nagrom said: "P, the idea that science is a "belief" is simply false.
Science is defined as "what is true".
We have a test for "what is true": whether it can be observed consistently.
Observation is what humans can do. They can perceive things, and think things about what they perceive.

From things they've seen, humans can fabricate illusions in their heads. They can formulate ideas independent of reality.
Although we may be able to think of explanations for what we observe, we can never know if these explanations are correct or not because they can't be. The inner world is subjective. Just because they "feel nice", or seem like they "make sense" doesn't mean you're dealing with reality. Outer reality (what you can see) is objective and "real". Inner reality (what you think and imagine) is subjective and can be created, destroyed, and changed by you.
If it makes you happy to live in an inner world you create, then that's great. Knock yourself out. Just don't go labeling the outer reality as the same thing as inner reality. It's a different world with different rules. Firm ones.
Personally, I prefer a world of objective truth. I prefer focusing on what can be observed to be real, not what I create to be real, although that's fun when I can trick myself into thinking its real (with drugs for instance).

The "belief" that science can explain everything is not a belief per se. Science by definition can explain everything.
You can say "oh, well gravity is just a theory..." But it doesn't matter if its a theory. It can be observed to be true. You can see it. Now, if it's not a field force and God is making it happen, that doesn't make the theory of gravity wrong, it just makes what we observed an illusion, in which case science would reevaluate itself and adapt to the new discovery."

flies said: "there's a lot in the posts you've made, nagrom, that i disagree with. The basic problem I have is your insistence that the current scientific consensus is “the truth”/objective. The truth is a social construct, and not everyone sees the same thing. You have to accept your own fallibility. You and I might define science as the truth, but that doesn’t mean we’re right. there’s no absolute point of reference from which to evaluate whether or not our science is correct. Because there is no evaluation of right and wrong, there is no right and wrong. We have goals and we create tools which help us achieve those goals. Science is such a tool, and the only meaningful evaluation is whether or not it is an effective tool.

Science is not “the truth,” it’s our best guess. Science is the pursuit of truth, but there is no guarantee that that pursuit will end in success. Your confidence that science can explain _everything_ is extreme, to say the least. There are certainly many problems that science has been unable to explain as of now. I have my doubts that science can explain to me the best way for humans to live, or how I can best make use of my talents. You do seem to treat science with a worshipful reverence.

Just don’t confuse your certainty for objectivity. That’s what fundamentalists do."

nagrom said: "First, truth is not a social construct. No matter who measures my height, it will always be 6 feet. Now, it's a possibly that we are collectively deceived, but that seems a bit far fetched. Do you posit an argument for all measurements being not real? Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster is affecting the results with his noodly appendage. ( link )

Similarly, there is a moon orbiting Earth. We can see the moon. We've been on the moon. We know how far away the moon is. Now, aside from the possibility that everything is an illusion (albeit completely rigid illusion), I don't see how you can refute the existence of "reality".
Possibly reality exists within a larger framework, possibly of the mind, and that's why I'm agnostic/atheist.
Regardless of what reality is (something created in our heads, or something external), it's still there and it still follows the laws of science, or alternative laws that haven't been discovered yet (science allows for uncertainty). "

dawkins said: "Yet strictly we should all be teapot agnostics: we cannot prove, for sure, that there is no celestial teapot. In practice we move away from teapot agnosticism towards a-teapotism"

bsr said: "i find that view upside down. and i got a hell of a lot more respect for sagan than dawkins."