|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Science a Religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
This stemmed from the monotheistic principles and is in no way an obvious assumption (consider the Greeks). This is nonsense. Of course it's obvious; nobody acts like things happen in a vacuum. In fact the hardest thing for human beings to do is accept that two promixmal occurrences are unrelated. We see patterns everywhere; it's not unique to science or religion, it's just what people do. It's how gods get invented, in fact. I mean, why would an intelligence evolve that couldn't perceive how things were related? How would intelligence even be possible otherwise?
This principle is purely a religious one You're just assuming your conclusion - circular reasoning. We could just easily say that the principle is purely scientific. Or that it's neither religious nor scientific, but epistemological.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: The source of an idea does not make the idea religious. "Seeking a pattern in the world" is not itself a religious idea. This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
It might be a clever piece of sophistry but it's hardly a proof.
For instance the rise of science is connected to the rediscovery of pagan knowledge, the decline of the Church's authority and a rise in freethought. If we consider the Ancient world the polytheistic Greeks contributed more to proto-science than the monotheistic Hebrews. One of the fundamental aspects of science is the development of theories. Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption and the Theory of Everything is simply the extrapolation of that strategy to the obvious conclusion. So perhaps the underlying assumption is that unifying knowledge by constructing theories with greater explanatory power will increase or understanding. The theory of evolution itself is a unification of this sort. Since creationism opposes this unification - without offering a real alternative - should we conclude that creationism is opposed to monotheism ? In short the argument really relies on selectively drawing the connections that happen to be convenient to it - without making a good case for them. It's simply speculation - far more so than evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
I can't feel any clear thinking in your post. You have stated many things without any proofs. Firstly, you did not clearly explain why you think it is an obvious given that the universe acts in unity. A proof that it is not obvious is the fact that a TOE has not been formulated yet. There are still contradictions in nature. The scientist insist that there must be one yet they have no proof. Secondly, I say my logic is not at all circular. I clearly proved my conclusion. The belief in unity of the universe can be seen as nothing other than a religious one.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
The scientist "believe" in unity of the universe. That is why they seek it. The term belief is used when refering to a religion. If science is purely factual based, why do scientist search for a TOE when there is no facts that support a TOE?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Like others, you state your opinion without any proof. I don't know where you get the idea that "If we consider the Ancient world the polytheistic Greeks contributed more to proto-science than the monotheistic Hebrews." This is an outright false statement with no proof stated. Also, I don't know what conclusion you hope to draw from Evolution. If you are trying to say that Evolution contradicts Monotheism, you are proving my first statement in this thread. Further, you write, "Unifying knowledge is more a strategy than an assumption." I say, a scientist uses a strategy that he "BELIEVES" in.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2284 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
"If we consider the Ancient world the polytheistic Greeks contributed more to proto-science than the monotheistic Hebrews." This is an outright false statement with no proof stated.
First how about you provide proof for your assertion:
Without the monotheistic religions, the study of science would never have started Just a monkey in a long line of kings. If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! *not an actual doctor
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Firstly, you did not clearly explain why you think it is an obvious given that the universe acts in unity. I don't see that the universe has to do anything at all, and I don't understand what you mean by "act in unity", and I don't think you do, either.
The scientist insist that there must be one yet they have no proof. No, they don't.
Secondly, I say my logic is not at all circular. I clearly proved my conclusion. Only by assuming it; thus, your argument is circular. QED.
The belief in unity of the universe can be seen as nothing other than a religious one. Science makes no claim as to the "unity" of anything, whatever that means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Considering that your proof consisted of nothing more you're not in much of a posiiton to talk. And I would have thought that all my points were well-known facts.
quote: You call it "outright false" but you don't offer any evidence yourself. So lets consider one of the major contributors - Aristotle - was he Hebrew or Greek ? Or look at this History of Science Sources. The "Ancient Near East" section covers one book - on Babylonian and Egyptian mathematics. There are 7 references on Ancient Egypt and many more on the Greeks. See any references to the Hebrews in Wikipedia's [URL=en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science_in_early_culture]History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical Antiquity I think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.
quote: The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution. So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.
quote: And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record.History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical Antiquity I think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.
quote: The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution. So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.
quote: And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record. []History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical Antiquity I think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.
quote: The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution. So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.
quote: And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record.History of Science in Early Cultures?{/URL ? Compare with the references to the Greeks in the History of Science in Classical Antiquity I think that is sufficent to make my point. You call yourself "Open Mind" but you'd rather call a well-known fact "outright false" - without any sort of research - rather than accept it.
quote: The point was that if YOU say that evolution contradicts monotheism then you undermine your claim that science is based on monotheism. You even undermine your claim that the unifying process in science is based on monotheism - since you would be claiming that monotheism opposes that in the case of evolution. So to be consistent you either have to abandon your original point and instead claim that evolution is BASED on monotheism or accept that monotheism does NOT imply that we can unify knowledge in the way science does - and in fact says that it is not even possible in at least some cases.
quote: And scientists beleive in it because it WORKS. As I said my point is that this "bottom-up" account adequately explains why scientists aim for unification. It produces more powerful and general theories. Like evolution which unified explanations of major features of taxonomy, biogeographical distribution and the fossil record.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Do they? I don't even know what this means. -
quote: TOE? Do you mean the development of a mathematical model from which all the known forces of physics can be derived? How is this a religious concept? This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5909 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Open Mind writes: If science is purely factual based, why do scientist search for a TOE when there is no facts that support a TOE? There are indeed facts to support this. For example, in the 17th century, electricity and magnetism were seen to be separate forces at work, but by the 19th, due in part to Maxwell, they were unified as electromagnetism. This left four forces: electromagnetism, gravity, weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. In the 60s, electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force were proven to be the same force: called the electroweak force. That left three forces: electroweak interaction, gravity and the strong nuclear force. Since the 70s, using the theories of Quantum Chromodynamics, there have been many hypotheses as to how the strong nuclear force and electroweak force may be unified, but they have so many 'fudge factors' (as my professor calls them. 'Constants' is the real name), that they might not be the full answer. But it certainly shows that with extrapolations from what have already happened in physics, the idea of a Grand Unified Theory has some merit. "Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will." (Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills.) - Arthur Schopenhauer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
I believe I made myself quite clear. The belief in unity means a belief that all of the phenomenon in the universe can be explained using the same principles. A good example is gravity (again). Science describes the "force" that holds one to the floor as the same force that keeps planet Earth revolving around the Sun. Scientist put forward this idea because they did believe in a random and chaotic universe. In a random and chaotic universe, the planets would be held in place by force "X" and people would be held on the planets by force "Y". A Theory of Everything (TOE) is a theory that would try to unite the seemingly contradictory forces in the physical nature of the universe. In order to look for such a thing, you must first believe in its existence. When you believe in something with no factual evidence what do you have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: Not true - you must believe that it is likely enough to exist to be worth looking. But you certainly don't need to believe that it definitely must exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
First of all, I never said that the Hebrews were the first scientists. I said that the belief system of the scientist stemmed from the belief system of the Monotheists. You mentioned Aristotle. I can't thank you more. He is a perfect example of the opposite of modern science. He believed in separate forces, the opposite of the beliefs of modern science. If you don't recall Aristotle believed the whole world came from three separate elements. He made no contribution to modern science; rather, his theories would have never allowed modern science to be born. Secondly, I see from your questions that your logic that you are a little bit confused. I never said that science "IS" Monotheism. I said that the religion of science is an offshoot based on Monotheism. I am explaining the belief system of the religion of science. Science can have beliefs that stem from Monotheism and then go ahead and contradict other Monotheistic religions. That is exactly what the religion of science does. Further, I read what I am saying in real books. You are basing your knowledge on an Internet blog called wikipedia. Furthermore, scientists "believed" in unity before it "Worked". Why did the first scientists believe in unity? Where did they get this concept?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
First of all, you think Stephen Hawking is spending his whole entire life researching a possibility he does not believe to truly exist.
Second of all, the whole concept of unity in the universe seems very natural to people born into a scientifically modern world. The concept of this unity was completely unheard of in the ancient world. Nobody even thought it to be a possibility.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024