"In 100 years, our vision of science will be laughed at".

[Ashendant]

First, as i already said 2 or 3 times, this is not MY argument, it's an argument that theists use. So keep that in mind, im only being the Devil's advocate.

Some theories have not gone obsolete, but a lot have. So how can we trust the knowledge that we now have considering that knowledge is likely (likely meaning a probability, not a certainty) wrong ?

And to link that to theism: the science behind radiometric dating, evolution, the Big Bang, the expansion of the Universe, the origins of life, etc cannot be trusted since it is likely (again, emphasis on the "likely") to be proven false in time.

Proven false or obsolete Probably not, just redefined and small improvements here and there, also evolution is pretty much confirmed

[Anomalocaris]

The progress of scientific endeavor At a particular stage is often aptly described by the tale of Six Wise Men of Hindustan:

There were six men of Hindustan,
to learning much inclined,
Who went to see an elephant,
though all of them were blind,
That each by observation
might satisfy his mind.

The first approached the elephant,
and happening to fall
Against his broad and sturdy side,
at once began to bawl,
"This mystery of an elephant
is very like a wall."

The second, feeling of the tusk,
cried, "Ho, what have we here,
So very round and smooth and sharp?
To me 'tis mighty clear,
This wonder of an elephant
is very like a spear."

The third approached the elephant,
and happening to take
The squirming trunk within his hands,
thus boldly up and spake,
"I see," quoth he,
"the elephant is very like a snake."

The fourth reached out an eager hand,
and felt above the knee,
"What this most wondrous beast
is like is very plain" said he,
"'Tis clear enough the elephant
is very like a tree."

The fifth who chanced to touch the ear
said, "E'en the blindest man
Can tell what this resembles most;
deny the fact who can;
This marvel of an elephant
is very like a fan."

The sixth no sooner had begun
about the beast to grope,
Than seizing on the swinging tail
that fell within his scope;
"I see," said he, "the elephant
is very like a rope."

So six blind men of Hindustan
disputed loud and long,
Each in his own opinion
exceeding stiff and strong;
Though each was partly in the right,
they all were in the wrong!

Continuing the imagery, In a scientific endeavor the blind man would in time each probe more of the elephant, to build on their previous "laughable" image of the elephant. Each man's previous image is not wrong. It is useful building block for a more complete image. But not even when they have each probed all parts of the elephant and have finally come to the same elephantine conclusion about the shape of the elephant would they lay claim to having absolute truth about the elephant. After all, shape of the elephant might change over time. There may be other elephants of different shape.


Continuing further with the elephant imagery, A theist would have not bothered to Observe any part of the real elephant. He would have opened some scripture and intoned something like the " whole of the elephant is a perfect image of god and proof of god's existence", and insisted that is the absolute truth. The theist thinks he already has the absolute truth when he has nothing at all. His mistakes are of the sort useless even for learning from mistakes.

[Rwandrall]

This 6 wise men tale does not apply all the time because some theories (like earth being flat or the earth being 6000 years old) have been rejected completely. Who knows which of our theories will be rejected 100 years from now ?

I constantly see atheists saying "i believe in Science, not imaginary friends", but since Science is ever moving and changing, it is not really this solid block of stone upon which we can rest our reasoning, what is true today can be false tomorrow.

[KichigaiNeko]

BTW this isnt my point, but people who argue that use that argument.

Basically it means: how can we trust science when it will become obsolete over time anyways ? Is it the absolute truth if it is likely we'll find it silly in a few hundred years ?

Sounds like you are more afraid of being on the 'wrong team' than actually accepting that science is in a constant state of evolution .... as our knowledge grows we discard what is in error...

Why should this bother you??

[Anomalocaris]

This 6 wise men tale does not apply all the time because some theories (like earth being flat or the earth being 6000 years old) have been rejected completely. Who knows which of our theories will be rejected 100 years from now ?

I constantly see atheists saying "i believe in Science, not imaginary friends", but since Science is ever moving and changing, it is not really this solid block of stone upon which we can rest our reasoning, what is true today can be false tomorrow.

Flat earth is not rejected completely for it is a fair approximation of the shape of that part of the earth the size of a backyard, a block, a town, or a cities. But it takes the combined efforts of people working over cities hundreds of miles apart to determine that the earth is in fact not flat. So flat earth contributes to the notional absolute truth of globular earth by showing the earth is not significantly curved until one reaches scales of hundreds of miles.

6000 year old earth was the brain child of one Bishop Ussher of Armagh. It was never a theory of science. The first scientific estimate of the age of the earth was made by James Hutton. He simply asserted that evidence from the earth deemed the earth to be much older than bishop Ussher's 4004 BC creation date could accommodate. He most certainly was right, and contributed to the notional absolute truth that the biblical creation date was constrained by the limits of an pious but ignorant and unobservant mind and was full of shit.

What is found to be true today in science contributes to what will, upon further examination, be found to be true tomorrow. What is deemed true today in theology contributes nothing to what can rationally and verifiably be found to be the truth either today, yesterday, or tomorrow. So take your pick from that which contributes to the absolutely truth in one way or another, but admits to not being the absolute truth itself on the one hand, and that which claims with pompous grandiosity to be the absolute truth itself from the get go, but can be demonstrated to bear no relation to truth of any kind through the entire process. Theists, enamored with the claim, Chooses the latter. What will you choose?

[Zen Badger]

This 6 wise men tale does not apply all the time because some theories (like earth being flat or the earth being 6000 years old) have been rejected completely. Who knows which of our theories will be rejected 100 years from now ?

I constantly see atheists saying "i believe in Science, not imaginary friends", but since Science is ever moving and changing, it is not really this solid block of stone upon which we can rest our reasoning, what is true today can be false tomorrow.

You can accept it when you realise that there are no absolutes, that everything changes.

As you point out Science moves on constantly, some ideas become obsolete when new technologies reveal their flaws, others(such as evolution) become stronger via the same process.

Only the simplex minds of the deeply religious who can only think in terms of absolutes find this a problem. And there is nothing you will ever be able to do to convince them otherwise.

Trust me I've tried.

But in one respect I can understand where they are coming from, afterall science tells us that as far as the universe is concerned we are about as insignificant as it is possible to get.

Religion on the other hand tells us that we are THE chosen ones of the creator of everthing. And you can't get more special than that.

Given those options is it any wonder that a simplex mind will go for religion.

[Rwandrall]

BTW this isnt my point, but people who argue that use that argument.

Basically it means: how can we trust science when it will become obsolete over time anyways ? Is it the absolute truth if it is likely we'll find it silly in a few hundred years ?

Sounds like you are more afraid of being on the 'wrong team' than actually accepting that science is in a constant state of evolution .... as our knowledge grows we discard what is in error...

Why should this bother you??

I mean...i just dont know how many times i can state this, it's right there in the post that you quoted...

THIS IS NOT MY ARGUMENT.

This is an argument i FACE and i'm here to try and find rebuttals to it. I just don't see how this is not clear by now...