13 ms·

That person literally confused science with religion. The whole point of science is to question, as oppose to religion where the answers are given.

by proc0 5y ago

umvi 5y ago
Not so sure. If you question politicized science like climate change or covid you'll be lambasted with an appeal to "scientific consensus"
- proc0 5y ago
  > politicized science That's sophistry shrouded as science, because it's looking to push an agenda and therefore it tries to fit results to a hypothesis, instead of testing the hypothesis with the results. For any given phenomenon, I don't care what, it is only true to the extent that you can test it in every possible way and still obtain the same results. Anyone who blocks this questioning and testing, is practicing dogma and guarding a belief, instead of doing actual science.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Per usual, it depends :. I am a Catholic who has been told by atheists not to ask questions about meaning because it is “dangerous” (i.e. to run from certain questions). There are questions that have answers that are beyond the scientific method (e.g. does grandma love you?). They are fascinating to contemplate :)
- proc0 5y ago
  I'm not sure we're disagreeing here, and also don't see how it depends. Religion and science do overlap, but their underlying frameworks are like yin and yang. One is about faith, and the other is about doubt. Without doubt, there is no need to test something, as you already have the answer. Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting. They do overlap, and the overlap is not perfectly clear, so I can see how some can get confused and think there is science that you cannot doubt, but this is false. As far as gramma loving you, I think you can doubt that... and you can test it, right? You can test people's love, and you can collect results over time and then derive conclusions. Maybe the nature of love itself is untestable, and therefore has no framework on which to be doubted, so the nature of love itself might be of a religious nature and it then becomes about faith.
  - skissane 5y ago
    > Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting Here you are giving a definition of "faith" which many religious people would disagree with. Faith is compatible with doubt, and I don't think "absence of doubt" is a very good definition of "faith". You can't doubt everything. At some point you have to just accept that some doubts are not worth entertaining, at least not for you. Philosophers produce all kinds of doubts–e.g. doubting whether other minds exist, doubting that I am just a brain in a vat (or a Boltzmann brain), or that this universe is actually a computer simulation, or that we are being actively deceived by superintelligent aliens who find deception entertaining (I actually read that example in a philosophy book recently, although obviously it is just a slight updating of Descartes' malin génie). Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Scientists also choose to ignore doubts about theories that are outside their area of professional expertise – maybe some mainstream theory in astrophysics is completely wrong, and the fringe voices saying it is wrong are actually right, but if you are a biologist, that's completely outside your field of expertise, so it isn't worth your while to even consider the question. And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true. Many religious leaders will say that's not a sin at all, just one of the trials of this life. (Of course, are others who say doubting is a sin – I think that's a pretty sure sign that one is in a harmful group and one ought to get out.) But, on the other hand, if someone doesn't experience doubt about some religious idea in which they believe, and they choose to disregard those doubts when expressed by others, how is what they are doing fundamentally different from the doubt-ignoring scientists I mentioned above?
    - proc0 5y ago
      > Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Right, I didn't say all scientists do is doubt. Science can always be doubted, and more importantly, if some concept or idea makes itself immune to doubt, it is not science. Example: doubting Newton's laws of gravity may have seemed to be a worthless effort (because you can test it and get the same results), however Einstein has proven otherwise, and there's no reason to think General Relativity is beyond doubt. Anyone can doubt anything in science, but of course you have to back it up with something that is testable and then prove it. > And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true Yes it's possible to doubt a religion, but to that extent, you are not part of it. Christians cannot be doubting Jesus as the Son of God, unless you're not a Christian. Same goes with Islam and Mohammad. You can create your own branch of a religion, and set your own rules, but the core of each religion is based on faith, which means you can't question it, you have to follow. That's the point of religion, to believe. I think you're using "doubt" to mean not being sure of the meaning of something, which is different than doubting the validity or the veracity of something. So I can doubt the meaning of a Bible passage, but I cannot doubt the existence of God, unless I'm not part of that religion. Science must allow doubt in regards to its own validity, because it validates itself through tests which must yield the same result. Religion/faith must NOT allow doubt in its teachings because doing so would mean it is not true (because there is no way to test it).

That person literally confused science with religion. The whole point of science is to question, as oppose to religion where the answers are given.

by proc0 5y ago

That person literally confused science with religion. The whole point of science is to question, as oppose to religion where the answers are given.

umvi 5y ago

Not so sure. If you question politicized science like climate change or covid you'll be lambasted with an appeal to "scientific consensus"

proc0 5y ago
> politicized science That's sophistry shrouded as science, because it's looking to push an agenda and therefore it tries to fit results to a hypothesis, instead of testing the hypothesis with the results. For any given phenomenon, I don't care what, it is only true to the extent that you can test it in every possible way and still obtain the same results. Anyone who blocks this questioning and testing, is practicing dogma and guarding a belief, instead of doing actual science.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Per usual, it depends :. I am a Catholic who has been told by atheists not to ask questions about meaning because it is “dangerous” (i.e. to run from certain questions). There are questions that have answers that are beyond the scientific method (e.g. does grandma love you?). They are fascinating to contemplate :)

proc0 5y ago
I'm not sure we're disagreeing here, and also don't see how it depends. Religion and science do overlap, but their underlying frameworks are like yin and yang. One is about faith, and the other is about doubt. Without doubt, there is no need to test something, as you already have the answer. Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting. They do overlap, and the overlap is not perfectly clear, so I can see how some can get confused and think there is science that you cannot doubt, but this is false. As far as gramma loving you, I think you can doubt that... and you can test it, right? You can test people's love, and you can collect results over time and then derive conclusions. Maybe the nature of love itself is untestable, and therefore has no framework on which to be doubted, so the nature of love itself might be of a religious nature and it then becomes about faith.
- skissane 5y ago
  > Religion is about having faith, and faith is about not doubting Here you are giving a definition of "faith" which many religious people would disagree with. Faith is compatible with doubt, and I don't think "absence of doubt" is a very good definition of "faith". You can't doubt everything. At some point you have to just accept that some doubts are not worth entertaining, at least not for you. Philosophers produce all kinds of doubts–e.g. doubting whether other minds exist, doubting that I am just a brain in a vat (or a Boltzmann brain), or that this universe is actually a computer simulation, or that we are being actively deceived by superintelligent aliens who find deception entertaining (I actually read that example in a philosophy book recently, although obviously it is just a slight updating of Descartes' malin génie). Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Scientists also choose to ignore doubts about theories that are outside their area of professional expertise – maybe some mainstream theory in astrophysics is completely wrong, and the fringe voices saying it is wrong are actually right, but if you are a biologist, that's completely outside your field of expertise, so it isn't worth your while to even consider the question. And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true. Many religious leaders will say that's not a sin at all, just one of the trials of this life. (Of course, are others who say doubting is a sin – I think that's a pretty sure sign that one is in a harmful group and one ought to get out.) But, on the other hand, if someone doesn't experience doubt about some religious idea in which they believe, and they choose to disregard those doubts when expressed by others, how is what they are doing fundamentally different from the doubt-ignoring scientists I mentioned above?
  - proc0 5y ago
    > Scientists choose to ignore doubts that philosophers entertain, all the time. Right, I didn't say all scientists do is doubt. Science can always be doubted, and more importantly, if some concept or idea makes itself immune to doubt, it is not science. Example: doubting Newton's laws of gravity may have seemed to be a worthless effort (because you can test it and get the same results), however Einstein has proven otherwise, and there's no reason to think General Relativity is beyond doubt. Anyone can doubt anything in science, but of course you have to back it up with something that is testable and then prove it. > And it is totally possible to believe in a religion yet still experience periods of doubt about whether its doctrines are true Yes it's possible to doubt a religion, but to that extent, you are not part of it. Christians cannot be doubting Jesus as the Son of God, unless you're not a Christian. Same goes with Islam and Mohammad. You can create your own branch of a religion, and set your own rules, but the core of each religion is based on faith, which means you can't question it, you have to follow. That's the point of religion, to believe. I think you're using "doubt" to mean not being sure of the meaning of something, which is different than doubting the validity or the veracity of something. So I can doubt the meaning of a Bible passage, but I cannot doubt the existence of God, unless I'm not part of that religion. Science must allow doubt in regards to its own validity, because it validates itself through tests which must yield the same result. Religion/faith must NOT allow doubt in its teachings because doing so would mean it is not true (because there is no way to test it).