Help disproving a ridiculous scientific ideology?

Question

I was debating my brother recently (I'm 21, he's 18) regarding religion - I'm an ardent atheist/skeptic, and he's Protestant. When we were discussing how science determines what is "true" or not, he had this to say - and I quote:

"Something must be assumed to be correct until it is disproven."

To say this is a silly idea would be to say the Atlantic ocean is damp. High school students and PhD's alike know that this is a totally incorrect statement. It would require that every scientist believe that Zues, Baal, God, Leprechauns, and the Celestial Teapot exist.

What I'm looking for is a very reputable document that clearly and explicitly repudiates this statement. Does anyone know some of reading that might clue my him in? (and Dawkins is out ... my brother is convinced he's the antichrist, and refuses to read a word he's written, lest he be lead astray <gasp>)

Answer 1

Your brother isnt  knowledgeable enough to counter Your argument and neither are most religous people.They do sound ridiculous.But  he seems a lot more open minded then You are. You are enforcing Dawkins views on every one. If You were living a 1000 yrs back and some one told You about an invisible force that acts on every atom in the universe and may be the reason for and determine the fate of the universe. You would have laughed it off as a celestial Teapot.But I&#039;m sure You wouldnt  laugh at the idea of gravity today.Do You think that all scientific discoveries that were to be made have already been made ? You think all questions about the universe have already been answered ? If so , its You who are close minded  not your bro.

Answer 2

well when it comes down to it, both the very VERY VERY beginning of &quot;life&quot;

they are both assumptions, both religiously and scientifically.

so you both have nothing to argue about to be honest. even though scientifically there are several theories, --- they have not been proven 100% accurate and therefore are just assumptions as much as religious paradigms.....and its whatever you chose to put your faith into...so you both relate w/ faith.

Answer 3

Russel&#039;s Teapot - you can&#039;t prove that there&#039;s NOT a small teapot orbiting the sun out there somewhere, so should you assume there is?

No, because that&#039;s stupid.  You don&#039;t have to assume everything that CAN be true IS true.  Russel&#039;s Teapot is a good illustration of that.  Also look up &#039;Invisible Pink Unicorns&#039; or &#039;Flying Spaghetti Monster&#039;.

&#039;Can science explain how you get something from nothing??&#039;

Yes.  Look up quantum fluctuations.

&#039;the so called law of interia disproves every scientific claim that god does not exist&#039;

There&#039;s no such thing as a &#039;law of inertia&#039;

&#039;when it comes down to it, both the very VERY VERY beginning of &quot;life&quot;

they are both assumptions, both religiously and scientifically.

so you both have nothing to argue about to be honest. even though scientifically there are several theories, --- they have not been proven 100% accurate and therefore are just assumptions as much as religious paradigms&#039;

No, there are degrees of certainness.  Again, you can&#039;t 100% prove that there are or aren&#039;t such things as invisible pink unicorns, but that does not make them equal hypothesis.

Science doesn&#039;t prove things anyways, so anyone waiting for &#039;100% accurate&#039; proof has no idea what science is about.

Answer 4

It won&#039;t matter what you say to him, he won&#039;t listen.

Answer 5

Your best bet (and there&#039;s not a very good bet, to be honest...he sounds like he has a very shaky understanding of logic) is to point out the inconsistency of his claim:

1. No one has disproven that the world will end on 2008 Dec 31, so we must assume the statement &quot;The world will end on 2008 Dec 31&quot; is correct.

2. No one has disproven that the world will still be here on 2009 Jan 1, so we must assume the statement &quot;The world will still be here on 2009 Jan 1&quot; is correct.

3. There is no way that the world will end on 2008 Dec 31 *and* still be here on 2009 Jan 1, so if we assume both of these statements are correct, we are assuming two contradictory facts.

4. The only way to reconcile Points 1-3 is to reject the notion that we must believe something merely because it has not been disproven.

Answer 6

Ask him to define &quot;gullible.&quot;

Answer 7

God doesnt exist,tell him,just think on your own for once.if we were in ancient greece they would kill us for not believig in Zeus and we&#039;d both be debating their preists at this momment

Answer 8

Can science explain how you get something from nothing?? can science explain how energy was created, the so called law of interia disproves every scientific claim that god does not exist

Answer 9

&gt; &quot;Something must be assumed to be correct until it is disproven.&quot;

Suggest he learn logic or science.  The statement is contrary to basic principles of logic, the scientific method, and common sense.  Guilty until proven innocent.  The electron charge is positive and it is negative and it is neutral.  I really own oceanfront property in Iowa that I want to sell to you.  No logical person works this way.

Answer 10

i&#039;m on his side, but he&#039;s wrong.  what i see is religous people refusing obvious things in science, and athiests ignoring any science that points towards anything religious, your first answerer is correct, you have probably made up your mind, and he has made up his, and you both only see the things you want to see.  you will never prove there isn&#039;t a god, and he will never prove there is.  shake hands and discuss the weather.