Crazy things Creationists have said

[DaveC426913]

Of course if we included COMPUTER science:

Does science make supernatural claims? Yes - if I turn it off and on it will magically fix itself.
Does science differentiate between sacred and profane objects, places and times? Mac vs PC.
Does science have ritual acts focused on sacred objects, places and times? It's the only way it ever works.
Does science have a moral code with supernatural origin? Linux.
Does science employ religious feelings? Vi vs emacs.
Does science amount to a dogmatic world view? see above.
Does science engage in communication with the supernatural (prayer, meditation and so on)? Sometimes it feels like that with Exchange server.
Is science a social group bound together by the above areas? well that and Star Trek.

 

[Monique]

...

Did a PF mentor just claim that science was a religion?

Let us examine it, shall we?

To call science a religion should immediately be recognized as an ideological attack, rather than one based on facts. It is a rather ignorant claim in attempting to discredit scientific research and development.

Did you miss my statement "in some ways"? We don't know all the facts and dogmas have been proven wrong over time.

 

[Moridin]

Did you miss my statement "in some ways"? We don't know all the facts and dogmas have been proven wrong over time.

Oh, I thought that the phrase 'in some ways' was just an attempt to limit backlash.

Notice how you said that 'in some ways science is a religion as well'. That suggest that science and religion has one or more things in common that makes them related in a meaningful way. If the relationship is not meaningful, like saying that science and religion is related because they both have an 'e' in them or that they both include people who tries to explain things does not suggest that science is a religion, even "in some ways".

We do not know all the facts, but we know that we do not know all the facts and that is was separates science from religion. Science is aware of it has a strong mechanism of self-correction and makes use of evidence to support its findings. The concept of religion doesn't even come close.

Religion on the other hand generally discourages questioning dogma. Science doesn't claim that its findings are absolute but a approximation that will get better as more and more data is coming in and as the knowledge paradigms are passed. I'm sure you know this already.

The usage of science is not to say that something is true and that's that, but to show that scientific methods and facts are useful in making predictions and understanding the world.

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/dogma

Individual scientists may be dogmatic, but science is hardly dogmatic as it completely goes against the very point of science. Isn't science the very cure for dogma, not dogma in itself?

 

[Monique]

Some areas in science are very theoretical, that is what I meant with in some ways. What I had in mind are areas like string theory or what happened during the origin of our universe. Believing in such theories is almost like believing in a religion: what evidence do we really have that the stories are true. This is also what the '100 reasons evolution is stupid' touches on. We say it is stupid that the universe began with a creator: who created the creator. Someone who believes in god says it is stupid that the universe began in a big bang: what set off the big bang? I'm not saying science is a religion, I'm saying that you need to be critical of the evidences otherwise science can be like a religion: we all like to believe these elegant theories as scientist and hope they are true.

Ofcourse the method is different and this is where science diverges from religion: through experimentation and observation we can come closer to the truth.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think Monique's observation was perfectly valid at the casual level it was made. Science certainly fills the same personal voids in many people's lives as religion does in others and they pursue it with the same degree of absorption. It's what gives their lives the kind of purpose and meaning we'd only otherwise expect to see in a religion. Here at PF, for instance, you'll see some people ask quetions about the nature of Einstein's genius with the same burning fervor that people ask quetions about the existence of free will in religious conversations.

 

[Evo]

I think Monique's observation was perfectly valid at the casual level it was made. Science certainly fills the same personal voids in many people's lives as religion does in others and they pursue it with the same degree of absorption. It's what gives their lives the kind of purpose and meaning we'd only otherwise expect to see in a religion. Here at PF, for instance, you'll see some people ask quetions about the nature of Einstein's genius with the same burning fervor that people ask quetions about the existence of free will in religious conversations.

I would agree, I read her remark as meaning a scientist could have the same passion and commitment to the pursuit of knowldege as a religious person would have to their beliefs.

 

[Moridin]

Individual scientists can certainly be dogmatic and choose to believe in string theory as absolute truth. However, I doubt that string theory is mainstream science and its degree of certainty (if it has one) is very low. Not only does it completely lack experimental evidence at this point, their theoretical structure is also not complete.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#misconceptions

He seems to have misrepresented the Big Bang Theory as well. The Universe did not begin with Big Bang. In fact, science does not claim to know how the Universe began. All science claims to know is that the Universe was smaller in the past and that there seems to have been a naked singularity at the very beginning. Big Bang is not about the beginning of the Universe, but about the development of it. If an individual scientist chooses to accept some of the misconceptions of the Big Bang on faith, that says nothing about how science deals with it.

Naturally, I agree that science can be like a religion for some individual scientists or people, just like a toaster or a spoon can be, but that demands a misrepresentation of science, the toaster and the spoon. Science is not intrinsically religious in its standard form.

I think that the way Evo and zoobyshoe argue does not show how science and religion are related in a meaningful way. If people who like potatoes eat them with the same passion and commitment as a scientist exploring the world with observation, logic and evidence, this does not really mean that science is a potato?

Monique, I apologize if I misinterpreted your initial remark.

 

[ank_gl]

Well, at a minimum, I'm now convinced there is no intelligent life among those who post comments on youtube videos.

- Warren

that is soooo not true

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think that the way Evo and zoobyshoe argue does not show how science and religion are related in a meaningful way.

The remark wasn't about science itself, but about the way people regard it, obviously.

 

[ank_gl]

well OP wasnt about any religion, neither about science, nor about way people regard them, it was just about 2 dumbheads

 

[jostpuur]

Is scientific community putting any effort into systematic study of how as much people as possible, could be converted from intelligent design to science?

 

[arildno]

Is scientific community putting any effort into systematic study of how as much people as possible, could be converted from intelligent design to science?

By hitting religion so hard with sarcasm and ridicule that people get ashamed from ever having believed in that nonsense.

 

[Cyrus]

Amen brother arildno. OooooooooooooooooWWWWWWWeeeeeeeeeOOOOOOOO HUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, to a true believer, that will only make you look arrogant, narrow minded, and evil. It may make you feel better, but it does nothing to further your cause. It will insure that they won't listen to anything that you have to say.

 

[Evo]

Is scientific community putting any effort into systematic study of how as much people as possible, could be converted from intelligent design to science?

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people. Missionaries for Science?

How much effort would it take to change the thinking of someone that either chooses to ignore or is unable to grasp basic scientific concepts? People that are fooled by the pretense that Intelligent Design is science are pretty far gone already.

 

[Evo]

Actually, to a true believer, that will only make you look arrogant, narrow minded, and evil. It may make you feel better, but it does nothing to further your cause. It will insure that they won't listen to anything that you have to say.

Ivan is correct, it's like telling people that watch American Idol that the show and the performers are cr@p.

 

[mgb_phys]

I don't know who first said it but:
"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

 

[Evo]

I like "I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man".

 

[Lisa!]

Very true! Honestly I don't think that arguing with some people(not all) work at all. It just waste your time and energy and might ruin your day.
I'm teaching myself to only laugh at stupid ideas!

 

[ank_gl]

"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

very true

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I don't know who first said it but:
"Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and they've had more practice"

Wiki attributes it to Brad Slipiec, but I have my doubts.
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stupidity

I prefer the following formulation, as arguing with an idiot seems pointless to me.

Never argue with a fool. They will only pull you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan is correct, it's like telling people that watch American Idol that the show and the performers are cr@p.

And a lot more than that! We are talking about an entire way of life that is very difficult to sustain and requires tremendous dedication. It is also a way of life that is often based on beliefs gained though personal experiences. When people believe that they see God operating in their life, anything that violates that relationship is viewed as evil and/or naive.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I think it's sexy when women argue. I don't know why, but the more confidently and loudly they assert things, especially stupid ideas, the more it turns me on.

Could be that's off topic, though.

 

[Moridin]

And a lot more than that! We are talking about an entire way of life that is very difficult to sustain and requires tremendous dedication. It is also a way of life that is often based on beliefs gained though personal experiences. When people believe that they see God operating in their life, anything that violates that relationship is viewed as evil and/or naive.

'Our side' is mostly active in trying to sway the big majority of people who are in the middle (not completely scientific literate, but not creationists) towards science.

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people.

It should be. Science 2.0

 

[Lisa!]

I think it's sexy when women argue. I don't know why, but the more confidently and loudly they assert things, especially stupid ideas, the more it turns me on.

Could be that's off topic, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'Our side' is mostly active in trying to sway the big majority of people who are in the middle (not completely scientific literate, but not creationists) towards science.

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

 

[Moridin]

I think only people already on "your side" will respond well to arrogance and rudeness.

Unless you are pro-ID / Creationist, my side is your side. The general public does not tend to response with arrogance and rudeness? I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Or was it an attempt to attack prominent critics of Intelligent Design?

 

[humanino]

I would like to come back on the idea that science is a kind of religion, because I always found it fascinating how many scientists are nervous about this point. I think the reason this makes them nervous is the following. At some point in there life, they realized that religion is often a mean for people to overcome there fears, or to provide a solution to things they do not understand. Then, those scientist tend to make fun of or have contempt for the intellectual weakness of religious people. However, most of them fail to realize the religious aspect of science.

Why would Nature be understandable at all ? Scientist believe this is the case. This is faith. It is very efficient, and very real, but still. The chaotic behavior of people out there is scary. Riemann hidden under his large beard for instance, would probably have preferred the perfect eternal cold beauty of mathematical object, to the ephemeral human feelings. (IMHO )

In particular, fundamental science and the search for the unification in Nature, which is very efficient, and very real, is faith.

I was born in a religious family, I am very little religious myself anymore, but I am conviced that none of us is completely free from any kind of religious belief.

 

[jostpuur]

By hitting religion so hard with sarcasm and ridicule that people get ashamed from ever having believed in that nonsense.

It's not really the aim of the scientific community to actively try to convert people. Missionaries for Science?

As Dawkins says, Intelligent Design is not "harmless nonsense". Scientists should think more strategically.

 

[Moridin]

Science is still not a religion. In fact, it has nothing to do with religion and has no meaningful relationship.

Why would Nature be understandable at all ? Scientist believe this is the case. This is faith. It is very efficient, and very real, but still. The chaotic behavior of people out there is scary.

1. Methodological naturalism is not the same as philosophical naturalism.

Science uses methodological naturalism, not philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism is an a posteriori concept and means that we limit ourselves to studying natural cause and effect because it has been so successful. Agreed, individual scientists may be philosophical naturalists, but science is no such thing.

2. Fallacy of Equivocation

Word X

- Definition 1
- Definition 2

Definition 1 =/= Definition 2

Scientists 'Word X' in science, religious people 'Word X' in the supernatural. Therefore, 'Definition 1' equals 'Definition 2'.

Belief / Faith is defined as what you are willing to wager on, or where your conviction lies. Another definition is 'assume to be true, but cannot successfully motivate'. Scientists have faith in science in terms of having a conviction of it. However, they do not 'assume something to be absolute truth but cannot motivate it', which is the corner stone of basically all religions. Practically, you either have a good reason to believe the things you do or not.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blfaq_fall_equivocation.htm
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#equivocation
http://www.philosophypages.com/lg/e06c.htm

In particular, fundamental science and the search for the unification in Nature, which is very efficient, and very real, is faith.

Not really, since it is based on methodological naturalism and science does not claim that GUT represents absolute truth.