21/09/2008

Beleving in Science

The last time I did a scientific experiment was a long long time ago. It had something to do with a Bunsen burner heating up a chemical to create a smell similar to rotten eggs. I don't remember why the experiment was done or what I was supposed to have learned from it.

When I was doing my rotten eggs experiment, scientists were proving that smoking cured asthma, in faith I believed them and started smoking - I'm still hooked!

Clearly I don't know much about science, what I do know is based on faith rather than knowledge.

I would suspect that the vast majority of people are in exactly the same position as me, they believe what scientists say, they have faith in scientific proof but they have very little understanding of science.

But we have a problem, scientists have a tendency to prove what the money tells them to prove.

For a million dollars wind farms are good trump that with four million and we'll say that nuclear is better!

Scientists say that global warming is happening and we need to do everything that we can to stop it. Other scientists say bollocks, global warming is just a statist way of controlling people and that global warming is a myth!

It is faith that makes us choose sides on such issues rather than knowledge.

Creationism or Darwinism? Do you make your choice through personal scientific experimental proof, or is your view based on what you believe to be true? I suspect that 99% of people believe what they believe and don't give the subject a second thought - irrational blind faith from both sides of the argument!

I know that my redeemer liveth! As a matter of fact and experience I know that the Lord Jesus Christ is my saviour.

But apparently I'm a nutter for knowing something through my experience of faith in religion rather than being confused by a mixed up faith in science!

Confusin' i'n it?

7 comments:

  1. I would suspect that the vast majority of people are in exactly the same position as me, they believe what scientists say, they have faith in scientific proof but they have very little understanding of science.

    I tend to be the opposite.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You are no man's "nutter" Alwyn ap Huw.

    I would remind those that might utter those words, of what John Stuart Mill wrote .....

    "We can never be sure that a silenced opinion does not contain some element of the truth".

    So lets not be silent out there.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your other posts are usually spot-on Alwyn but this post is absolute nonense. I can't believe you're trying to argue that faith in religion is the same thing as 'faith' in science. The 'believer' in science can easily test his/her theories and ideas in the real world, a religionist can't. A religionist says that a holy book is the word of God, and that his word is final. Whatever man has to say on the matter, even if it is verified by the existence of extensive facts that can be demonstrated in the real world, can not possibily refute word of the creator. What nonense. Look around you - you are enjoying the fruits of science every single day in the form of medicine, technologies, transport, communication, etc, etc, etc. Yes, scientists disagree. So what? That is evitable when you are discovering facts about the world that don't have one definite explanation yet. There are plenty things which scientists DO agree on now because years and years of extensive evidence has veritified them. Evolution is an obvious example. Yes, we non-scientists have to put some trust in scientists, but that is not the same thing as religionists faith in religion!

    ReplyDelete
  4. The closed self-authorising self-referential system of religion v. the open-ended project to find out, according to measurable external comparators, testable, verifiable facts?

    Of course, you're right - so much of what passes for science these days we are asked to take on faith. Often according to who's paying the piper. The Selwyn Gummer stunt did so much to damage this public faith, and it continues with garbage like 'The Secret' which fraudulently misappropriates scientific data to shore up its dodgy premises.

    No wonder we're confused and annoyed at both 'science' and 'religion'.

    Nice quote Stonemason.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm no Christian but I agree with you on this one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous, your response is a classical example of a straw man argument.

    You say that, as a person of religious conviction, that I must believe what you believe I believe!

    Unfortunately for your argument I don't.

    Doubly unfortunately for your argument is that your argument isn't based on fact but on what you believe to be true - your belief that all "religionists" conform to your caricature.

    Here is a little experiment for you. Go to your nearest large town and look at the religious buildings that it contains. You will find an Anglican Church, a Catholic Church, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, United Reform and Baptist chapels, a Kingdom Hall, a Mosque a Synagogue and a Sheik temple. This experience should tell you that your blind faith that all religionists believe the same thing is basically flawed.

    As far as the Creationist v Darwinist argument goes it is a subject that really bores me.

    The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin only remains in print because those opposed to Darwin still buy the book in order to say that they have read and rubbished it. I have read it, but Science has moved on a lot in the last 149 years. I have opened a few more modern books on evolution than Darwin, but I haven't persevered with them because I found them just too tedious.

    I have read and tried to read a few anti Darwinist / creationist books too, and what didn't go over my head left me feeling why bother? Boring! Boring boring!

    The fact is that the first chapters of the Bible are not a scientific treaties on how the world was created, they are not even a mythological treaties on how the world was created. They are a moral treaties on the origins of sin / criminality/ anti social behaviour. Their conclusion is that all of us are born with the ability to be bad. Something that most evolutionists would agree with!

    ReplyDelete
  7. "Anonymous, your response is a classical example of a straw man argument. You say that, as a person of religious conviction, that I must

    believe what you believe I believe!"

    No I didn't. I didn't say you personally believed what I attributed to religionists. Indeed, I don't know what your religious beliefs are, or

    lack of them. I was speaking generally.

    "Doubly unfortunately for your argument is that your argument isn't based on fact but on what you believe to be true - your belief that all

    "religionists" conform to your caricature."

    Eh? I never said that. Now you're just putting words in my mouth.

    "Here is a little experiment for you. Go to your nearest large town and look at the religious buildings that it contains. You will find an

    Anglican Church, a Catholic Church, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist, United Reform and Baptist chapels, a Kingdom Hall, a

    Mosque a Synagogue and a Sheik temple. This experience should tell you that your blind faith that all religionists believe the same thing

    is basically flawed."

    Again, I never said that! I would never doubt that. Actually, this shows that religionists are wrong because they can't all be right.

    Even if it was conceivable that one of them was correct, the rest would be wrong. But, of course, none of them actually have any basis in fact.

    "As far as the Creationist v Darwinist argument goes it is a subject that really bores me."

    It's a debate about the emergence of life on earth. Surely that's interesting, no?

    "The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin only remains in print because those opposed to Darwin still buy the book in order to say that

    they have read and rubbished it. I have read it, but Science has moved on a lot in the last 149 years. I have opened a few more modern

    books on evolution than Darwin, but I haven't persevered with them because I found them just too tedious."

    No one would doubt that science has 'moved on' (the correct word is progressed) in the past 149 years. That's what science does (unlike

    religion) - it discovers new facts, assimilates those into theories, proposes new experiments, obtains new results, expands upon the

    theory... and so on. It's an accumulation of knowledge and understanding about the real world. Darwin's theory of evolution, incidentally, has stood the test of time. It has been confirmed and re-confirmed, particularly which brances of science which weren't available to Darwin such as Genetics.

    To say that the only reason that 'Origin of Species' is still in print is because religionists want to rubbish it is blatantly ridiculous. Are you

    actually serious about that? Darwin is one of the most revolutionary and celebrated scientists on the planet, and with good reason. It has

    nothing to do with what religionists think.

    "The fact is that the first chapters of the Bible are not a scientific treaties on how the world was created, they are not even a

    mythological treaties on how the world was created. They are a moral treaties on the origins of sin / criminality/ anti social behaviour.

    Their conclusion is that all of us are born with the ability to be bad. Something that most evolutionists would agree with!"

    But who is to say what the true meaning of the bible is? In times before the widespread acceptance of science, people believed in the

    literal truth of the bible (some still do!). Then there are others who say it is symbolic and doesn't depict literal truth. And now you're

    saying it's a moral treaties... how do we decide which interpretation is correct? By appealing to evidence and rational argument? In

    which case, none of the interpretations would be correct.

    Even if you are correct that the book of Genesis is an attempt at a moral treaties on the origins of sin, criminality, anti-social behaviour,

    it's still complete bunkum. It talks about the fall of man resulting from a lady who was tempted by a talking snake to eat an apple in a

    mythological garden. That's pure nonsense, complete fiction. It doesn't even symbolise or represent anything meaningful or rational. "The

    conclusion was that all of us are born with the ability to be bad"? It doesn't say that. It says that we born sinners because Eve ate a

    forbiden apple and that we need to be saved through Christ who died on the cross so for our sins... what nonsense Christianity is. It's the 21st Century for goodness sake.

    ReplyDelete