Societies don't have to be secular to be modern

[Berkut]

I think it is unwise to believe in something not yet evidenced. Not insane. But look at my flow diagram, the silly idea is the first step and until you test it the idea means nothing. You seem to be looking at the first step in the scientific method and claim that religion is equal because it has and idea, just like science. Science is what you do with the idea, not just the first step of having the idea.

It may be unwise.  But dont scientist devote whole careers to trying to prove their theories.  Again the non out of Africa folks come to mind.

But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').

[crazy canuck]

I don't think it is fair to say that a scientist "believes" in his hypothesis in the fashion that a religious person has faith in their dogma.

I presume that scientists believe strongly enough in their unproven theories so as to devote their lives to proving they are accurate.  You are correct however that once a scientist is confronted with evidence that their theory is not accurate that scientist moves on.  A religious person never does because there can never be absolute proof they are wrong.  It has nothing to do with being sane or not (which you implied).  It simply has to do with the fact that in matters of religion there is no proof one way or the other.  Just faith.

[ulmont]

Well, I can say it on the same ground that you say the Koran is false.

I don't think I would say that the Koran is "false".  I would say I don't believe in it (or at least in the spiritual message it contains).

That is distinct from Berkut's 800ft Carrot God, which is clearly false as no one, ever, has claimed such a thing.  Islam is the subject of reverential belief by nearly one billion people, so gets treated with some respect.

Now discuss Scientology.

There appears to be a significant amount of actual evidence that L Ron Hubbard went out and created Scientology as a deliberate scam. 

And yet, there are millions (3.5 million per the Church in 2007) who believe in Scientology, so how much respect is that worth?

Same for Mormonism (same scam problem, in fact)?

[Barrister]

Science has nothing to do with beliefs that are not evidenced, and the very basis of science precludes it dealing with things for which there is no evidence. Data is its bread and butter.

Scientist says: I think there may be other planets out there and creates a crude telescope to prove it.

Christian says: Jesus is God and was resurrected and believes that on faith alone.

In both instances both started out not being able to prove their believe.  The scientist has the tools to do so.  The Christian never will.

But both at one point believed in something which had not yet been established by oberverable proof.

I don't think that's right.  Why do you think Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) have sponsored so many historical/archaeological digs and research over the years?  People aren't simply saying "I believe - end of story".

[crazy canuck]

But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

[Viking]

Let's stick with Galileo then.  Christianity never claimed it was never wrong.  I think the Pope even issued an apology recently saying they were indeed wrong.

You seem to be arguing against some crude stereotype of religion, and not religion as it actually is.

Well, in the bible god stops the sun moving in the sky. Joshua 10:12-13 has the sun standing still in the sky. The bible does not say the earth stopped turning, god stopped the sun in the sky. This is why the Church had problems with Aristarchus and Copernicus.

[The Brain]

But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').

the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

[crazy canuck]

I don't think that's right.  Why do you think Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) have sponsored so many historical/archaeological digs and research over the years?  People aren't simply saying "I believe - end of story".

You are mixing up the concept of finding historical evidence of the events in a religious text with proving that the religious message is itself true.

Nobody doubts that Mohammed actually lived and yet you do not believe his teachings.

[Berkut]

I don't think it is fair to say that a scientist "believes" in his hypothesis in the fashion that a religious person has faith in their dogma.

I presume that scientists believe strongly enough in their unproven theories so as to devote their lives to proving they are accurate. 

Scientists are human beings, and of course suffer from human failings.

My point is that science is not about "belief", but about testing hypothesis. A scientist might spend his life trying to "prive" his theory is superior to other theories trying to explain some phenomenon, but he will do so by creating tests for it that try to prove it false, and have it pass those tests. That is the basis for science.

No religious person does this, because their "theories" are not falsifiable by definition.

You are correct however that once a scientist is confronted with evidence that their theory is not accurate that scientist moves on.  A religious person never does because there can never be absolute proof they are wrong.  It has nothing to do with being sane or not (which you implied).  It simply has to do with the fact that in matters of religion there is no proof one way or the other.  Just faith.

Indeed. Which is why comapring the two is rather silly.

And why your claim that scientists "believe" in things for which they have no evidence is false - or rather, that such a belief is science. If in fact they do, they are no longer practicing science, by definition.

[Valmy]

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

Or disproven.  Religious faith can never really be disproven.  You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people. 

[crazy canuck]

But there theories are NOT un-evidenced!!! They might be wrong, and in fact almost certainly are (even the ones currently accepted as 'true').

the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

You have heard of the scientific method I trust.

[crazy canuck]

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

Or disproven.  Religious faith can never really be disproven.  You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.

Yes, that is more to the point.

[Viking]

I haven't come to the bit about evolution yet. I'm happy to stay with the bible claiming the sun moved across the sky (and stopping on gods command). That is so patently untrue that it is laughable. My chart is not untrue. That is the case because rather than taking the consequences of being found a lie they just pretend that they were never wrong and that the book never really meant what was written.

This is a bit misleading since only fundies would say that any religious book is literally true.  Religion is about faith.  The real problem is that too many religious folks miss the distinction.  An error you appear to be making as well.

So tell me what evidence I could show you which disproved your religion?

[Barrister]

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

Or disproven.  Religious faith can never really be disproven.  You could go back in time with a camera and prove decisively that none of the stuff that the Bible claims actually happened and it would not make much of a difference for alot of people.

I imagine that would make a huge difference to almost everyone.

[Berkut]

Neither is religion.  An unproven scientific theory is just as viable as religious faith except that the unproven scientific theory has at least the potential to be proven correct through the scientific method.

:boggle:

All scientific theories are unproven - by definition, you cannot "prove" a theory, ever. You can only disprove it. This is called falsifiability.