|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is Science a Religion? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, Newton put forward this notion because he noted that ifF=GMm/r2 then he could accurately describe both the phenomena of objects falling to the earth and planets orbiting the sun. What is more, F=GMm/r2 also accurately described the orbits of the subsequently discovered moons of Jupiter. I'm not sure why you think that a mathematical formula that has been verified through many different observations counts as a "religious" belief. This world can take my money and time/ But it sure can't take my soul. -- Joe Ely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Why did Newton even think to connect the two? Was it obvious to him at first glance? He obviously tried to come up with this calculation because he believed it would exist.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: I never said that you did. You did however claim that my statement - that the ancient Greeks contributed more to the proto-science of ancient times than the Hebrews was "outright false". And THAT is the claim I was answering.
quote: That was not th pont I was naswering at that time. As is quite clear since I quoted you.
quote: I was not talking of modern science in the statement you called "outright false" - I quite clearly stated that I was referring to proto-science.
quote:I'm not the one who seemingly can't remember his own words - even if they are quoted in the message being replied to. quote: So I got it right. How exactly doees that suggest that I am confused ?
quote: I am glad that you are finally beginning to understand the complexity of the issues. However let me point out that it was not simple contradiction that I had in mind. It was a contradiction derived using the methodology that you claim is derived from monotheism. i.e. in this case a monotheistic religion is apparently contradicting monotheism. Want to explain how that makes sense ?
quote: Science isn't a religion - as is shown by your failure to provide a valid case that it is.
quote: So which book said that the Hebrews made a greater or even equal contribution to prot-science than the Ancient Greeks ? Claiming that you read soemthing in a "real book" is hardly evidence.
quote: An obvious falsehood, since I also referenced the Fordham Foundation website (and Wikipedia is rather better than a blog) . And even Wikipedia beats your claims to have read "real books".
quote: Did they ? Or did they beleive that it was a strategy worth trying ? Come on, you attack others for not producing evidence - but you produce even less. You've misrepresented your own statements. You've misrepresented my statements. You don't attempt to meet the standards you hold others to. You really need to do much, much better if you are to be taken seriously. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5934 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
Open Mind
Since the concept of a creator is not scientific, it follows that science must exclude a supernatural creator from any of its components. What we have is a subject matter that tries to describe the world without a creator. Without using the concept of a creator or any religous principles, science seeks to explain the entire world. Science does not seek to explain the entire world. Science only tries to explain what we can say about the world. Science has no a priori assumption that the world can be explained in its entirety.It is not that science excludes a creator. The nature of a creator has never been able to be verified by science and since there is no evidence of a phenomena to support a creator the default position must need be that the world operates just as if there were no creator. Obviously, if science seeks to formulate laws upon which the world is run on a daily basis down to the atomic level, where can religion fit in? Where does this supreme being assert his control? It could be that there is no creator to begin with. It may be that religion has had it place, its time in the sun,as an organizing method that kept societies in check when tribes were the social structure in the world. Perhaps the idea of a creator was to help explain the things that made us fearful and as our societies grow more knowledgeable it maybe that we are coming to the realization that the creator was just an extension of ourselves.
Because science must explain the entire world and its origin without using any religous factors and rather using formulated "Laws of Nature", science is its own religion. What tripe! You claim that science is then a religion because it can explain things? Science does not have to explain the whole world without religious "factors", {whatever those are} it simply does what it can to explain that which is observed. It is a model constructed whose pieces fall into place only gradually and with much work. The way in which it advances is by using the knowledge it gains to guess at new phenomena that could be found in nature if the madel is consistent with the world we investigate.Religion wishes it could be as verifiable and explanatory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
quote: No I don't. I never said any such thing.
quote: And this is irrelevant - and in fact if it is true it weakens your argument. If the idea was not known in the ancient world then it was not known to ancient monotheists. So there msu tbe more to it than monotheism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Furthermore, scientists "believed" in unity before it "Worked". Why did the first scientists believe in unity? Where did they get this concept? To be honest, I'd say they got it from Christian and Islamic religions. Most scientists of the middle ages were looking for order and patterns left by God for them to discover. They looked for patterns in the Bible/Qu'ran and looked for similar order in the universe, because they both had the same designer in their eyes. However, the scientific method proved to be a useful strategy, so subsequent scientists believe it based on its success, not by faith. Somehow, I'm sure they would have lucked into that method sooner or later without religion, but we'll never really know that. Edited by Doddy, : No reason given. "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 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Why are you talking about proto-science when I have been discussing modern science? Please don't make irrelevant contrabutions. Further, I call you confused because you did not get it right even though you said that you got it right. If science is not Monotheism then there is no problem with science contradicting Monotheism. I should point out while I am on the topic, science uses Monotheistic beliefs and nothing more. They do not use Monotheistic "methodology". You can say anything about me. However, that does not help your argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Lets look at this religion and see what it gives as codes of conduct.
Many members of this site have claimed that science cannot be a religion because it has no rules. Some good examples of rules in the religion of science are as follows: The religion of Science requires one to be honest. When I proposed the theory that scientist may have fabricated fossil evidence the response was,” Scientist are required to be honest and the whole field of science is based on honesty." But, why do scientist have to be honest? Is their any religion holding them to this trait? Maybe the religion of science requires honesty? We now have one code of conduct in the religion of science. But there are more codes of conduct in science. You have to save a human before you save a bacteria or a virus. This is a law put forth by science and it seemingly has no basis. Why should a human beings life be valued over a virus's life? Scientists search for ways of killing bacterium and not for ways of saving them. Think of all the scientists who preach about global warming. What is wrong with the human beings killing themselves off through global warming? Maybe the religion of science believes in the preservation of human beings and their environment. So many morals and codes in a religion that many think is not even a religion. If science is not a religion, why do scientist try to act with morals while choosing a humans life over a virus's.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Doddy Member (Idle past 5936 days) Posts: 563 From: Brisbane, Australia Joined: |
Who says morals are the domain of religion anyway?
"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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Many members of this site have claimed that science cannot be a religion because it has no rules. Please link to the message where that claim was made. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Quantum Mechanics? Has anyone here actually read the papers written by Einstein? Can anyone here claim that they know all the proofs for Evolution? Do you people "Believe" the scientists over the religious leaders? Is science your belief and your religion? Or, do you truly understand the physics behind there theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
The first one I saw was message number 8.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
Message number 3.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
DrJones* Member Posts: 2290 From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
so quote the part where subbie says:
science cannot be a religion because it has no rules. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Open MInd Member (Idle past 1280 days) Posts: 261 Joined: |
"Science is not a religion, as others here have said, because it does not concern itself with matters of faith, of morality, of purpose."
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024