Science doesn’t explain everything



About Mike

Hello, I am an atheist because of reason and personal experience. I am a father of THREE lovely living kids and two dead embryos, married to a lovely Christian Catholic devoted woman. Yes, black and white can coexist as long as there is respect and love, which is something abstracted from any belief or religion. I do not claim absolute truth and not 100% sure that a God does not exist somewhere out there. The scientific method is what I use to connect to reality. If there is something I don't understand, then it is because i don't understand, not because god exists. In case you haven't noticed, I am a native Arab, and English is my third language (yes there is second language). I like reading the Bible and the Quran and the critics of both of them. I also love watching documentaries especially astronomy, cosmology, Quantum Physics, and new discoveries in science in general, and Physics in particular.
Image | This entry was posted in Allah, Atheism, Belief, Bible, Christianity, God, Islam, Judaism, Quran, Reasoning, Religion, Science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Science doesn’t explain everything

  1. M Theory is not testable, yet Hawking claims it explains our finely tuned universe and why the first 3 seconds of the Big Bang has such an amazing convergence of needed for it to exist. He claims M Theory brings the odds down from impossible to like.

    • Mike says:

      Do you even know what M Theory is? Do you understand physics to talk about it this way?

      Yes, Hawking could be wrong, what is wrong with this? This is the crux of the scientific method! Ideas are always subject to scrutiny, and if they show to be incorrect, they are thrown to the junk yard of scientific history and we get over it! You on the other hand assume your God knows everything, yet never came with any explanation of natural phenomenon, neither (God) have ever invented anything! It is always humans who invent, always!

      Hawking himself also says that M Theory is between physics and metaphysics, and wonders if it ever could be tested. Lots of scientists are skeptical about it. What is your point here?

      • My point is you admit neither you ,Hawking, or science has all the answers, yet you flippantly ridicule what others believe. For someone who claims to be an advocate for reason and a moral critic of what you claim is an unjust,unloving God if He does exist, I find that quite contradictory.

      • Mike says:

        Yes, and I say it again in case you didn’t read my previous comment. Neither I, nor science, and much less Hawking, know everything. Science knows “something”. It knows how to invent vaccines for diseases your God invented and could have cured, yet he doesn’t cure it!

        Religion on the other hand doesn’t know anything! Name one discovery or invention, thanks to the Bible? Only one! There isn’t! So religion doesn’t know anything!

        When people believe without evidence, ridiculous ideas, I see no immoral action when ridiculing their ideas! Example:

        You believe in a talking snake. And the talking donkey of Ba’lam, and in a sky that rains food, in a wooden stick turning into a snake, and a burning bush that doesn’t burn, and in a man in the gutts of a fish/whale, and in a man walking on waters, and in a man resurrecting dead people, feeding 5000 humans using 3 breads and 5 fish, and turning water (H2O) into wine (containing Carbon C and Sulfur S) “aka, a nuclear reaction in the kitchen and nobody died from heat or radiation, on the contrary they liked the wine”, and you also believe in a 7-headed snake with crowns on its head… Do I have to continue? Can you stand up and look into the mirror and repeat what you believe in without feeling childish and naive?

        If it can be destroyed by the truth, it HAS to be destroyed by the truth!

        And your belief (not only yours) is no exception!

      • That’s better, and most appreciated. I’ll welcome civility from an atheist and celebrate it any day over the prevailing mode of discourse.

      • I will respond in kind.

      • 1.”Name one invention thanks to the Bible.”
        Hand washing. Exodus 30
        Incidentally, in regards to the changing water into wine reference you made in John 2, it states that the water used was intended for cleansing, and is considered a hidden reference the what would later become the symbol of Christ’s shed blood ,(wine), which cleanses believers from sin.
        Louis Pasteur would later prove the benefits of surgical hand washing through his advances in microbiology, along with pasteurization of wine and milk.

      • Mike says:

        Ha ha ha ha… Ok, are you by chance saying that hand washing wasn’t known before the Bible?

      • You respond with ridicule when you claim to stand on reason ? Oh well. Any answer would have claimed I believe in fairy tails, magic and

    • “Because of his study in germs, Pasteur encouraged doctors to sanitize their hands and equipment before surgery. Prior to this, few doctors or their assistants practiced these procedures.”

      • Caroline says:

        Ok, so hand washing was mentioned in the Bible. But it wasn’t *explained* in the Bible. Otherwise Louis wouldn’t of has to use science to actually explain why it was a good idea. I mean, it wasn’t even comminicated in such a way as to encourage people to do it! Fail! Please feel free to try again, though.

  2. This is surprisingly true.

  3. God told them to wash their hands 3,500 years before Louis Pasteur would prove why they needed to do so. Science actually believed “microbes” grew out of everything. One of Pasteur’s last experiment proved “microbes” were airborne also. I know it sounds strange to me as well. The medical community did not wash their hands, equipment, or tools as a standard practice before Pasteur. He was so ridiculed by the medical community at large that he had a stroke from it. People did not believe something so small could make people sick.
    Using unwashed towels from one child birth to the next was also standard practice.

    • Mike says:

      I don’t doubt the practice, I doubt that people didn’t know that before the Bible… Doing some research

    • Caroline says:

      OK, a couple of points here. Firstly, if it was told to us by a god in the Bible, why wasn’t every one doing it before Pasteur discovered and explained it? Why did it take a scientist to work out the significance of hand washing? If you’re theory was true, surely a priest or a religious scholar should have been telling the medical profession to wash their hands?

      Secondly, if you actually read the passage in Exodus 30, in the same sentence it instructs to wash feet as well as hands. Are we to assume that foot washing is of equal importance as hand washing in medical procedures? It also goes on to talk about annointing with oil and burning incense. Do they have medical application too? How are we meant to know which bits are medical and which are not?

      This passage doesn’t *explain* anything, it merely instructs, and in the context of a religious ceremony, not in the context of not spreading disease. Science explains why washing hands, religion merely got lucky enough to sound close of something that science has explained.

      Finally, “Science” doesn’t believe things. Science isn’t sentient. It doesn’t have views. It is a process followed by Scientists, who, like everyone, get things wrong. Regularly. However, Science is the method by which you can work out that you *have* got things wrong, which is the thing that Religion lacks.

      • I disagree. Washing feet keeps them from stinking up the place.
        And so does washing the rest of the body for that fact.
        And you just pointed out that the Bible may have also at least endorsed deodorant long before it became common practice.
        (That’s two and a half things).

        But seriously, the need for sterility started and was proven with Pasteur, 100 years after the invention of the microscope, and 3500 years after God made it clear it was important.

  4. Caroline says:

    Seriously? “God made it clear”? If a god made it clear, then why did it take three and a half *thousand* years for it to become common practice? Why do you think that taking a sentence, well, half a sentence, out of the original context of some pointless religious ritual of animal sacrifice (really? like the soon to be dead animals needed sterile conditions?) actually explains something new, was an actual advancement in human understanding? And Christians complain when Atheists take biblical passages out of context!

    Besides, I can illustrate to you that the bible didn’t introduce the concept of hand washing: the action of washing wasn’t explained in the bible: the word was merely used to tell people to do it. If it was introduced/invented, then there would have been no prior knowledge of it, and there would be a description of how to actually go about doing it. Like instructions on getting water, rubbing hands together, making sure all the dirt is removed. That sort of thing. But just using the word shows that the concept pre-dates the text.

    But, anyway, perhaps we should leave that one there and move on to another of the myriad of things that knowledge contained in the bible has enlightened us with? Presumably that wasn’t the only thing there was was it? What else is there in there which has advanced human knowledge and actually improved our lives?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s