I trust scientific proof much more than any sort of faith

That's an interesting kind of faith you have there. You say science makes much more sense than any kind of faith, but you have the faith as a starting point that one thing will make more sense than the other (which is not something you arrived at by scientifically proving it).

So basically you've just rejected other religions, but you've replaced them with your own kind of faith.

What have you proven?

If scientists are lying to us in their articles and journals, then fine- but through repeated experimentation I’ve seen in school, I’ve seen proof that at least some things scientists tell us are true.

Only accept what you have seen proven or have proved yourself. Even Einstein's relativity is a theory. Don't let theories stifle your beliefs or creativity.

I suppose I do have a faith in science- but only based on scientific facts presented with solid evidence. I have faith in something that is served with solid proof, while most religions are based entirely on faith with no presentable evidence.

Well stated

I have to go with McCoy on this one.

sorry i was a dick before! when i seen your comment on "that" meme i took it as being condescending in tone, i don't doubt that that wasn't your intention..but us Scots can fly off the handle pretty quickly...anyhoos, I do apologise, i can be a dick sometimes.

as for this one, i only just realised it was your post when i came back to check a reply...don't want you to think that i'm carrying some kinda grudge or anything!!

LOL wut?

If you don't prove it yourself, you're taking it on faith. When you go to school for a science like physics they make you do the fundamental proofs. Unless you're trained in a specific science, it's all faith.

One thing I've learned is a lot of it is bs. Only laws are true. Theories are just guesses that are accepted as truth. Biology is full of bs and guesses.

Theories are guesses, but they are almost always back up with evidence coming from experimentation. Even without experiments, theories are based on ideas that are compatible with other scientific ideas. So they still have, in a way, evidence to back them up, even if we’re not totally sure the theory is true.

A lot of the time they are presented as fillers so someone can publish some more bs to get prestige. Entire fields of science are dedicated to false beliefs. String Theory, for example.

Exactly. Just a bunch of bs.

I wouldn't say I take it on "faith"..."trust", maybe. Faith doesn't require any evidence, but i trust that scientists can back up their claims with evidence and if i was so inclined i could study a subject myself and do my own proofs...none of that requires "faith"

This is a false dichotomy. Humans as a rule believe and trust in things beyond what we can test in the physical world. Bad news: placing "Science" on the altar (scientism) is still religion. But if you were trying to stir the pot, good job!

I’m not placing science on any sort of altar- I’m just saying that science, since it comes with presentable evidence and proof, is easier to believe in than any sort of deity.

"Easier to believe in"
At least you're being honest.

Science has massive limitations. It does a terrible job at explaining the mysteries of consciousness and experience. A mix of science and mysticism/ spirituality/ religion is the best way to go about it all.

But with spirituality/religion, people are taking guesses at the values and principles created by deities, while with science, even science that we don’t understand, we try to find solid proof for theories and ideas. Religion truly is entirely man-made.

Science is also man made. It also has its flaws and limitations. It's also not incorruptible. It can also be used for the worst intentions as well as the best. It's a tool for understanding things but it has been placed on a pedestal and revered as an idol by those that either don't use or don't understand it.

Science is a good thing in responsible hands. It does not require one to replace God with it.

"It is the glory of God to conceal things, but the glory of kings to search things out." - Proverbs 25:2

Science used to have difficulty explaining germs and bacteria. At some point, science will have a perfectly valid explanation for consciousness and experience.

It's just a matter of time.

Unlikely. There are real limitations to the scientific method. For example, in order to measure a system it must be disturbed. This places a very real barrier to what can be ascertained through science. It's a major headache in physics.

There are also things like the Uncertainty Principle and problem of Schrodingers Cat.

Science is also incomplete. Go back a few hundred years and the earth was the center of the solar system. That was the truth of the time. There are still blotches in science that we aren't yet aware of.

Don't put all your eggs in the basket of science. It's best to spread them out.

That's what religion has said for centuries. Remember it was the church that insisted that the earth was the center of the universe and the church persecuted anyone who said otherwise.

If you're referring to the Copenhagen interpretation, bear in mind, it's an interpretation. When you look in the box, the cat is not going to be both alive and dead.

As for Heisenberg, at the end of the day, it's all about measurement. And several scientists have proved that he was a bit pessimistic.

So yes, science may be incomplete, but it's working on it. Faith? Not so much. What is there to work on except more blind faith?

Currently accepted scientific theory says that objects don't exist unless they are being observed. How do you like that for rational? https://www.sciencealert.com/reality-doesn-t-exist-until-we-measure-it-quantum-experiment-confirms Science does not always conform to rationality or logic. Some of it is as much "magic" as faith is.

"Proved he was pessimistic" I think you're doing that thing where science oversteps its boundaries.

You can't learn transcendental meditation from science. Science doesn't even acknowledge it's existence, at least not the last time I checked.

There's lots to learn from faith. If you don't play the game there's nothing I can say to explain it. Those that do, know.

THE ANSWER IS 42

you probably know the answer to life, the universe and everything too! :p

XD

Why don't you tell me?

It's not equipped to explain the theological which comes through revelation. It can only offer theories of how things work by observation of repeatability which may or may not be the cause of the effect, only our perception of it and is subject to change as our understanding enhances as happens all the time. The two, while relatable, are not of the same study and therefore not at odds with each other.
I can't believe I got sucked into another clickbait argument on faith vs science where the poster doesn't even know that their premise is faulty.

Actually, a lot of science deals with what we can’t observe, such as outer space or consciousness studies.

We can't observe outer space? are you serious? Even when we discover things we can't see it's because of other things we observed in space. I feel like for someone with such blind faith in science, you actually have been exposed to very little of it. I'm not even religious and I know science doesn't answer everything, and that science and religion aren't mutually exclusive. They don't even try to answer the same questions, for the most part.

I’m talking about things that we truly can’t gain proof that our theories are true about, such as black holes. You are correct that many celestial bodies and other space objects are observed by observing other objects- but dark matter and dark energy are not physically observed by us yet. Dark energy drives everything apart, but we can’t physically record its presence- just its effects.

Man does not have an omniscient vantage point. Therefore, it is arrogance to assume that every aspect of reality can be observed and explained by man.
God reveals truths that can never be gleaned from telescopes or spectrometers. You only have to prayerfully study His words, with an open heart, to find the solid foundation for faith.
Science scratches the surface on HOW the universe functions. True religion teaches us WHY the universe was organized, and by WHOM.

But there is no evidence to support the existence of any gods, which is why science seems much more comprehensible. Though we don’t know even have of true science, we know next to NOTHING of religion. People putting their faith into something humans made up in the first place just doesn’t seem logical to me.

Speaking specifically of Christianity, your premise that humans made it up Christianity makes it impossible for you to use logic to deduce whether or not it is true.

Regardless, simply because you don't have proof of something doesn't mean it isn't true.

If you're not afraid of Jesus, call on Him. Ask Him who he is. Ask Him to come into your life.

I’m not afraid of him. I just don’t believe in him as a living deity- I believe in him as a long dead but great philosopher.

Science can't disprove Gods either, and many of the worlds most famous and successful scientists were religious.

“Science can’t disprove gods”

But careful logic can put out strong ideas as to why there aren’t any.

But god was something made up by people in the first place! As mentioned higher up in the comments, people use to think the earth was the center of the universe, which was a theory and belief spread by people. God is the same way- someone suggested the idea of this deity, and many just accepted it as truth.
It was a follower-leader situation. Other things made up by humans have also been accepted as truth, such as the fact that the earth’s core is solid iron. But there is no proof to go with that conjecture, not the conjecture of the deity theory. I accept the idea of a core as a possibility, because we have some evidence to go along with it, but I don’t accept it as absolute truth because we have no absolute proof. God was man made and we have NO evidence of his existence, so I do not accept the idea of a god as truth. I prefer to know what exactly I’m believing in before I choose to believe it.

I’m not saying that everything can be known and observed by man. Science still hides from us in many places, but for certain aspects of it, we have solid evidence to support our claims. The first religion, created just after the Neolithic revolution, was entirely made up by humans, showing that all the religions to follow were most likely made up by people. It’s observable that many deities and gods are humanoid or have human-like aspects.

where's the fault in the premise?

If you had actually read what I wrote you would see it, but instead you just want to troll everyone on this post.