Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

o_O.Q said:

Hedra42 said:

Your claim was "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

The link does not substantiate the claim because it is about medical practices that were based on scientific observations and the available evidence of the time. They probably did have successes with leeches in the past, otherwise they wouldn't have been as widely used as they were, but we are talking about science today. Your link actually shows that modern medicine still uses leeches in certain circumstances, but this is based on the scientific evidence of the benefits of anti-bloodclotting agents in their saliva, not faith.

No, that was not your point, and it has been deliberately taken out of context. Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

My point was that the scientists of the day were unknowingly working on hoaxed evidence, and came up with reasonable claims based on their observations. Despite these initially accepted claims, there was an unease about the authenticity of the bones which, back then, couldn't yet be proved. This unease, and the subsequent testing and re-testing until the truth was revealed had nothing to do with faith.

No, not after decades of faith in bs, as you so eloquently put it, it was after decades of wasted research and thought trying to fit these relics into the record of human evolution, and decades of uneasiness and speculation over the authenticity of the find, according to your own evidence.

You said "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

Scientists test hypotheses and theories based on existing evidence and observations, to ascertain proof and further their knowledge. If new discoveries are made, they may need to modify their hypotheses and theories. Sometimes a new discovery might turn a theory on its head, or lead to a medical breakthrough that makes existing practices look primitive and cumbersome in comparison. That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time.

Every step forward in science provides the foundation for the next, providing successes to build on and lessons to learn by. Even as they pass into obsolescence, every scientific advancement is still as vitally important historically as today's cutting edge developments.

The theory of the origin of the universe was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding.

Personally, I think that based on the evidence so far, the big bang theory is plausible, but it is incomplete - it doesn't answer questions like what caused the expansion, or whether what we are observing is the first such instance of the expansion of the universe. There are questions still to be answered about the nature of the contents of the universe which may, in time, change the way we understand its origins, and the theories that go with it.

But I don't 'believe in the big bang' just because it's the big bang, and nor do scientists.

Now, on to the quotes of your claims - which I had hoped you would provide supporting evidence for, but I see that you haven't.

Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion?

Where is your supporting evidence that science has caused more loss of life than religion? (using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it)

The rest of your 'claims' don't have supporting evidence either, but I'll respond to them anyway

I didn't voice my disagreement with anything. I am asking for supporting evidence on your argument against Permalite's statement.

I picked up on that quote of yours because it specifically attributes ignorance and greed to the practitioners of science. Where is your evidence? Don't try to get out of it by now applying these attributes to everyone.

I have already explained how scientific progress works, and I believe Permalite has, too. Again, I am asking for supporting evidence for your response to Permalites statement.

I rest my case.

By your response, you have said that maybe we should never have progressed from the stone age. You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion, and you have claimed, without supporting evidence, that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion.

You have failed to give proper evidence supporting your claim that scientists work on faith, and you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith. You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'.

And all you can come back with is a question about a problem with dodos? That's why I think a proper discussion is off the agenda.

"Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence""

ok i didn't remember that i said presently, so that was a mistake, but i mean obviously if you believe that we'll make progress as we refine our technology then there'll be methods and ideas that we use now that will be discarded

its a perpetual practice for humanity, but regardless as a present example i'd mention singularities

" That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time."

but we aren't looking at this from the context of being there at the time but from here in the present

"The theory of the origin of the universe was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. "

really? you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?

"Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought)"

i'd disagree with that, for example, religious people look for their proof in their holy books

i know that faith is defined as belief with evidence but i don't think that's really the case, i think the hang up is with regards to what type of evidence

"Where is your supporting evidence that nobody can disagree with the fact that science has a more negative impact than religion?"

you reworded what i said, this is what i said and i already addressed this but lets go again then

“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

all situations where the planet has been damaged on a large scale by humans have been caused by science... examples would be oil spills, bombings, nuclear tests, nuclear accidents etc etc etc

can you forward anything on the religious side that is comparable?

"using the word arguably is not a get-out clause. If there's an argument for something, there should be something supporting it"

the billions of people that have died throughout the centuries due to guns, knives, swords, bombs, synthetic substances etc etc etc do you have a counterpoint?

"You have made unsubstantiated claims that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. "

but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?

you're pretty much expecting me to argue something that's fundamental to existence, like asking me to prove that water is wet

wouldn't it be stupid for me to ask you to prove that water is wet? that's what you're doing right now

". You have claimed, without supporting evidence, that science has caused more loss of life than religion"

this is a lie

"that nobody can disagree that science has had a more negative impact than religion."

and this is a misquote presumably to worm away from the answer i gave

"ou have demonstrated a lack of understanding of the difference between theory/hypothesis and faith."

can you show me where i said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith?

the practices i spoke of were not regarded as hypotheses, they were accepted as verified treatments at the time... to try to use that to say that i have said that a hypothesis and faith are the same thing is a looooooooonnnnnnnnnnng stretch

" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'."

uh are you really denying that piltdown man was a lie? i could see you trying to make that argument for the medical procedures sure but piltdown man? lol

uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol

so people that bled people out to cure them weren't ignorant? ok lol

and finally as i said above the procedures i referred to were not regarded as hypotheses... its not like these people were coming to this from the pov of testing the validity of the procedures, they were accepted as legitimate during those time periods

that would be like saying that if we find better cancer treatment methods in the future, that radiation therapy was just a "hypothesis" lol

I will tackle each of your responses to those statements of mine that you've quoted, in the boxes below.

"Your point was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence""

its a perpetual practice for humanity, but regardless as a present example i'd mention singularities

" That doesn't mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as 'faith in bs'. It was valid science of the time."

but we aren't looking at this from the context of being there at the time but from here in the present

You had, up until this point, been arguing about scientists in the past using faith in their work in the absence of future evidence, and I responded that this wasn't the case. So I am assuming that you are now arguing that scientists of the present use faith in their work.

"The theory of the origin of the universe was developed based on observations and evidence. People may support this theory, but to say people believe in it is wrong. "

really? you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?

You said in a previous post that we were talking about people who are educated on the subject. Please do not move the goalposts.

"Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought)"

i'd disagree with that, for example, religious people look for their proof in their holy books

i know that faith is defined as belief with evidence but i don't think that's really the case, i think the hang up is with regards to what type of evidence

For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work.

On to the (still) unsupported claims. For convenience, I have copied them from a previous post and put them in the box here.

“i do think science has had more significant negative impacts on the planet than religion... and i don't think anyone can really disagree with that”

“The development of these and other weapons and the other peripheral effects i touched briefly on (global warming for example) have arguably lead to the loss of more life than the conflicts of religion have...”

(in response to Pemalite’s comment "Ironically, it's the far-right, typically religious conservatives that are against the idea of things like climate change and thus the solution to many of those issues you have listed.")

"how is it ironic? it could only be ironic if religion caused the problem to begin with... i'd argue that since religion is against technology advancement that its actually quite the opposite"

"i think what you are missing is that " ignorance, greed" are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science "

(In response to Pemalite’s “That's not evidence that the Scientific Community uses faith.

That is just evidence that the Science wasn't fully understood.")

"they had faith that the evidence presented in these cases was accurate and as a result they used harmful procedures or pushed lies... how can you really deny that?"

(Hedra42 said:) I would love to see some real supporting evidence for these. Maybe then we could have a proper discussion.

Note that I didn't ask for you to give your own clarifications, I asked for supporting evidence - twice. So far you have not provided any evidence, and I will therefore not be drawn into any discussion about them.