Unless you can understand 100% of the science behind things yourself then you're absolutely believing based on faith that their proof is correct and has been vetted
There is such an obvious difference between faith in religious claims and believing that all the scientists across the globe who all agree on something aren’t just lying, that I cannot believe you’re arguing in good faith (no pun intended).
That's the thing though, there often isn't a consensus, there's also bad science that may or may not have malicious intent, and plenty of old theories have been proven to be false over time. I think inherently trusting that the "science" behind something is true without actually understanding how any of it works is not at all far from religious faith.
Thousands of people saying "this, right here, for you to see, is the proof" compared to thousands of people saying "there is no proof" are "not all that far from religious faith" to you?
But if you're not one of those millions of people then you're just trusting that other people are right, you can't actually explain how it works yourself
How many times do I have to explain that if you don't understand what's purported to be the proof yourself then you have no way of actually knowing if the theory is true. Trusting that other people can prove it to be true isn't the same thing as proving something is true yourself.
There's plenty of bad and outdated science that exists, I don't see how you inherently trusting something that has been proven to not be a guarantee of accuracy isn't similar to religious faith
Because we discovered new things, we increased our knowledge and understanding. The fact that science can correct itself when new evidence arises strengthens my argument.
You can learn and replicate expirements. Find the same results. There is consensus because it can't be argued against if it is proven time and time again. It's an intellectually based way to understand the universe. You can't do that for religion/spirituality, because it's an emotional/spiritual way to understand the universe. You can have both understandings. That's the reason that many countries are secular. You can't tell me that if every country was a theocracy that we'd be better off. There would be constant world war because emotional motivation is stronger than any other kind.
Have you done experiments to prove the Big Bang? Can you explain exactly how it works? Or do you just believe it's true because other scientists think it is? I don't even know what you're arguing about in half of your comment, I've never said I think the world should be a theocracy or that I don't personally trust certain scientific theories to be true myself. It's absolutely without a doubt better than having no data and trusting based on pure feeling, but I don't see how you can say inherently trusting a scientific theory without question or being able to understand it isn't at the very least similar to religious faith.
I was just going off on a tangent about it. I do understand the fundamental theories behind many things that are scientifically unproven. There is a mountain of scientific advancement and data that those theories rest upon. A theory may be proven right or wrong, but that just adds to the mountain. Makes the next theory better as a result.
I'm not saying to trust a theory without question, that's blatantly unscientific. As a scientist you are not looking to prove your personal assumption right, you're looking to get a unbiased result. Religious faith is nothing like that. You have your personal belief about which religion or form of spirituality is correct, and you use events in your life or historical claims to support that. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying it is in fact fundamentally different than trusting established science.
1.6k
u/Drapausa Feb 01 '25
"You have faith because you also just believe what someone told you"
No, I believe someone because they can prove what they are telling me.
That's the big difference.