How is blind faith on the science any different to blind faith in religion?

Science accepts that it can't be proven you nimrod that's what makes it science

No, science can be proven through trial and error, science is not absolute its constantly updated and reworked everyday.

No. People who actually follow the scientific method will only use it where it's appropriate and will derive as clear a picture of the world as we can get, while understanding the limitations of the tools they have. On the other hand, people who blindly worship the idea of science are just obnoxious, the OMG I LOVE SCIENCE crowd. The kind who will actually march in a "science march" while wearing apparel that flaunts their apparent love for science despite them having no idea what they're talking about.

I dont worship science like most mongoloids I jsut appreciate it for explaining the way the world works.

>true knowledge or understanding
Please define.

What are you talking about?

OP your narrative implies that "blind faith" in science is equal to "blind faith" in religion. It's not, one is based on empirical evidence and observation and the other is based on unfounded speculation and circular reasoning.

>There's a lot of things that the scientific method can't solve
Name one. Even if we haven't solved it now, we might in the future. All the more reason not to give up on science (like you're implying we do) and let it do its work.

It seems a bit silly to hate the plebs for being plebs. If anything christards should be glad that they're not their problem now

>How is blind faith on the science

That's not what science is

Mediocre bait

>You believe in something you can test and reproduce
None of you people are actually qualified to that though or even make the attempt to do so. You take it on faith that it is testable and reproducible.

>You should be thankful we cut the heart out of your civilization and replaced it with nothing!
No.

Hey, there's nothing stopping you from trying to reclaim what you lost
We know it's never going to happen, but there's nothing stopping you from trying

Why are you assuming that there are no research scientists here?
There are also quite a few things that can be replicated DIY with affordable equipment.
For everything else, there're research papers that you can read and decide for yourself if their data, methods, results and interpretations make sense or not.
If there are a lot of independent researchers coming to similar conclusion, it is likely to be a good model of reality.
If a teams, paid by someone who has an interest in a certain outcome make a certain conclusion and don't publish their data, you should be suspicious.

Scientist can be wrong, be it intentional, because of a bias, from bad research design/methods or by human error.
The scientific method however is the best bet we have to get an idea about what's going on.

The mobile goalposts on these posts.

Not at all. Faith in "Science" rather than the "Scientific method" likely creates a set of beliefs, rather than a method of exploring reality. Not so many people grasp that concept, not even the mainstream scientific community

>muh semantics.
When a lot of cunts chimed in "because it can be proven" clearly the scientific method is a given in the "belief" in "science."

But it's not science anymore if there's belief involved. Wishing for something to be true, rather than demonstrate that it's true, is what a religion actually is.

>implying you don't take many of the flawed scintific revelation in face value because argument with appeal to authority within your own mind of some scintist tell you aoething contrary to your experience. There is a vested interest of financeirs who intend to subvert facts to align a profitable outlook in certain aspects of scientific life, like the complete inability of the transport industry to have left oil and fossils behind and create the free energy tasks was trying to create. Modern science is almost competely biased to the people who bankroll their 'research' and claims, academia is just that to legitimize bad business practices.

Science is by definition what can be used to predict a result.

>here is a vested interest of financeirs
Stopped reading by that point.

>But it's not science anymore if there's belief involved.

>implying the fundamental axiom underlying science isn't the will to truth and an undying belief that what you are doing will actually get you the capital T-Truth.

Projection dude. A lot of scientific studies and their conclusions are not beyond the realm of understanding for most people. The stuff is dense, but it's coherent.

I'm against most of what he's saying but that's really not unreasonable. Science is corruptible. Monsatan and the dangers of sugar come to mind

It's not a question of whether you can understand it. You personally cannot perform the studies to reproduce the results. You must have faith in the journals publishing these studies the same way a medieval peasant had to have faith in the sermons of the clerisy.

For example:
Rockefellers Chase Manhattan bank heavily invested in health and agriculture science, which is why now doctors are mostly salesman for pharmaceutical companies and entities like monsanto and basf are in control over vast parts of the food production.

Human conciousness

...

Science is good at giving me a car, a toaster oven, putting planes in the sky and satellites into orbit. Yes, very good.

Science is really bad at giving me a sense of meaning and purpose in life. It doesn't tell me what is right and what is wrong (in a moral sense) but only tells me what is. So, the two are not mutually exclusive.

There are many people on both camps that tend to think science trumps religion or vice versa. This is silly. Religion is philosophical by nature. It asks very different questions from science.

Science gives me tools to kill people. Religion tells me whether or not I should kill people. There is a difference.

OP is alluding to the idea that science can some how jump from what 'is' to what 'ought to be'. This is a big problem for the science-worship types that they will never be able to answer.

Because a scientist can conjure a bomb while a priest can only impotently promise gods wrath.

Scientific dogmatists should watch this.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=N3OoJNTEp7M

Yes, the human animal tends to drift towards dogma, fortunately for science, the egos involved means everyone is trying to prove the other wrong

The sciences tend to answer the smaller "how", rather than the larger "why". Religion is there to provide spiritual support, to answer the why's of the world, to give one purpose and drive. No matter what answer science gives for a rasied question, it can always be hit with a larger "why?"

Blind faith in anything is silly imo. "Blind" sounds bad. Like you've stopped looking/thinking.

I believe religion and science both should be appreciated and yet approached with care and vigilance. They both provide answers and fulfillment that carry us through life.

If you see yourself has generally anti-science or anti-religion, you've got problems you need to sort.

There's nothing to prove wrong. You can't prove religion wrong scientifically because religion doesn't make scientific claims

I'll take science (modern and ancient) and the resulting expansion of understanding over bronze-age doctrines of ignorance masquerading as spiritual enlightenment any day of the week. And twice on a Sunday.

Why do you think you need to take one over the other? And if you think science can replace religion then you are calling science a religion. You are missing the point.

It's not. "Science" is based on the observations of someone else, who could be wrong, yet nobody calls for a number of reasons. It is an imperfect tool and should be treated as sunch.
Unless it is something related to catastrophic events or revolutionary progress, the domains related to physics and chemestry hold little relevance in the grand scheme of things. An engineer is at a disatvantage, against a man who knows how to think for himself.

Thanks for demonstrating that religion yields incoherent stupidity.

>I'll take science (modern and ancient) and the resulting expansion of understanding over bronze-age doctrines of ignorance masquerading as spiritual enlightenment any day of the week.

So you want a world in which nobody has a moral system(or if they do, there is no way to prove one of them right at the expense of the other) and unlimited technological and scientific power?

What could possibly go wrong? Nuclear weapons and moral nihilism aren't a good mix.

Such a brilliant thinker you are!

The last thing we need is religious autism giving us the thirty years war with nukes.

Science doesnt really require faith, you cant really have faith in the scientific method, its just a tool for trying to discover the objective nature of the universe, or at least creating an accurate model of how the universe works. The whole point is that faith isnt necessary because you can just verify stuff and see how many other people could verify it aswell and then make an informed judgment about how accuratley a theory models the universe or about the dxidtence of a phenomena.

This whole 'science requires blind faith just like religion' is just some bullshit that uneducated religious people tell themselves to feel better about their idiocy and inability to adeqatley defend their beliefs in the arena of debate.

>Science is really bad at giving me a sense of meaning and purpose in life
kys

How does science get from 'is' to 'ought'? The only way is to make a, dare I say, RELIGIOUS claim about the value of science.

Scientific value lies in it's use as a tool to enhance our lives, not as a moral instrument. The only way for you to use it as a moral instrument is to treat it like a religion.

Simple.

Thank you for demonstrating what stupidity pure secularism produces....

Lol great argument. Write a book on that topic

Well religion is just a word. Since you so obviously define religion as only a kind of fundamentalism or extremism, you're the autist here tbqh.

I dont think theres as much friction between science and religion as there is between the cultures of the two. The scientific method is a means of filtering reality into something understandable to us. It is a mechanistic approach, used as a method for investigative inquiries into nature, disregarding everything spiritual, cognitive, philosophical as separate entities. Through time what you have is people come to view reality as purely mechanistic, with things like conciousness being a resulting residue of some mechanistic process, and that becomes their whole view of reality, that mechanistic view. But it just as easily could be the opposite, where human spirit or conciousness was there first, and the mechanistic process is subservient to something else. Approaching reality through a purely mechanistic metaphysics is a huge, profound, presupposition.

science and faith/philosophy are of separate domains which doesnt collide with each other.

Thats right, the church never threatened Galileo with torture either.

the church is just a revolving door of different people applying their fath/philosophy through on the mass over the centuries, just because they think their book refutes 1+1=2 doesnt mean that its reasonable for these domains to collide. there is probably tons of events where the church through history both denied and encouraged science

>So you want a world in which nobody has a moral system(or if they do, there is no way to prove one of them right at the expense of the other) and unlimited technological and scientific power?
So, literall exactly as things are right now?

Can I use the scientific method to "verify" that I shouldn't take an AK-47 down to the mall and murder dozens of innocent people? Prove to me I shouldn't do that with your method. And of course, anyone at any time should be able to replicate this proof 100%.

Why shouldn't I murder people? Prove it with science

Why would you ever think you can apply science to morals? its a field that only resides in the human mind which in itself is irrational.

>dada weg smud man

>So, literall exactly as things are right now?

No, that's pretty much the opposite of how things are right now.

Science is not about truth; science is about not fooling ourselves.

Godel incompleteness theorem

Science is not really about morality dude, don't be fucking stupid. If you want to know why some people do that, science can actually help.

>Why shouldn't I murder people? Prove it with science
>prove a should using science

What part of an 'is' cannot lead to an 'ought' do you not understand?

>can i use haircutting to eradicate hunger in africa

Yes. That's what I'm trying to point out

Who is applying the scientific method to morality?

The person I was replying to.......?????

Isn't that the entire discussion of this thread? People worshipping science as if it were a religion..? As if we can determine our moral codes with scientific worship??

Seems to me you haven't followed the thread. By the way, I probably agree with you...

but people "worshipping science" arent actually applying science to morality, they are just ignorant people who think their morals inherited from christianity is universal, they are just dabling with a field they lack knowledge about

>People worshipping science as if it were a religion..?

In regards to finding out the truth about reality yeah, not what is morally right and wrong.

Yes I think you're right. But they THINK they are applying science for morals... And my comment was mostly to force that person to acknowledge this.

the real question is, why is this kind of naive scientism you see itt so fucking ubiquitous?
look at all this shit jfc
etc

Very few people have "blind faith in science". Most of the science that people believe "blindly" in is documented and thoroughly proven which means the belief is not blind at all, and anybody who believes blindly in things that are not proven have completely misunderstood science. That's the point of science, that you don't state something as a fact until it's been proven.

amerilard youth living in crazy evangelical 'christian' communities rebelling and ventilating

Because nihilism, death of God, and the worship of self

>why is this kind of naive scientism you see itt so fucking ubiquitous?

Because it's easier for a brainlet to accept the authority of a scientist than it is to do their own research.

You should ask for a Nobel Prize. You have redefined knowledge itself.

It's the only way to justify a degenerate, hedonistic lifestyle. If there is no God to judge your actions, then why shouldn't you do whatever you want?

Science leads to progress and an unprecedented betterment of our living standards

ScientISM leads to moral rot and the downfall of our civilization.

It's a double edged sword

>religion is based on circular reasoning.
science can't justify itself without circularity any more than religion can ("god because god", "science because science" etc)
OP's point is that whichever basic presupposition you start with it's just faith
>Name one.
literally every single problem in the humanities

>not doing things you want to do because youre afraid an invisible man in the sky will torture you after youre dead
Slave morality

>then why shouldn't you do whatever you want?

Can you honestly not think of ANY reasons to control your behavior in a positive way besides the threat of being tortured by a Palestinian ancient god?

They are different types of faith you fucking moron

Religion is a top down "do as the patriarch orders", whereas science is a communal activity where every "truth" is questioned.

latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-1101-zuckerman-violence-secularism-20151101-story.html

^Think religion makes society less violent? Think again.

>using science to get morals
Any intelligent human has empathy to create their moral guidelines if you need a scientist to confirm of morals you are a mongoloid who needs to die.

Yeah, but when I, as an atheist, take the dogma of
"pleasure for the greatest number of people, pain for the least number of people" that's wrong, and when religious people believe in dozens of dogmas like the OT is true and the Vedas are not, that's fine.

The scientific method is a great way to determine what leads to pleasure and pain, and this does not often coincide with intuitive reasoning.

literally the only reason an atheist would take that dogma is because of the altrusim preached by religion, if norse paganism dominated instead you wouldnt think of it at all

>trying to explain critical thinking as a method of progress to religious people

good luck, user

Because there are volumes of proven data! Numbers, y'know! Figures! Th-There are fossil records!

>science is a religion
that's true for so many people in the way they view science
1. tons of people edify "science" (i.e. some set of currently mainstream theories + some idea of "the scientific method") as their identity-defining ideology and life philosophy plus the highest authority (see "skeptics", new atheists, internet "rationalists", neopositivists, ndt pop sci fags, etc)
2. there is no real distinction between such ideologies/philosophies and religions ---- quick, which of these are religions and which are just ideologies/philosophies? pythagoreanism, platonism, epicureanism, theravada buddhism, stoicism, occultism, nazism, transhumanism, new age, tony robbins' motivation cult, lesswrong
3. conclusion: "science" is in fact many people's religion

Truth is very relative. It's the objective experience you're searching for.

>Can you honestly not think of ANY reasons to control your behavior in a positive way besides the threat of being tortured by a Palestinian ancient god?

Can you?

Like Nietzsche said, most people aren't moral, they're just cowards who don't want to be judged by the masses.

Are you that coward user?

>Truth is very relative.

Not for science.

>not getting it
the point is, how do you non-circularly justify "critical thinking" or "communal truth-questioning" as a method?
religion can't justify its own basic assumption without circularity either, aka both are faith based

>science actually gives answers but they're subject to extreme change(less than 150 years ago we barely even knew about evolution) and ultimately impossible to prove because induction
>philosophy actually goes to the root and tries to find a way to actually prove things/understand the world at a fundamental level but you can't get any concrete answers out of it
It's sad, honestly