Do you believe in God and why

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, teatime101 said:

'a higher entity' is just another made up term, like 'spirit' and 'god'. They are all meaningless. terms, or I should say, can mean whatever you want them to mean, which is the same thing.

 

The problem with debates about religion vs science is mostly in defining terms. In science, terms must be precisely defined. In religion, there is no way to define key terms, because there is no way to actualise the things being referred to. It's all based on imagination and belief. This semantic vagueness leaves plenty of wiggle room for believers to avoid giving coherent explanations for the things they believe in.

Religion does define terms. It's faith that does not.

 

Just because you think something is meaningless it does not mean you are right. That is just your opinion.

Those with faith belong to a club that the faithless can never understand, because by definition the faithless are closed to faith. To understand the club, one must join the club, and to join the club one has to have faith.

The great thing about faith is that anyone can have it. One just has to be open to that which is unknown by humans. It's not a club that is exclusive. It doesn't ban anyone based on gender, race, sexuality, dress, etc. All are welcome.

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

 

The great thing about faith is that anyone can have it. One just has to be open to that which is unknown by humans. It's not a club that is exclusive. It doesn't ban anyone based on gender, race, sexuality, dress, etc. All are welcome.

Which particular faith are you talking about? There are so many to choose from.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Which particular faith are you talking about? There are so many to choose from.

You are getting confused with religion. Faith is belief in a creator, or something bigger than us, something that can create life the universe and everything. The creator is beyond religion.

[Logosone]

20 hours ago, fredwiggy said:

One religion gets it's knowledge from a book. The Bible. God's words put into writing, so we can learn what he expects from us. Waiting and seeing is what everyone does, but some are better prepared than others. Taking a chance on forever isn't a good idea.

A book that was also used to justify slavery by slave owners.

 

Even genocide.

 

Many of the moral positions in the bible are reprehensible by modern standards.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Logosone

[teatime101]

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

science-believers

I'm curious as to how you come to use a term like this.

 

Are you saying people who accept the scientific consensus on a given topic 'believe in' science, as if it were a religion?

 

How does a statement of science fact become a belief?

 

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by teatime101

[teatime101]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Religion does define terms

Please give examples.

[Walker88]

Rather than violate the guidelines of which I have been reminded, I simply will answer the OP:

 

No, I do not believe. Here is why.

 

The belief systems to which many adhere have a sum total of zero evidence supporting them. None whatsoever. Each is a function of and representative of the time its founders made it up.

 

Most things we call ‘faiths’ arose back in the Bronze Age, when next to nothing was known about the nature of nature or the nature of existence. Societies at that time were mostly led by monarchs, dictators, warlords, strongmen, and other autocrats. When people fabricated their religions, they created deities or a deity that was the equivalent of a warlord, albeit turbocharged with greater supposed powers.

 

Founders imbued their gods and prophets with some of the worst qualities one could find in humans:  vindictiveness, sadism, pique, woeful insecurity, narcissism, and abject cruelty that gets very generously tossed into some catch-all absurdity known as a Master Plan or “strange and mysterious ways”. I don’t think any human would be praised or excused for sending a tsunami that killed 300,000 people, or get adored for the Master Plan that involved putting children through unspeakable pain with cancer. These deities, who supposedly 'always were', had from minus forever until the big bang to come up with a plan, yet couldn't get out the bugs like tsunamis and childhood cancer...unless these deities are not the 'pure love' their followers claim.

 

Founders also convinced people that some deity or deities were just sitting around from time immemorial, then suddenly decided to create a Universe and sprinkle it with beings that would praise and adore the creator, apparently providing a need the creator heretofore had lacked. That is so ‘human’, at least narcissistically human, as to be laughable, and hardly reflects any kind of superiority of character. Only the weak need constant praise.

 

Such deities also made silly rules that threaten some sort of eternal damnation to anyone who did not suck up to and praise the deity. As has been noted in many of the comments on this thread, not adoring someone’s creator is something “you will have to deal with upon your death”. Apparently living a life where goodness is a virtue done not out of fear of some punishment, but because one decides it’s right, isn’t enough of a ticket to get into the various iterations of afterlife paradise. No, one has to worship, adore, thank and praise as part of the entry ticket.  Apparently deities need to have their greatness constantly reinforced lest insecurity slip in. Who the heck would they be in competition with? A beautiful woman might need to hear she is most beautiful, but an omnipotent single deity who was alone until it created a Universe ought to inherently know who's Number One and not need any reinforcement from mortals.

 

Believers also create terribly inconsistent deities, who both are omnipotent and screw up.  Can’t be both. Some faiths claim some sort of intelligent design, when the many unneeded vestiges in the human body (appendix being an example) would get an engineer or architect fired for incompetence. Other faiths seem to suggest quality control problems in the Celestial Factory, so that followers are required to fix the problems in humans (females) who already made their appearance on Earth, by removing their clitoris.

 

For some reason, perhaps expediency, faiths borrow aggressively from each other. Many have virgin births. Many others have great floods (the original great flood was from the Epic of Gilgamesh, but was later plagiarized by Judaism with the unbelievable Noah tale). Most have some sort of human sacrifice, either actually carried out to satisfy the blood lust of some deity, or at least threatened (the first, Aztecs, the second, Abraham and Isaac). Many have rising from the dead. Many justify murder, too (Leviticus is particularly nasty, even justifying abortion "if you think the wife carries the unborn of another man")

 

All of the manufactured deities claim infinite knowledge and wisdom, yet not a single one of their prophets ever shared any knowledge that was not then known. None. Had even one of them shared one morsel of knowledge---say, stating the shape of the planet---that would constitute at least the suggestion of evidence of divinity. None did, so the sum total of evidence that backs up any faith is zero.

 

"That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"---Christopher Hitchens

 

No, I do not choose NOT to believe, but rather see no reason to believe, so I don’t. The old line about "What Can it Hurt?”, known as Pascal’s Wager, is itself flawed, because the gamble has far more than Pascal’s two choices of believe/not believe. Forgetting for a moment that an omnipotent deity would know the sincerity of one’s belief, Pascal chose not to note that there are a myriad of faiths from which one could place his bet, and damnation would be the price if the choice was wrong. Either/or is 50:50, but given that there are maybe twenty major or semi-major faiths in human history, one is only working with, at best, 5% odds of success. Let's say one gambles on Scientology, but finds out it's all about Zeus? One remembers Prometheus and shudders to think of the punishment for a bad choice.

 

One need not have a belief in deities to be moral. The very fact that there are moral people who believe in the millions of gods in Hinduism, or the single god of many other competing faiths, is proof that humans, not some mythical deity, is the source of morality. Thus, faith is completely unnecessary, but merely an option for those who need it.

 

I am not forcing my lack of belief on anyone. We are all free to choose. I merely answer the OP's question as to why I do not believe. I appreciate many people need the security of a belief system that allows them to think this brief moment of existence isn't all they will get. Non-existence is uncomfortable for many, though it certainly did not seem to bother anyone before their birth.  At the same time, I'm quite opposed to any sort of forced tithing to a church (in much of Europe) or tax breaks for faiths (the US). Freedom of worship is fine, but freedom from taxation is unfair.

Edited May 5, 2020 by Walker88

[giddyup]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You are getting confused with religion. Faith is belief in a creator, or something bigger than us, something that can create life the universe and everything. The creator is beyond religion.

Not at all. It's quite common to hear the question "what particular faith do you belong to", which can't possibly mean anything other than which religious order.

[Peter Denis]

10 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

I'm curious as to how you come to use a term like this.

Are you saying people who accept the scientific consensus on given topic 'believe in' science, as if it were a religion?

 

How does a statement of science fact become a belief?

I wrote > hardcore science-believers (which is not same as a scientists)

And yes, I am referring to those that 'believe' in science as the sole and only truth.  They are of course entitled to their belief, but unfortunately they have a tendency (hence my use of the term 'hardcore') to dismiss all other world-views as nonsense and backward superstition.

Many of the greatest scientists  - past and present - were religious in the sense of being spiritually inclined and their scientific work did not abolish but actually strengthened their belief in a greater plan and meaning in what they observed.

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, rather they describe reality from a different perspective and since there is only One Reality both are correct.

 

[mauGR1]

29 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

The belief systems to which many adhere have a sum total of zero evidence supporting them. None whatsoever. Each is a function of and representative of the time its founders made it up.

 

Most things we call ‘faiths’ arose back in the Bronze Age, when next to nothing was known about the nature of nature or the nature of existence.

I stopped reading there, because i don't tolerate lies.

We know very little about what you call "bronze age" and there is no way you could know what the ordinary folk, or the wise folk did know and see at that time.

Actually, you have no idea.

I am not interested, of course, to convince you, or even debate with you, but i wanted just let you know that not everyone is gullible enough to believe what you say.

Have a nice day.

[giddyup]

11 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

I stopped reading there, because i don't tolerate lies.

We know very little about what you call "bronze age" and there is no way you could know what the ordinary folk, or the wise folk did know and see at that time.

Actually, you have no idea.

I am not interested, of course, to convince you, or even debate with you, but i wanted just let you know that not everyone is gullible enough to believe what you say.

Have a nice day.

Try Googling "Bronze Age Religion".

[keith101]

Absolutely not the only thing to believe in is EVOLUTION proven facts not some ancient belief . Just have a look at how the Catholics covered up all the pedophiles priests etc. . 

[Walker88]

39 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Try Googling "Bronze Age Religion".

That fellow is continually posting under my posts that "I stopped reading right there", yet goes on to to say "not everyone is gullible enough to believe what you say".

 

If he 'stopped reading right there', he is unlikely to be authoritative regarding what things I say that others won't be 'gullible enough to believe'.

 

I've always been curious what rationale the 'faithful' have for why an entity supposedly existing from minus forever, somehow needed to manufacture a massive Universe then toss some creatures on it one of whose jobs would be to let the constantly thank the entity and tell it how great it is. As I wrote, that is just so horribly human in its gritty need that it pretty much gives away the game right there. It's either that or perfection and eternity are 'god awful' boring and the entity decided to make some friends.

[Sunmaster]

Just now, keith101 said:

Absolutely not the only thing to believe in is EVOLUTION proven facts not some ancient belief . Just have a look at how the Catholics covered up all the pedophiles priests etc. . 

Ehm, what exactly have pedophiles got to do with believing in a higher power?? 

[Sunmaster]

Just now, Walker88 said:

That fellow

I stopped reading right there. ????

[Walker88]

2 minutes ago, keith101 said:

Absolutely not the only thing to believe in is EVOLUTION proven facts not some ancient belief . Just have a look at how the Catholics covered up all the pedophiles priests etc. . 

A professor I once had told a good joke about Evolution:

 

"For every so-called Missing Link one finds, you create two more".

 

Critics of evolution seem to need a continuous stream of morphing entities. The archeological record and comparative biology apparently are insufficient.

 

One reason science is so entertaining is that scientists can often decipher something and come up with a formula that works every time, without even understanding the underlying cause. Gravity is an example. One can calculate the 'weight' of someone on Earth, project the weight on the moon or Jupiter, yet still not understand the source of that force. They can send a rocket up to the moon and know exactly both where the moon will be when the rocket gets in its vicinity, but also factor in the gravitational pull of the moon, the Earth and the sun that effect the movement of the rocket, yet not know why the foirces happen. Fortunately for the most part we all believe in the 'Theory of Gravity' and don't think we can walk off a cliff and simply hang there for a moment like the coyote chasing the road runner.

[Sunmaster]

1 minute ago, Walker88 said:

A professor I once had told a good joke about Evolution:

 

"For every so-called Missing Link one finds, you create two more".

 

Critics of evolution seem to need a continuous stream of morphing entities. The archeological record and comparative biology apparently are insufficient.

 

One reason science is so entertaining is that scientists can often decipher something and come up with a formula that works every time, without even understanding the underlying cause. Gravity is an example. One can calculate the 'weight' of someone on Earth, project the weight on the moon or Jupiter, yet still not understand the source of that force. They can send a rocket up to the moon and know exactly both where the moon will be when the rocket gets in its vicinity, but also factor in the gravitational pull of the moon, the Earth and the sun that effect the movement of the rocket, yet not know why the foirces happen. Fortunately for the most part we all believe in the 'Theory of Gravity' and don't think we can walk off a cliff and simply hang there for a moment like the coyote chasing the road runner.

True that.

Some scientists can even talk (with self appointed authority) about spirituality, yet have no clue about the underlying causes or the least bit of inside knowledge. ????  
And the funny thing is, some people listen to those theories and automatically nod their heads in agreement, without understanding the subject either. It's like the blind leading the blind.  ????

 

 

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, mauGR1 said:

I stopped reading there, because i don't tolerate lies.

We know very little about what you call "bronze age" and there is no way you could know what the ordinary folk, or the wise folk did know and see at that time.

Actually, you have no idea.

I am not interested, of course, to convince you, or even debate with you, but i wanted just let you know that not everyone is gullible enough to believe what you say.

Have a nice day.

Gullible enough to believe what?  That there is absolutely no evidence that any faith is real? 

 

If you 'stopped reading right there', how do you know 'what I say'?

 

Do you have some evidence that the bible wasn't written from around 500BC up until around 300AD, and was actually written in the Gilded Age or thereafter, when the nature of nature was better known?

 

You're not sharing with me anything I don't already know about the fact some people will cling to their belief system no matter how much evidence to the contrary arises. There are still those who believe the Earth is flat.

 

Since believers and Flat Earthers are only a threat to humanity if they quash the ongoing discoveries of science that may one day pull all humanity out of poverty, I have no problem with whatever anyone chooses to believe, so long as they stay out of the way of scientific discovery and progress.

[Walker88]

1 hour ago, Peter Denis said:

I wrote > hardcore science-believers (which is not same as a scientists)

And yes, I am referring to those that 'believe' in science as the sole and only truth.  They are of course entitled to their belief, but unfortunately they have a tendency (hence my use of the term 'hardcore') to dismiss all other world-views as nonsense and backward superstition.

Many of the greatest scientists  - past and present - were religious in the sense of being spiritually inclined and their scientific work did not abolish but actually strengthened their belief in a greater plan and meaning in what they observed.

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, rather they describe reality from a different perspective and since there is only One Reality both are correct.

 

"Many of the greatest scientists"...

 

Einstein? Feynman? von Neuman? Maxwell? Oppenheimer? Dyson?

 

No.

 

 

 

 

[mauGR1]

6 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

Gullible enough to believe what?  That there is absolutely no evidence that any faith is real? 

 

If you 'stopped reading right there', how do you know 'what I say'?

 

Do you have some evidence that the bible wasn't written from around 500BC up until around 300AD, and was actually written in the Gilded Age or thereafter, when the nature of nature was better known?

 

You're not sharing with me anything I don't already know about the fact some people will cling to their belief system no matter how much evidence to the contrary arises. There are still those who believe the Earth is flat.

 

Since believers and Flat Earthers are only a threat to humanity if they quash the ongoing discoveries of science that may one day pull all humanity out of poverty, I have no problem with whatever anyone chooses to believe, so long as they stay out of the way of scientific discovery and progress.

This thread is 1 year long.

We have been discussing the very same points all year long.

You may have some interesting things to say, no doubt, but i know for experience that debating with you would be useless.

I am interested in both science and spirituality, but you dismiss spirituality and put all your faith in science.

Perhaps tomorrow i'll change my mind, but today you'll have to find someone else to talk to.

Bye.

[CharlieH]

Faith : strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

 

Belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

 

Therefore if someone has "faith" & "belief" in whatever, there is no argument, as its what they choose, who is anyone to dissuade or judge what someone else chooses to have faith in, as it requires no proof, just a belief.

 

Each to his own belief and what they choose to have faith in.

 

 

 

 

[falang1969]

I always found it difficult to accept when most wars are over religion!

I think the bible and stuff is a load of mumbo jumbo, bit like "old wives tales".

Funnily though, when I think I'm about to deal with a life threatening situation, I start to believe!

[Peter Denis]

8 minutes ago, Walker88 said:

"Many of the greatest scientists"...

Einstein? Feynman? von Neuman? Maxwell? Oppenheimer? Dyson?

No.

It's ironic that you mentioned Einstein to prove your case that great scientists must almost by definition be of atheist conviction.

A true story to 'enlighten' you...

 

In January of 1936, a school girl named Phyllis wrote to Einstein to ask whether you could believe in science and religion. He was quick to reply.

 

My dear Dr. Einstein,

We have brought up the question: 'Do scientists pray?' in our Sunday school class. It began by asking whether we could believe in both science and religion. We are writing to scientists and other important men, to try and have our own question answered.
We will feel greatly honored if you will answer our question: Do scientists pray, and what do they pray for?
We are in the sixth grade, Miss Ellis's class.
Respectfully yours,
Phyllis

 

He replied a few days later:

 

Dear Phyllis,

I will attempt to reply to your question as simply as I can. Here is my answer:

Scientists believe that every occurrence, including the affairs of human beings, is due to the laws of nature. Therefore a scientist cannot be inclined to believe that the course of events can be influenced by prayer, that is, by a supernaturally manifested wish.

However, we must concede that our actual knowledge of these forces is imperfect, so that in the end the belief in the existence of a final, ultimate spirit rests on a kind of faith. Such belief remains widespread even with the current achievements in science.

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

With cordial greetings,

your A. Einstein

 

[teatime101]

39 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Some scientists can even talk (with self appointed authority) about spirituality, yet have no clue about the underlying causes or the least bit of inside knowledge.

But, what is 'spirituality', apart from one's subjective experience? How can we share the same 'spiritual experience' unless we know what is? And if we both know what it is, how can we communicate that to others who don't?

I thought I knew what 'spirituality' meant when I was a young man. Now, I confess I have no idea what it means.

 

Perhaps  a few here can give their own definition of spirituality, and we can see if there is a common, ie. objectively verifiable, component...

Edited May 5, 2020 by teatime101

[teatime101]

2 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

Science and spirituality are not mutually exclusive, rather they describe reality from a different perspective and since there is only One Reality both are correct.

'Science' is neither correct nor incorrect. It's a method involving, among other things, hypothesis, observation, analysis and explanation. 

 

Spirituality... what is it? How can it be 'correct'? What does this even mean? 

 

As for 'One Reality'... How can there be more than one? I'm genuinely puzzled by this kind of language.

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

But, what is 'spirituality', apart from one's subjective experience? How can we share the same 'spiritual experience' unless we know what is? And if we both know what it is, how can we communicate that to others who don't?

I thought I knew what 'spirituality' meant when I was a young man. Now, I confess I have no idea what it means.

The way I see it, spirituality is what you do when you're attracted to and in pursuit of matters that concern the human spirit. 
My subjective experience may not be the same as yours, but it certainly has similarities which allow us to communicate and discuss the common ground. If that weren't so, there would be no teacher - student relationship. How could anyone pass on his knowledge and wisdom, if his subjective experience were totally alien to the student? No, there are rules and laws of cause and effect in the spiritual practice, just like in other scientific fields. Experiences are repeatable and can be verified by peers, just like in other scientific fields. 
Am I saying spirituality is science? No. Well, not in a strict sense of course. We're not dealing with hard data of numbers. You can not expect to fit the round block in a square hole, so to speak.
What you can do, is to get familiar with spirituality's own laws and rules. To do that, it is not enough to read a couple of books or watch some YouTube videos. The only way to really know and understand (not to blindly believe!) is to practice a meditative or introspective technique every day, even for only 20 minutes. 
God's door can not be opened by fancy intellectual discourses, nor by precise scientific scrutiny.

Only daily work on yourself will allow you to take some glimpses behind the curtain.
Know thyself...and you will know God.

 

Edited May 5, 2020 by Sunmaster

[teatime101]

27 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

But also, everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man. In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is surely quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive.

Also Einstein:

 

“I believe in Spinoza’s God,” Einstein wrote to a New York rabbi in 1929, “Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

...

This might be seen as akin to the 'Intelligent Designer'...

 

My question is - does being amazingly good at science give you any special spiritual insights? I am huge fan of Van Gogh, and he was definitely, and intensely, 'spiritual', by his own words.

 

Van Gogh:

This [revealing God in nature] is far from theology, simply the fact that the poorest little woodcutter or peasant on the hearth or miner can have moments of emotion and inspiration which give him a feeling of an eternal home and of being close to it. . . . At times there is something indescribable in those aspects—all nature seems to speak. . . . As for me, I cannot understand why everybody does not see it and feel it; nature or God does it for everyone who has eyes and ears and a heart to understand. For this reason I think a painter is happy because he is in harmony with nature as soon as he can express a little of what he sees. And that’s a great thing—one knows what one has to do, there is an abundance of subjects . . . (Letter 248).

 

Who is more to be believed, Einstein or Van Gogh? How about the pious old lady selling fried bananas down the road? Is her spirituality of equal weight to these great men?

 

They clearly each experience different types of 'spirituality'. What gives any of their 'beliefs' weight? Their conviction? Is that sufficient? If so, then how about flat earthers and anti-vaxxers, and rabid nutters like David Icke? Should we just accept all of these beliefs as 'correct'?

Edited May 5, 2020 by teatime101

[Sunmaster]

3 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

Also Einstein:

 

“I believe in Spinoza’s God,” Einstein wrote to a New York rabbi in 1929, “Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

...

This might be seen as akin to the 'Intelligent Designer'...

 

My question is - does being amazingly good at science give you any special spiritual insights? I am huge fan of Van Gogh, and he was definitely, and intensely, 'spiritual', by his own words.

 

Van Gogh:

This [revealing God in nature] is far from theology, simply the fact that the poorest little woodcutter or peasant on the hearth or miner can have moments of emotion and inspiration which give him a feeling of an eternal home and of being close to it. . . . At times there is something indescribable in those aspects—all nature seems to speak. . . . As for me, I cannot understand why everybody does not see it and feel it; nature or God does it for everyone who has eyes and ears and a heart to understand. For this reason I think a painter is happy because he is in harmony with nature as soon as he can express a little of what he sees. And that’s a great thing—one knows what one has to do, there is an abundance of subjects . . . (Letter 248).

 

Who is more to be believed, Einstein or Van Gogh? How about the pious old lady selling fried bananas down the road? Is her spirituality of equal weight to these great men?

 

They clearly each experience different types of 'spirituality'. What gives any of their 'beliefs' weight? Their conviction? Is that sufficient? If so, then how about flat earthers and anti-vaxxers, and rabid nutters like David Icke? Should we just accept all of these beliefs as 'correct'?

Why do you concern yourself with other people's spirituality? What good will it bring you to know if the banana lady is more spiritual than Einstein?
Spirituality is a personal thing...you have to discover it by yourself. 
However, if you decide that you really want a piece of it and are looking for someone who can teach you how to obtain it, then it is important to choose the right person. Discernment is important.

[sirineou]

4 minutes ago, teatime101 said:

'Science' is neither correct nor incorrect. It's a method involving, among other things, hypothesis, observation, analysis and explanation. 

 

Spirituality... what is it? How can it be 'correct'? What does this even mean? 

 

As for 'One Reality'... How can there be more than one? I'm genuinely puzzled by this kind of language.

You are absolutely right!

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding by some as to what Science is ,and I believe it is because it is used to describe two different things , and people confuse the context in which it is used.

 Science is not a thing , it is a process by which a person arrives at a conclusion. (the Scientific method) it can neither be right or not, because if it is wrong ,it is not the Scientific method . Then people would say, "Yes but in the past it came to wrong conclusions so Science can be wrong" .

No science was not wrong, the available information at the time was wrong.  (garbage in, garbage out)

 

Then we have the "Science of" which describes the method used to arrive at a particular conclusion in a specific field. The Science of (chose a field) and it describes the disciplines involved and the processes  used to explore that particular field.

People confuse the two, and say "Science" is wrong , where what they wanted to say is that in a particular field, the methodology used to arrive at a particular conclusion is problematic. 

[teatime101]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Why do you concern yourself with other people's spirituality?

Because it has consequences in the real world.

 

If people didn't mix spiritual feelings with the objective, shared space called planet earth, it might be fine, but the fact is they clash in significant ways.

 

The anti-science attitude of many religious people is evident, even in this forum. As I said, that has consequences, as *some* religious believers refuse to accept the scientific consensus on issues that effect all of us - climate change, for instance.

 

Believe what you like, but accept that scientists, by and large, are experts in their respective fields.