Controversial Opinions (For Everything Other Than DC Comics)

[Tuck]

An obnoxious atheist and an obnoxious fundamentalist are often going to have very similar views of religions the fundamentalist isn't part of.

[Kirby101]

With stuff like the Many-World Theory and even String Theory being treated like soundly tested theories they are not far from the truth in that criticism.

Nope, not even close. Those are sound scientific theories that work according to our present knowledge, but they are untested and not accepted. They are theories that need evidence to show whether they are actually true or not. Scientist do not dogmatically say, String Theory is true no matter what comes up. They say the math works, but lets see if it is a predictive model. This is how they recently found the Higgs boson, or proved Relativity to be right.

Scientist do not say, "I have no proof, I just have faith". It is the opposite. They need objective confirmation.

Science is nothing like religious dogma and I hate this fallacy.

[DrNewGod]

An obnoxious atheist and an obnoxious fundamentalist are often going to have very similar views of religions the fundamentalist isn't part of.

Excellent point. As a friend of mine likes to say, we shouldn't make fun of anyone's imaginary friends.

[Kirby101]

Or believers are atheists about every other God but theirs.

[Jack Dracula]

Sadly the biggest one in the US does do exactly that, in fact I have seen Science referred to as a Faith/Belief on these very boards.

With stuff like the Many-World Theory and even String Theory being treated like soundly tested theories they are not far from the truth in that criticism.

The important distintion is that with regards to science, it's a faith in the idea that eventually the big questions will be answered through a rigourous process of experimentation and verification of results. Science is the evolution of factual knowledge.
Religion is a constant re-hashing of existing information with no actual proof in an effort to prop up already held beliefs. It's static. There is no evolution of ideas, in fact expansive reinterpretation is frowned upon.

[Tuck]

Or believers are atheists about every other God but theirs.

Well, there's Perennial Philosophy that sort of ties all religion together as cultural expressions of universal beliefs or truths or whatever (I haven't really read much about it, just aware of it).

[Kirby101]

Well, there's Perennial Philosophy that sort of ties all religion together as cultural expressions of universal beliefs or truths or whatever (I haven't really read much about it, just aware of it).

Too bad nobody told the hardcore believers about that.

[DrNewGod]

The important distintion is that with regards to science, it's a faith in the idea that eventually the big questions will be answered through a rigourous process of experimentation and verification of results. Science is the evolution of factual knowledge.
Religion is a constant re-hashing of existing information with no actual proof in an effort to prop up already held beliefs. It's static. There is no evolution of ideas, in fact expansive reinterpretation is frowned upon.

That depends on whether the scientist is a positivist or relativist. If the latter, it's more a faith that those questions that can be answered through rigorous process will be, and there may be some truths that are simply unknowable (or far enough beyond our observational and/or perceptual capacities to amount to unknowables).

[WillieMorgan]

I don't know, honestly I feel like religious belief in general gets mocked pretty badly on the regular … particularly by some people who consider themselves smarter than average, which is kind of related to how flat-earthers apparently think they are smarter than average.

I'm not personally going to assign myself arbiter of what anyone else should believe, but I do think people who consider their atheism as some sign of superior intelligence are giving themselves a bit too much credit. Of course religious faith defies what is objectively and undeniably real; if it didn't, faith would not be required. You're not forging some kind of new intellectual territory by saying the thing that is impossible according to everyday observation and experience seems impossible to you; of course it does!

But, while the average believer may have an understanding or argument for their faith that is sadly lacking, the fact is that there have been people much smarter than your average atheist, who have made complex arguments for faith. I consider myself relatively bright, and I'm well aware of when philosophers have basically left me in the dust. Sadly, a lot of people only as bright as me or less so, seem to have some illusions on the matter.

I'm going to assume from that post that you yourself have religious belief. I've no doubt that you've come across some arrogant and condescending atheists in your time. Equating their 'misplaced' levels of intelligence with that of flat-earthers just doesn't hold weight though.

Believers in science and rationality base their worldview on very easily achievable and demonstrable proofs. Evidence to support the scientific model is on permanent display all around us, all the time. We all did the experiments in school right? There's a reason they all worked and hopefully imparted knowledge to all the children that practised or witnessed them. Science isn't dogmatic either, if a new level of understanding comes into being then the scientific model adopts that new learning rather than furiously trying to discredit it. Nearly every single facet of our modern day society is entirely dependant on our current scientific knowledge being true and useful in helping to make our lives happier, healthier and more convenient. This isn't just some claptrap that we've thrown together to suit our own purposes.

The diatribes offered by the flat-earth movement, creationism, geocentrism and the rest are always centred around stories or theories that can be very easily disproved and are often proffered for ulterior motives. Their imagined intellectual superiority on any level is entirely delusional. Understanding how the reality that surrounds us works may sometimes come across as arrogant to a believer but the rationale behind it is entirely sound.

[DrNewGod]

...Science isn't dogmatic either, if a new level of understanding comes into being then the scientific model adopts that new learning rather than furiously trying to discredit it...

Honestly, that kind of depends on the scientist. I agree with you in that rejecting a new idea in science requires winning a logic duel, usually backed up with a more accurate, refuting data analysis. There are, however, scholars out there that will fight to the death rather than have one of their findings disputed, or even subjected to boundary conditions. Unfortunately, because our measures and methods tend to be less-than perfect, it's not too hard for theoretical orthodoxy to attack controversial findings. Old ideas usually don't get overturned by a single finding. It takes a dogpile of replication to make us rewrite the books.

As an ideal, I agree with your statement of what science should be. In practice, it can be somewhat messier.

[WillieMorgan]

Honestly, that kind of depends on the scientist. I agree with you in that rejecting a new idea in science requires winning a logic duel, usually backed up with a more accurate, refuting data analysis. There are, however, scholars out there that will fight to the death rather than have one of their findings disputed, or even subjected to boundary conditions. Unfortunately, because our measures and methods tend to be less-than perfect, it's not too hard for theoretical orthodoxy to attack controversial findings. Old ideas usually don't get overturned by a single finding. It takes a dogpile of replication to make us rewrite the books.

As an ideal, I agree with your statement of what science should be. In practice, it can be somewhat messier.

Maybe that last post was a tad idealistic but I still feel that the point it made is sound overall. However slow moving scientific progress can sometimes be is still a world away from somehow managing to get your mitts on a gyroscope and then completely rejecting everything that it tells you because it isn't confirming your outlandish beliefs .

I completely agree with your point though.

[Moon Ronin]

Etiquette. Not to be a jerk about it or anything, but it just seems an odd instance of sounding a word out.

I'm dyslexic so spelling is not one of my biggest strong points

[Kirby101]

The good thing about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.

[Kirby101]

I'm dyslexic so spelling is not one of my biggest strong points

I raeh uoy orB.

[DrNewGod]

The good think about science is it doesn't depend on some one scientist somewhere agreeing or disagreeing. It is a collective process that comes to conclusions based on consensus formed by the evidence. Einstein did not like Quantum Mechanics, but even he could not stop it's validity being accepted.

There's an old saying: "science advances one funeral at a time."