Do you still have... Faith?

Now then, we atheists/agnostics like to believe in evolution. We like to explain things with science and we BELIEVE in science. We have FAITH in science. But, maybe science is controlled in much the same way as religion? Maybe there are some things which are merely conjured up to fit our world view and anything that opposes that view gets pushed under the carpet? Just maybe... Maybe we're not as smart as we think and we're no better than religious fundamentalists when it comes down to it?

Here's an interesting video that cites many strong cases for disputing conventional Darwinism: http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/forbidden-archaeology-human-devolution Note: I am interested only in the facts presented, many of which I am willing to admit may not be true, this guy also presents some personal spiritual views with very little backing which kind of ruins his otherwise good presentation.

It is important, when one has liberated one's self from dogma imposed by others, when one has broken the chains binding the mind and locked with a key held by an unseen hand from above, to not be subject to one's own dogma, to one's own chains. After all, god or no god, who is really in control of your mind?

 

The operative word is "maybe". Maybe there is even a Flying Spaghetti Monster after all. I have mixed emotions about your post. I'm a Christian, so I've opted for a bet on God and Jesus. And the theory of evolution, like every other scientific theory, is fallible, because its the product of our fallible human intellect. That's the human condition.

That being said, I believe in evolution by process of natural selection, because it's at least a scientific theory rather than an exercise in apologetics. The theory is based on evidence from a wide variety of sources: the fossil record, genetics, molecular sequences, comaparative anatomy,etc. Like any scientific theory it is tentative and refutable--one rabbit fossil in the Cambrian away from being discredited. So far, no rabbits.

Contrast this to the alternatives. We have the work of "creation science", an inaccurate name for a discipline that has produced not a single refutable hypothesis nor any research leading to new discoveries about life, but which devotes all of its efforts to searching for problems in evolutionary theory--a useful but limited endeavor. I don't know what apologetics factory produced the video you've posted, but I suspect that's where it originated. I don't really trust creation scientists. Science is supposed to be objective, but those folks are biased as all get out. I'm uncomfortable with a methodology that starts with the conclusion and hunts around for arguments and evidence to support it. There is also the theory of Intelligent Design, as promoted by the Discovery Institute and its star experts, Michael Behe and William Dembsky. It's interesting to note that they (particularly Behe) accept much of the case for evolution. Behe even accepts common descent between humans and chimps; he just thinks the emergence of life as we know it is too improbable to be the product of blind forces. And so do I. But there are other possibilities put forward by Christian evolutionists Dr. Kenneth Miller and Dr. Francis Collins: that God stacked the deck at an earlier stage in creating the physical laws and conditions that made it inevitable intelligent life forms would eventually evolve. There is also Eric Reitan's theory that indeterminacy at the subatomic level gave God a chance to nudge the process from time to time without violating His natural laws. But all this is speculative, and based on faith instead of science.

I agree that some atheists can be as dogmatic as fundamentalists, and I also think science rests on a body of assumptions and postulates that ultimately must be taken on faith--even though they strike me as reasonable. I'm willing to make the leap in accepting both evolution and God, as Catholics and mainline Protestants have done, but I recognize that I'm making a bet and could be wrong in both instances.

 

Science is a school of thought based more on skepticism than anything else.
A believer of science need not have any faith, because everything will be tested in time, and eventually, the false theories will be proven false. (Or we'll die from a giant asteroid)

I agree with almost nothing in your post, but I think it is clear that all humans have faith of some sort, in some things. We would have to know the future, not to.

 

We always choose with a guide.

 

So which "almost nothing" do you disagree with. The case for evolution? Or the statement that science rests on postulates and assumptions? How would we go about testing and proving if we don't have a methodology that determines what is a test and what is "proof"?

 

We're definitely not as smart as we think... Smartest people we know could be morons with a nice English accent.

As of who controls our mind> keep it simple, and we control our own minds. Complicate it and you're just following others and their views/"studies".

 

Phew, I'm glad someone seems to get it.

 

We human's will be what kills ourselves off a species.Stupid monkeys

 

Yeah, this is all great but does anyone actually have anything to say on the video or subjects therein? Anyone even watched it? What do people think about the "forbidden archeology" that is presented?

 

lol

 

WE? Do we want to belong to We all the time? Much was made in novels such as "Fifth Business", "Risky Business" of the stuffed shirt enterprise of following your father's footsteps. Not me. Why did WE exist in the first place? Because nobody wanted to step out of line for the Rockefeller approach. I know this is funny a little; but that clever witt was to allow the valued enterprise to be repeated constantly till when the economic-natural world came to saturation; there really was no threshold of discovery till the specialist lived the 'American Dream'. WE never existed for the American Dream. It was always US. We were revealed into US for the Fake the Focker's approach. Shame on it.

But maybe there is a God after-all?:2thumbsup:

 

Hats off to Darwin for challenging the imposed Dogmas of the time. From what I know it was very difficult for him. But he did it. An absolute treasure.

 

Yah, hats off but he was still a pussy.

 

And there's nothing wrong with that.

 

There is when his case of being a pussy was to try to discourage his partner on his greatest work to not investigate paranormal activity and then basically disassociate himself from him when he did. He was scared of doing any deeper science, to protect his work. That's as pussy as a scientist can get.

 

The only faith I keep at 100%, is faith in myself. Everything else could be bs for all I know

 

Hmmm could you define faith in yourself?

 

Well its the only thing that has ever been proven real to the fullest extent possible, what is the definition of faith in anything else? I have been shown that I have feelings, that IM not bullshitting, but that everything else in my life is questionable. My spirit, my soul, my wants/needs is the only thing that I can fully believe in. Everything else is a dreamy haze of question and chance

 

'Paranormal' is not within the realm of science. And I think that's a good enough reason to halt investigation.

 

Not within the realm of accepted science, you mean? Natural selection was not within the realm of accepted science, either. To halt investigation based on the fact that it is beyond our world view or understanding and challenges what we already know is removing the most important aspect of science, we wouldn't get anywhere if we halted everything that came outside of accepted science.