Religion

Ron Obvious

(6,261 posts)

10. OK.

Wed Apr 3, 2013, 05:28 PM

Apr 2013

I'm not really sure what you meant then. It seemed like you were saying that scientific knowledge involved faith in it being correct, but I may have been too quick to jump on that. If you're saying we should all keep an open mind and be humble because we're all still essentially mostly ignorant and future generations will likely laugh at some of the things we believe, then we're in full agreement.

I must confess I don't understand religious faith. I wasn't brought up in it, and neither were my parents. I'd be willing to accept it a blindness on my part, if I saw some sort of objective proof that it gave believers anything that I lack. A colourblind person will be convinced of his condition because other people are clearly seeing something they're not, and they're always in agreement. No so with faith. On what basis can a fruitful discussion even take place when the issue is framed in personal experience and subjective feelings?

Religious liberals are harder to debate because they never seem to take a position on what exactly they do believe so that it can be discussed.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

33 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Scientific fact vrs. religious faith? [View all] Thats my opinion Apr 2013 OP

A scientist can generally tell you what facts would change their mind about a theory. trotsky Apr 2013 #1

except humility in a scientific dispute is honored as proper ChairmanAgnostic Apr 2013 #2

As long as you keep identifying religion with fundamentalism Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #4

I think that's why he says "fundie religions" EvolveOrConvolve Apr 2013 #13

Scientific Theories are models of reality... Ron Obvious Apr 2013 #3

You last major paragraph is on target. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #6

OK. Ron Obvious Apr 2013 #10

Science is NOT "simply a collection of unalterable facts." cleanhippie Apr 2013 #5

No really it is. They are all in The Big Book of Unalterable Science Facts. Warren Stupidity Apr 2013 #17

Few points... gcomeau Apr 2013 #7

Yours is a very helpful response. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #9

I would just point out... gcomeau Apr 2013 #11

Now why are you complaining? skepticscott Apr 2013 #14

You made it through the first paragraph ok skepticscott Apr 2013 #8

I had forgotten about that gem. trotsky Apr 2013 #12

The debate between relativity and QM is "raging" you say? dimbear Apr 2013 #15

I'm just reporting how an outstanding subatomic scientist sees it. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #18

Let me give you the best answer to another question your raise, one which may sound a little dimbear Apr 2013 #20

Ha Ha But scientists report that both are correct. nt. Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #24

You really, really need to read this link that skepticscott provided: trotsky Apr 2013 #25

What are the bets? skepticscott Apr 2013 #29

No chance he reads it. trotsky Apr 2013 #30

If you're going to Ha Ha, Charles skepticscott Apr 2013 #28

I suspect you misunderstood him. gcomeau Apr 2013 #23

OMG Charles skepticscott Apr 2013 #31

Faith is commitment to a position with no evidence Lordquinton Apr 2013 #32

I think "faith" is the wrong word to use goldent Apr 2013 #16

Science seems clear Thats my opinion Apr 2013 #19

Which is why fundamental scientific theories skepticscott Apr 2013 #21

" Cosmologists were certain that Ptolemy was right. And then they were certain Copernicus was right. edhopper Apr 2013 #22

Well, I know of no raging debate between QM and relativity. longship Apr 2013 #26

Sorry, Charles...there is no "raging debate" skepticscott Apr 2013 #27

It looks like your friend, the physicist, knew what he was talking about. Jim__ Apr 2013 #33