The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

Oh no no no, I just want to see how tolerant you are and that science doesn’t belong just to you, but to all humanity.

It does, in many aspects, belong to humanity but if used inappropriately to come to non science conclusions then the validity of those conclusions should be questioned.

The theists who reference science for god arguments are simply validating that their faith can't stand on it's own. If god(s) actually existed as more than a concept then god (and it's religion) would not need to use science (incorrectly) to be convincing.

How can science be used inappropriately to answer existential questions for which you may not agree and like?
Theists use science as one tool to validate their beliefs. The other is history.
Philosophers use science to validate their hypothesis or theories.

leap of faith

1. an act of believing in or attempting something whose existence or outcome cannot be proved.
   

You don't need science to take a leap of faith.  In fact, it's the very act of abandoning science.  Might as well jump.

When saying that “there’s a multiverse” that’s a leap of faith. Or when saying that “we live in a simulation” that’s a leap of faith. Why? Because one guy studies string theory and the other guy studies quantum mechanics.

So far I've seen this GaryAnderson display a lot of nonsensical ideas, but the one that strikes me the hardest is when he says things like "philosophy uses science for...". First problem here is that the scientific method is a philosophy or is based in philosophy. You can't separate science from philosophy. So it really is nonsensical to say things like it's wrong for philosophy to use science for...(fill in blank). And if you want to argue about something specific that some philosopher said, you really have to get into the details about that; you can't generalize and make a meaningful argument.

But if your question really is as the OP suggests about who can or should use science, then the question is again, somewhat nonsensical. The scientific method is a philosophical method for solving problems or answering questions. Anyone can use it for anything and the results (provided you do it correctly) are more likely to be reliable than if you based the answer to your question on something like ancient books or cultural wisdom or guessing.

I knew you were special too. You’re taking a hard turn here and saying that science IS philosophy. Good for you my friend, good for you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Can we see an example of a theist using science to support their beliefs? Wouldn't that be refreshing.

We're talking about such a rare creature..apparently, that alot of those folks don't even think that -any- religion can support itself with scientific observation. Take a crack at it, or give me some religious belief of your own to take a crack at?

[GaryAnderson]

Can we see an example of a theist using science to support their beliefs? Wouldn't that be refreshing.

Yes. God created the universe because it’s fine tuned for life and God was the prime mover who initiated the Big Bang.
There you go.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except for how, as we've already discussed, that's wrong on the facts. Is that the only thing you can think of?

It probably doesn't even qualify as a religious belief, btw..more like a superstition. I doubt you'll be interested in sociology or anthropology if you can't be bothered to present biology accurately, ofc.

A religious belief.... concerns why it's important that -x. I think that our religious beliefs are meaningfully informed in many cases by actual facts. Am I wrong? Or, at least, am I wrong in your case? Would it be wrong to assume that for whatever portion of religious beliefs could be supported by actual facts, science would be a handy dandy way of gathering and communicating them?

[GaryAnderson]

Except for how, as we've already discussed, that's wrong on the facts. Is that the only thing you can think of?

It probably doesn't even qualify as a religious belief, btw..more like a superstition. I doubt you'll be interested in sociology or anthropology if you can't be bothered to present biology accurately, ofc.

A religious belief.... concerns why it's important that -x. I think that our religious beliefs are meaningfully informed in many cases by actual facts. Am I wrong? Or, at least, am I wrong in your case? Would it be wrong to assume that for whatever portion of religious beliefs could be supported by actual facts, science would be a handy dandy way of gathering and communicating them?

I don’t understand you again.

What’s wrong on the facts?
I gave you one example and you don’t like it and then you say it’s not a religious belief?

[The Grand Nudger]

You understand just fine, you simply insist on arguing counterfactually.

Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I like it - there actually is a difference between religious beliefs and the body of superstition that a given religion might accrue which surround those beliefs.

I'm sure we can figure out what it is, in this case...and, as before, I bet it's something we might actually be able to justify without going full on loon.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

At a fundamental level, “why” is a nonsensical question.   At fundamental level there can only be how, there can be no why.   if you think why is fundamental, you are not really very inquisitive. 

Anyone can use science, no one should get a pass on borrowing science’s good name to advocate nonsense.

[GaryAnderson]

You understand just fine, you simply insist on arguing counterfactually.

Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I like it - there actually is a difference between religious beliefs and the body of superstition that a given religion might accrue which surround those beliefs.

Dude. A theist will use fine-tuning as a reason to say that the universe is intelligently designed. A theist will also say that God was the prime mover.
Both answers, answer something which science can’t prove but science is used in our case to make an educated guess.
Philosophers use other scientific facts based on quantum mechanics to say that we live in a multiverse or a simulation.

Why are you so confused about this?

---

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.

At a fundamental level, “why” is a nonsensical question.   At fundamental level there can only be how, there can be no why.   if you think why is fundamental, you are not really very inquisitive. 

Anyone can use science, no one should get a pass on borrowing science’s good name to advocate nonsense.

Understood. You’re a true atheist and don’t allow yourself to ask “why”. Some other people like to ask “why”.

[Spongebob]

Can we see an example of a theist using science to support their beliefs?  Wouldn't that be refreshing.

Yes. God created the universe because it’s fine tuned for life and God was the prime mover who initiated the Big Bang.
There you go.

These statements alone are just the beginning, barely even an hypothesis.  You can hypothesize anything and then set out to use the scientific method to build a theory, but those statements don't even come close if that's what you are suggesting.

[The Grand Nudger]

You understand just fine, you simply insist on arguing counterfactually.  

Doesn't have anything to do with whether or not I like it - there actually is a difference between religious beliefs and the body of superstition that a given religion might accrue which surround those beliefs.

Dude. A theist will use fine-tuning as a reason to say that the universe is intelligently designed. A theist will also say that God was the prime mover.
Both answers, answer something which science can’t prove but science is used in our case to make an educated guess.
Philosophers use other scientific facts based on quantum mechanics to say that we live in a multiverse or a simulation.

Why are you so confused about this?

You just got through telling me that you were the confused one?

Sure, you can make claims, but that's not a scientific claim.  It's wrong with respect to the facts.  The universe isn't you shaped, you're universe shaped.  Are you trying to convince these people that it's not possible for a religious belief to be supported by scientific facts?

What do you need this to be true to contend about the sacred, about what's set apart and forbidden? Let's start there? I bet there's a way to establish that without making a counterfactual statement your only premise.