Science as a belief system

Aug 2019
305
32
USA
Science is a belief system, based on these beliefs:

1) There exists an external objective reality
2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible.

These beliefs are accepted as true, even though they have no evidence, and are accepted on faith.

It is also true that it is an evidence driven belief system. After the core pillars, faith is no longer part of the scientific process. It relies on evidence for later beliefs. Evidence based on the fallacious pillars.

By comparison, religion is not only based on beliefs, but is driven by faith, supplemented by evidence. Faith is one way to acquire religious knowledge

As a result, there is no Scientific proof for anything. Any belief in Science may one day be denied, become Scientifically untrue. Science knows with scientific certainty, than some current beliefs presented as factual, will be shown as false, some time in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: right to left
Feb 2019
1,916
494
here and there
Humans rely on a belief system to try to remain sane in a world in which we can prove precious little outside a math class.

At the end of the day, all we have are what is perceived to be a myriad of random "facts" which are then grouped and labeled as good or bad and ordered in importance based upon perceived needs, desires, and dangers.

Historically, science has had their own inquisitions when confronted with those who question accepted beliefs.

For example, the priest who came up with the Big Bang Theory was scoffed at by Einstein as Einstein mocked his religiosity and being an outsider to main stream science. At the end of the day though, Einstein later admitted that refusing to challenge the political elites in science once he had become established and made a name for himself was one of the biggest blunders of his career. Instead, he made adjustments to his calculations to make the accepted static universe model believable in order to help preserve his reputation and political standing with his peers.
 
Sep 2015
14,304
5,087
Brown Township, Ohio
Using deep thought it could only have been the chicken or the egg that created the Universe. God is the chicken and the egg is a random quantum mechanical event. Please don't point me.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: se7en
Aug 2019
611
552
Albuquerque, NM
The only belief you need in science is believing the scientist is being an honest scientists. But even then, science doesn't just immediately accept a new result. It' tests for itself to show that it is right.

The science belief is just complete nonsense that people who believe in religion and other stuff without any evidence like to throw out to deflect they don't have facts, while science has facts.

And all the technology we have is proof science works, because the technology developed based on scientific discoveries work
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr and se7en
Feb 2019
1,916
494
here and there
Cecilia Payne is another example of what I'm talking about.

She attempted to enter a male dominated field of science at the turn of the 20th century, and came up with the theory that the sun was mostly hydrogen for her thesis for her Phd. However, she was told by her male colleague she was wrong and convinced her to not only withdraw the thesis, but I think convinced her himself that she was wrong as she later apologized for it. This is the power of group think and belief with sexism interwoven therein.

Then later on she was proven to be correct.

However, what of things that can't be proven to be correct or not correct?

Abiogenesis and Creation are on equal footing in this regard.
 
Dec 2018
2,959
2,136
Wisconsin
Is the
Science is a belief system, based on these beliefs:

1) There exists an external objective reality
2) There exists some sort of uniformity through time
a) the universe has structure
b) predictions and generalizations are possible.

These beliefs are accepted as true, even though they have no evidence, and are accepted on faith.

It is also true that it is an evidence driven belief system. After the core pillars, faith is no longer part of the scientific process. It relies on evidence for later beliefs. Evidence based on the fallacious pillars.

By comparison, religion is not only based on beliefs, but is driven by faith, supplemented by evidence. Faith is one way to acquire religious knowledge

As a result, there is no Scientific proof for anything. Any belief in Science may one day be denied, become Scientifically untrue. Science knows with scientific certainty, than some current beliefs presented as factual, will be shown as false, some time in the future.
is the crux of your position that there is no difference between the faith theists have in their religion, and the “faith” people have in the scientific method?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr and se7en
Feb 2019
1,916
494
here and there
Is the

is the crux of your position that there is no difference between the faith theists have in their religion, and the “faith” people have in the scientific method?
Comparing science and religion is like comparing knowledge and wisdom.

Both are different but interrelated. Wisdom is needed to use knowledge in a "good" way verses a "bad" way. But try proving it is good or bad and you will more than likely begin to pull out your hair doing so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr and se7en
Aug 2019
305
32
USA
Cecilia Payne is another example of what I'm talking about.

She attempted to enter a male dominated field of science at the turn of the 20th century, and came up with the theory that the sun was mostly hydrogen for her thesis for her Phd. However, she was told by her male colleague she was wrong and convinced her to not only withdraw the thesis, but I think convinced her himself that she was wrong as she later apologized for it. This is the power of group think and belief with sexism interwoven therein.

Then later on she was proven to be correct.

However, what of things that can't be proven to be correct or not correct?

Abiogenesis and Creation are on equal footing in this regard.
Commonly major scientific breakthroughs do not have a defining watershed moment.
It is not uncommon to have decades, or even centuries of denial by the establishment, before the light finally comes on in even the darkest corners of the discipline.
Lone individuals or small groups know the truth, that the remainder of the world denies.
 
Feb 2019
1,916
494
here and there
Commonly major scientific breakthroughs do not have a defining watershed moment.
It is not uncommon to have decades, or even centuries of denial by the establishment, before the light finally comes on in even the darkest corners of the discipline.
Lone individuals or small groups know the truth, that the remainder of the world denies.
True.

For example, the universe was thought to be static and not expanding until 1959 when telescopes told us otherwise.
 
Aug 2019
305
32
USA
Is the

is the crux of your position that there is no difference between the faith theists have in their religion, and the “faith” people have in the scientific method?
All world views are based on faith at the core.
There are professional Scientists, who have a world view that includes religion. They have found answers offered by Science to be lacking. If they were equivalent, no need for two.

Clearly their must be a difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gdjjr