Oh boy, I finally made it to the 9th page!
I just got through diligently reading the entire thread in order to make an informed comment as I can't wait to learn more about this topic! There have been quite a few informed well-thought-out opinions in this thread that I can't help but admire. Clearly a lot of people here care dearly about this subject in one form or another.
What do I want to say? -Well there were a few inconsistencies in terminology I observed people refer to that I believe would be a benefit to the discussion if we clarified them and which definitions they are referring to.
I would like to clarify (in order of personal importance [1st=most imp.]):-What is science?
-What is faith?
-What is a fact?
-What is a truth?
-What is a theory?
Why I'm posting: Simply put: I care about what's true. It doesn't matter whether I agree with it or not. Truth is independent of what I believe, it does not matter whether I believe it or even acknowledge it. I may be arrogant in assuming everyone agrees with that previous sentence? If not, please inform me if you may.
I am also posting because I
think truth matters regardless of your outlook and/or context on/to it. Also, I
think knowing
the truth can only ever be beneficial and never degrading directly. I may be SUPER arrogant in assuming everyone agrees with THAT previous sentence too? I suppose I'll find out!
Quick definitions and agreements: -Science is (in relevance to this discussion): The
systematic knowledge of the physical or
material world gained through
observation and
experimentation. It is also a way of thinking; it is a way of
skeptically interrogating the world around you. If you do not agree with this, or if you are operating under a different definition, please enlighten me! Also, don't take my word for it, cross-reference me if you so delight. -And please realize, I am genuinely interested in these possible responses; I am not being pretentious.
-Faith is (in relevance to this discussion): A strong or unshakable belief in something, especially without proof or evidence. There are many other definitions to "faith", but I
think this is the assumed definition we are referring to in this discussion? I assume we are talking about 'major' faith? -The kind that gives semblance to your world view? Not faith in your friends to show up for your party, etc...
-A fact is a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true. Now of course, experience may relate to
personal experience, so this term in relation to this discussion would require a modifier, no? Shall we refer to them as
universal facts? That if it is based on an experience, this experience must be shared by all participants and arrive at the same unbiased measurement for it to remain a fact. Now if we admit there are types of facts, then there must be types of truths too?
-A truth (in relevance to this discussion) is a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like. Now I must commend stoopdapoop for linking the
"Criteria of truth" article on Wikipedia, that was very informative and relevant! This is what we're all after right? And whether you're interested in it or not, are you still not subject to it?
-And finally, a theory is (in relevance to this discussion) a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena; more importantly though, the scientific definition for a theory states it must make testable predictions about physical and material phenomena.
New theories replace old theories only if they are able to explain the new unexplainable phenomena while still being able to explain everything the old theory already explained. This is the advantage with science: it is ever growing, and always changing with new information illuminating the edge of the known against that which is unknown. For this is why I love science; it is as far as I know the best tool we have for discovering our universe and the world around us as it really is. It may not be the best system, but it is the best we have for as much as we know.
Science is not biased, and it has no nationality; (example: there is no such thing as Japanese science), it's universal. The same which is true for the Japanese in that example is true for everyone everywhere. Science sponsors skeptical questioning on a regular basis; nothing is sound fact. Let me explain...
A Disclaimer about Science:One disclaimer that should be a given about science is: Everything we know through science is only ever 99% true. What does that mean? We do not know everything, therefore we cannot ever be 100% correct when we say things are true or not. Example: Gravity is true
as far as we know in the observed universe.
We do not know, but it MAY not be true at the center of a black hole. We do not know what happens at the center of one, but that does not change the theory of gravity.....yet. Once we get new information about the ongoings of a black hole, our definition of gravity may change....-or not. "We do not know" is an acceptable answer in science. For the unknown is simply that: unknown.
You may reply with ideas to try and explain the unknown, but without evidence and facts, those ideas can never be anything more than ideas. Your idea may elevate to a hypothesis if it can be tested. And if tested enough with the same conclusion, then that hypothesis may elevate to a new theory if it can predict something we haven't observed or discovered yet.
An example of an idea-turned hypothesis-turned theory: Germ Theory. It was a hypothesis that was used to predict the explanation of infant deaths at birth, and 20 years later, they were able to actually apply it to other fields of science where those predictions came true. Now we know all about germs and bacteria, and you don't have to take anyone's word for it, you can go look at it yourself and observe the same conclusion that was hypothesized and then theorized so long ago.
That same exact science is what powers your computer, airplanes, evolution and the big bang theory just to name a few.
I believe in science because of all this. As far as I know the idea of God/gods cannot be tested independently yet and therefore still remains only an idea along with its implications. Some ideas are more important than others, and I use something like science to evaluate them critically and efficiently to criticize them before attempting to adopt them into my world view/understanding of things. So in regards to the idea of God/gods, I have yet to see evidence of It/them that hasn't already been explained with already established scientific theories. If their explanation lies in the unknown or fields of pseudoscience only, then my default position to It/their existence will be to say, in all efforts of man, nothing has given indisputable evidence toward Its/their validity that I must assume until it comes that it does not exist yet, but I can only ever be 99% sure because again, I do not know everything, and neither does science, so I will live my life as if they do not exist until that information comes to change it, if ever.
Therefore, you could call me an A-deist. Certainly an A-theist. Just as I would imagine most people are A-goblinists, or A-flat Earthists. These positions as I am typing this are as known to me currently default positions in science, and supported by genuine skeptical intrigue and observation about the known universe.
/my beliefs and 2 cents.