I’m really excited about what I’ve been learning about physics over in the physical science forum. It requires some reflection. When I think about it there’s still some level of fiat credulity involved. Unless I put my own eye to a telescope, I’m basically taking the scientist’ word for it that they saw what they say they saw and that their interpretation of what they saw is valid.

So if I haven't totally done away with faith, why do I accept the scientists and reject the preachers?

1. Scientists don’t pretend to have immutable revelation from an unchanging god and hope people won’t notice all the discrepancies.
2. And they support their findings through further study and peer review, not threats of hellfire and damnation for anyone who disagree with them.
3. Most of all, I can study science without throwing away my sense of what is right. Science doesn’t require me to love and worship a being who is reprehensible to me.

4. All (or most, at least) of the data is in fact available to you thru some means, even if it means subscribing to a journal/scientific society.

Unless you went out there and checked it yourself, you pretty much are taking a scientist's word for it. But the fact is, with the proper tools and education, you can go out there and check this stuff if you want to. Also if you find something that is different from what scientists believe, you can put it up for peer review and possibly become rich and famous. Do that with a religious text, and you're an apostate or heretic and generally shunned.

The difference is that scientists are making testable claims. Theologians are not.

Even if you can't personally get out there and test those claims, they are available for all to see, and for everyone to try and prove wrong. They've painted a target on their back, essentially. It's a scientist's job to disprove phoney stuff, and that they do. When some bullshit does leak through somehow, it gets discredited fairly quickly. Proving a major theory wrong would carry huge prestige as well. The idea that no one has bothered to check is stretching credulity.

Theologians just make unfalsifiable claims, almost all of the time. Such claims are useless. When they accidentally make a testable non-trivial claim about reality, it's normally proven false very quickly.

Raise a question in the (for example) Mormon Church along the lines of "Which version of the revelation on polygamy should we follow?" and you'll be shown the door.

In science, you can read about how different versions of many theories have been evaluated and see which ones currently have the most vetted results.

(July 13, 2016 at 12:32 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Unless you went out there and checked it yourself, you pretty much are taking a scientist's word for it. But the fact is, with the proper tools and education, you can go out there and check this stuff if you want to. Also if you find something that is different from what scientists believe, you can put it up for peer review and possibly become rich and famous. Do that with a religious text, and you're an apostate or heretic and generally shunned.

Actually the journal Nature has been hitting pretty hard on reproducibility lately.   How often it is attempted and when attempted how often it is unsuccessful may surprise you.

http://www.nature.com/news/reality-check...ty-1.19961
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scienti...ty-1.19970

(July 13, 2016 at 1:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 13, 2016 at 12:32 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Unless you went out there and checked it yourself, you pretty much are taking a scientist's word for it. But the fact is, with the proper tools and education, you can go out there and check this stuff if you want to. Also if you find something that is different from what scientists believe, you can put it up for peer review and possibly become rich and famous. Do that with a religious text, and you're an apostate or heretic and generally shunned.

Actually the journal Nature has been hitting pretty hard on reproducibility lately.   How often it is attempted and when attempted how often it is unsuccessful may surprise you.

http://www.nature.com/news/reality-check...ty-1.19961
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scienti...ty-1.19970

That is a pretty big problem. Though obviously there are scientists who are working to solve this problem. With many people in religion, I doubt this would be considered a problem at all. Faith does not require reproducibility. otherwise it wouldn't the faith in the religious sense.

(July 13, 2016 at 1:22 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote:

(July 13, 2016 at 12:32 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Unless you went out there and checked it yourself, you pretty much are taking a scientist's word for it. But the fact is, with the proper tools and education, you can go out there and check this stuff if you want to. Also if you find something that is different from what scientists believe, you can put it up for peer review and possibly become rich and famous. Do that with a religious text, and you're an apostate or heretic and generally shunned.

Actually the journal Nature has been hitting pretty hard on reproducibility lately.   How often it is attempted and when attempted how often it is unsuccessful may surprise you.

http://www.nature.com/news/reality-check...ty-1.19961
http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scienti...ty-1.19970

What's your point? The ability to attempt to reproduce/test exists in science. Those results can then be analyzed/discussed. The ability to attempt to reproduce/test does not exist in theology.

Can you imagine a religion somewhere locking up 2 revelators in 2 widely separate locations, incommunicado with each other, and the religion accepting as dogma only the identical bits they both uttered in common ??

If a scientist approaches her work with integrity what she finds out will either be reliable or distorted by human error. If a priest approaches her work with integrity you can be pretty sure what she tells you will be consistent with her aims as a priest. In many cases that includes enlisting as many more believers as possible. The goal of science is to understand the empirical world. The goal of religion is institutional. If you must be dependent upon experts, science is far preferable.