Minnesota GOP lawmaker Mary Franson dismissed climate change concerns in a state committee hearing, saying her faith in Jesus Christ—not scientists—guides her view
I never understood why people claim to not have “faith” in Science. Science doesn’t want anyone’s faith. It wants facts, it wants proof, it wants repeatability.
Religion and Science should not be in conflict. Science gives us powerful tools to explain the Universe, but cannot explain what cannot be observed. If you believe in a higher power, there is plenty of room for that higher power to operate outside of what Science can tell us.
People who claim to not have “faith” in Science are just ignorant. Science will keep going, though, no matter what they believe.
Organized religion conditions people not to think but to view everything through the lens of their dogmas. Faith (unquestioned acceptance of prescribed believes) being nr 1. May never occur to them that the scientific method does not require said unquestioned acceptance.
Religion and science is in conflict because they’re antithetical to each other.
Science demands that all you “believe in”, all your statements, derivations, conclusions, explanations, be based on fact - and if the supporting information changes, so do your statements/derivations/conclusions/explanations. Essentially, you write the book based on observations, and if the observed things change, so does the book.
Religion is the other way around. All your observations, all your conclusions, etc., must bow to the book first. Anything that doesn’t fit the book is the work of the devil, thus bad.
There’s no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it’s officially approved ofc), it is the ultimate source of truth, unchanging and ever-existing.
Of course you then get denominations that consider the Bible not the word of God but the human-transcribed (thus faulty) version of the word, therefore are much more flexible on how things are interpreted, but that still doesn’t allow science to co-exist with religion when the latter can be utilised to invalidate a fact-based system.
What I meant by that is that inconsistencies between reality and the book are not accepted.
If the Bible says the sky is green, then it’s green, and if it’s blue, well, that’s the work of the devil and shouldn’t be. Regardless what scientific explanation there is.
See my other reply - by “inconsistencies” I meant between reality and scripture. Scripture always comes first in religion, even if reality is proving it wrong.
See e.g. religious types claiming being gay is a sin and unnatural, because the Bible says so, meanwhile nature proves them wrong daily with homosexuality being actively observed in hundreds of species…
This kind inconsistency is what I was referring to.
Religion and Science conflict because they make irreconcilably different claims about reality, and have fundamentally different epistemologies.
They disagree as to what truth is and how it can be determined.
Religious people who cannot find the ‘faith’ to ‘believe’ in Science are people who have been brainwashed into religious extremism, which shapes their entire worldview and acts as their default mode of understanding reality.
These are people who would rather kill all the Scientists as heretics, as they have often done throughout history.
Their answer would be that Science will not go on if they… destroy all non-religious education, throw the Scientists into jail, or just kill them.
science is just a method of observation. the reason why they hate it so much is because it keeps messing with their idiot garbage superstitions. they need collective ignorance to survive
The Royal Society in London, a scientific institution since the 1600s motto is “On no one’s word”. One of the fundamental ideas of science is that everything should be reproducible. You literally don’t need to take anything on faith.
As far as everyone not having the expertise to independently verify every claim, true. But you could independently verify it with enough time and will to do so, unlike with religion.
Only what you aren’t capable of reasoning on your own. I can’t reason astrophysics, so I take what astrophysicists say on faith. I can reason some physics, though, and I have to either accept that there’s a giant conspiracy with upper level physics, or that the people who study it know what they’re talking about. Each takes a kind of faith, but the latter requires much less.
Yes, although science requires some empirical measurements too, so unless that’s a gaschromatograph in your pocket and you’re not just happy to see me, quite a bit of faith is implicit in our understanding of the world. Deserved, but faith nonetheless.
I mean, I can get a gas chromatograph, then test it however many times I need to, to prove to myself that it’s accurate, then use it to test whatever I’m suspicious of. I don’t feel the need personally, but if a person wants to, they can. It’s honestly not even as expensive as I would have expected- plenty of options under €1000.
And for more advanced science, the same applies- it would require a lot more faith to believe that everyone with more than two college chemistry classes is lying about the nature of the world than that they’re not.
But yes, you need faith in either direction. Just a lot less of it if science is real.
I never understood why people claim to not have “faith” in Science. Science doesn’t want anyone’s faith. It wants facts, it wants proof, it wants repeatability.
Religion and Science should not be in conflict. Science gives us powerful tools to explain the Universe, but cannot explain what cannot be observed. If you believe in a higher power, there is plenty of room for that higher power to operate outside of what Science can tell us.
People who claim to not have “faith” in Science are just ignorant. Science will keep going, though, no matter what they believe.
Organized religion conditions people not to think but to view everything through the lens of their dogmas. Faith (unquestioned acceptance of prescribed believes) being nr 1. May never occur to them that the scientific method does not require said unquestioned acceptance.
Religion and science is in conflict because they’re antithetical to each other.
Science demands that all you “believe in”, all your statements, derivations, conclusions, explanations, be based on fact - and if the supporting information changes, so do your statements/derivations/conclusions/explanations. Essentially, you write the book based on observations, and if the observed things change, so does the book.
Religion is the other way around. All your observations, all your conclusions, etc., must bow to the book first. Anything that doesn’t fit the book is the work of the devil, thus bad.
There’s no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it’s officially approved ofc), it is the ultimate source of truth, unchanging and ever-existing.
Of course you then get denominations that consider the Bible not the word of God but the human-transcribed (thus faulty) version of the word, therefore are much more flexible on how things are interpreted, but that still doesn’t allow science to co-exist with religion when the latter can be utilised to invalidate a fact-based system.
“There’s no place for inconsistencies, for reiteration of the book (let alone rewriting - unless it’s officially approved ofc)”
So who the fuck is the official source confirming that the NIV is as consistent as the NEB, KJV, the Dead Sea Scrolls and other versions of the Bible?
Cause the different versions alone bring about a shit ton of inconsistencies.
What I meant by that is that inconsistencies between reality and the book are not accepted.
If the Bible says the sky is green, then it’s green, and if it’s blue, well, that’s the work of the devil and shouldn’t be. Regardless what scientific explanation there is.
WHY DIDN’T GOD GIVE US MICROWAVE OVENS? THEY MUST NOT WORK AFTER ALL.
You are insane if you think religion is consistent.
See my other reply - by “inconsistencies” I meant between reality and scripture. Scripture always comes first in religion, even if reality is proving it wrong.
See e.g. religious types claiming being gay is a sin and unnatural, because the Bible says so, meanwhile nature proves them wrong daily with homosexuality being actively observed in hundreds of species…
This kind inconsistency is what I was referring to.
Religion and Science conflict because they make irreconcilably different claims about reality, and have fundamentally different epistemologies.
They disagree as to what truth is and how it can be determined.
Religious people who cannot find the ‘faith’ to ‘believe’ in Science are people who have been brainwashed into religious extremism, which shapes their entire worldview and acts as their default mode of understanding reality.
These are people who would rather kill all the Scientists as heretics, as they have often done throughout history.
Their answer would be that Science will not go on if they… destroy all non-religious education, throw the Scientists into jail, or just kill them.
science is just a method of observation. the reason why they hate it so much is because it keeps messing with their idiot garbage superstitions. they need collective ignorance to survive
Science still requires faith of a sort.
The Royal Society in London, a scientific institution since the 1600s motto is “On no one’s word”. One of the fundamental ideas of science is that everything should be reproducible. You literally don’t need to take anything on faith.
Presuming you have all the instruments you need, an unlimited budget and the time to repeat everyone’s studies, yes.
If only there was a review system in place where people with similar systems could confirm others findings… Maybe their peers…
<palpatine> Your faith in your peers is yours!</palpatine>
As far as everyone not having the expertise to independently verify every claim, true. But you could independently verify it with enough time and will to do so, unlike with religion.
Yes.
Only what you aren’t capable of reasoning on your own. I can’t reason astrophysics, so I take what astrophysicists say on faith. I can reason some physics, though, and I have to either accept that there’s a giant conspiracy with upper level physics, or that the people who study it know what they’re talking about. Each takes a kind of faith, but the latter requires much less.
Yes, although science requires some empirical measurements too, so unless that’s a gaschromatograph in your pocket and you’re not just happy to see me, quite a bit of faith is implicit in our understanding of the world. Deserved, but faith nonetheless.
I mean, I can get a gas chromatograph, then test it however many times I need to, to prove to myself that it’s accurate, then use it to test whatever I’m suspicious of. I don’t feel the need personally, but if a person wants to, they can. It’s honestly not even as expensive as I would have expected- plenty of options under €1000.
And for more advanced science, the same applies- it would require a lot more faith to believe that everyone with more than two college chemistry classes is lying about the nature of the world than that they’re not.
But yes, you need faith in either direction. Just a lot less of it if science is real.
Yep. Which is all I’m saying to several people’s apparent shock and horror.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯