rikuoamero wrote:
[
Replying to post 42 by KingandPriest]
It may please you somewhat to read me saying this: I can't refute what you said. This doesn't mean that I accept everything that's in post 42, but that what is said there is beyond my knowledge of physics.
It really wouldn't matter anyway because KingandPriest is working on a false assumption to begin with.
KingandPriest is working on the assumption that if a person rejects theism then they necessarily must
worship science as their worldview. But that's a false dichotomy to begin with.
For example, I reject all of the Abrahamic religions as being clearly self-contradictory and utterly absurd on many levels. No scientific knowledge is even required to reject all of the Abrahamic religions.
KingandPriest seems to be working on the idea that non-theists must be worshiping science and that this is the reason they reject Hebrew Mythology.
Besides, look at his argument, he's trying to claim that science cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the Bible's account of Genesis is necessarily wrong. So what?
That's got to be one of the least of the problems associated with the Biblical fables in any case. Even if science ended up proving that the earth was necessarily formed FIRST that would hardly vindicate the Bible.
In fact, the theory of Nebular Formation could itself end up having the earth forming as a rocky orb "before" the Sun actually ignites as a star. So what? Should we then run off through the streets proclaiming that the Bible has been vindicated?
Hardly.
KingandPriest seems to be arguing from the perspective that religion (in this case Christianity in particular) is at war with science, and if he can simply demonstrate that science doesn't necessarily conflict with the Bible then he will have "
settled" that war in favor of Christianity.
This no doubt stems from the fact that he has obviously heard many atheists argue that science refutes Genesis. Actually I personally believe it does in the big picture anyway. But some atheists probably argued that you must have sunlight before you can have plants growing and so they argue that the Sun had to be burning before life could exist on planet earth. That's no doubt TRUE!
But for some reason KingandPriest seems to now think that if he can bring a question into the mix of whether the earth might have been formed "first", (even as a hot molten rock, this will somehow vindicate the Genesis account of the earth being created before the sun. That's hardly a sound argument in any case.
But the bottom line is that all atheists don't reject the Hebrew Bible based entirely on scientific technicalities.
Let's go back to the questions of the OP again and see how they are not dependent on placing "faith" in science, or anything else.
KingandPriest wrote:
To this I now ask:
1. Does a atheist have to proclaim faith in atheism to have faith?
No, absolutely not. Atheism is not a belief anymore than choosing not to play golf is a belief. No faith is required to choose to not play golf.
KingandPriest wrote:
2. Can a nonbeliever or non-theist have faith in anything at all?
For an atheist the term "faith" is most likely a synonym for "trust'. And so in that context atheists can trust a lot of knowledge and their life's experience. They are even aware that this trust can ultimately turn out to be
misplaced.
That hardly compares with the kind of obsessive unrealistic "faith" a theists place in the existence of an invisible God for which there is absolutely no evidence for at all (
especially when we're talking about one that is described in detail in a collection of highly self-contradictory myths)
KingandPriest wrote:
3. When a person places money into a bank account, and then goes to a store to spend some of this money, is the action of using a debit card, check card or check book an act of faith?
Again, an atheist would most likely use the word "trust" and even then they would most likely be very open to the possibility that this trust could have been misplaced. "
Expectation" that a system will hopefully work well is a better description. And if you've ever been stung by a banking error you would be quickly awakened to the fact that mistakes do sometimes occur.
KingandPriest wrote:
4. Are generally accepted scientific theories statements of faith?
Again, the correct term here is TRUST, and certainly not "Blind faith" like theists rely upon.
Scientists TRUST in generally accepted theories because they realize that every scientist in the community would love nothing more than to disprove the theory! Therefore, theories that have been peer-reviewed for many years are very trustworthy. Let's not forget that there is also tons of actual evidence to support generally accepted theories as well.
For example, you can argue against Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity until you are blue in the face, that's not going to change the fact that time dilation is real and has actually been measured many times over by many independent scientists who would love nothing more than to prove Relativity wrong.
If you can demonstrate that a generally accepted scientific theory is actually wrong, then you will the Nobel Prize and become recognized as one of the smartest people around.
So scientists are highly motivated to prove scientific theories wrong. They are hardly working in a conspiracy to support lame theories that they could easily disprove or demonstrate reasons to question them.
Every scientist's greatest dream is to be recognized for finding a flaw, an improvement, or an alternative explanation to an existing theory.
So even scientists don't place the kind of "faith" in their theories that theists place in their invisible Gods.
To the contrary, scientists are the greatest "skeptics" of all. And the truly decent scientists would even love to have their own theories blown out of the water if this results in revealing a greater underlying truth.
Scientists are interested in discovering truth, not in perpetuation myths.
So this idea that secular scientists merely have "
a theistic faith" in scientific theories is clearly a misguided notion from the get go.
