The Ownership of Science

[Abaddon_ire]

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.

If your reading comprehension is that poor, what does that say about your reading of the magic book?

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?

Your idiotic god created the universe and fine tuned it for life? That is not a fact, not science and not even vaguely rational.

[Spongebob]

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened. <--- this is based on a very strong theory*

1 - An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
2 - 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.
3 - A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here? (sic)

Statement 1 says nothing about science/scientific method.
Statement 2 is based on scientific theories that are not particularly strong but worthy of consideration.
Statement 3 is nothing but speculation.  There's no real science there.

So, taken in this context, none of these statements are misusing science.

[Jehanne]

[quote="The Grand Nudger" pid='2073367' dateline='1635963623']
Understood. You’re a true atheist and don’t allow yourself to ask “why”. Some other people like to ask “why”.

Why does 2 + 2 equal 4?

[The Grand Nudger]

Can't even keep his own shit threads segregated. Low effort.

[Spongebob]

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've detected more problems with your premise.  The question or problem is relevant to the manner in which science is used.  For instance, if you are asking why butterflies fly to Mexico in the winter, then the scientific method is a quite valid tool to use.

The scientific method is not a tool with a password; it can be used by anyone who knows how to use it.  But if you misuse it, the answers won't be valid and can easily be voided by someone who uses it correctly.

[GaryAnderson]

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.

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

---

I don’t understand you again.

If your reading comprehension is that poor, what does that say about your reading of the magic book?

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?

Your idiotic god created the universe and fine tuned it for life? That is not a fact, not science and not even vaguely rational.

The intelligence of my God is not the point. The point is do you have any problems with anyone using science to support their beliefs?

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened. <--- this is based on a very strong theory*

1 - An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
2 - 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.
3 - A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here? (sic)

Statement 1 says nothing about science/scientific method.
Statement 2 is based on scientific theories that are not particularly strong but worthy of consideration.
Statement 3 is nothing but speculation.  There's no real science there.

So, taken in this context, none of these statements are misusing science.

Thank you !

[quote="The Grand Nudger" pid='2073367' dateline='1635963623']
Understood. You’re a true atheist and don’t allow yourself to ask “why”. Some other people like to ask “why”.

Why does 2 + 2 equal 4?

Because it’s a mathematical brute fact. You’ve heard about brute facts I assume. Like the universe exists - that’s a brute fact.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

That’s not how science works - NO scientific statements are ever proved. Proofs are restricted to mathematics and logical arguments. 

‘Proved in science actually means confirmed to such a high degree of certainty that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse.’ - Issac Asimov. 

Boru

[GaryAnderson]

Dude, these are claims made using science. They can’t be proven. So basically you don’t want anybody to make claims using science. Fair enough.

That’s not how science works - NO scientific statements are ever proved. Proofs are restricted to mathematics and logical arguments. 

‘Proved in science actually means confirmed to such a high degree of certainty that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse.’ - Issac Asimov. 

Boru

You guys are having a lot of trouble with this concept which is why I love you guys so much. I also explained that science is an unbiased strict peer-reviewed process and doesn’t have an opinion or agenda on anything. It just explains HOW things work and sometimes it can answer “Why-s” on different topics.
I am asking if you have any problems with anybody using scientific facts to philosophize about something which can’t be proven by science.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That’s not how science works - NO scientific statements are ever proved. Proofs are restricted to mathematics and logical arguments. 

‘Proved in science actually means confirmed to such a high degree of certainty that to withhold provisional assent would be perverse.’ - Issac Asimov. 

Boru

You guys are having a lot of trouble with this concept which is why I love you guys so much. I also explained that science is a unbiased strict peer-reviewed process and doesn’t have an opinion or agenda on anything. It just explains HOW things work and sometimes it can answers “Why-s” on different topics.
I am asking if you have any problems with anybody using scientific facts to philosophize about something which can’t be proven by science.

Yes.

Boru

[Ranjr]

We should also hold to:

In so far as a scientific statement speaks about reality, it must be falsifiable: and in so far as it is not falsifiable, it does not speak about reality. -- Karl Popper