The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

Yes. The mis-use of science. This is where we are going to get into interpretations again.

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened.

An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here?

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you. Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

I strongly doubt that religionists can use science to support a religious proposition (although they can certainly use it for other things). A methodology which is designed to base hypothesis on observations of the natural world, construct theories to explain those observations, and then have those theories challenged by other observers seems remarkably unsuited to apply to supernatural or spiritual ideas.

Boru

[Deesse23]

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position.

Are you serious?
Are you really serious?

[brewer]

@GaryAnderson Science does not care about why.

[Deesse23]

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life

Nope

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you.  Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

Not precisely. Life has tuned itself to the universe (more specifically, to environments within the universe).

Boru

[zwanzig]

Theists shouldn't be using science to support their beliefs if it all comes back down to "faith" anyway. Essentially faith is saying that observation or evidence doesn't matter, so, using science feels like a waste of time for them. If theists could actually use science to support/prove their claims then there wouldn't be atheists and there would be no need for faith. Because then anything god related would simply be science, it would just be facts.

Yes but science cannot and will not give us the answers to existential questions such as “Why does the universe exists” or “why do we exist” so some people like Michio Kaku and other theoretical physicists make leaps of faith based on educated guesses to attempt to answer “the why”.

Why not? Either something, a being with intent exists or it doesn't. You're conceding the point of atheists in withholding belief in something not proven if you say that science, the study of the physical world, could not ever give us the answer of "why". If your god is real and made everything with intent, then it could conceivably, eventually be proven in some way. And the proving would be using science(physical observation and testing, even in a rudimentary way). And the why could simply be "this happened as a result of this" which science could also illustrate.

[Ahriman]

Theists shouldn't be using science to support their beliefs if it all comes back down to "faith" anyway. Essentially faith is saying that observation or evidence doesn't matter, so, using science feels like a waste of time for them. If theists could actually use science to support/prove their claims then there wouldn't be atheists and there would be no need for faith. Because then anything god related would simply be science, it would just be facts.

Yes but science cannot and will not give us the answers to existential questions such as “Why does the universe exists” or “why do we exist” so some people like Michio Kaku and other theoretical physicists make leaps of faith based on educated guesses to attempt to answer “the why”.

That's what everyone should be doing.

[GaryAnderson]

Is that another one of your faith based positions? Thought this was a thread about science. It appears to me that any discussion of who owns or who can use science is irrelevant, as you're chielfly concerned with rejecting it at the outset.

It’s a simple question. I’m asking who should use science. That’s it.

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

I strongly doubt that religionists can use science to support a religious proposition (although they can certainly use it for other things). A methodology which is designed to base hypothesis on observations of the natural world, construct theories to explain those observations, and then have those theories challenged by other observers seems remarkably unsuited to apply to supernatural or spiritual ideas.

Boru

Theists will use science in relation to the existence of the universe and that it’s fine tuned for life.

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position.

Are you serious?
Are you really serious?

Come in! Free coffee inside.

@GaryAnderson Science does not care about why.

I agree. I already said that in the OP.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you.  Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

You need to look this up more but the universe is fine-tuned for life and this is confirmed and mentioned by many scientists. This means that you don’t like theists using this fact to support their position.

Arguing counterfactually isn't mis-using science or engaging in psuedoscience.  It's just being stubbornly wrong.

Is there any possibility, in your mind, of a world where the current scientific understanding of many items you might feel compelled to dispute is accurate, and a god exists?  That you, and not geneticists, and not physicists, and not gods..for example, have misunderstood something?

It's pretty subtle question, especially as it relates to who "owns" science. As a person who can't even entertain that possibility certainly doesn't (and doesn't have any need to) possess science, refer to science, accept it, even. Their beef isn't who owns it - but the simple fact that it exists and irritates them for existing.