Why are believers anti-science?

[charles cure]

I do not think the lack of the word "trust" in a dictionary definition means trust is not involved in the process.Understanding arises through intellect.

right, i wouldnt expect you to, because you ignore fact and depend on trust. i gave the definition of the word intellect, nothing in it implies that trust is a factor in its determination whatsoever, until you explain how you think it factors in there in a way that makes even a little bit of sense, im still going to say youre wrong, because you are. or is it that you think everything is so subjective that words dont have real definitions that cant be manipulated by opinion to serve your own purpose?

Science, as an intellectual as much as it is empirical construct must be based on some amount of trust in the system itself else humanity would not pursue it, and individuals would not vehemently place it above all esle.

the scienctific method is proven to work. therefore it does not need to be trusted. to trust implies that there is some question of effectiveness, and that you have faith and hope despite lack of evidence that you will acheive desired results. the scientific method is a construct that works if applied correctly. the variable is human error. however, despite human error, facts continue to be facts from one situation to another. if the facts have been twisted or misunderstood in an experiment, that does not negate their existence. so if a scientist screws something up, the scientists building on his/her work, or working concurrently on the same thing will acheive results that indicate the error. if you want a good example of this, see the recent scandal involving the south korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk where he fabricated results that indicated he had successfully cloned embryonic stem cells. people did not actually trust his work, and when the findings were published, many other scientists quickly debunked his hoax. that is what the scientific world is like today, and theres plenty of evidence to be had attesting to that.

Here, I disagree again. While they are an integrated system, clearly, one can simply trust what he sees, hears, smells, tastes, feels: or not(?)... One has to analyse the information based on other inputs and conclude. Trust your intellect, trust your perception - trust yourself.You may say; "...are perceived to have commonality..." I would presume defining these common perceptions would be a rather intellectual exercise.I.E. facts are based on an agreed common perception, which is in turn based subjectively. You may say that each person's subjective perception is integrated into an objective construct.

if what you said was true, then there would be no objectivity. some things are immutable regardless of your perception of them. if you throw a stone into the air and it goes so far away from you that you cant see it fall, you may perceive that it never fell. however, the stone still fell because gravity acted on it regardless of intervening circumstances. if you were to walk 1000 yards and find the stone laying there, you would understand that it fell and then your perception has been rendered meaningless by fact, whether you want to agree or not. facts are not so much commonly held subjective perceptions as they are admissions that such a thing happens in every case regardless of your perception of it, and that if your perception disagrees with it, then it is the perception that must be questioned, not the nature of the fact. however, the way that fact is uncovered as such is often through common perception of similar phenomenon that leads to further empirical examination that attempts to gain an understanding of the how,why,etc. of that particular thing or event. still, trust is not required to begin such an investigation, nor is it required to scientifically analyze the unknown.

I trust my perception and those of my fellows, else I'd be wondering if the Sun is really there.

well, i guess thats the difference between you and me. i dont trust everybody else, so i'd find out for myself using any means at my disposal.

 

[(Q)]

It would be interesting - providing that the quoted stance is of any substance - if science eventually gets led to the answers that religion has been proposing aeons prior.

If anything, science will, as it already has, find answers that have nothing to do with religious propositions.

Can one absolutely say both realms will diverge or converge?

One realm will eventually be forced to give way to the other in matters of nature and reality.

Perhaps then, religion can join the ranks of astrology and be seen as little more than mild farcical entertainment.

 

[vincent]

right, i wouldnt expect you to, because you ignore fact and depend on trust. i gave the definition of the word intellect, nothing in it implies that trust is a factor in its determination whatsoever, until you explain how you think it factors in there in a way that makes even a little bit of sense, im still going to say youre wrong, because you are. or is it that you think everything is so subjective that words dont have real definitions that cant be manipulated by opinion to serve your own purpose?



the scienctific method is proven to work. therefore it does not need to be trusted. to trust implies that there is some question of effectiveness, and that you have faith and hope despite lack of evidence that you will acheive desired results. the scientific method is a construct that works if applied correctly. the variable is human error. however, despite human error, facts continue to be facts from one situation to another. if the facts have been twisted or misunderstood in an experiment, that does not negate their existence. so if a scientist screws something up, the scientists building on his/her work, or working concurrently on the same thing will acheive results that indicate the error. if you want a good example of this, see the recent scandal involving the south korean scientist Hwang Woo Suk where he fabricated results that indicated he had successfully cloned embryonic stem cells. people did not actually trust his work, and when the findings were published, many other scientists quickly debunked his hoax. that is what the scientific world is like today, and theres plenty of evidence to be had attesting to that.



if what you said was true, then there would be no objectivity. some things are immutable regardless of your perception of them. if you throw a stone into the air and it goes so far away from you that you cant see it fall, you may perceive that it never fell. however, the stone still fell because gravity acted on it regardless of intervening circumstances. if you were to walk 1000 yards and find the stone laying there, you would understand that it fell and then your perception has been rendered meaningless by fact, whether you want to agree or not. facts are not so much commonly held subjective perceptions as they are admissions that such a thing happens in every case regardless of your perception of it, and that if your perception disagrees with it, then it is the perception that must be questioned, not the nature of the fact. however, the way that fact is uncovered as such is often through common perception of similar phenomenon that leads to further empirical examination that attempts to gain an understanding of the how,why,etc. of that particular thing or event. still, trust is not required to begin such an investigation, nor is it required to scientifically analyze the unknown.



well, i guess thats the difference between you and me. i dont trust everybody else, so i'd find out for myself using any means at my disposal.

Long winded, waffle,waffle, boring, zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks for putting me to sleep.

I have saved this in my internet scrapbook, if ever i have difficulty sleeping again, i will read it as a scientific method of putting me to sleep, who needs sleeping pills, when your posts are at hand...........

 

[Vindicator]

...or is it that you think everything is so subjective that words dont have real definitions that cant be manipulated by opinion to serve your own purpose?

This really doesn't address what was stated previously, which still stands imho.

if what you said was true, then there would be no objectivity. some things are immutable regardless of your perception of them.

Everything within the human construct of reality is a result of perception - knowledge is dependent upon it.

i guess thats the difference between you and me. i dont trust everybody else, so i'd find out for myself using any means at my disposal.

If you didn't, you'd still be questioning wether the Sun is there or not.

"Any means at your disposal" must involve your, and other's perceptions, else you may well be deluded.

In fact, you'd best find a comrade and ask the person wether or not they see the stone and if they think it's the same stone your threw.

 

[Vindicator]

If anything, science will, as it already has, find answers that have nothing to do with religious propositions.
One realm will eventually be forced to give way to the other in matters of nature and reality.
Perhaps then, religion can join the ranks of astrology and be seen as little more than mild farcical entertainment.

Who knows? Whatever floats your boat.

 

[TheVisitor]

Thanks Dino, it only seemed appropiate that our position be completely understood, however one can't help it if religious zealots are blind & ignorant.




The only thing that comes from the heart is blood. Everything about knowledge comes from the noodle you seem to be lacking on top of your head!



G! I qualify. I've got plenty of experience 44yold, I'm always balancing on top of beams 100's of feet in the air "work" and I've got plenty of wisdom, since I've got the internet



I've like to see you think without your brains! wait! what brains you've got none that would qualify as "head knowledge" if you did right? So I guess you have a sense of false confidence then!

Pleasssse


belief in the assertions of others without dispute!

Godless

You just made my point...thanks

 

[charles cure]

This really doesn't address what was stated previously, which still stands imho.Everything within the human construct of reality is a result of perception - knowledge is dependent upon it.If you didn't, you'd still be questioning wether the Sun is there or not.

"Any means at your disposal" must involve your, and other's perceptions, else you may well be deluded.

In fact, you'd best find a comrade and ask the person wether or not they see the stone and if they think it's the same stone your threw.

we're wasting each other's time at this point. good talk, i'm on to something else for now.

 

[charles cure]

Long winded, waffle,waffle, boring, zzzzzzzzzzzzz thanks for putting me to sleep.

I have saved this in my internet scrapbook, if ever i have difficulty sleeping again, i will read it as a scientific method of putting me to sleep, who needs sleeping pills, when your posts are at hand...........

why dont you find a way to get banned again...or maybe killed.

 

[vincent]

why dont you find a way to get banned again...or maybe killed.

Not as long winded, but christ your posts are still putting me to sleep, maybe if you restrict your responses to one word, like yes or no, or snore zzzzzzz.

 

[Godless]

You just made my point...thanks

The point that your an idiot? Your welcome

 

[charles cure]

Not as long winded, but christ your posts are still putting me to sleep, maybe if you restrict your responses to one word, like yes or no, or snore zzzzzzz.

how about - ignore.

 

[vincent]

how about - ignore.

No it did not work, i still drifted into semi sleep reading your response, how about trying one letter responses, like A, B, or C
you do know the alphabet dont you?

A TO Z you pick a letter, show me it here, and i will let you know if its still putting me to sleep......


Well Mr charles cure, you certainly are a cure for insomnia, i highly recommend your unique talents to any sleepless poster.

 

[MadMaxReborn]

Not that this thread ever stayed on point, but asking "Why do religious people not believe/understand science" is just as bad as a racist or cultural stereotype: Why do all black people like watermelon?

If you live in Boston and meet a cowboy from Texas, it is really easy to imagine that they are all that way. But I've lived in Boston and I've been to Texas and they aren't all cow chasing rednecks.

On point:
The only barrier between science and religion is man-made. And until man is unlimited, I guess the barrier will always be limited.

Max