Is science a religion?

Ah right - yes now I've looked, I suspect you are right.Isn't the big clue:

quote:

---

More likely, you'll shrug me off as "I've seen this guy before."

---

Which would be a bizzare statement for someone who's not a sockpuppet.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 11-May-2006 04:25 AM

Science has risen like it has because it JUST WORKS.The computer you are using is proof that the scientific method is valid and powerful.Look at the modern world around you! Who needs to have faith in science when you can see mountains of evidence everyday that it just works.I guess science could be a reliigion..... but then that would depend on how you define religion (I guess one could consider a scientific approach to understanding the world to be a belief system).In any case, IMO, the scientific approach is easily the most effective and powerful way the human race has ever devised to gain a greater understanding of our world. You are literally looking (and making use of) evidence of that right now.It just works!

Brian: I hope you'll accept this as a response to your post 98 in this thread as well. I just noticed that one - since you didn't use the little reply button, I didn't get notification that you had responded. Sorry for the late reply. I don't think that's accurate, at least in my case. Although the route I actually took to arrive at acceptance of evolutionary theory was somewhat convoluted, I seem to recall it being an outgrowth of a very early intense interest in nature. I spent a lot of time in the woods as a kid, and as I grew up I remember formulating questions about what I saw. It wasn't really until my senior year in High School (and a wonderful biology teacher named Cosmo DiBiasio who taught me and more importantly showed me about ecology) that I started getting answers. College was, in fact, where I first heard of evolution. The more I investigated, the more convinced I became - not because of indoctrination or emotional appeal, but because the theory neatly tied all my childhood observations and questions into a coherent framework. Since then, I've never seen anything to make me doubt it - and as my entire work/profession is intimately involved with natural systems, I think I would have noticed if something didn't fit.IOW, there was no "emotional" response to evolution. I didn't "stumble on the feeling that it was the best thing for me". I slowly came to the conclusion that it was essentially correct based on my own observations. If somehow tomorrow someone came up with a better theory, I'd drop evolution like a hot rock. Of course, I honestly don't expect that to happen. It's too internally and externally consistent, too good at making predictions and providing an explanatory framework, and too adept at passing all the tests scientists have thrown at it over the last century and a half (or so).I wonder if you can say the same about your view. I'd LOVE to see the documents if you can provide a link or perhaps post them here? I have always had a soft spot in my heart for cryptozoology. I even had a chance to investigate one of those claims myself when I and a colleage were officially called in to look at the remains of an animal - alleged to be a chupacabra - a local farmer shot near Matagalpa, Nicaragua (I was working in Managua at the time). It was a blast to jump in the truck, dash 6 hours up the road ("road" being a generous term for the last 4 hours of the trip), and check it out. I leave it to you to picture what the remains looked like after 6 days of tropical sun, tropical decomposers, and tropical scavengers, not to mention the effect of the farmer's shotgun. Unfortunately for cryptozoologists everywhere, there was enough left to be able to definitively identify the corpse as a very dead, rather large, and very decomposed dog of indeterminate parentage. Even so, it was a lot of fun. It even made the national papers. I don't think the farmer to this day believes it wasn't a chupacabra. Ah well, maybe next time...So please do post your evidence. I promise to examine it "without bias", since I love the idea of a relict population hanging on to the present. Now you know Quetzal's deep, dark secret - he's a closet crypto. (Don't tell anyone.) I will always harbor a teeny, tiny hope that every time I'm out in the woods, behind the great buttress roots of the next kapok (Ceiba pentandra), I'll catch a glimpse of some organism misplaced in time. Talk about an emotional attachment to an idea in the absence of evidence...

The rules of logic are very well-defined. They're not just things you make up. I mean, which rules did you use? Commutation? Disjunction? What? Show me your syllogism. No, that's false. There are a number of statements that are perfectly logical, but don't make any sense. And some that make sense, but can't be supported by logic. Most fallacies of rhetoric fall into this category; that's why they're so insidiously compelling. They make sense but they're not based in any logic. Mm, no, I don't think you will. You're perfectly free to try to defend whatever logical means you think you used to arrive at your conclusions, but you actually have to put those means on the table for us to look at. "Argument by hidden proof" is nothing more than assertion. And it's not particularly indicative of you being interested in a legitimate discussion. I don't see where anybody put forth that argument, so you're addressing a strawman. "God exists" is not a fact, but an assertion. Since that assertion is false your argument proceeds from a false premise, and is thus fallacious. Making things up is not an equivalent substitute for empirical knowledge about the world. The fact that you have feelings about something is not evidence that those feelings are true. In fact, we know that feelings are very often false. I don't have to, to conclude that God does not exist and does not speak. The very fact that you can't prove - that, indeed, it can't be proven - that he does exist and does speak is all the evidence I need to dismiss those conclusions.Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. In other words: "I'm an idiot, so you must be, too." If your argument relies on you and I having equally stupid ways of looking at the universe, why would you expect me to find that compelling?The thing is, of course, is that I didn't use the same methods as you to determine what was most likely true about the universe. And why would I? I'm a lot smarter than you. (This is what it looks like when I'm insulting you, btw.) You mean, just because you can't? We're not all like you, BF. Just because you can't imagine a more objective means of inquiry doesn't mean that there isn't one. So, ignorant of both logic and the scientific method? Gotcha.No, you don't "find evidence to support it." That's called "cherry-picking." What you do is, you propose a hypothesis and then devise a means by which it might be tested. Tested, not automatically confirmed. Often, hypotheses are rejected after experimentation or observation. In fact you learn as much when you reject a hypothesis, often, as when you confirm one. Oh, indeed. That would have been a very insulting statement for you to say to me, if that's how you had chosen to reply. That's why I asked you not to reply that way, after all.This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-11-2006 11:25 AM

Ahhh. The elusive chupacabra. Nice little narrative. Reminds me of the six months I spent in Puerto Rico tromping through the hill country during which time there must have been at least a dozen sightings of the little vampire reported in the papers. Seems like he also had a taste for chickens, as I recall. I always had a camera at the ready, but no luck...

Crashfrog: Do you spend all your time nit-picking posts? Do you care at all about what the thread is actually about or do you just want to argue?Websters 3rd definition for logic: "Valid reasoning."That's all he's saying. Something logical "makes sense" or at least appears to be "valid reasoning." Can something appear to be logical and be false? Sure. Plenty of math proofs have been published and later flaws were found in the reasoning.He's obviously not talking about formal mathematical methods.

Well, since the first chupacabra mass-killings apparently occurred in Puerto Rico, it doesn't surprise me that there were so many. Must be the source population for the rest of Latin America. And don't forget to buy your chupacabra t-shirt!

I used to actually OWN one, but think it succumbed to the clothes-culling tendencies of my wife in her futile efforts to keep me tastefully dressed...On my shirt it looked more like some kind of hybrid human-bat vampire with wings. This one is just a lousy dog with some spikes on its back. Couldn't possibly be the real thing.

1. I have a purpose.
2. I've heard the claim that evolution says nothing about meaning in life. What you're apparently too adult (as opposed to the childish nature of myself) to see is that believing in evolution rules out about 50% of all religious assertions about origins across the board. Acceptance of it means rejection of the others.
3. Electromagnetism hasn't given me a reason not to trust it. I'm a trusting guy. If you shake my hand and tell me you'll meet me, I'll trust you to. If you have given me that same handshake before, I begin to see that you are not trustworthy. Science as you stated it is a very broad thing. "Electrons exist." Well, where's the empirical evidence? Wow.. there's none to be had... it's just an assertion of what might be true based on what we see and can predict. If you're so arrogant to think that your inferences can't be wrong, I can help you. You're actually pretty stupid. Of all the things you could know, I'm sure you don't even know 0.001 percent of it. Of all the conclusions you could have processed from the data you do have right now, I'm sure you haven't done the processing for 0.01 percent. You're stupid. (So are we all, but that's beside the point.) That's an emotional response. That's a religious assertion... and at very least one you can't verify. I agree (childishly, of course). Scientists are religious. Evolution is part of that religion. They've incorporated it.About thinking selfishly that God made us central to his plan, yes. I think I'm about that arrogant. I'm not saying that God's so weak or dumb that he couldn't have left us alone for a little while to look after other things, but I do believe we were his focus for at least a little while.

Thanks, Quetzal for your patience and kind words.I believe you'll find that I made assertions of all sorts that have one or two exceptions. You are not necessarily an exception to the rule, but I can make a new general category for one who didn't have a reason to doubt the compelling arguments. I'm not about to say that there aren't compelling arguments... I'm just saying there are more compelling arguments on the other side. I wonder if you've ever studied theology. Being that we can only consider so many things in life, you can't know that your belief is right until you have overwhelming evidence. I'm sure you believe you have that on your side. I believe I have the same on mine.You'll also find that threads of this nature always end up convincing people to become evolutionists because there are so many assertions and so little time or resource for the number of religious to confirm or reject them that they just end up sitting there without a reply. Most smart Christians become pastors... not scientists. There is more religious material than any of us could get through in our lifetimes... so they spend so much of their lives on it... and they don't get out to the field to dig or interview people.Without the proper bias, you're only going to come up with answers that match your bias. If you have no bias, you'll adopt the first rational one that comes along.About the historical documents, I saw a couple of them on a video. You obviously know about Job 40-41... everyone does... I've read the opposing papers. I still don't know on what basis they reject it.

Someone else was kind enough to answer this for me. I have a limited amount of time to spend on this site. My wife doesn’t like it. Oh, hey. That was an assertion. How can I know my wife doesn’t like it? It wasn’t because she told me. Perhaps it’s because we’re built with tools that we don’t have to use in conjunction with a mathematical equation type of evaluation. Could I be wrong about my wife’s desire? Of course. Does that mean I shouldn’t use my built in emotion detector because it’s flawed some of the time? I think not.
My logical constraint is that emotions are valid. You’ve rejected that constraint because you probably don’t believe God built us. I can’t make you believe in God . and in the same way, I can’t make you believe I know that God exists logically. You don’t see it in the simple phrase, “I can’t exist unless God exists.” I can. You’ve said you’re smarter than me. It could be true in some ways, but if you can’t see the truth of God’s existence, then in that way, you are not as smart. Maybe God made a defective detector in you. Some people have no emotions, so it’s feasible. You’re right there. Are you making up the fact that I’m making things up, or did you just know it was true. So long as you know your emotions can be false, just like your evaluations can be false, I believe you’re safe to use your emotions. By the way, what basis did you use to decide to marry your wife (if you have one)? Could it have been based in logical deduction? But why not?! Isn’t your life shaped by your relationship with your wife? Ah-ha! You use your emotions to make major life decisions too!! We’re in the same boat. That depends on your standard of truth. If you wanted to prove that a really quiet man talks, would ear witness testimony be enough for you? I guess not. Yep. I’m an idiot, and what I said was idiotic. I thought you might have some emotion. I was mistaken. You don’t understand the value of things like anger and awe. As smart as you may be, I’d take diluted happiness over accurate pointlessness any day. I wonder if you would believe that I can think logically. I’ve been focusing on emotion, but it’s not the only filter that I have as a man. I have to be honest with you. I almost decided to believe in evolution. I found the evidence to be very compelling. One thing I saw as true, that you may not have seen with your great intellect, is that you have to decide what to believe sometimes. I saw that even if evolution was true, it’s pointless to believe it and very much pointless to preach it. I decided the best thing for me to do to live life in happiness is to reject it. I have emotions, you see. That’s not to say that I had to throw out my brain when I opened that door. As I said before, the evidence is compelling, but the evidence against it is even more compelling. Thanks for the correction. I don’t deny that what you said about cherry-picking is true. Still, you have to admit that it’s human nature to want to be right. That’s why you’re arguing with me now. You want to show me I’m wrong and you’re right . so you’re cherry-picking my arguments. You’re ignoring the ones for which you have no answer and answering the ones you can. I keep going back and forth when deciding if you are human or not. You have no emotion, but you cherry-pick. Hmm..

oh brother....I think the typical atheist reply is that you cannot choose a belief. Either you believe it or you don't, with no choice possible. Otherwise, you could choose to believe that you can fly (or insert any impossible thing). Since you know you can't fly, you cannot choose to believe it. And if you believe something, its not by choice but because you think its true, there is no choice involved.Personally, I don't agree with this, but when I read the quotation I thought "oh brother" and thought I could explain it to you real quick. 'Cause we've been over this before here.

Actually, I don't consider myself or my worldview to be all that exceptional. Most of my non-believing colleagues (as opposed to the believers in either Christianity or Islam who I work/have worked with) pretty much arrived at the same conclusion, and for many of the same reasons. Their individual stories are different, but we pretty much ended up in the same place along similar routes. If there are, no one has yet presented them in a compelling manner. It's usually something along the lines of what SR71's friend has argued (see the Debating Evolution thread, for instance). IOW, arguments so lame and so obviously false it's almost an insult that someone would expect me to buy them.I admit haven't "studied" theology. I have read a number of the major works of various religions, including the Bible and the Qu'ran (cover to cover), the Rig Veda and the first ten books of the Mahabarata, as well as works on Roman and Greek mythos and a few others. Some of them are quite interesting and even entertaining - I recommend the Mahabarata, for instance. None appeared to be overwhelmingly convincing, however. I find that the assertions tend to come from the other direction, mostly. I agree there's a huge amount of evidence to overcome, making the evolution-denier work extra hard. Not the fault of the theory, rather the fault lies with someone with little knowledge trying to overturn one of the key concepts linking dozens of biological disciplines. Hard to keep all that straight, I know. Heck, there's no way even a scientist working in the field can keep track of even a fraction of the new literature that appears almost daily in the field. One of the problems with such a huge, encompassing science, I guess. No surprise that believers have some difficulty. The more germane question is, IMO, why do they bother unless they have some key evidence of their own that falsifies the rest? This may actually be a key part of the problem. You can read all the books, peruse all the papers, listen to all the arguments/counter-arguments, but if you don't get out "in the field" (or the lab, or whatever) at least a bit I don't know how you can internalize the theory. That's just my opinion - others may have a different view. Perfectly okay. I'm "biased" towards that viewpoint because that's how I arrived. Ah, too bad. If you run across any of the historical documents you mentioned, bring them up. As to Job, yeah I've read it. I think its a neat story/parable. Now if someone could come up with a sub-fossil of an organism that resembled the giant whale (or whatever, depending on translation) Job got 'et by, you might have something. Lack of unambiguous evidence and/or external corroboration, unfortunately, tends to make the Job story more on the lines of "fiction" than "fact".

Thanks for the clarity. You can still decide to believe things. I've done it.

I believe that the evidence that is given against evolution mostly has to do with the certainty that if A is true, B cannot be. I've accepted A, and therefore, B has to be tainted. You have not accepted A, so you probably don't have the emotional response to B. Plus, there's all that fuss about loving your neighbor and hell.. you know... If I believe someone is going to hell based on what they believe, and I am to love them, I'm going to try to sway them. It's logical. (For the record, I'm on the fence on this one. At times I lean toward universal salvationism and other times, I tend towards a literal English reading that says most people will be in hell. I believe there are compelling arguments on both sides of that one.)I believe the issue of evidence has little to do with why I'm rejecting this theory. I concluded that if God set up evolution, he's a really mean guy... and on the converse, if man made death by sin, and God tried to redeem us, that is much nicer. I decided on that, and then I went on from there to find evidence for and against either theory.If I was faced with irreducible, irrefutable evidence for evolution, no matter what I decided, I would believe it in spite of myself. I'm sure if you were talking with God, face to face, and He told you anything at all, you'd believe Him too.If you haven't looked into near death experiences (nde), I recommend that. If we aren't eternal, life is meaningless. That's another logical construct that I can't use my nose to smell.