Frankly I don't see the need for another poll but I will address the concept of "theory as religion" and whether saying "I don't know" is somehow more scientific than "I conclude "Not likely". Religious doctrine, to my knowledge, requires dogma which is to say some manner of unchanging, unassailable certainty. Theory, especially in the scientific sense of that word, does not fit that requirement... not even close.

\Basically scientific theory consists of "We have observed this recurring pattern in these phenomena and conclude it may be likely that "A" explains this. We'd appreciate others trying variations on more of such phenomena to disprove or limit our tentative conclusions". AFAIJ, no religion has ever welcomed attempts at disproof and many resort to murder of any heathens or infidels who disagree or make any such attempt, and even if one isn't devout enough by someone's estimation.

The idea that saying "I don't know" is more scientific than "Not at all likely, so probably 'No'" often comes from the misguided concept that "one cannot prove a negative". This is demonstrably untrue. Look up "evidence of absence".... or simply note that there is no Tooth Fairy nor Easter Bunny nor Santa Claus, etc etc etc. and there is no evidence that the Loch Ness Monster begs for "two fitty". :)

Yes Theory does, as we know some scientific laws do and will change; they reweight science books... ;) anything not truthfully helping all is a wa$te so bare (...(to hold) and sow (to plant) and sow...) us into it?

Dictionary's change too, now think forward every 100 years; got you there. :hattip:

I don't know about another poll but I'll comment on your query. I'd say ignostic is "the most scientific choice". Since the notion of "god" is not well-defined, the question of its existence is not an empirical one. Therefore a reasonable response to the question, "does god exist?" is "I don't understand the question". There is also the choice of "apatheism" meaning that I don't give a toss whether there is a god or not (assuming that one could come up with a meaningful definition of "god"). Happily one can be an ignostic and an apatheist. The question is both meaningless and without interest.
jdk

Yeah, if this thread has taught me anything, it's that when people say things like "god exists", I literally have no idea what they're talking about.

Also, who's theories and what peers? We've already pointed out that can lead to poppycock...

Seems you get more followers if you define one-way or the-other...

I guess my problem is that *I* don't see any sort of "mutual exclusivity" between religion and science. I've known a lot of deeply religious scientists. I don't think that "religion" is "backwards," nor necessarily that "science" is "progressive."

You see, "science" will take you precisely as far as "the evidence" goes. It can go no farther.

"Scientific philosophy" ("thinking about thinking about science ...") is a form of conjecture that can speculate about what might lie beyond the veil of evidence.

"Science" can be utterly misled by "evidence," because new, conflicting "evidence" might come along that forces all prior thinking to be topsy-turvy. (Example: "Earth is not flat." "Earth is not at the center of the universe." "Newton's laws of motion are insufficient.")

"Religion" is a different, somewhat-parallel, form of exploration, with entirely different ground-rules. It can, and does, tackle questions that Science simply cannot. But, it does not offer "scientific" reasons for its conclusions. In fact, it does not necessarily try to "understand." Religion believes.

Religion chooses to "believe."

I don't see any of these modes of thinking as being "invalid," nor "ignorant," nor "enlightened," nor "wrong," nor "correct." I also don't think that a person should feel obliged to say that s/he adheres to only one of them. Both religion and science have been a part of human perception and culture for ... for forever. But, what on earth is wrong with that? :)

Extending the thought a little further: "What if religion is actually, at least in some aspects, right?" What if there are Deities out there, beyond our perception and therefore beyond the ability of "Science" to detect them? I'm not willing to "shut out" such notions. I don't think I have to. I enjoy the tantalizing sense of wonder. That, just perhaps, this Universe that we live in is, not only "more wonderful than we know," but "more wonderful than we can know." I really don't want "scientists" to pooh-pooh that kind of thinking, nor to be judged by anyone for having ... and, enjoying ... and even, treasuring ... such thoughts.

"Science is 'a box.'" Science is designed to be 'a box.' But, it's okay for human beings to think outside the box, when they want and choose to. "Scientists" should not point negative fingers at them . . .

Then "believe" the world sucks simply because of "belief!" :p

"Phhhhlphhhtt!!" ;) ... ;) ... :D

"Believe it or not," we all "believe," a great deal more than we care to "believe" that we do.

It amazes me how fast somethings can evolve... and to that yang another ghost story,,, please avoid all posts with or corresponding to the "number" 13! :doh:

Let's see..... Religion doesn't change (and in fact, resists change) and scientific theory changes (and welcomes change) so they are equivalent exactly how? :confused:

@ sundialsvcs - I think you have a very narrow view of what constitutes "a scientist". There are some who are rigid and limited but there are also dreamers and theoreticians who never tire of asking "What if?". Not only is that so, or there would be no technological progress, but it is Science (Werner Heisenberg) that asserts what you stated, not religion.

You state that Man has chosen to believe in things without evidence and ask "what is wrong with that?" and the answer is simply that "without question. Case closed." is commonly a result.

Saying Newton is insufficient is like saying that to get from New York City to Los Angeles "one simply goes West" is insufficient. It's basically true but requires minor adjustments for mountains, rivers and canyons. One could obviously also go East but with a LOT more adjustments, not to mention difficulty and expense. There are odds to consider if the destination is of paramount importance. If you just want an eventful trip, maybe going East is a good choice, assuming one can afford all that may encompass. Before there were highways, bridges and tunnels one could still get there going Wast essentially on foot but going East is still not possible without conveyance. Religion did serve some purpose(s) (some positive and some very negative) during Early Human History but at some point we should grow up and consider "putting aside childish things". At some point the inherent divisiveness of Religion can no longer be afforded, especially once it no longer is a reliable "conveyance" and all that is left is false hope and the negatives.

Many if not most can believe a theory is fact, we can believe anything even in science. I'm not trying to say a more easily changeable belief isn't better, just still belief! Think of the "medical" fields where believe costs lives in the name of science or the fda &c...