IS Science Absolute Truth

by seekchristonly 54 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  GoodGuyGreg

  @seekchristonly:

  As others have stated, you should first of all read up on how scientific consensus is formed. There's a reason why a majority of experts within a scientific field believe as they do. This belief isn't based in faith, but in a body of evidence: "We believe this, because of these observable facts."

  Few, if any, scientists will claim to have the absolute truth, because our explanations will always be simplified models. Note that this doesn't mean that these models are incorrect: Newtonian physics weren't rendered useless after Einstein's work had been published. What happened, was that we could more correctly identify within which context Newtonian physics are "good enough" (a car accident or a bullet trajectory within our atmosphere) and when they aren't (to get an accurate GPS fix, or when calculating interplanetary trajectories to a high degree of precision).

  Believing in a Big Bang or in evolution isn't a matter of faith or opinion, but rather a matter of evidence-based critical thinking. There are so many pieces of evidence that point in the direction of these models that the chance that they aren't representative of reality is very slim.

  Believing in the God of the Bible, on the other hand, is completely a matter of faith. There is no evidence other than arguments from ignorance or personal incredulity: "I don't understand how that could happen, therefore God."

  But of course: If reality pointed to the existence of God, then the scientific consensus would take God into account.
• 

  OnTheWayOut

  We do not have "faith" in science as you declare. It is not comparable to convincing oneself that beliefs in the Bible or in one's religion are absolutely correct. Science rejects such notions and allows for discovering errors in teachings.

  Science does not present absolute unchangeable truth. New discoveries can change our perceptions and make us dismiss previous ones.

  If so then if they declare that God Exists with evidence then do all those who believe in science then believe in God or a creator?

  That sentence is just gibberish. Which portion of science is "they" that declares anything? What is the evidence? You use "believe in science" comparible to "believe in the Garden of Eden" as if people are just believing nonsense based on traditions.

  There is really no point in answering such questions.

  When some, probably even most people who do not believe in God ask for evidence, they ask for incontrovertible evidence from God. If "He" is out there, "He" would know what to provide.

  The way you phrase this, some guy who works in a lab and produces results can declare that God spoke to him and that's the evidence from "science."
• 

  konceptual99

  But of course: If reality pointed to the existence of God, then the scientific consensus would take God into account.

  This is a very good point. For years I believed, thanks to WT rhetoric, that science was being disingenuous and deliberately ignoring "evidence" that would counter their theories and suggest that God has a hand in things. I also believed that disagreement amongst scientists was proof they knew nothing and could not be trusted.

  As I have read and understood more about the scientific process I came to realise that whilst you have to look at the sponsors and context of some reasearch, there is not some global conspiracy to deliberately remove God from every bit of scientific research. There is simply no compelling reason to factor the supernatural whether that be God, unicorns, Thor or anything else that is similar in any form into research.

  Even when the science has to admit it does not know enough there is still no reason to fall back to the position that "it wos God wot dun it". They simply wait until there are ideas and/or technology sufficent to be able to form and test hypothesis.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  @ designs: sco- What science classes did you take in school.

  .

  It doesn't matter, because SCO admitted he has no knowledge of science, which means that he didn't even pay attention the minimally required material.

  Apparently, ignorance is bliss, and sitting around thinking up retarded questions he has no interest in getting an answer to is his life's focus.
• 

  James Brown

  Science is the absolute truth until it is not.

  Science bled George washington to death with the absolute truth that was not.

  First Pluto was a planet, then it was not a planet, Now that it has 5 moons and an atmosphere

  it is either a planet or about

  to be a plaent again.
• 

  Caedes

  James brown,

  Science is the absolute truth until it is not.

  Science bled George washington to death with the absolute truth that was not.

  First Pluto was a planet, then it was not a planet, Now that it has 5 moons and an atmosphere

  it is either a planet or about

  to be a plaent again. (sic)

  So you chose to ignore every sensible post saying that science never claims to have absolute truth?

  That wooshing noise was the sound of the point sailing far far above your head.
• 

  James Brown

  Caedes, Looking back, I think it flew over your head.

  Go back to the top.
• 

  keyser soze

  why do men have nipples?

  Um, where else would I wear my nipple ring?
• 

  Paralipomenon

  Science is the pursuit of truth.

  Everything, even things classified as fact are subject to challenge and revision, but for that to happen you need proof of claim.

  Faith is the opposite. Faith states facts and denies challenge until proof is provided from an outside source. Even then, the proof may be rejected.

  If the scientific community was to state that God existed, it would provide proof.

  It hasn't.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Scientific knowledge is not a collection of subjective opinions. Rather, it is a collection of explanations about objective reality that is based on observed or predicted phenomena. In addition, the explanation must be verified repeatedly to confirm that it correctly models reality.

  As our technical ability to observe reality improves, we are able to increase the quality and quantity of our observations. Better-observed data challenge our explanations, some of which will no longer fit the observed facts. New theories are then formed and either verified or falsified.

  .

  In contrast, religion denies the evidence in order to keep their "faith" and traditions intact and has no interest in testing the veracity of their beliefs.

  to James Brown: you cited the example of blood-letting in connection with G. Washington's death in order to poke holes in science. Well, guess what? The reason blood-letting is not practiced anymore is because science reevaluated the evidence and moved on as knowledge increased.

  What progress has religion made since Washington's time? Or since religion was invented, for that matter?