What exactly is non-belief in science?

[RamblingOnwards]

A stray thought...

Every now and then when discussing things with believers, a statement will be made along the lines of : "You have replaced your belief in a warm loving God with a belief in cold impersonal Science."

So, I starting thinking about that one. If the statement is aimed at an atheist (you do not believe in God but in Science), it implies that the speaker does not believe in science (I believe in God but not in Science).

If you accept a functional definition rather than a religious/logical one, an atheist:
makes life choices on the presumption that there is no supernatural power.

Now, I have a pretty good idea of what this means - an atheist does not attend religious ceremonies, does not pray, does not wear religious symbols, etc.

But I am at an absolute loss as to how someone who does not believe in science express themselves. An equivalent definition would be:
makes life choices based on the presumption that the scientifc method is flawed.

So, do they not drive cars because they do not have faith that they will not spontaneously act irrationally? Do they not trust television, because the signal could be coming from a supernatural source as easily as the broadcasting station down the road? Do they believe this whole 'history of scientific progress' is a hoax, and God him/her/itself is directly feeding all this information to scientists who are secretely cultists?

To say that I 'believe' in science is to say that a non-belief in Science is possible. But what on earth does that mean?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I think you are reading too much into the semantics of the argument. What the believers are really trying to imply is that everyone has to believe in something, so you believe in this "science" religion that they have been made to believe exists. To the religious, science is just another religion.. this is because they have been taught nonsense.

 

[phildonnia]

I think very few people have a non-belief in science as far as science's domain presumes to extend. That is, both the religious and the athest generally believe that science is a good tool for explaining the natural world, and no more.

I would imagine, that you are being accused of supposing that the natural world is all that there is. To the religious mind, a belief in the spiritual universe has been "replaced" by excessive attention to the physical plane.

Just my guess.

 

[pupdog]

I think different people have various concepts of the relation of faith in "belief"--i.e., accepting a notion as true despite a lack of firm evidence. I suspect that some people "believe" what alleged scientists say, because they wear lab coats and went to University. But for a scientist (or a scientifically literate layperson), it is a matter of accepting what repeated testing has shown to be most likely true, and acknowledging that scientific hypotheses can be speculative or tentative. For the religious, there is no speculation (other than about trivial matters, such as whether the streets of heaven are paved with 14 karat or 12 karat gold) or tentative aspects.

 

[Operaider]

So, do they not drive cars because they do not have faith that they will not spontaneously act irrationally? Do they not trust television, because the signal could be coming from a supernatural source as easily as the broadcasting station down the road? Do they believe this whole 'history of scientific progress' is a hoax, and God him/her/itself is directly feeding all this information to scientists who are secretely cultists?

Yea and they are called the Amish

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

They may also be saying that they don't believe science is superior to other "ways of knowing." That always makes me wonder if they have another way of knowing that overlaps domains with science. If the other way of knowing doesn't overlap, then the question of superiority is moot.

In other words, is there some part of science that is better done some other way? I'd be interested to know.

~~ Paul

 

[Operaider]

I always find this type of arguement odd. Their thinking is in conflict with itself. If there is a God than It had to have created science. Hence anything discovered by science is a discovery of something God created. So if there is anything discovered by science that directly conflicts with a certain belief. That belief must be wrong. Otherwise it would be like saying God is wrong.

 

[mgdwcb]

A stray thought... Every now and then when discussing things with believers, a statement will be made along the lines of : "You have replaced your belief in a warm loving God with a belief in cold impersonal Science."QUOTE]

Shouldn't this be in the `religion' forum?

 

[Jagboy]

Maybe it's just me, but so often the "science vs. religion" debate strikes me as sort of silly for both sides.

It's like you have two music lovers listening to a piece by Strauss. One of the music lovers feels inspired to gently sway with the music in a free-form dance, while the other feels more drawn to learning a beautifully intricate waltz in order to fully experience the music. Both approaches recognize the beauty of the music.

But then, suddenly, one or both of the dancers decides the other is totally wrong in their approach and should be villified, ridiculed, or shouted down. I just don't get it.

Let me say up front that I am a Christian, but I am also a lover of true science (not the flim flam stuff). I know that may sound a contradiction to some of you, but I see none.

In my view, if I don't use my God-given intellect to explore all the wonders science is constantly uncovering, it is a misuse of that gift and an insult to God. On the other hand, if I look at something as beautiful and amazing as the Crab Nebula and say "That all came from nothing of it's own accord" I feel I'm only fooling myself.

Then again, I am the man who has the Daily Devotions of Oswald Chambers bookmark filed right alongside the JREF one...go figure.

 

[thaiboxerken]

It's like you have two music lovers listening to a piece by Strauss. .. Both approaches recognize the beauty of the music.

But then, suddenly, one or both of the dancers decides the other is totally wrong in their approach and should be villified, ridiculed, or shouted down. I just don't get it.

Science doesn't vilify, shout or ridicule religion. Religion does do that though. Science is silent on those matters that are outside of it's bounds. Religion is constantly trying to thwart science. Science seeks to find out what is true, religion demands that they know what is true. The most offensive thing that science does to the religious is ask for evidence.

Let me say up front that I am a Christian, but I am also a lover of true science (not the flim flam stuff). I know that may sound a contradiction to some of you, but I see none.

It's not a contradiction. I'm sure most of your nonchristian views are scientific.


On the other hand, if I look at something as beautiful and amazing as the Crab Nebula and say "That all came from nothing of it's own accord" I feel I'm only fooling myself.

Yes, but that feeling is not based on any logical premise or science. If science doesn't have a theory on how the Crab Nebula came to be, then they simply state that they don't know how the Crab Nebula came to be. You, being a christian, don't know how it came to be so you assume that your god did it.