Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: BO XIAN

Well Quantum biology is a start.


You have Orch OR-Quantum theory. How consciousness might emerge in microtubules.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Oh I agree. REAL scientists (few and far between) know and admit the limitations of the scientific method. Here is the main problem with science.

It has become as bad as the Catholic Church in the middle ages in relation to claiming to be the only purveyor of truth.

I just saw someone post that science uses evidence to PROVE theories...lol. Believing that is one of the problems. By definition a theory CANNOT be proven. Evidence helps to substantiate theories, it does NOT prove them. Not understanding this, shows a lack of understanding of what science can and can't do and THIS is EVIDENCE of the problems with the scientific paradigms.

Jaden

a reply to: the2ofusr1

LOLOLOLOLOL Cue the dog slapping the floor laughing.

What a great video.

Somehow, it reminds me of the greater and greater dissection of 'truth' into tinier and tinier slices.

Every new PhD has to come up with yet another undiscovered tiny slice of reality to become an expert on.

And few people are stepping back to get a greater 'vision of the whole.'

Yet, as Jean Paul Satre once noted:

The finite MUST have a connection with the Infinite in order to have meaning.

I don't think the Religion of Scientism does well with meaning, values, morality etc.

And that's one reason that the nuclear age and all the similar 'advances' have brought about such a huge death toll.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: GetHyped

Nope, this is merely your scientifically illiterate understanding of science.

This statement is redundant. "Nope, this is merely your illiterate understanding of science" would have sufficed. Isn't it ironic that your claims of illiteracy are riddled with illiteracy?

I find it more ironic that I'm being lectured by a creationist on the topic of scientific illiteracy.

Please, tell me more about how a literal interpretation of Genesis tells us how old the Earth is and how life began.

I refer you to my previous comment:

I can't say I'm terribly surprised to see the most vocal proponents in this thread also in other threads proclaiming that the earth is 6,000 years old, that some herb will cure you of all cancers, that spinning magnets will produce unlimited energy and other pseudoscientific claptrap.

And FYI, calling someone scientifically illiterate is not the same as calling someone is illiterate.

INDEED. Well put.

Even a theory well substantiated . . . is still 'vulnerable' to new REVELATIONS. LOL.

We all see through the glass dimly--even the best, most solid, most honorable, most accurate scientists. Humility is a high priority on the search for true TRUTH.

LOL.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: BO XIAN

Oh I agree. REAL scientists (few and far between) know and admit the limitations of the scientific method. Here is the main problem with science.

It has become as bad as the Catholic Church in the middle ages in relation to claiming to be the only purveyor of truth.

I just saw someone post that science uses evidence to PROVE theories...lol. Believing that is one of the problems. By definition a theory CANNOT be proven. Evidence helps to substantiate theories, it does NOT prove them. Not understanding this, shows a lack of understanding of what science can and can't do and THIS is EVIDENCE of the problems with the scientific paradigms.

Jaden

THANKS.

EXCELLENT POINTS.

I think the 'scientific method' has . . . how to put it . . . a capacity to be treated like any object--dispassionately, etc.

I did not say "objectively" because SCIENCE has shown that there really isn't any such things as 100% objective. All the more so when one takes into account quantum observation wave/particle issues.

That's one of the reasons that I think the whole phenomenon of the Religion of Scientism is so absurd--they PRETEND to be absolutely objective--while DEMONSTRATING greatly the opposite.

originally posted by: Klassified
a reply to: BO XIAN
I S&Fed you for this one BO, not because I believe science is a religion, but because I think some scientists, and their followers have made it faith-based, I think our academia need to be challenged frequently and intelligently to keep them as honest as we can.

However, the scientific method itself is not religious, and is indeed dispassionately objective. The method itself is not vested in the outcome of an experiment. The results are what they are. It is only those performing the experiments that sometimes become vested in the outcome for various reasons, such as money, fame, and of course, the almighty status quo.

It is unfortunate the average person knows more about their favorite sport or sitcom than they do about science, philosophy, or even religion.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Oh look, you're slapping the back of another creationist who also has an ideological axe to grind against the scientific method.

Color me surprised!

EXCELLENT POINTS YET AGAIN! THANKS.

Certainly it is impossible to have creative, innovative science without a human scientist. And there IS the rub.

The HUMAN inclination is to ascribe meaning and value according to human tendencies, compulsions, needs, greed, selfishness, pride etc. Nothing more is needed to get the Religion of Scientism off and running and tenaciously maintained by a sizable percentage of those involved.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: Klassified

However, the scientific method itself is not religious, and is indeed dispassionately objective.

To speak about the scientific method without a human being behind it...? When people exclaim the Science is a religion...it is almost 99 % referred to the problem you mentioned already...the people behind the science.

It is unfortunate the average person knows more about their favorite sport or sitcom than they do about science, philosophy, or even religion.

What I find also unfortunate is that people think that if something is scientifically vetted...then it must be true...since you know...Science is objective. But the problem is never the Science...it's always...who performed the vetting and the motive behind it. Science does not do anything on it's own. It's like a car...somebody has to sit in it and drive it. And when it comes to drivers...oh boy...

originally posted by: GetHyped

And FYI, calling someone scientifically illiterate is not the same as calling someone is illiterate.

Of course not. But you said:

"...this is merely your scientifically illiterate understanding of science"

When you say "illiterate understanding of science", it is made known that the illiteracy is in reference to science. So adding the word "scientifically" and saying "your scientifically illiterate understanding of science" is redundant. redundancy is a universal form of illiteracy. I thought it was ironic that you formed a sentence full of illiteracy while calling someone else illiterate.

originally posted by: burgerbuddy
True
The scientific method is pure
Why not rely on the scientific method for science, isn't that the issue in the thread

Yes it is pure but the method has to be followed religiously to be taken seriously.


LOLOLOL

Paradoxes abound.

Well put; and quite true.

a reply to: cooperton

Now now.

You likely know that the Religion of Scientism acolytes really HATE to be confused by FACTS!

LOLOL.

a reply to: cooperton

Your scientifically illiterte understanding of science, not your illiterate understanding of science.

Such as, say, someone who denies the science of modern evolutionary synthesis because it conflicts with their literal interpretation of Genesis.

Is this ringing any bells?

Edit: let me ask you 2 questions, cooperton:

1) How old is the Earth?

2) How did life in its current form come into existence?

a reply to: BO XIAN

I wasn't aware of what littlebylittle inferred in your quote of his, but it seems to support an idea I've been running around in my head for a while.

It was that if Einstein's theories of relativity are correct that as the universe expands, time speed up. IOW, as the Universe expands, space stretches, and as space stretches, time speeds up. We all know that the atomic clock experiments support the idea, (notice I didn't say prove) that time dilation occurs in space dense locals, i.e. gravity wells. So it would stand to reason that in the early universe, space would be more compacted, time would move MUCH slower.

In an expanded universe, space would be stretched, time would move faster.

Jaden

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: BO XIAN

Oh look, you're slapping the back of another creationist who also has an ideological axe to grind against the scientific method.

We don't have an axe to grind with the scientific method, just like Martin Luther didn't have an axe to grind with Christianity... Rather, It is the institutions that surround and distort these pure practices that have to be questioned and thrown off their thrones. These so called teachers of the law are deluded, but even worse, they mislead others into their ignorant dogma - distorting people's views of reality and steer them away from Truth.

a reply to: cooperton


1) How old is the Earth?

2) How did life in its current form come into existence?

a reply to: BO XIAN

Science itself is the exact opposite of Religion. For example, science and scientific experimentation demands that a process be repeatable by any other person who wishes to replicate the experiment by following a very precise "recipe" set forth by the original experimenter. This is very much in contrast to religion. Religions expect you to take all of the information in their holy books as true even without logically thinking through what the books are claiming.

Of course, numbers get fudges and only certain results are sometimes reported by the original experimenter, but the true objectivity of science exists in the fact that any other experimenter can follow the experiment and replicate the results (or not replicate the results).

I don't think observing ancient philosophers really justifies anything today. That's nearly as disingenuous as using a holy book to claim facts about the modern world. The ancient philosophers built the foundations of our modern philosophy, but they're often held to unrealistic standard and unrealistic level of appreciation.

Ultimately, I would agree with the premise of your title "Why Mainstream Science is a Religion", but I only agree in the sense that most people don't understand what they're reading when they read a scientific journal. This means that some of the reading has to be taken on faith. Of course not everyone is a scientist, but the cross checking in the science community helps to improve the likelihood that a scientific discovery is the objective truth.

a reply to: Masterjaden

Sounds reasonable, to me.

And, it seems, to me, that we know far far less than many presume that we know.

a reply to: GetHyped

Those are not the topic of this thread.

I understand your hostility to the topic of the thread.

Nevertheless it IS STILL the topic of this thread.

You'll play by the T&C rules, or you won't.

a reply to: Cesim

That's clearly the ideal.

I think the REALITY is very farrrrrr from the ideal.

Toooooo many RAD (Attachment Disordered) individuals are in charge of the science activities.

They are slaves to their psychodymanics and their psychologies toward treating science as; relating to science as a religion.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: GetHyped

Those are not the topic of this thread.

Oh they very much are. Why are you so afraid to hear his answers?

Let me ask you: as someone who claims to have a PhD, do you think that denying the science of evolution in favor of a literal interpretation of Genesis is a rational, scientifically literate position to take?

Because these are your bedfellows.

No wonder you want these questions to be off-topic as it pretty much illustrates my point that magical thinkers and science deniers are your loudest supporters in this thread.