RE: Atheistic Dogma- Scientific Fundamentalism
September 11, 2014 at 12:19 pm
(This post was last modified: September 11, 2014 at 12:21 pm by Simon Moon.)
Who are these 'scientific fundamentalists' you speak of.
All scientists understand that conclusions that come from the scientific method are provisional, not absolute.
Science is not a thing, it is a method for observing the natural universe. There is no 'truth' in science, only what fits the preponderance of evidence.
When scientific facts don't live up to predictions, they were not facts, and whatever theory they were meant to support is modified with the new information taken into consideration.
How can we trust science? Because it works. Why are we do confident in the scientific method? To repeat, because it works.
All scientists understand that conclusions that come from the scientific method are provisional, not absolute.
Science is not a thing, it is a method for observing the natural universe. There is no 'truth' in science, only what fits the preponderance of evidence.
When scientific facts don't live up to predictions, they were not facts, and whatever theory they were meant to support is modified with the new information taken into consideration.
How can we trust science? Because it works. Why are we do confident in the scientific method? To repeat, because it works.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
