Why do atheists trust science?

[Randydeluxe]

Are we done now?

We were done before the OP hit submit.

[Clinton Huxley]

Are we done now?

We were done before the OP hit submit.

Ha, true. But can we tie a ribbon on the top?

[Tigger]

Are we done now?

We were done before the OP hit submit.

Ha, true. But can we tie a ribbon on the top?

... or a crown of thorns.

[CookieJon]

I'd have thought the reasons why atheists trust science are exactly the same as the reasons why theists trust science.

I expect thedistillers trusted the internet to get his question across, otherwise why bother posting it?

It's a no-brainer.

It is a no-brainer, so the implication is?

Now-now!

[CJ]

I'd have thought the reasons why atheists trust science are exactly the same as the reasons why theists trust science.

I expect thedistillers trusted the internet to get his question across, otherwise why bother posting it?

It's a no-brainer.

It is a no-brainer, so the implication is?

Now-now!

[piscator]

edited: i'll save this one for a better OP

[JimC]

Phew! We're all still here. I couldn't sleep last night for wondering whether the parameters of the weak nuclear force might change, with disastrous consequences.

They wobbled slightly around 3 am, but then returned to normal...

[CJ]

Phew! We're all still here. I couldn't sleep last night for wondering whether the parameters of the weak nuclear force might change, with disastrous consequences.

They wobbled slightly around 3 am, but then returned to normal...

Is your eye still playing up or was it the after effects of Gin?

[JimC]

Phew! We're all still here. I couldn't sleep last night for wondering whether the parameters of the weak nuclear force might change, with disastrous consequences.

They wobbled slightly around 3 am, but then returned to normal...

Is your eye still playing up or was it the after effects of Gin?

I'll have you know I was measuring the spread of momenta of a variety of Beta particles at the time, and noticed a subtle statistical variation!

[Xeno]

I have tried measuring the spread at 3 AM but it has not got me anywhere for years.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It can now be revealed that the Universe is being run by a small group of suspect characters in the Latverian Republic. They regularly change the rules of physics, on an almost daily basis. The really sinister aspect to this is that they change our memories of how the Universe works in the process, as well as the images of events billions of yeas in the past, via Hubble et al., that show it has been working like this for 14 billion years so far.

Expect another change as you read this and the memory of seeing it is replaced by that of watching Joel Osteen for four hours.

[Godless Libertarian]

I'm assuming that the atheist wants to be rational. That is to say, he wants to have a rational reason to believe what he believes.

But what rational reason does the atheist have to assume that the future will be like the past? None. So the atheist is irrational to assume that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow.

The theist, however, has a perfectly rational reason to believe that the laws of physics will still be valid tomorrow; God created the laws of the universe, and sustains them at any moment. Under atheism, the universe is irrational, without purpose, so tomorrow all atoms could start to jump around randomly, for no reason, just like a godless universe happens to exist for no reason.

Faith != induction. Faith is belief without evidence, whereas induction, by definition, requires evidence. If I believe that gravity will stick around tomorrow, it's because I already possess evidence that gravity has stuck around previously. That's evidence! Faith, on the other hand, would necessitate that I accept that gravity will in fact fail tomorrow, as this is the less conservative proposition (meaning it strongly deviates from observable fact). You are attempting to paint a strongly grounded position as an arbitrary one.

[jd]

If there is no God, then the universe is not controlled by a powerful, external force.

There you see the theistic mindset in a nutshell - unless Sky Cop is watching, everything will go wrong.....No rationale is offered for this assumption, of course, it "just is". I think this terribly revealing sentence speaks more for the shify morals of the theist than it does for the machinations of the universe

Theists so often regard "Natural Laws" as instructions rather than descriptions.

[Surendra Darathy]

I'm assuming that the atheist wants to be rational....

But what rational reason does the atheist have to assume that the future will be like the past?

By what rational process does the theist assume that the atheist will want to be as rational tomorrow as today?

I'm just wondering whether or not the theist abandons rationality for faith as much as he would have us believe. 'Cos, I don't believe it.

That's how bad skepticism really is, from the standpoint of the believer. It's not about assuming tomorrow will be like today, absent a belief in an Ordering Principle. It's about believers assuming that skepticism is going to be the same tomorrow as it is today.

This is sort of like a Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem for Believers. Or maybe a zen koan.

[Feck]

They only need one provable undeniable "miracle" Just ONE ! Why do we believe tomorrow is going to be mostly the same as today the physics and chemistry and biology are going to behave in the same repeatable way ..........Well show us when it didn't ?