Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Science a Religion?
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 313 (383035)
02-06-2007 7:00 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 6:26 PM


Re: Is the Religion of Sience based on monotheism?
quote:
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.
Actually, Newton put forward this notion because he noted that if
F=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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 6:26 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 7:03 PM Chiroptera has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 272 of 313 (383036)
02-06-2007 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Chiroptera
02-06-2007 7:00 PM


Re: Is the Religion of Sience based on monotheism?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Chiroptera, posted 02-06-2007 7:00 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by Chiroptera, posted 02-06-2007 8:38 PM Open MInd has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 273 of 313 (383042)
02-06-2007 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Is the Religion of Sience based on monotheism?
quote:
First of all, I never said that the Hebrews were the first scientists.
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:
I said that the belief system of the scientist stemmed from the belief system of the Monotheists.
That was not th pont I was naswering at that time. As is quite clear since I quoted you.
quote:
You mentioned Aristotle. I can't thank you more. He is a perfect example of the opposite of modern science.
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:
Secondly, I see from your questions that your logic that you are a little bit confused.
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:
I never said that science "IS" Monotheism. I said that the religion of science is an offshoot based on Monotheism.
So I got it right. How exactly doees that suggest that I am confused ?
quote:
Science can have beliefs that stem from Monotheism and then go ahead and contradict other Monotheistic religions.
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:
That is exactly what the religion of science does.
Science isn't a religion - as is shown by your failure to provide a valid case that it is.
quote:
Further, I read what I am saying in real books.
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:
You are basing your knowledge on an Internet blog called wikipedia.
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:
Furthermore, scientists "believed" in unity before it "Worked". W
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 6:54 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 7:35 PM PaulK has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 274 of 313 (383044)
02-06-2007 7:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Open MInd
01-26-2007 10:55 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Open MInd, posted 01-26-2007 10:55 AM Open MInd has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 275 of 313 (383045)
02-06-2007 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 6:59 PM


Re: Is the Religion of Sience based on monotheism?
quote:
First of all, you think Stephen Hawking is spending his whole entire life researching a possibility he does not believe to truly exist.
No I don't. I never said any such thing.
quote:
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 6:59 PM Open MInd has not replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 276 of 313 (383046)
02-06-2007 7:24 PM
Reply to: Message 269 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 6:54 PM


Re: Is the Religion of Sience based on monotheism?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 269 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 6:54 PM Open MInd has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 277 of 313 (383048)
02-06-2007 7:35 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by PaulK
02-06-2007 7:14 PM


Re: Is the Religion of Sience based on monotheism?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 02-06-2007 7:14 PM PaulK has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 278 of 313 (383049)
02-06-2007 7:57 PM


Religious Concepts in Science
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Doddy, posted 02-06-2007 8:00 PM Open MInd has replied
 Message 280 by jar, posted 02-06-2007 8:01 PM Open MInd has replied

Doddy
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 563
From: Brisbane, Australia
Joined: 01-04-2007


Message 279 of 313 (383053)
02-06-2007 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 7:57 PM


Re: Religious Concepts in Science
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 7:57 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:07 PM Doddy has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 280 of 313 (383054)
02-06-2007 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 7:57 PM


Quit making stuff up
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 7:57 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 282 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:06 PM jar has not replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 281 of 313 (383055)
02-06-2007 8:04 PM


Do you believe in science?
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.

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by jar, posted 02-06-2007 8:24 PM Open MInd has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 282 of 313 (383056)
02-06-2007 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by jar
02-06-2007 8:01 PM


Re: Quit making stuff up
The first one I saw was message number 8.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by jar, posted 02-06-2007 8:01 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2007 8:09 PM Open MInd has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 283 of 313 (383057)
02-06-2007 8:07 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Doddy
02-06-2007 8:00 PM


Re: Religious Concepts in Science
Message number 3.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Doddy, posted 02-06-2007 8:00 PM Doddy has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 284 of 313 (383059)
02-06-2007 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 282 by Open MInd
02-06-2007 8:06 PM


Re: Quit making stuff up
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:06 PM Open MInd has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by Open MInd, posted 02-06-2007 8:12 PM DrJones* has replied

Open MInd
Member (Idle past 1253 days)
Posts: 261
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 285 of 313 (383060)
02-06-2007 8:12 PM
Reply to: Message 284 by DrJones*
02-06-2007 8:09 PM


Re: Quit making stuff up
"Science is not a religion, as others here have said, because it does not concern itself with matters of faith, of morality, of purpose."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2007 8:09 PM DrJones* has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 286 by DrJones*, posted 02-06-2007 8:13 PM Open MInd has replied
 Message 291 by jar, posted 02-06-2007 8:26 PM Open MInd has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024