science is infallible?

Question

The only believable lie is one based in truth.

Science is based on the scientific method,.. a man made philosophy.

Any theory is an assumption based on a limited pool of facts.

all facts are merely if then statements, and very case sensitive.

No one has disproved a single Christian belief. They merely say that there is no reason to look in that direction, to the scientists. Then say Christians believe in stoning, and ignore the reasons for stoning,.. to all of the common public. (yet, God never endorsed stoning, the only time God was in government was when he had tribal leaders. before and after tribal leaders, God wasn't in the business of teaching people new ideas. When the people asked for a king,.. God warned them and walked away.)

\../hmmm,.. the arrogant have spoken.
.\/. what to do what to do....

Ignore it as the assumption of an arrogant scientist. I have felt God,.. prove that wrong. Ohhh,.. yaaa,.. God has to add up to your assumptions before you'll believe. At least I'm smart enough to learn from God.

Answer 1

>"Science is infallible?"

Why do some Christians spend so much energy trying to refute a claim that nobody makes? (Nobody claims that science is infallible.)

And why do some Christians spend so much energy defending themselves from phantom attacks that science is not making? (Scientists have no interest whatsoever in "disproving a single Christian belief.")

>"Any theory is an assumption based on a limited pool of facts."

Close. A theory is an *explanation* (not an assumption) based on a limited pool of facts (the available evidence). You may see this as a weakness ... but it is *precisely* its biggest strength. Science limits itself to the available evidence, and excludes things that are outside the scope of being verifiable as evidence.

>"No one has disproved a single Christian belief."

Non-sequitur. Science is not invested in the act of "disproving Christian beliefs."

It is a FALSE dichotomy to pit science as if it is in fundamental opposition to Christian belief. As gribbling explains very well ... the truly *important* aspects of Christian belief are well beyond the scope of science. It is only in the *unimportant* aspects (the literal details of clearly more metaphorical parts of the Bible that have little if anything to do with the essence of Christianity ... does it matter *AT ALL* to the essence of the Christian message whether the earth is 5 thousand years old or 5 billion?) that science has any contradiction ... and even then it does not claim to "disprove" these things, only to say that if such things *literally* occurred, then something else must have occurrred to completely alter the evidence of such things (e.g. IF the world was created in 4,000 B.C., God also must have gone through a lot of trouble to make the earth *appear* like it is 4.6 billion years old).

>"Then say Christians believe in stoning, and ignore the reasons for stoning,.. to all of the common public."

It is difficult to decipher what the heck you are saying. It is as if you are simultaneously denying that Christians advocate stoning (which nobody is accusing you of), while at the same time hinting that there are good reasons for stoning.

>"God wasn't in the business of teaching people new ideas."

No. That is the job of science. Thank you.

Answer 2

Science itself, in its pure Platonic ideal would not be fallible. However, science is performed by people, and people *are* fallible. That said, the scientific community, through the mechanism of peer review, tries to minimise any possible mistakes.
No scientist would *ever* try to claim that science is infallible!

A theory is not an assumption, a theory is an *explanation* supported by evidence. Further, such theories are conditional - science is constantly undergoing re-examiniation of evidence and finding new evidence, and it is re-writing the theories as it does so. Through such refinement, it hopes to acheive something close to the Truth.

> "No one has disproved a single Christian belief."
Well, that depends what specific beliefs you mean.
If you mean that Jesus died on the cross for our sins, then science has emphatically *not* disproven that, as the concept of "sin" is not a scientific concept, and cannot be examined through science. Nor for that matter is it possible to scientifically determine the motives of someone who lived 2000 years ago.
If you mean that God created the universe, then science has also not disproven that, as God exists outside the physical universe, and such a creation must, by definition, have happened before the physical universe, and neither of these are open to scientific investigation - which deals solely with the physical universe.
Similarly, concepts such as the soul and afterlife are beyond science.
But, if you mean that the universe was created over a period of 6 days sometime around 4,000 BC, then yes - science has demonstrated that this cannot be true, as we currently understand the universe.

Answer 3

Not quite:

Science says "you have to prove it is true". The scientific method says "you must test to see if your hypothesis is true, and not allow any other variables to influence it". A "theory" is based on evidence (i.e. testing it). A "hypothesis" is an assumption.

Essentially, something is true if you can prove it, NOT if you can't disprove it. In short, science does not accept christianity as true until someone goes out there and proves it.

You can't say "I think that there are invisible five-legged dragons that exist in every single molecule, prove otherwise". If your standard was held (i.e. it cannot be disproven ergo it is true), then the dragons have as much reason to exist as God.

I'm not sure what yu're on about with the stoning, but another part of science is that you cannot attack a theory based on the people who created it. You can only attack flaws in the theory.

Answer 4

Ok ill just put my thoughts on this down. Ok lets ignore religion for a moment. If i say, "Yes, pink unicorns do exist", you would call me crazy. Why? Because to make a claim as to the existence of something requires that i can back it up, either inductively or deductively. The job shouldn't be for skeptics to PROVE christianity right (but wouldnt that defeat the purpose of faith?). If you want it to be rational, then its YOUR job to prove it right. We have no more evidence to believe Christianity than we do to believe Islam, Odenism, or Hinduism.

Then again, if you have no problem with being irrational, as long as you concede that much, by all means continue as you are. I'm certainly open and hope to God there's a God.

Answer 5

Yes science has disproved christians beliefs i.e. the Earth is 6000 years old, there are four corners of the world (flat Earth), there were jewish slaves in Eygpt, Jesus wasthe biblical character (he's based off the egyptian demigod horus). There are more but I assume you mean God and you can't disprove something that is made to be disprovable. You cant disprove Russels Teapot either.

Answer 6

Christianity says that women are inferior to men, yet women are in charge of several countries around the world.
And hundreds of thousands of women are getting degrees or higher degrees. They are also getting careers - so am I.

How can your religion explain atomic theory? Can it explain Schrodinger's cat?

Answer 7

This question is a lot like the Bible actually- there might be good ideas and there might be bad ideas but it's extremely difficult to tell BECAUSE THE PROSE IS FREAKING AWFUL!!

Take a writing class.

Answer 8

science is just an attempt to explain evreything but it can't since as you say, its infallible....really!
God is the author and finisher of our faith...
science is helpful though..