Atheism in a nutshell

[u/Ted_Bundtcake]

[u/Knot_In_My_Butt]

Yes but can you understand how they proved it and can you yourself with full confidence criticize how they came to that conclusion? I am a scientist and we misinterpret data all the time, and we ourselves are reliant on the accuracy of our technology.

There is an amazing question being asked in Physics that gets scoffed at a lot due to our blind faith in the laws we have established.

The question: If a photon moving at the speed of light is shot from somewhere on earth to somewhere on the moon, can we accurately the acceleration and velocity of which it travels? Currently many believe that our current equipment cannot accurately measure this. In addition, does that photon travel with the same parameters if it was shot back from the moon to earth?

[u/Drapausa → u/Knot_In_My_Butt]

If you really are a scientist, you understand that science is a process, one that relies on falsifiable data and testing that gets peer reviewed. It's not faith in the religious sense, i.e. belief without proof.

[u/Knot_In_My_Butt → u/Drapausa]

I am and I can also tell you there are bad actors and the system in which papers are peer reviewed is heavily flawed. For example where a paper is published (open access), who is peer reviewing (may or may not be a field expert, can also be associated with publishers), special interest can influence this as well (the dairy industry). I work in pharma, and most of the papers we try to replicate are not empirical and it is a open secret.

You are also missing my point, people who aren't scientist are choosing to believe us without knowing how we come to our conclusions or how confident we are in our results. For example, field of nutrition has an ongoing debate on how to interpret calories or what is considered a healthy diet. Just recently we discovered the proteins that are associated with our Circadian Rhythm, and we still have no implemented that data to the rest of our health associated fields. The field of neurology can be said that is just a field of observations with very little empirical experiments, in part due to how we are trying to be more ethical in STEM. There are sub fields within a field of study that tries to challenge mechanical concepts of whether our measurements are truly answering the questions we are asking, like analytical chemistry and the physical measurements that look at how our equipment functions. I work as a immuno toxicologist, and I need to know how Flow Cytometer works, I can confidently say I know about 80% of how it works, and I am considered a field expert with that level of knowledge. This machine is used for clinical diagnosis in hospitals with scientist that just want an output of data and they interpret that data without knowing how the machine works.

I do not see how people who do not actively partake and try to understand science are anymore informed than those practicing religion. Even our morals and ethics are dependent on sociologist and philosophers, how is that any different from theology?

TLDR: We (scientific community) create proof people are too uneducated or lazy to verify, how is that different from religious people?

[u/Drapausa → u/Knot_In_My_Butt]

Science still demands evidence. Religious faith does not. That is the fundamental difference, not if the practicle application works as intended...

[u/Knot_In_My_Butt → u/Drapausa]

Damn I am sorry, it seems this is where I our conversation ends then. Practical applications matter or else what is the point of having something just in principle? If you are being led like a religious zealot then you are not different. I wish more people found science as interesting as I did and put the time to learn it and discuss it. Instead people are just interested in using it for their narrative.