[ganjavih]

Not to throw another ingredient into the pot, but there is also the possibility that there is no truth in the universe. Regardless of whether we will be able to attain understanding of it, there may be no objectivity out there to search for.

My view is that there is this thing called truth, but it is difficult to attain. Scientific method, as flawed as it may be, is the best tool we have to uncover what the truth is.

It's also my view that if you're absolutely sure about things, you compromise your ability to be scientifically objective. After all, if you already know the answer, your experiments will be biased to give that answer. That's why I'm sceptical of these scientists who appear to have an axe to grind. The ideal scientist, IMHO, always has a little bit of doubt, is always questioning things, in the pursuit of this abstract notion of truth. Of course, the ideal doesn't exist.

 

[wonderboy416]

It's also my view that if you're absolutely sure about things, you compromise your ability to be scientifically objective. After all, if you already know the answer, your experiments will be biased to give that answer. That's why I'm sceptical of these scientists who appear to have an axe to grind. The ideal scientist, IMHO, always has a little bit of doubt, is always questioning things, in the pursuit of this abstract notion of truth. Of course, the ideal doesn't exist.

Doesn't the process of peer review alleviate such concerns?

 

[Admiral Beez]

Scientific method, as flawed as it may be, is the best tool we have to uncover what the truth is.

I agree with you there 100%. As you say, the best scientists are always doubting, or questioning, which is a good way to live, IMO.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

I agree with you there 100%. As you say, the best scientists are always doubting, or questioning, which is a good way to live, IMO.

so doubting or questioning is a good way to live?

 

[wonderboy416]

^

Those with a strong religious faith certainly don't doubt. Most just accept what they were spoon fed from birth.
Scientists don't blindly accept their findings and must subject them through rigorous peer review. Even if a scientist were acting in poor faith, unless there was a conspiracy his or her work would never get published and thus would not be accepted by the scientific community. This is probably why all of those Christian scientists can't get anything published, because their work doesn't meet the standards set by the scientific community. When Ganja made his "axe to grind" comment, I immediately thought of that small group of close-minded scientists.

 

[ganjavih]

Peer review reduces the risk of invalid data being published, but it doesn't eliminate it. Trust me, a lot of peer-reviewed junk gets published. There are oodles of scientific journals of varying qualities and levels of rigor. If a scientist really wants their data published, he/she will get it published somewhere. Even the good journals screw up sometimes. Just recently, the Lancet had to retract the study they published many years ago linking MMR immunisation with autism.

All in all, I do have faith in science because it's our best tool. We just have to remember that science does get it wrong sometimes too.

A timely article:
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health/dangers+false+certainty/2539249/story.html

 

[Admiral Beez]

so doubting or questioning is a good way to live?

Yes, I'd say that's about right. I'm a spiritual guy, but that doesn't mean I have blind faith in anything, and often find myself questioning and doubting my thoughts, opinions, beliefs, etc.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Yes, I'd say that's about right. I'm a spiritual guy, but that doesn't mean I have blind faith in anything, and often find myself questioning and doubting my thoughts, opinions, beliefs, etc.

so do you doubt and/or question your heterosexuality?

 

[kEiThZ]

Why are these things viewed as mutually exclusive? Even the Catholic Church has accepted Darwinian evolution and the evolution of man into his current form through a Darwinian process. The church has even spoken out against recent fads like Intelligent Design. I would suggest that those who suggest that man was pre-destined to arise from the evolutionary process or believe that the process is somehow untrue or flawed, presume to know the mind of the Divine (who if we are to believe created all things, then most certainly created the evolutionary process as well). As the Church has pointed out, what is relevant is that God created man (and all creation), not how it was accomplished.

On the broader issue, what bothers me these days is the increasingly rabid atheism. To me, such people are just as offensive as the Jehovah's Witnesses who wake me up on Saturday morning. Just like it should be none of my business what you believe, why should it be your business what I believe? I get the sense these days that atheists are working overtime to "convert" people to their point of view.

 

[kEiThZ]

^

Those with a strong religious faith certainly don't doubt. Most just accept what they were spoon fed from birth.
Scientists don't blindly accept their findings and must subject them through rigorous peer review. Even if a scientist were acting in poor faith, unless there was a conspiracy his or her work would never get published and thus would not be accepted by the scientific community. This is probably why all of those Christian scientists can't get anything published, because their work doesn't meet the standards set by the scientific community. When Ganja made his "axe to grind" comment, I immediately thought of that small group of close-minded scientists.

Can you define "Christian scientists"? I know quite a few accomplished researchers who are church-going people. I even know scientists who happen to be priests. Be careful in your attempts to slander all Christians. Not everyone believes the same thing. And not everyone sees the conflict between science and faith like you do. Or are you one of those people for whom all Muslims are terrorists?

 

[wonderboy416]

Can you define "Christian scientists"? I know quite a few accomplished researchers who are church-going people. I even know scientists who happen to be priests. Be careful in your attempts to slander all Christians. Not everyone believes the same thing. And not everyone sees the conflict between science and faith like you do. Or are you one of those people for whom all Muslims are terrorists?

I think most Muslims, like most Christians are well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens... I'm actually of the belief that most terrorist cells are government funded (or entirely gov't created, like Al Qaeda). That doesn't mean their members still don't believe in killing in the name of god. There certainly are a lot of wackos that do that without gov't support (some of the groups in N. Ireland for example).

As for "Christian scientists", I'm referring to a small, select group (and mostly outcast by the scientific community) who got their education with the sole principle to discredit evolutionary theory and other natural explanations under the guise that they are a scientist. They're an extreme minority of scientists that are heavily funded by the church, don't publish their work in established journals, don't submit their work to peer review etc etc, they're not really scientists at all, they just have the requisite education to call themselves as much. While some scientists as you pointed out do practice their faith, the overwhelming majority are atheist or agnostic (94% was the last hard figure I read).

 

[cacruden]

Athiest and Agnostic are completely different positions, one believes in god, one does not.

 

[wonderboy416]

Athiest and Agnostic are completely different positions, one believes in god, one does not.

An Atheist disbelieves or denies the existence of god (or at least god as described by any person or religion).
Agnostics don't know, think it's impossible to ever know or simply don't care.

Neither one accepts the fact that god is the creator of all life.

 

[gristle]

I'm actually of the belief that most terrorist cells are government funded (or entirely gov't created, like Al Qaeda).

I don't get it. You've gone here at length about people assuming unfounded beliefs, and then you assert one of your own. If you really adhere to your stated recognition of evidence and verification trumping mere beliefs, how about actually proving some for your own assertion?

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

Athiest and Agnostic are completely different positions, one believes in god, one does not.

atheist is the opposite of theist.

agnostic is the opposite of gnostic.

you can be both. they deal with different issues. an agnostic doesn't necessarily believe in god.