Belief in Science and Belief in Nothing?

Post Reply New Topic

Before I start, I'd like to ask that nobody gets offended. I'm not belittling any belief that any of you hold. You may be right, and I'm not arrogant enough to tell you that I'm right and you're wrong. So please, don't feel under attack, because that is not my intention.

Up until a while ago, I was the conventional atheist. I believed in modern science, nothing after death, and pretty much everything else that's currently 'factual' in science. But since, I've abandoned that for having no true belief. I feel that, every belief now, from Christianity to Sikhism to modern science, will go the way of mythology and in one thousand years, if we live that long, it'll be abandoned and not considered at all. So I've decided not to pretend to know what we are, where we've come from and where we are, because we most probably will never know for certain. I know atheists usually accept that some new science will replace what we currently believe and nothing is factual, but I don't believe anything that is now considered factual.

In fully accepting this 'belief' (as I have considered it before), I turned to agnosticism, which basically means that I don't know whether deities exist or not. But then I realised that atheist, though they're considered as much, do not, by definition, believe in modern science. And nor is agnosticism what I believe. It's completely based on whether you believe in deities or not. My question is, now I've finally got around to asking, what the term is for believing in modern science (as many seem to think is 'atheism') and if there is a term for my belief.

There are two kinds of "belief":

1) Faith - The belief that unprovable concepts are real, and that those improbable concept represent the only 'true' reality. Religion is the social and political expression of faith. Theism is a form of faith.

2) Knowledge - The belief that those concepts that have been repeatedly and consistently demonstrated to be real represent reality. Science is the search for knowledge of observable events and demonstrable principles.

Science and religion are two different things. Scientists search for knowledge, while religionists search for purpose. A person can have religion and still be a scientist - it is possible to believe in an intentional cause for the universe, and still strive for knowledge of how the universe actually works.

One does not "believe in" science - scientific principles can be demonstrated over and over again, whether or not anyone believes them. Religious practices rely instead on confirmation bias and the bandwagon effect.

Science is constant - scientific principles are universal. Religions disagree not only in what their "gods" allegedly teach, but in how many "gods" there allegedly are. Scientists encourage questioning of claims. Religionists persecute those who question doctrine.

As for the term that defines "believing in modern science", the word is "Science" - knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. The very word "Science" is derived from the Latin word "Scienta", meaning "Knowledge".

You don't have to know anything of consequence to have faith. In fact, those who lack knowledge must rely on faith to survive.

It depends upon what you mean by "belief in modern science".

But the short answer to your question is "empiricist". Thats someone who believes in what reason coupled with the sense tell us empirically.

But nobody "believes" in science in the way that religious people (many of whom also "believe" in science in the same way that typical atheists do) "believe" in God. Its peaches and pears to even compare the two things. That despite the fact that there is a subset of the religious who pretend that science is a religion at war with their religion.

Science is not "at war" with religion any more than libraries are "at war" with churches.

Scientists seek observable knowledge. Religionists impose dogmatic beliefs.

It's when a dogmatic belief is disproved by observation and experimentation that religionists call it an attack.

I am an agnostic, who has atheistic leanings.

I believe in empirically-derived knowledge--including that derived from Science.

I have "faith," say, that a tree might have fallen in Siberia, even if I'm not "there to see it."

Pure science should not be abandoned. Just be weary that the people who practice it are not always good. And don't look to it to answer the "big" questions because it probably doesn't have a real answer or one that's so underdeveloped that it should have been kept under wraps for a while longer. Ideas like the big bang and such should be taken with a grain of salt.

Why do we have to hold a belief? I feel like people are working with the notion that we must believe in something like those who practice a religion. They can't see outside the system of believing. It's as if they--believers in anything--can't comprehend that people can have a different thought process outside of having faith and believing in a "superior being" and ritualistic practices associated with their chosen religion.

I don't hold any type of belief. Instead, I'm just a person who enjoys life and learning about what's here and out there. Meaning I love science, but not as something that reigns over my life, but as a part of knowledge, which is ever growing.

It's like believing in literature or technology. It's just something that is. It exists. I don't have to hold it in such a regard that requires me to pray to it and devote each part of my life to it. But I can enjoy it and turn to it when I need to know something about life which may require explanation.

I also can't relate to many atheists. One of the best things about not belonging to any religion is that I get to develop my own ideas of life and how to live morally with out having to consult with others. It allows me to be an individual in charge of my own being.

Rationalism is probably the term you're looking for. It's not the same kind of belief that a religious person has.

I was raised primarily in a Mormon family, and I tried to believe for a long time. But religion teaches you to believe based on feelings and "revelation" from religious authorities. No science is involved. Questioning is not allowed in religion. My parents would accuse me of being literally "influenced by the devil" simply because I questioned authority. I wasn't being defiant, I legitimately wanted to understand the concepts that were confusing to me. But I was punished all the time for this.

Science, on the other hand, is based on evidence, theories, things that are repeatable. Things you can see. Questioning is not only allowed in science, it's essential to scientific understanding and discovery.

Science is rewritten and improved all the time when new facts come to light. It's still just science. But if religion is rewritten, it just becomes a new, separate religion, that likely denounces all others. I could go on and on with the differences, but basically, belief in science and belief in religion are two entirely different forms of belief. Talking about the two as if they are the same makes no sense.

Skepticism is probably the closest thing to "belief in nothing", but in my opinion, a scientist who is not a skeptic is a crappy scientist.

Edit: Rationalism might not be the best word actually. I don't think there really is an "-ism" that encompasses all of science, but that's kind of the point. It's about observing and experimenting based on logic and evidence. Religion is about faith, which is independent of those things.

What would a 'belief in modern science' entail?

The great thing about science is that you can, at least in theory, check if it is true.

That's why, in a thousand years, it will still be the best system we have.

There are flaws at the moment, sure, but those are flaws in the implementation rather than the ideology.

Much of what we know today will still be fact in a thousand years and afterwards. For example, biologist will still say that we share a common ancestor with apes, chemists will still say that hydrogen has one proton, and geographers will still believe in continental drift. If you're going to stop believing things because they theoretically might not be true, despite having every reason to believe they are true, then you're stuck with solipsism, if that.

Faith in modern science might be faith
* that there is no corruption or ideas bias in its workings,
* that its present ideas are always the most reliable and likely to be true, and changing them is only for the cleverclogses not for the likes of us,
* that it's always right against any conflicting evidence of other types,
* that its opinion is enough grounds to discount and put mental health labels on everyone with a paranormal experience.

There is a term "scientism" for this way of thinking. It's flawed by the word confusion that results when you try to turn the "-ism" ending to "-ist."