Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: dreamlotus1111
Profits are god. Look at how GMOs and vaccines are shoved down our throat regardless of the many peer reviewed evidence against them. Then our own government backs these for profit science papers researched by the very corporate interests standing to profit.

Science isn't a religion.

Religions deal with your "soul" and absolve you of "sins" in order for you to not have a crappy "afterlife". Religion exploits the natural fear, shame, and guilt humans feel in a primitive and authoritarian way to control large groups of people.

AKA:

"I absolve you of that bad stuff you did, don't worry you won't suffer for eternity after you die - just do whatever, pray to whomever, and endlessly follow this path to salvation I have created for you"

Yeah, science doesn't do that. Science could care less about your "soul" or absolving you of "sin".

Are there some similarities? Sure, but it's a real annoying stretch to continually see religious people make the false equivalence in some desperate attempt to project their own misgivings about their own religious beliefs.

*headache*

originally posted by: Onthebit
a reply to: dreamlotus1111
Profits are god. Look at how GMOs and vaccines are shoved down our throat regardless of the many peer reviewed evidence against them. Then our own government backs these for profit science papers researched by the very corporate interests standing to profit.

Oh, Dear me!

Ya mean that profits might determine approved dogma?

Profits might determine who is 'out' and who is 'in' . . . for government handouts, positions, grants . . .

Profits might determine what the next propaganda campaign's content will be about the approved dogma?

What a novel idea!

/sarc

Thanks for a great point.

a reply to: BO XIAN
No not trying to ban anything, not trying to censor you.
You're free to rant all the ignorant nonsense that you wish.
Please continue as I find it entertaining, I just ask that you take your delusional posting to the proper forum.

The Science & Technology forum is for the discussion of exactly that, science & technology not useless religulous fantasy visions of conspiracy.

K~

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Thanks.

I hope to have time later to show how the Religion of Scientism does virtually all those things you ascribe to more conventional--Supernatural God-oriented Religion alone.

a reply to: aethertek

Ahhhhhhh labeling me as delusional . . .

One of the favorite tools of the Religion of Scientism to 'deal with' those not compliant with the approved Scientism dogma.

How quaint.

And against the T&C

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.

Seems like people get upset when the findings of science run contrary to their magical beliefs.

a reply to: BO XIAN

As I said before, if you desire to twist interpretations and reality enough, then you could indeed call science a sort religion (though it does take some squinting and some faith to see it like that.) At that point, however, you have the issue that one religion (the religion of "Science") is obviously and clearly superior to all other religions. As long as they are clearly disjointed that is not a problem, and all religions are ultimately equal, however, take the separation away, and...

a reply to: GetHyped

Seems like people get upset when the findings of science run contrary to their magical beliefs.

It seems, to me,

that people get greatly upset when their

Religion of Scientism Sacred Cows get the least bit challenged with sociological and psychological FACTS.

Which, BTW, I suspect I may have a lot more knowledge of than the average bear.

BTW, I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I think that's a very dumb idea.

In terms of the cancer stuff . . . sounds like the Religion of Scientism has another TRUE BELIEVER on their side.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Um, what? You're ranting a bit. It's also worth noting that using all caps for words only makes your posts less legible, not more persuasive.

Your suspicions are probably wrong, but what are these "facts" you so proudly yell about? If you lack a reasonable source I'll be forced to just call it ridiculous insanity, though if the assertions you make are at least relatively logical in and of themselves, I might make exceptions.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: BO XIAN

When it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, swims like a duck, poops like a duck, looks like a duck . . .

Does a religion begin with observation of natural phenomena?
Does a religion form an hypothesis to explain these phenomena?
Does a religion devise a means of falsifying that hypothesis under controlled circumstances?
Does a religion reject that hypothesis if it is falsified by these experiments?
Does a religion insist that all such experiments and observations be repeatable?
Does a religion reason from the specific to the general?
Does a religion modify its body of knowledge based upon new information?
Does a religion encourage everyone to apply these methods in order to solve problems in their daily life?

If the answer to all of these is "yes," then yes, science is a religion.

Quack.

I want to requack this since it had gone ignored.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Please tell me which deity scientists pray to and hope to please in order for their metaphysical and non-material "soul" to be saved through?

I have yet to meet one scientist who prays to Louis Pasteur by talking to themselves inside their head:

"Please Mr. Pasteur, save my soul and forgive my mistakes and misdeeds! Please help me conduct this experiment correctly!"

*eye roll*

Here:

...science searches for mechanisms and the answer to “how” the universe functions, with no appeal to higher purpose, without assuming the existence of such purpose. Religion seeks meaning and the answer to “why” the world is as we know it, based on the unquestioned assumption that such meaning and purpose exist. The two worldviews could not more incompatible.

Link

What's irritating is that religious people insist that science is a religion because they can't fathom how someone could NOT have belief in some kind of metaphysical higher power directing everything.

I don't believe in Santa Claus, and I treat religion the same way. Zero belief.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Please tell me which deity scientists pray to and hope to please in order for their metaphysical and non-material "soul" to be saved through?

Well...since you asked...there is a percentage out there somewhere...I think it's 40% or something like this....cant remember for certain...of scientists who subscribe to one of the main world religions.

Infact...Sam Harris speaks about it...

It seems, to me,

that people get greatly upset when their

Religion of Scientism Sacred Cows get the least bit challenged with sociological and psychological FACTS.

I'm not the one posting rambling anti-science screeds using the accumulation of some of the greatest scientific advances of the last few hundred years to do so. It would appear that the irony of using a omputer to ramble against science over the internet is lost on you.

Which, BTW, I suspect I may have a lot more knowledge of than the average bear.



BTW, I do not believe the earth is only 6,000 years old. I think that's a very dumb idea.

The average person isn't dumb enough to believe that vaccines cause autism so swings and roundabouts, eh?

originally posted by: BO XIAN
4. THE God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob declares a couple of things . . . A) not to test him as a child tests a parent's patience. On the other hand, He also exhorts us to (B) PROVE HIM, prove His Word . . . and He will prove Faithful--as a Father and faithful to His Word.

Really? So if you *question* his authority, you get punished, but if you prove his word (ie: do as he says) you're rewarded?

Science doesn't make those same claims. Unlike religion, it can change its views based on new observations and information. Religion is locked into its beliefs and any counter to those beliefs is either disregarded or deemed heretic in order to preserve those beliefs.

So this god sounds like he, Mao, Mugabe, Kim-Il ung, Idi Amin, Pol Pot and Stalin all dine at the same table.
The god of Abraham sounds like a complete pr*ck.

Absolute nonsense..........

I don't even need to get but a few lines in to rip this apart.

Meanwhile, however, it is full of assumptions, denials and limitations

Yes, science makes assumptions. It's called the three basic assumptions for those who are too lazy to actually try to understand how science works.

1.There are natural causes for things that happen in the world around us.
2.Evidence from the natural world can be used to learn about those causes.
3.There is consistency in the causes that operate in the natural world.
Three Basic Assumptions of Science

and makes the serious mistake of presenting its theories as facts.

This line right here is fantastic. Scientific ignorance at its finest.

The University of California, Berkley defines a theory as "a broad, natural explanation for a wide range of phenomena. Theories are concise, coherent, systematic, predictive, and broadly applicable, often integrating and generalizing many hypotheses."

Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. Facts and theories are two different things. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. - See more at: www.livescience.com...

What is scientific Theory

I could go on........... But why bother?

You don't like the conclusions of science? That's fine. Bring your own robust testable theories that challenge the consensus and have them peer reviewed. If they are found to be valid they are accepted, if not they are rejected. Such is the way of science.

a reply to: BO XIAN

You do come up with some excellent topics, BO, so kudos to you for this one as it is very likely to be a lively discussion.

I do agree with you to a certain extent, but disagree in the basic 'Earth Sciences', like meteorology, plate tectonics, etc. These are sciences based completely on observation, monitoring and historical record.

What does become a religion, imho, are those sciences involved in space exploration, nuclear particles and even pharmaceuticals.

Space exploration is mostly guesswork with a hefty dose of speculation. I even read an article today which states that there never was a 'Big Bang' in the creation of the universe. Add to that the notion of infinity and you have all the makings of a religion based in Creation. Is it any wonder the ancients considered Sol a 'god' and saw their heroes images etched in the stars?

Nuclear particles are mostly empty space and energy. When discussing atomic structures such as neutrons, electrons and the myriad sub-atomic particles, one begins to wonder what matter really consists of. Add to that the notion that all matter, including us, is formed from suns, and you get back to the old religions which saw the Sun as a God. The cutting edge of nuclear science is the LHC and the observation of particle collisions become (to me anyways) very fascinating indeed.

Pharmaceudical science boggles the mind... and addles it. I wish I could understand the complexity of some of these chemicals, but it is beyond the grasp of most of us. I wonder sometimes if a computer will, at some point, surpass the human mind in this science.

So, yes, if God is omnipresent, omniscient and all-knowing, then so is science at its fringes. That apple did fall down, proving gravity... but what gravity is is still the stuff of wonder.

a reply to: masqua

Theoretical science is more than just guess work and speculation tho, so I think the space science and nuclear is getting a bit over simplified here. I will agree on the pharmaceutical to a degree tho.

i think that some are a bit missing the point of the article...or at least i am just getting different vibe from the article.

science is a great method and its ways are perfect as far as scientific method goes....

but people who are in science are not!

they like to cling to past observations and don't allow thinking out of the box.
Really good point about the article is made about electromagnetism and how some research may still be lacking and in the dark due to confirmation bias, that people in science hold in mainstream.

that is a bit religious, same blind faith at least due to wrong measurements, yet they seem to think they are right without a doubt in their view about real nature of reality.

Even though there is evidence about subtle a bit more hidden nature.
Chakras, Aura and such concepts are in modern science mainly treated as quackery, yet to a person who regularly meditates and lives and eats naturally and in a healthy way, it is obvious and normal phenomenon.
Shaolin monks, every buddhist, hinduist or other religious person who put meditation above philosophy can atest to that also...
than their is Chinese acupuncture treatments based on meridians,
also some ayurvedic treatments based on subtle energies.
ghosts and other mysterious unexplained phenomena,
etc...I could go on and on about evidence...

Materialism seems a religion as someone already mentioned and this is where real issue lies for me!
Scientist don't allow for science to let it develop naturally where the research may take them, rather there are other conditions which are steering the path of development, where there should be non conditions at all, such as money, profit, power, control, past confirmation bias, etc...

There were many genius scientists with wild ideas and some of them even realized such ideas to some extent, yet after death, their research is gone missing or they are treated as crazy in some cases.

Tesla, Reich, Edward Leedskalnin, Walter Russell, etc.
.. or Newton studied alchemy and occult, more so than "real science", yet this is never mentioned in schools.

than there are few other geniuses like Einstein, leonardo da vinci, galileo galilei...you can easily find out that they thought there is more to real nature than just materialism and had some deeper beliefs about god although outside of religious constructs...

some of the greatest minds of our time believed in something more...that should say a lot to modern science.

Well just my 2 cents....