The Religion of Science

[Royce]

Science as we know it and think of it began 3-400 years ago and progressed steadily until around the turn of the last century. Science had a number of greats but probably none greater than Issiac Newton who discovered gravity by as the legend goes having an apple hit him in the head. Presumably apples didn’t fall from trees prior to Newton’s discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier.
By the 1900 physicist especially considered their work nearly done. They knew everything that they needed to know and would therefore soon know everything. Then along came a number of heretics. Foremost among them was Einstein who discovered first Special and then General Relativity by proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton’s work. About the same time came Schrodinger who invented or discovered Quantum mechanics by putting a cat in a box with a “diabolical device’ and then totally baffled all of his colleagues by telling them that there was no way that they could know whether the cat was dead or alive. These two great heretics brought about the Great Reformation of Science. All science prior to that time was forever deemed Classical Physics and all after was called Modern Physics.
The Great Reformation invalidated and did away with all of the centuries of work, inventions and discoveries of all whom proceeded it. Einstein Theories of relativity were so esoteric and complicated that is was said that only three men completely understood it, Einstein himself of course and someone named Eddington. No one, especially Eddington, knew who the third man was. Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong. He also did away with Newton’s gravity by showing that space was bent, twisted and deformed by matter and everything tended to run down hill as a result.
The importance of Quantum Physics cannot be understated because it revolutionized modern science by coming up with the uncertainty principle, hence Schrodinger’s cat. The uncertainty principle stated that we do not and can not know everything about anything or anything about everything. Particles are not really particles unless we are looking at them but when we are not looking they turn into waves that can be two different places at the same time and interfere with itself, just like little boys.
The Holy Grail of modern science is GUT, Grand Unified Theory in which all natural forces are united and described by one formula. They have done very well to date and have all of the forces unified except for that pesky demon gravity that Newton let out of the bottle and even Einstein could not get back in. Personally I think a good healthy dose of laxative would help all of them and do away with their GUT problems.
If Gut is their Holy Grail then their ultimate goal, their Nirvana is TOE; and, we occidentals think the Buddhist inscrutable for contemplating their navels. TOE is the Theory Of Everything.
Notice how they love acronyms, more about that later. Once more they think they are on the verge of knowing everything. Is this déjà vu all over again or what.
Now a bit about the structure of Science. One cannot become a scientist unless one devotes a considerable portion of their lives studying at one of their temples. The highest most holly of high priests of science are the pure mathematicians. They may be likened to our Zen Buddhist monk who do nothing but sit around all day meditating. Pure mathematicians work with runes and arcane symbols that originated in ancient Greece and Arabia and are for the most part incomprehensible to most people. They spend their day writing down and manipulating these arcane symbols and runes that have no know meaning and no relationship with anything at all in the real world. In short they dedicate their life doing that which no one understands and that which has no use whatsoever.
The next group in the priesthood of science hierarchy is the pure research scientists. They of course feel that they should be the highest and most holly of high priest as the pure mathematicians are not technically scientists at all. They have a point mainly because their research budgets exceed those of many small undeveloped countries. However if the criteria is how few understand what they are doing and how useless their work is then the pure mathematician wins hand down. The pure research scientist’s main goal in life is to spend more and more money building bigger and bigger devices in order to find smaller and smaller particles by making them go as fast as they can them smashing them into one another and count the pieces left over much like little boys with their toy cars, trucks and trains. Their other most important mission is to publish more books, and papers faster than others.
The next group down the line is the applied scientist. This is the first group who is actually do anything worth while as they work to apply the work of those above them to the real world and do or make something actually useful. This of course diminishes their reputation and stature in the society of scientist. One can usually tell the stature and rank of a scientist by counting the number of acronyms behind his name
Then there are engineers who are not even considered scientist because they actually do things in the real world. They are often supervised by applied scientists who may on occasion if no one is looking actually do something themselves blurring the division between scientist and engineer. The engineers main job is to take the product, theories, of applied scientist and change them however necessary so that they might actually work and make drawing and diagrams of machines or devises or things.
The lowest level is the lay level of technicians, who are not scientist at all but they may be engineers, who are essentially necessary to the whole process by building what the engineers design then make changes until it actually works and performs their proper function. On very rare occasions the changes made all along the way have actually made there way back up the system forcing the pure scientist to change their theories. Rather than dismay and embarrass them this causes the scientist immense delight as that gives them an excuse to spend more money and write more books.
As real religions have been around for as long as mankind, at least ten thousand years and has been proven to be true by the testimony of millions and science has only been around for a few hundred years and is supported by the testimony of only a relative few who no one but their acolytes pretend to understand; and, even they or their interpreters admit that they do not and can not know everything about anything or anything about everything, thus painting themselves into a corner; I feel that the Religion of Science is just another inexplicable fad and will soon go the way of all fads fading away into history just as the Pythagoreans did, thank God.

[wuliheron]

Despite any similarities they might have, science is not a religion. You can make a religion out of science, just as you can make a religion out of pac-man if you want, but science itself is not a religion. Religions all worship a God or Divinity, in other words:



The religious do it with worship.

While

Scientists do it with objectivity.

Think I'll design a T-Shirt. [6)] [6)] [6)]

[BoulderHead]

Enjoyable reading Royce !
But, like Wu Li said; science is not a religion. Though with the way some people carry on you would think it was [:D]

Think I'll design a T-Shirt.I’d like one of those with philosophers in it that you hit me with in another thread, haha.

[LogicalAtheist]

Yeah. The topic title makes the post not worth reading. Looks good but, shoulda chosen another topic.

[ahrkron]

One more difference between science and religion:

Science is pretty much defined by a method of inquiry, plus a constant test of all assumptions made.

Onthe other hand, religion (by its very essense), is based on the idea that "absolute truth" has been revealed by some absolute entity (god, nature, the universe, math, etc.), which implies that it does not make sense to question it. Rather, the logical think to do is to find out a way to make human thinking compatible with revealed truth.

[LogicalAtheist]

There's no point in comparing religion to science. They have zero in common. It's like comparing time and bananas. It's pointless.

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Royce
Presumably apples didn't fall from trees prior to Newton's discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier.

Newton's contribution did not consist on noticing that apples fall. Instead, he realized that the falling of apples and the orbit of planets' satellites were governed by the same physical interaction, and correctly described them. He put on the same foot the falling of bodies and the movement of the planets, and showed how Kepler's laws were a corollary of one simple interaction.

It is hard to emphasize enough the fact that, while doing so, he showed that the behavior of heavenly objects was the same as that of earthly objects.

proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton's work.

Classical mechanics was not "done away with". Einstein successfully described the deviations that exist wrt Newtonian predictions when high speeds are involved and when experimental precision is far better than that used in most engineering applications (even today)

The Great Reformation invalidated and did away with all of the centuries of work, inventions and discoveries of all whom proceeded it.

GR and QM did not invalidate CM. They are refinements, but a physical theory is a predictive model, and CM is still as valid as always for many applications. Nobody on his rigth mind would design a desk using a quantum field theory description of every quark used for it. The adequate model for this would be CM and maybe thermodynamics.

Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window

The gist is that, even if you look out a window, you can only say how fast you go with respect to an object you choose.

and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong.

The point is not that all are wrong, but that there's no "universal correct time" to decide if any clock is right or wrong.

The uncertainty principle stated that we do not and can not know everything about anything or anything about everything.

This is so general a statement that it is true regardless of QM!

[ahrkron]

Originally posted by Royce
Now a bit about the structure of Science. One cannot become a scientist unless one devotes a considerable portion of their lives studying at one of their temples.

As you'll read later, I disagree with some of the statements you make, however, there is a way in which I agree with what you are saying. I wrote about this at some point on PF2, I think.

In the middle ages (and much before), wizards, alchemists, druids and others were organized in brotherhoods. They did their best to find how to harness the powers hidden in nature. They found many of those secrets and, out of necessity, invented ways to describe them, with words and symbols that were only meaningful to the initiated.

They chose apprentices and tought them what they learned. After many generations, much knowledge started to pile up, and they found what they were looking for: ways to control and use the forces of nature.

I sometimes think of science not as a religion, but as the legacy of wizards. Magic. Real magic.

[Iacchus32]

Is there a difference between science and religion? ...

Science represents the outer Masculine form, or shell, derived from the Feminine inner essence or "spirit" -- i.e., Religion. Of course if the "life within," religion itself, dies, then it would all have kind of a hollow ringing inside now wouldn't it? Hmm ...

While I guess without science or religion, then we would all be a bunch of monkeys now wouldn't we?

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is there a difference between science and religion? ...

Science represents the outer Masculine form, or shell, derived from the Feminine inner essence or "spirit" -- i.e., Religion. Of course if the "life within," religion itself, dies, then it would all have kind of a hollow ringing inside now wouldn't it? Hmm ...

While I guess without science or religion, then we would all be a bunch of monkeys now wouldn't we?

Humans did not seperate them from their apes fellow because they started science or religion, but because they practiced labour and the use of tools.

[Iacchus32]

Originally posted by heusdens
Humans did not seperate them from their apes fellow because they started science or religion, but because they practiced labour and the use of tools. Do you mean as God commanded Adam to work by the sweat of his brow? (Genesis 3:19).

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Do you mean as God commanded Adam to work by the sweat of his brow? (Genesis 3:19).

No, I mean the The part played by labour in the transition from ape to men (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1876-Hands/).

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Iacchus32
Is there a difference between science and religion?


Yes. Science = facts, religion = no facts and even CONTRARY to facts.

[drag]

Originally posted by ahrkron
...plus a constant test of all assumptions made.

Please enlarge the font, make it move across the
screen and post it again ! [:D] Because some people
here just don't get it and thus provide a reason
to other people to start threads on subjects
such as this one. [;)]

Live long and prosper.

[Royce]

Wouldn't do any good. They are so busy denying everything anybody else thinks, knows or believes they will never get it. Getting it lends credence to someone else and that's impossible for them.

"People who think that they know everything are a consant irritant to those of us who do."

[drag]

Originally posted by Royce
Wouldn't do any good. They are so busy denying everything
anybody else thinks, knows or believes they will never get it. Getting it lends credence to someone else and that's
impossible for them.
And yet, their views do not reflect the perspective
of the majority of scientists or indeed of science
itself.

Live long and prosper.

[Alexander]

Yes. Basicly when you don't question/test anything then you create a religion. If you question and test everything then you create a science.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yes. Basicly when you don't question/test anything then you create a religion. If you question and test everything then you create a science.

Another gross over-simplification that denies the fundamental distinctions. This is most certainly not a scientific statement, but a misleading emotional one. Again:

The religious do it with worship,

While

Scientists do it objectively.

[Alexander]

Another one who does not see the difference between science (fact) and religion (myth).

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Another one who does not see the difference between science (fact) and religion (myth).

Science is not fact and myth is not religion. Thus we have words to distinguish them which scientists acknowledge and use properly.

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Another gross over-simplification that denies the fundamental distinctions. This is most certainly not a scientific statement, but a misleading emotional one. Again:

The religious do it with worship,

While

Scientists do it objectively.

What are the relgious doing, exactly, that wouldmake it worthy of being spoken of in teh same sentence as science?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
What are the relgious doing, exactly, that wouldmake it worthy of being spoken of in teh same sentence as science?

Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal. Among other things, they help pay for and otherwise support the sciences. Some of them, in fact, Are scientists.

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal. Among other things, they help pay for and otherwise support the sciences. Some of them, in fact, Are scientists.

But what does their religion have to do with it?!?

[Royce]

Part of religion or better spirituality is living and a way of life that strives to be virtuous and productive as well as worship. My son once said; "My whole life is a prayer." He had been exposed to religion (organized) but not raised particularly religiously. It was simply a way of life for us. Not going to chuch all the time, we hardly ever went to church, but of trying to live a good honest produtive spiritual life. It wasn't a big deal. It just was.
We accepted it as a part of our life.

[Zero]

What I am sayingis that a scientist goes out and does research, gathers information, and performs experiments. Religious people pray. One of those two methods provides concrete answers to specific questions, while the other provides a warm fuzzy feling and nothing else.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Part of religion or better spirituality is living and a way of life that strives to be virtuous and productive as well as worship. My son once said; "My whole life is a prayer." He had been exposed to religion (organized) but not raised particularly religiously. It was simply a way of life for us. Not going to chuch all the time, we hardly ever went to church, but of trying to live a good honest produtive spiritual life. It wasn't a big deal. It just was.
We accepted it as a part of our life.

Well, it can also be done without the religious aspect, so religion doesn't seem to be the variable that causes the productive way of life.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
But what does their religion have to do with it?!?

Western religions have incorporated the same fundamentalism of the sciences. The same black and white, good and bad, true and false, etc. dualistic worldviews--just with different twists. Not everybody can be a scientist or even comprehend much about the work of scientists, but by having some fundamental similarities in worldviews they become capable of supporting their work.

Most of the religious surveyed, for example, don't agree with a number of scientific discoveries such as Darwin's evolution. Still, they support the sciences as a practical matter and have some grasp of what it is that scientists do. Similarly, western religions formed the foundations for moral and ethical codes of conduct that have supported the sciences, again, because the two share the same fundamentalist roots.

Ironically, without religious fundamentalism the sciences might have much more difficulty garnering as much support as they do. Likewise, that same religious fundamentalism is based on the discoveries of the sciences and philosophies. If instead we had a plethora of magical shamanistic beliefs without a common and consistent set of ethics it would be very difficult indeed to organize society much less the sciences.

[Zero]

I think you are extremely confused as to the nature of fundamentalist religion in relation to science...you are rational and pro-science, but I don't think you represent fundamentalism in any way, shape, or form.

[Royce]

To answer your question, Zero. Religion has nothing to do with it. I am religous or if you prefer spiritual. I do not deny that science exists or that it is not valid. Nor do I say anyone who believes in science is a fool ignorant or stupid. I do not deny that matter exist. I have found a way in my mind and heart to reconcile the two.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I originally wrote and posted this piece as a parody of the manical and fanatical insistance of exclusive materialistic science atheist that there belief in science was just as much an act of faith, just as much based on unknowns and unprovables as that of any person who believes in God and/or the Creator. The deny the history and culture of mankind and the swore testimony of millions because of the word God or religion is involved but accept with whole hearted conviction the word of a very few scientist who admit that they don't really know anything as absolute simply because the word science is associated with them. "That's a joke, son. You know humor."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
To answer your question, Zero. Religion has nothing to do with it. I am religous or if you prefer spiritual. I do not deny that science exists or that it is not valid. Nor do I say anyone who believes in science is a fool ignorant or stupid. I do not deny that matter exist. I have found a way in my mind and heart to reconcile the two.
Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. I originally wrote and posted this piece as a parody of the manical and fanatical insistance of exclusive materialistic science atheist that there belief in science was just as much an act of faith, just as much based on unknowns and unprovables as that of any person who believes in God and/or the Creator. The deny the history and culture of mankind and the swore testimony of millions because of the word God or religion is involved but accept with whole hearted conviction the word of a very few scientist who admit that they don't really know anything as absolute simply because the word science is associated with them. "That's a joke, son. You know humor."

Well...you compare apples and oranges.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
I think you are extremely confused as to the nature of fundamentalist religion in relation to science...you are rational and pro-science, but I don't think you represent fundamentalism in any way, shape, or form.

Modern western fundamentalism, both of the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, owe their origins to Aristotelian logic. In turn, Aristotelian logic owes its origins to earlier fundamentalist religions and became the foundation of western sciences still largely in use to this day. It is precisely this kind of modern scientific and religious fundamentalism that distinguishes the west from the east. Some of this fundamentalism, notably the Golden Rule, did make its way to asia, however many of the more important aspects for development of the modern sciences did not make the transistion.

Politics, as they say, makes strange bed fellows and fundamentalist western science and religion are perhaps more strange than most. A distinct love/hate relationship that has advanced the sciences and civilization. That such fundamentalism still shapes the sciences, even among Atheist scientists, is obvious. No doubt science could proceed without it, but not until someone invents a better system to organize around.

[Zero]

Again, apples and oranges...I don't see how religious fundamentalism is comparable to science.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
What are the relgious doing, exactly, that wouldmake it worthy of being spoken of in teh same sentence as science? One of those two methods provides concrete answers to specific questions, while the other provides a warm fuzzy feling and nothing else. Asked and answered. Sometimes people need the warm fuzzy feeling. In addition religion gives a moral code to people who can't find one on their own.

Regardles, you are right - religion doesn't belong in the same sentence as science. They are completely different and wholly incompatible worldviews.

[Royce]

No I don't. They are both belief systems. Both based on experience and observation. Religion is more subjective than physical science, I agree.
There are, however, hundreds if not thousands of scientifically documented cases where faith and miracles have healed terminal illnesses. They are not all phony. They are documented and doctors and medical scientist have no other explaination for such things. Why doesn't that count as physical evidence that is measureable and documented? The are again hundreds of sworn testemony of near death experiences that are very similar if not identical. Yet that doesn't count. They are all liars or deluded?
Yet you, or perhasps better, they, believe as fact the mouthings of a few scientist that can't even agree with each other. That, by their own definition is Faith whether you or they will admit it or not.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
No I don't. They are both belief systems. Both based on experience and observation. Religion is more subjective than physical science, I agree.
There are, however, hundreds if not thousands of scientifically documented cases where faith and miracles have healed terminal illnesses. They are not all phony. They are documented and doctors and medical scientist have no other explaination for such things. Why doesn't that count as physical evidence that is measureable and documented? The are again hundreds of sworn testemony of near death experiences that are very similar if not identical. Yet that doesn't count. They are all liars or deluded?
Yet you, or perhasps better, they, believe as fact the mouthings of a few scientist that can't even agree with each other. That, by their own definition is Faith whether you or they will admit it or not.

There is NO EVIDENCE of faith healing ever working. You are fooling yourself, or being fools, trust me. They are all either phony or spontaneous remissions, which happen regardless of faith. And, yes, people who think that they have had an OBE are fooling themselves.

And you continue to insist that 'faith' in actual experiments that you are welcome to do yourself, is the same as 'faith' in mystics and superstion. You are wrong. The 'mouthings' of scientists can be documented and duplicated by other scientists. Word of mouth 'evidence' is no evidence at all.

[wuliheron]

What utter fundamentalist nonsense. Just as religious fundamentalists tend to totally discount, deny, and argue against the value and worth of the sciences, ya'll are just using this forum to spout hateful and erronious propoganda against religion.

I have no love for religion, but this forum is for scholarly discussion of issues, not hate propoganda.

Anyone can visit the Scientific Pantheist website if they so desire and see for themselves that religion and science can belong in the same sentence. For that matter, religion and atheism can belong in the same sentence. To state otherwise is degrading to all those religious atheists out there devoted to science.

[drag]

Greetings !

It appears that I have to repeat myself :
SCIENCE IS NOT A RELIGION.

Royce, my last comments on this subject were
spoiled by Alexander who indeed believes in a
religion rather than just viewing science as it is.
It would appear that you are using his comments
to justify what you say and that's unfair (and
clearly incorrect, of course).

Live long and prosper.

[Royce]

Zero and Drag, I ask you both, were you there when the scientist did all of those experiements. Did you actually perform the measurements and observations, setup and oversee the precess and analyze the result. No? of course not. You like me and the vast majority of us read it in a book or paper or on a website or learned about it in a class room. Because it was science we knew it to be a fact and true. You and I believed without visable proof only because it was science. A few years later they may have had to rewrite all the books and text books because further experiement proved that the conclusions were wrong and had to be refined. We adjusted our thinking and again believed without visable proof because it is science.

Alexander or LogicalAthiest, its hard to tell them apart, defined faith as belief with no visable proof.

No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, with out visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.

If, however, I have actually expeienced or witnessed an event that has the slightest tinge of religion or the word God mentioned in the same paragraph it is bunk, myth or delusion or I am a fool or liar.

That is an irrationally biased double standard.

If one scientist says something, no matter how rediculous, incredable or nonsensecal, if he has the right anagrams behind his name, he is taken seriously and we wait. If one or more scientist from other labs come forth and says that they have verified the first scientist finding there is great hoopala, head lines in the papers, more federal grants of my tax money and if they are lucky they get to go to sweden in a few years and collect a million dollars.

If a million people say something that has any association with God or religion and 10 million people all over the world verify it, they are all self deluded fools, liars or con men.

It is not right nor justified. It is a double standard.

When I sited healings and near death experiences you did just that.
If I tried to to do that to findings of scientist siting religious reasons you and most of the others would laugh me right out of the PF's and once I was out you'd lock me out forever. Is that really rational reasonable behavior or knee jerk reactions caused by an irrational emotional bias?

[AutisticSavant]

In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion. [Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address]

You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe. [Carl Sagan]

(When asked merely if they accept evolution, 45 percent of Americans say yes. The figure is 70 percent in China.) When the movie Jurassic Park was shown in Israel, it was condemned by some Orthodox rabbis because it accepted evolution and because it taught that dinosaurs lived a hundred million years ago--when, as is plainly stated at every Rosh Hashonhan and every Jewish wedding ceremony, the Universe is less than 6,000 years old. [Carl Sagan, _The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark_, p. 325]

One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and - whole the events of that year were certainly of some importance - the world did not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended. There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy. They could have said, Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014'. A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvinenced in any way. But they did not. They could have said, Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth. But they did not. Instead, the did something much more ingenious. They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the fact of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof. The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough- mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration was needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry. [Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain]

If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate....Try science. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, p. 30, quoted in 2000 Years of Disbelief, Famous People with the Courage to Doubt, by James A. Haught, Prometheus Books, 1996]

If we long to believe that the stars rise and set for us, that we are the reason there is a Universe, does science do us a disservice in deflating our conceits?....For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. [Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark]

Theres more, but you get the point right royce?

[Royce]

Of course I do. What's more I agree with you and feel the same way as most here feel about organized religion. I will even admit that I have an irrational emotional reaction when organized religion is mentioned. The only point that I am trying to make is that people are human, even rational logigal materialistic athiest and that some of them have as irrational illogical faith in science as many religionist have in their religion.
Just as all science isn't good, right or conclusive, all religion or believe in God or a creator isn't stupid irrational or self delusional. They are both belief systems that require faith to believe. Religion believes in some higher being, God and or a creator. Science, science buffs like myself, believe in the word and correctness and honesty of a relative few scientist. I wasn't there. I probably wouldn't have understood what was going on if I were, when they performed their experiments nor I suspect were you or anyone else here at PF. We have to take their word for it. We have to believe without self evident or commonsense, intuitively obvious evidence. That is an act of faith. QM and QED take a leap of faith.
What's the difference? I reiterate. BOTH RELIGION AND SCIENCE ARE BELIEF SYSTEMS FOR US LAYMEN AND REQUIRE FAITH.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero and Drag, I ask you both, were you there when the scientist did all of those experiements. Did you actually perform the measurements and observations, setup and oversee the precess and analyze the result. No? of course not. You like me and the vast majority of us read it in a book or paper or on a website or learned about it in a class room. Because it was science we knew it to be a fact and true. You and I believed without visable proof only because it was science. This is the crux of your mis-interpretation. Clearly no, you have not done the Michelson-Morely experiment. But you CAN if you WANT TO. The evidence is there for the observing if you choose to observe it. This is not the case with religion as there simply ISN'T any evidence.

In order to "believe in" science, you first have to choose to ignore the scientific method. But then, without the scientific method, it isn't science, is it? Whether you choose to participate or not, science is still science and it still rests on EVIDENCE.

Incidentally, I am winning a nearly identical arguement HERE (http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5404)

[Hurkyl]

This is not the case with religion as there simply ISN'T any evidence.

Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.


science is still science and it still rests on EVIDENCE.

Specifically, scientific evidence. The "science rests on evidence" is a neat little circular argument.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Zero and Drag, I ask you both, were you there when the scientist did all of those experiements. Did you actually perform the measurements and observations, setup and oversee the precess and analyze the result. No? of course not. You like me and the vast majority of us read it in a book or paper or on a website or learned about it in a class room. Because it was science we knew it to be a fact and true. You and I believed without visable proof only because it was science. A few years later they may have had to rewrite all the books and text books because further experiement proved that the conclusions were wrong and had to be refined. We adjusted our thinking and again believed without visable proof because it is science. That is one great reason to trust science; it is self-correcting ,where religion is not. All science claims is that it is presenting the best assumption based on the evidence.

Alexander or LogicalAthiest, its hard to tell them apart, defined faith as belief with no visable proof.

No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, with out visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.

If, however, I have actually expeienced or witnessed an event that has the slightest tinge of religion or the word God mentioned in the same paragraph it is bunk, myth or delusion or I am a fool or liar.

That is an irrationally biased double standard.
If one scientist says something, no matter how rediculous, incredable or nonsensecal, if he has the right anagrams behind his name, he is taken seriously and we wait. If one or more scientist from other labs come forth and says that they have verified the first scientist finding there is great hoopala, head lines in the papers, more federal grants of my tax money and if they are lucky they get to go to sweden in a few years and collect a million dollars.

If a million people say something that has any association with God or religion and 10 million people all over the world verify it, they are all self deluded fools, liars or con men.

It is not right nor justified. It is a double standard.

When I sited healings and near death experiences you did just that.
If I tried to to do that to findings of scientist siting religious reasons you and most of the others would laugh me right out of the PF's and once I was out you'd lock me out forever. Is that really rational reasonable behavior or knee jerk reactions caused by an irrational emotional bias? You simply misunderstand what the standard is. The standard is that the evidence can be repeated and shown to anyone, regardless of their beliefs, today, tomorrow, next year.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.


This confuses me...your statement is consistant with the idea that religion is either delusion or brainwashing. If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

[Royce]

Zero, you still refuse to accept the obvious. As Hurkyl said you are free and more than welcome to do any number of things, some do not require faith at all, and see for yourself, verify for yourself that some of what we believe it is true.
People, scientist and philosophers have been debating and arguing about religion probably since before it became religion. That is why there are so many religions in the world tody. Each religion has numerous divisions, sects, and cults that have split off from the original sect. Ever hear of the Great Reformation? Religion changes and evolves just as science does. That is obvious visable evidence that your statement below is wrong and based on ignorance or a refusal to acknowledge factual truth.

"That is one great reason to trust science; it is self-correcting ,where religion is not. All science claims is that it is presenting the best assumption based on the evidence."

Where, oh where, is that OPEN inquiering mind that science is so proud of? I'll tell you where it is, its locked in a closet afraid to come out and look around because it might learn that it isn't the only truth in the universe.

It is entirely possiple for more that one Truth to exist in this vast universe. SCIENCE AND RELIGION ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. They can actually complment each other and both will benifit by it.

[wuliheron]

Royce, its just scientific fundamentalism rearing its ugly head again. Don't take it too personally.

Religion and science are compatable specifically because of capitalism and, again, because of the fundamentalist roots all these institutions share. Both religion and the sciences thrive in capitalistic countries where money drives the marketplace of innovation and threatens moral standards. Religion demonstrably serves to counter these tendencies and regulate them.

Socialistic countries support the sciences as well, but are significantly less religious and depend more upon their governments and societies to establish the foundations of morality. In addition, because they have left behind the extreme dualism of capitalism vs morality, science vs religion, they also tend to be significantly less fundamentalist in general.

[Royce]

Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

[Zero]

That's what you guys must love about philosophy and religion...not only can you make up whatever suits you, but you can call others 'close minded' for not accepting your ideas as anything more than your imagination. Science has facts, you have mystic mumblings and myths.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

How many times do I 'open my mind' to things that aren't there, before I stop? We should 'wake up'? When all you offer is dreams without substance?

[Royce]

I offer nothing but ideas and thoughts. I don't want or expect you or any one else to accept anything. I just expect my thoughts and ideas to be read and thought about with an open mind as I try to do with all of yours; considered and accepted or rejected on their own merits, not rejected out of hand because they have within them the words "God" or "religion."

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I offer nothing but ideas and thoughts. I don't want or expect you or any one else to accept anything. I just expect my thoughts and ideas to be read and thought about with an open mind as I try to do with all of yours; considered and accepted or rejected on their own merits, not rejected out of hand because they have within them the words "God" or "religion."

Oh, I did read them...and they are pretty standard stuff. You seem to be coming from it at the angle of 'religion is just as good as science at what science does'...and since that is patently false, you try to re-label science as just another religion.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
Wuli, I don't take it personally. Admittedly I am slow and hard headed and I admit that I too have a closed mind about some things such as communism and organized religion; but, you only have to hit me on the head with that proverbial 2X4 few times before I open my eyes and mind and start looking around to see what's trying to get my attention.
I have never run across such closed minded people out side of a fundamentalist babtist church before. They profess to be logical and scientific, and 'religiously' follow the scientific method. They must be doing it in brail with gloves on.
Shhhh! Don't laugh too loud. You might wake them up. Nawww, that was stupid of me. we couldn't wake these guys up with dynomite.

I live on a commune in southern Baptist redneck territory. Radical conservative communists are every bit as unreasonable and foam at the mouth as the worst religious fundamentalist. Put 'em all in the same room together and they'd kill each other-- in the names of God and science of course. They are two extremes of the same fundamentalism which can be directly traced to its sources within the welfare states and is well documented.

The more capitalistic the country, the more intensely fundamentalist. The heirarchies of the Catholic church tend to do best in the underdeveloped countries where the disparity between rich and poor, royalty and peasents is pronounced. Calvinism does better in wealthier capitalistic societies where people are encouraged to rise above their social class and the sciences are supported more.

There are at least four hundred definitions of socialism, but for our purposes here I will give a simplified definition. Essentially, socialistic countries are distinguished from capitalistic ones by the fact that the government owns much of the foundations of the economy such as the chemical and energy industries, and provides guaranteed basic support for everyone. For example, they provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Most european countries are socialist in such respects.

Whereas the US guarantees only a few years of welfare support at around $16,000.00 a year for a family of four, the average in europe is around $22,000.00 a year and is unlimited. In the US, some eighty plus percent of the population is religious while in europe the percentages tend to be reversed. When people feel they can trust each other to provide morality religion looses much of its appeal.

Fundamentalism, both religious and scientific, is notoriously violent and its violence is notably creative. The number one manufactured export of the US is weapons, most of which are developed in time of war. As a result, the US routinely rakes in half the Nobel prizes.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Zero
That's what you guys must love about philosophy and religion...not only can you make up whatever suits you, but you can call others 'close minded' for not accepting your ideas as anything more than your imagination. Science has facts, you have mystic mumblings and myths.

And you apparently have a negative philosophy which contradicts the facts.

[Royce]

You miss my point and the point of this thread.
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.
Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.
Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.
To us laymen who are not the scientist that actually perform the experiments, science is our taking sombody else's word that the facts, evidence and conclusions are true. We believe the scientist without performing the experiments ourselves or actually seeing the evidence with our own eyes. This is belief in science and scientist.
This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.
Pt4.
Science is based on evidence and experiment. We accept that evidence as truth.
Religion is based on evidence and experiment but mostly of a subjective manner but is not only rejected but ridiculed, slandered and debased by the very people who claim to have open objective minds.
This is contraditory.
Pt 5. My most important point.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid legitamate fields of knowledge to be studied and considered

[AutisticSavant]

Originally posted by Royce
You miss my point and the point of this thread.
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.
Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.
Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.
To us laymen who are not the scientist that actually perform the experiments, science is our taking sombody else's word that the facts, evidence and conclusions are true. We believe the scientist without performing the experiments ourselves or actually seeing the evidence with our own eyes. This is belief in science and scientist.
This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.
Pt4.
Science is based on evidence and experiment. We accept that evidence as truth.
Religion is based on evidence and experiment but mostly of a subjective manner but is not only rejected but ridiculed, slandered and debased by the very people who claim to have open objective minds.
This is contraditory.
Pt 5. My most important point.
Science and religion are not mutually exclusive. Both are valid legitamate fields of knowledge to be studied and considered

1. correct
2. correct
3. wrong
4. correct on first part, wrong on second part
5. wrong

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Royce
[B]You miss my point and the point of this thread.


Better make up your mind as to what the point of this thread is. Your original post suggested the point was that science is a religion, which is patently absurd, however science and religion do have some things in common as I have pointed out.

As for religion being just as good as science, that I believe is patently absurd as well. The most progressive and humane nations in the world today are largely secular. Again, as I have already pointed out, religion has supported the development and rapid growth of the sciences, but at horrific cost. As the world grows steadily smaller it can no longer support the capitalistic and feudalistic systems that support religion.

[ahrkron]

A couple comments,

Originally posted by Royce
Point 1.
Religion is as good in religious and spiritual matters as science is is good in science and physical matters.

It seems to me that this statement is basically void.
Every human activity is "good" when evaluated using its own criteria. An extreme example woould be to say that "antisemitism is as good in race-perfecting matters as science is in physical matters".

The only way to break the tautology would be to use a criterion that applies to both... which is where the problem starts.

Pt 2.
Both science and religion are valid appropriate fields of study and contemplation.

Again, in order to treat them on the same footing (and evaluate how "valid" or "appropriate" they are), we would need to agree to a criterion. In principle, such criterion should not be contained on either (or be equally important in both). This is a hard task, since they basically cover all of our experiences (making it difficult to find a criterion outside both of them) from very different perspectives (which makes it hard to find a criterion shared by both with equal importance).

Pt 3.
Both science and religion are, to us laymen, a matter of trust beleif and faith.

I think this is should not be the case.
It is very unfortunate that science education sometimes ends up teaching "scientific dogma", and making people memorize data and "laws".

The very essence of science is the method, not the results. Memorizing free fall equations and the value of g is no different to religion (acceptance based on authority).

The difference comes when a student understands how such equations correspond to reality. When he takes a wrist watch and times a rock falling, either by himself or in a school lab.

Once this happens, it is not any more the same kind of "faith", since then he knows how every step should relate to experiences.

Not only that. Also, if he wants and is interested enough, it is always always possible for him to go to the lab where any chosen piece of science was found and say "show me that what you published is true". People there will most probably be happy to show him the equipment and the records of the finding, and to explain how the conclusions were obtained.

Science classes shoud have a much closer relation to the corresponding labs.

This is faith in science and scientist just as I believe and have faith in God as well as science and scientist. I see no difference in the two in that aspect.

Again, science should not be regarded as a matter of "faith" any more than sports, economy, politics, etc.

There is a level in which all human interaction is a matter of faith (you have to trust the person that says he is your father, the waiter that takes your credit card for a moment, the boy that parks your car at a restaurant, the people that handles your bank account information). This is true of any organized social effort, as science is. This "ground level" of faith cannot be avoided.

However, religious faith is clearly much above this "ground level" of faith.

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Zero
This confuses me...your statement is consistant with the idea that religion is either delusion or brainwashing. If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

But, in Science, on needs to first have faith in the human ability to understand the objective Universe (whose existence they must also have faith in), and only then can they benefit from "proof".

Note: I am not saying that Science is a religion, as I am rather positive it is not (since, in order to be a religion, it would have to have some kind of deity (at least by most definitions of "religion")).

[Royce]

Wuli and all, I apologize. My last post was in response to Zero's last post which at the time was the last one visible to me. Apparently we were writing our replies at the same time and yours was posted before mine. I had not yet read it when I posted myreply. I should have shown the quote to which I was replying. Again, sorry about that.
Now to reply to all of you.
I do not think that science is a religion. That is absurd as wuli says. My original post was a parody, humor, or at least my feable and apparently poor attempt at humor. My one and only purpose at the time was to show the absurdity of the position that so many others have taken in other threads in this forum that science is solely based on fact, experiements and physical evidence; and, the any and all religion being based solely on faith is illogical, foolish and stupid. A minor point at the time was that they totally reject as nonexistant or lies or delusions the centuries of philisophical debate, the millions of testimonys and witnesses of religios and spitual phenomina. All saying that we have NO evidence.
The other point came about and were developed though out the response to the many reponses in this thread.

ps
I firmly belief that though a parody there is some truth in everything I wrote in the original post. Obviously none of it were whole truths but half truths at best. Thats why I thought it humorous. Obviously if I have to explain the humor, the piece is not humorous.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce


ps
I firmly belief that though a parody there is some truth in everything I wrote in the original post. Obviously none of it were whole truths but half truths at best. Thats why I thought it humorous. Obviously if I have to explain the humor, the piece is not humorous.

Try the general board, pal...humor gets lost everywhere else![g)]

[Zero]

Originally posted by wuliheron
And you apparently have a negative philosophy which contradicts the facts.

Show me a fact, just one...something conctrete...please!

[kat]

Originally posted by wuliheron

The more capitalistic the country, the more intensely fundamentalist. The heirarchies of the Catholic church tend to do best in the underdeveloped countries where the disparity between rich and poor, royalty and peasents is pronounced. Calvinism does better in wealthier capitalistic societies where people are encouraged to rise above their social class and the sciences are supported more.

There are at least four hundred definitions of socialism, but for our purposes here I will give a simplified definition. Essentially, socialistic countries are distinguished from capitalistic ones by the fact that the government owns much of the foundations of the economy such as the chemical and energy industries, and provides guaranteed basic support for everyone. For example, they provide food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, and education. Most european countries are socialist in such respects.

Whereas the US guarantees only a few years of welfare support at around $16,000.00 a year for a family of four, the average in europe is around $22,000.00 a year and is unlimited. In the US, some eighty plus percent of the population is religious while in europe the percentages tend to be reversed. When people feel they can trust each other to provide morality religion looses much of its appeal.



I think your numbers for welfare in the U.S. are too high. The last study I reviewed concerning this had U.S. family of four at under 6k a year, and under 10k if you are including supplemental food stamps.
Also where are you getting a 20% religious-80% non-religious figure for Europe from?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by kat
I think your numbers for welfare in the U.S. are too high. The last study I reviewed concerning this had U.S. family of four at under 6k a year, and under 10k if you are including supplemental food stamps.
Also where are you getting a 20% religious-80% non-religious figure for Europe from?

The statistics for welfare I obtained from Utne magazine, which is not likely to inflate such figures. However, I have heard them criticized as not accounting for differences in cost of living.

The non-religious/religious statistics was a mistake on my part. I ment to say Fundamentalist/Nonfundamentalists. Recent statistics gathered show a clear progression and preference for Fundamentalist religions in the most capitalistic countries, less fundamentalist ones in less capitalistic countries, and Atheism in communist countries. In other words, the more capitalistic and classist a country, the more religious.

If you want, there are also a number of interesting statistics correlating crime and religion as well. However, religious statistics and how meaningful they are admittedly difficult to tabulate. One study of people in the US claiming to attend church regularly, for example, demonstrated they often lie about such things.

Here is one of the better websites I know of on the subject:

http://religiousmovements.lib.virginia.edu/nrms/atheism.html#related

They claim there are an estimated one million atheists in the US and 18 million in europe.

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Royce
...Presumably apples didn’t fall from trees prior to Newton’s discovery of gravity or surely someone else would have noticed a few thousand years earlier...

[?]

Einstein... discovered first Special and then General Relativity by proving that everything was relative doing away with most of Newton’s work...

[8)]

...Schrodinger... invented or discovered Quantum mechanics by putting a cat in a box with a “diabolical device’...

[o)]

Now of course everyone understands Relativity the gist of which seems to be that no one can tell how fast he is going unless he looks out a window and no one canever know what time it is even if they look out the window as all of their clocks will be wrong. He also did away with Newton’s gravity by showing that space was bent, twisted and deformed by matter and everything tended to run down hill as a result.

[:((]

Dare I go on?

Good Goddess almighty. Someone needs to hit the books.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wuliheron
Considering at least eighty percent of the US alone is religious, evidently a great deal.

Eighty percent in US still believe in mythology? This is well behind of other idustrialized countries.

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Many a religous person would disagree. They have seen evidence of the splendor of God, and you too would be perfectly capable of seeing that evidence if you would only have faith.



Interesting twist.

If you see an apple falling down, the the only thing which prevents you from seeing the evidence of apple falling up (in the direction of heaven) is the faith that apples fall up, not down.

As soon as you get strong faith that apples fall up - you start seeing them falling up everywhere.

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by Alexander
Eighty percent in US still believe in mythology? This is well behind of other idustrialized countries.

That's a conservative estimate, and the vast majority of them are fundamentalists. You know, religions that say women are inferior to men, evil must be fought by all means possible, etc. A good percentage of the Atheists I know in the US are just as fundamentalist, but with different beliefs. Ted Kazinsky, the unibomber, was an atheist who believed technology is evil. Others I know believe capitalism is the source of all evil, but most seem to believe religion is the source of all evil. Evil is perhaps the most destructive myth ever invented.

[FZ+]

Evil is perhaps the most destructive myth ever invented.
Indeed. Both I fear modern society has long developed an addiction to the premise of a simplistic system of good vs evil, them vs us. It would be very hard to break such a thing, which is ingrained in so much of world culture.
Then again, it is reassuring that not every atheist is an unibomber..[;)]

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Indeed. Both I fear modern society has long developed an addiction to the premise of a simplistic system of good vs evil, them vs us. It would be very hard to break such a thing, which is ingrained in so much of world culture.
Then again, it is reassuring that not every atheist is an unibomber..[;)]

According to some statistics, atheists in general are peaceful, law abiding citizens in comparison to the religious. That's not to say Atheism doesn't have its own drawbacks, especially fundamentalist atheism. Just that many of the arguments put forward in favor of religion are highly questionable.

[Hurkyl]

If you have to believe before you can see it, what is to say that you aren't imagining it out of your need to see it?

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that most of the experimental evidence for scientific concepts relies on believing other scientific concepts? For instance, how can we take the missing electron neutrinos as evidence that neutrinos have mass without believing the theoretical derivation of the laws of neutrino mixing? How can we take the redshifted light from distant galaxies as evidence of universal expansion if we don't first believe General Relativity is right? And how can we take any scientific experiment evidence for anything if we don't first have faith in statistical reasoning?

[FZ+]

Maybe we don't have faith in statistical reasoning, but simply conclude that one theory has a larger consistency with the data than the alternative? Hence we don't believe our current system of knowledge to be true, we simply state that it fits the data best out of all the known possibilities?
Does that make sense?

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maybe we don't have faith in statistical reasoning, but simply conclude that one theory has a larger consistency with the data than the alternative? Hence we don't believe our current system of knowledge to be true, we simply state that it fits the data best out of all the known possibilities?
Does that make sense?

Does it ever, there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics!

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that most of the experimental evidence for scientific concepts relies on believing other scientific concepts? For instance, how can we take the missing electron neutrinos as evidence that neutrinos have mass without believing the theoretical derivation of the laws of neutrino mixing? How can we take the redshifted light from distant galaxies as evidence of universal expansion if we don't first believe General Relativity is right? And how can we take any scientific experiment evidence for anything if we don't first have faith in statistical reasoning? Yes, you are wrong. You've mentioned this before (as have others). The experiments, observations, calculations - all of the evidence - of all scientific theories are available to you if you choose to look at them. So no, you do NOT need to rely on belief in order to get up to speed on science. It may be a lot to learn, but you can learn it if you choose to (and are smart enough).

Contrast that with religion, for which there IS no evidence for you to investigate on your own.

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, you are wrong. You've mentioned this before (as have others). The experiments, observations, calculations - all of the evidence - of all scientific theories are available to you if you choose to look at them. So no, you do NOT need to rely on belief in order to get up to speed on science. It may be a lot to learn, but you can learn it if you choose to (and are smart enough).
________________________

Where ,pray tell, are we going to learn it? From books, other people,
in classrooms? That will still be taking someone elses word for the truth. Faith that they are telling the truth and giving us fact that they themselves got from some other source. Unless we individually perform every experiment that has ever been done and perform all the valid and invalid math maniplulations that has been done ourselves we are still relying on the word and integrity and accuracy of others. That is we believe them without visible proof the we our selves have collected. That is an act of faith. Nothing wrong with it. Its unavoidable but it is not the almighty logical physical undeniable absolute truth that all of you make it out to be.

_____________________

Contrast that with religion, for which there IS no evidence for you to investigate on your own.
____________________________

You are doing just exactly what I'm complaining about 3 thousnand years of study, debate and writings don't exist? Go to any library in the country and look at the religious and the philosophy section. Then tell me that we have no evidence or are you really that blind and biased that you cannot see anything but what you want to see.
Which is exactly what you accuse us religous people of being. Read the post in just this one thread and see how many time it is claimed that science has all the hard physical evidence and relion has none.
Possibly you will detect a biased unfounded attitude. It is not just you its all of the scientific community.

[Royce]

Zero, I hate to admit it but your right. Humor does get lost here as well as a number of other things.

I am going to say this one time and then I'm through beating my head against this brick wall and am going to move on.

The scientific, community has no PROOF either, not personally nor collectively about most of the modern theories. There is no PROOF that SR, GR, or QM are complete or wholly correct. That is why they are theories. We have evidence that supports some of what the theories imply but no complete proof. we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate. That is not PROOF.

[Alexander]

Royce, it sounds like you don't understand how science works. At all.

Do you have any education/ experience in science? (particularly in physics - GR, SR and QM - because you sound like an expert in these fields)?

Russ and FZ seem to know much more about physics than you do. Why don't you listen to those who knows the object of discussion better?

So, what is your area of knowledge/expertise and how much expertise in physics do you have?

[FZ+]

Alex: Royce is partially right. It is not possible really to have evidence that GR etc is wholly correct. We can say that it matches all our evidence to date, but we can't speculate on whether we have taken all possible evidence. Because we can't say the GR etc is complete or wholly correct, we continue to test it any way we can. But scientific proof is not the same as a complete proof - scientific proof is about the balance of available data, as we know in science that nothing is proved beyond doubt.
But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.

But we can gain understanding and explaination through religion also.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
But we can gain understanding and explaination through religion also.

No, you really can't. Not understanding of physical processes.

[Royce]

I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.

Of course you don't agree. Anything real contained in religion is coincidental, or irrelevant to the point of religion.

[FZ+]

Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.

we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate.
This is very wrong.

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+
Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.


This is very wrong.

Of course it is wrong and I did not mean to imply that. I'm as much a science buff as anyone here. I was refuting the science KNOWS anything as absolute truth, is completely fact based and has a monopoly of fact, truth, understanding and explaination.
Many seem to think that religion or spiritually is pure myth, belief in absolutes and is purely faith based and has no evidence or reason to support anything it says. Any evidence that a religionist may give is immediately dismissed as delusion, lies or can be explained by science.
Just as Zero tried to explain healings as lies and spontaineous remission. Spontaneous remission is not an explaination. What caused it? Could it possibly be faith or prayer? I don't know.
I am willing to say I don't know and realize that ther are more things going on than can be explained by science only. "They" are not willing to admit that that there is anything that is not science.
That to me is being closed minded and just the opposite what any real scientific thinking person should be.
I am not really as devout or dedicated or zealous as my writing and responses may make me appear. I am that devoted to trying to keeping and open mind and judge each new bit of knowledge or information on its own merits. I am not always successful. I too have prejudices and blind spots.

[drag]

Greetings !

Sorry for this late response, I was absent for
a few days. [:)]
Originally posted by Royce
No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, with out visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.
Science does not (at least we probably can't prove it)
uncover absolutes. Science makes LIKELY conclusions.

Likewise, scientists and scientific texts are NOT
absolute sources of credible scientific data, they
are LIKELY sources of credible scientific data.
The simple difference is that faith regards unlikely
things.

Live long and prosper.

[Royce]

Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most. Read around in the Physics Forum as well as here. We all are saying "I believe" when talking about physical sciences. This indicates to me that both science and religion are belief systems. Since you nor I can perform experiment on particle accelerators we have to take others words for what they find. This is have faith in them and science.

[drag]

Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

Peace and long life.

[Royce]

Originally posted by drag
Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

That's a pretty fine distinction. They can mean the same thing or nearly so depending on how they're used. I see and concede your point and it's a good one. I could, however say the same thing about religion but I don't think that it would be quite as valid.

[Royce]

First, let me say that I was raised in a not particularly religious or devout family of protestants. As an adult I was babtized by and a member of a free will babtist church. As a young adult I was an atheist or agnostic depending on the day. I have been facinated by science since I was seven or eight and someone explained that the stars were other suns but far away. I have been a student of science ever since. I beleive in science and the scientific method but I believe also that; "There is more under the stars, Horatio, than is dreampt of by your philoaophers."

We seem to be going around in circles here, repeating our positions over and over again. I am amazed at the reponse to the original post and that it has gone on so long. Thankyou.
Mentor, I think it's time to close this thread and move on.

[wuliheron]

Obviously beliefs are thoughts and thoughts can be beliefs. The real distinction, imo, is an attitudinal one. As Lao Tzu said, "Belief is a colorful hope or fear." The Pale Buddha said something similar, "The past is only a memory, the future is only a dream."

[Royce]

Obviously! I can not hope to change your thoughts or your believes, nor my own for that matter, I can only hope to change your or my atitudes about our thoughts or beleives. Well put, wuli, Thank you.
(It of course was obvious to me only after you said it.)

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most. What?!?! Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
What?!?! Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute. Shall I post the entire Apostles Creed? Pretty much EVERY belief in EVERY religion is based on faith. Again, thats part of the definition of religion.

A few:

God
Garden of Eden
Noah's ark
Noah's age
Moses
10 Comandments
Prophet Isaiah
Virgin birth
Resurrection
Heaven
Hell
Satan
Burning bush
Speaking in tongues
Soddom and Gamorrah (badly spelled)
Transmutation (Catholic communion)
Jonah

Clearly the list is endless.

[Royce]

Faith is not an absolute. Islam and Judeo-Christian are only two religions amoung how many(?) that have one absolute, that God is. Off hand I personally don't know of any others. I am not an expert however.

[Alexander]

So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false.

[Royce]

Quoted from Alexander
"So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false."

_______________________________

Only according to your personal truth, logic and facts. Since I don't and can't accept your personal beliefs as my own, we disagree.
Our disagreement is fundamental and can not be reconciled. There is therefore no point is discussing this further. We simply agree to disagree and move on.

[Alexander]

Of course, you can disagree with anything and everrything. Say, you may disagree that 2x2=4. And we all respect that. Opinion is something which is private and we don't have right to change it.

I was talking about accepted definition of truth as according to dictionary (truth = what complies with observed facts). By THIS definition science is true and religion is false.

ONLY by THIS commonly accepted definition of truth. In no way I try to say that by your own, proprietary definition of truth it shall be the same.

In fact, by selecting very different definition of truth (let's then call it "truth" to distinguish from commonly accepted definition) it can be vice versa - religion can be "true" and science can be "false".

[Royce]

Okay, Alexander, Suppose I say that a number of religion events, phenomena or miracles have been seen, documented, verified and colaborated. Would you then accept it as fact=truth?