You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: How science has already proven that god does not exist.
for science, if the existence of something new was hypothesized to explain something, but later a new explanation made this existence unecessary, that new existence is discarded as false (existence is the exception, inexistence is the rule).
Dogma. Doesn't fit the scientific method. It is an appeal to your authority or someone elses. I don't buy into them. Give me a guy with 20 degrees saying it, and I still don't buy into it.
Science is a tool. It is not an opinion or a belief.
The scientific method is not a dogma, it is only a methodology that science uses simply because it works and brings good practical results. The same for the claim that "no explanation for the natural world is supernatural" (methodological naturalism). None are dogmas.
I didn't say the scientific method is dogma. I was referring to the other things you were talking about. I don't believe the scientific method is dogma.
In fact I believe the scientific method is the only thing relevant to science, and the things it PROVES.
Scientific method is a tool. It ignores bias and opinions.
The rest of the things you were referring to as science are not. They were not determined by experimentation and using the scientific method. Instead they exist based upon belief and thus bias. Thus, why I call them dogma.
dwinblood, absolutely any conclusion or scientific methodology is based on experimentation and practical results, including the scientific method itself. If the scientific method did not bring practical results, it would have to be changed, or would become a scientific dogma. And that is precisely why the methodological materialism is not a dogma, it is a practical conclusion of science because it works.
Dogma is something you blindly accept, regardless of anything. While methodology is something that you take based on observable and confirmable practical results.