Villain

That was my point, comparing religion and science has no point.

Thank you for commenting. I realise that my definition of science is very different to yours and value your explanation.

I apologise. This is a very new but an interesting culture and I am trying to adjust to it. As you might tell I have not been exposed to many people interested in the method of science and I find the constant bombarding of claims for evidence in a religion section a little tiresome but am trying to adjust to it. I understand that this is a science forum and scientific evidence however illogical for a concept such as religion is part of the territory. To answer the question, no I cannot produce scientific evidence to prove religion. If God exists and was to introduce Himself as God and perform a 'miracle' as evidence of being God, science would not be able to use this evidence because by science's very nature everything is explainable and there are no miracles. I'm not sure why there is a religious section on this site if religion must use scientific evidence to show it's existence.

Ok, the method is the explanation and therefore the knowledge. Would that make sense?

I see the method of science as a way of broadening the human knowledge of 'science'. The incorrectly used 'science' is what I'm referring to in the first post.

Perhaps I should not have even attempted to show a subject and just called the thread 'why?'.

I'm trying to learn and appreciate all comments but would prefer if this was not turned it a religious debate.

I apologise for the mistake. What do you call the collective outcomes of science?

Is science as a knowledge source seen as something free from human interpretation? Is it assumed that the results presented by humans are not influenced by humans? And if humans are part of science, how much so?

Interpret the question as you would like, share your thoughts.

I'm not sure what you mean, are you saying science is a religion?

I apologise for picking up on such an old post but I will take you challenge. You have rightly applied scientific knowledge to human life in our surroundings as it claims. I will now make use of eternity after earthly death as religion claims. That would make the score - science 1, religion infinity minus 1 aka infinity .

I am struggling to understand your concept of apathetic disagreement, could you expand on this. Please focus the explanation on the motivation of the apathetic arguer.

Yes, I would suggest: You advise well. But I do not profess to be a master of the language 'American', so perhaps good advise is correct? The answer, I'm good, to the question of, how are you?, seems to be acceptable in 'American' .

In closing - Apparently the human aspect of science, which is the human study of nature and our environment, should exclude any debate on human influence of it. Science is obviously something that is done by non-humans (although I don't have proof of this, hmmm...) and our interpretation and understanding and relating to it from a human perspective has no place in the debate there of, I repeat, the human study of nature etc. My purpose was never to call science into repute as to its validity but highlight that we as humans must make a choice to believe science even if its by means of believing that logical thought is the best way of concluding such. The idea that a choice could be made as to whether or not a creator exists is by know means in competition to science, unless your choice for logical thinking doesn't meet your expectation of a creator, this does not prove that a creator doesn't exist though.

I presume that this involves me, to which I reply: I created the topic in the section labelled Philosophy - Religion, you have posted on a thread which I created to discuss my idea on a topic of my own. No one force you to address the topic and since you had no idea of the intention as to why the topic was created, cannot proclaim as to whether or not the topic served it's purpose. Go assume that you know what is going on elsewhere.

My point was that you can replace religion or God (aka Grace in the video) with anything on which two people disagree and the video will hold true. The fact that you reply exactly as the video says is both priceless and serves of evidence of this. It is you who compared the two.

I'm not sure who this is aimed at but I recognise that the concept that I am proposing is not being understood.

I suggest a case study: You can find the evidence and present it to the world and then report your finds to the rest of the forum. Please make sure your evidence is without doubt and preferably in a mathematical equation.

Yes, but I was hoping to hear the opinion of scientific people, those that are not sitting on the fence of I don't believe but provisionally accept that you have said something which you are calling science and of which I express no opinion. Why would doing nothing require faith?

Does science assume nothing?

I think your post should read: Remember that we(I) believe that scientists, even though I cannot realistically be expected to prove this belief, have peers who review..... Your belief or idea that this is happening is not based on evidence witnessed by you and therefore how can you be certain it is happening? Have you witnessed everything? I'm saying that belief or trust or whatever you want to call it is required to think science as a greater art/exercise/study has merit and therefore the same should at least be entertained towards religion. Saying that the system of science is based purely on evidence is a oxymoron as far as a persons perspective is concerned and our perspective is the way in which we relate to the world at large.

You state that trust is earned and that you trust the biological community not because of your understanding or tested evidence of every aspect, but because you trust the community. Am I reading this correctly? How does this differ from religion?

Science is verified by science, it is no more or less self appointed than God.

I'm saying that the individual scientist can only verify so much himself and requires faith in order to move forward in science, lest he recreate everything from scratch. And on a separate related point if the individual scientist regards science as a broad subject to be of any worth he requires faith for similar reasons.