringing and I am just as moral as the next man. I still don't believe in God because of all the bad things I have seen done by religion. I simply refuse to believe that if the religion is true that God really exists then his teachings could be so flawed and steeped in evil. You only have to look at history to see that. But, you are too blind to do that.

I don't claim to understand all the theories that prove the Big Bang and the scientific world that came from it but, I understand enough to see its merits and the proof. My belief in science has sound fundamental reasons which are widely accepted and can be proved through different sources and it can be independently verified and it has.

Religion can only be proved by the "inspired" people who teach it and you only have their word for it; which includes the words of people like pedophile priests and Jim Baker. It also includes the words of religious clerics that say Islam is a religion of love and tolerance while other clerics from the same religion sanction mass murder.

Hitler sanctioned genocide and had some scientific reasons for it; none of which are valid or were taken serious, except by the Nazis and their supporters. His "science" is flawed and that is generally accepted by the majority of sane individuals.

I can give you other examples and more proof, but if I do then I will only continue to offend you and other religious folk. You are for the most part closed minded and don't want to listen to what I have to say. I at least took the time to study Christianity and history before I made my decision. I am also willing to admit when I am wrong and if the Reverend Jerry Fawell rises from the dead to tell us what really waits us after death I will listen. Of course we both know that won't happen, and that life after death is a scam proposed by the Catholic Church to control the serf class in the Middle Ages.

Actually, life after death will start in the final battle against evil and the antichrist at judgment day. Then when it is finished the survivors will be taken into heaven. But, most Christians ignore the teachings of their own book, the bible, when it doesn't suit their agenda. Religious folk will probably ignore my answer because it doesn't fit their agenda and they will spout out quotes from the bible trying to use a work to prove the work is real. If you could do that then Hitler, and his big lie, strategy would have let him take over the world and we would all consider him a hero, instead of the worst villain.

Also don't forget that Christianity has predicted the end of the world several times and it hasn't happened. Science has predicted things like Novas, the discovery of dark energy, how strong a building will be and so on and it has been right. When it has been wrong later we proved why it was wrong and what the truth really was.

We can't explain all with science and people have claimed that miracles have happened with thousands of witnesses. I don't claim that science knows it all, but the religious folk do and they claim that it is all written down in their book that is at least 100 years out of date with proven errors in it (the world doesn't exist at the center of the universe, with the sun revolving around it).

What makes me mad is that the bible was written by men just out of the Stone Age, inspired by the word of God. It is not the word of God, and it can't be. How do you explain the Big Bang to someone who thinks stars are little lights on the ceiling? The bible has errors because the people of the time couldn't understand the real truth. It is locked in those times and it is almost impossible to be updated, due to the huge number of conflicting opinions.

Science is regularly updated and revised with up to the second information that is agreed on by the majority of scientists. Some don't agree, and usually they are the ones that push the boundaries to new areas of science and new understanding so we listen to them. A lot of them end up being wrong, but they get a fair hearing, at least as fair as their idea deserves. The religious folk won't give science a fair hearing and won't change their ideas when science changes its ideas and proves new things.

Answer 2

Your question answers your own question. Scientific *evidence* can (almost) always be trusted. Scientific theory *based* on scientific evidence, therefore, is "lent" some of the trust we have for that evidence.

Religious belief relies wholly on faith and not even a little on scientific evidence.

Origins of universe- no one *knows* if we are able to understand it or not. Your theory :) doesn't seem to be scientific. Consider a man in a prison cell. This man may have all the knowledge necessary to build such a cell himself. He can understand completely the pertinent aspects of the nature of the cell while living in the cell. He could even *learn about* the nature of this cell while living in the cell. Containment does not *necessarily* retard understanding.

Jim, http://www.jimpettis.com/wheel/

Answer 3

I wish people would stop with all the science vs religion questions. No one is ever going to see eye to eye on these issues, because both sides believe they are "right". Why can't people just deal with the fact, that not everyone is going to agree on everything. I consider myself to be an athiest, yet I have christian, catholic, and jew friends. Get this.....we all get along with each other, and not once have we gotten into a fight over who's religion is better or which is right and which is wrong, because we don't care. Best thing you can do, is shut up and deal with each other.

Answer 4

God is a god of truth, and science is the search for truth, so believing in God should be normal for a scientist, not abnormal. Many problems in science seem to come from the idea that a theory can be more important than the data upon which that theory was originally postulated from. This is known as pride in the Bible, which is an abomination to God.

Answer 5

Very simple. The track record of science is outstanding. Every piece of technology around you, even the technology that allows you to read this answer, is the end result of scientific inquiry of the past.
The track record of religion is... ZILCH. Try praying that your question will get posted instead of using your keyboard. I'll stand by and tell you how it works.

Answer 6

Correct

Answer 7

it's because we are afraid of what we cannot control. for some strange reason, atheists believe that if we can measure it and weigh it, we are in control. atheists are convinced that what has been defined with our limited senses won't surprise or turn out to be anything other than what we decide it will be...their feet are firmly glued to lifeless ground that does not shift or change.

but to those of us who believe in God, we embrace all possibilities with all that we have. we understand that we are not in control and willingly lift our feet so that we can fly...

Answer 8

Science is the only best thing human can do to gain real knowledge. There is no other choice. Even you have used 'logic' in you question.

Answer 9

Well first off, to say that one is superior to another leads me to believe you feel opinions are misguided no matter which you choose.
The only "win" in your question is to have no preference whatsoever.
People follow beliefs based on what makes sense to THEM. Not what is "superior".

Answer 10

We can make observations that support scientific theories. We cannot make (or have not made) observations that support most spiritual beliefs.