It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

page: 34
59
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Barcs

Science never tells you what to do about it, only how to do it.




posted on Jun, 7 2016 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: masqua
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Here's a thought...

All the improved weapons of war and all wars themselves are the result of human intentions only.

No gods ever had their hands in any of it.

If any entity is to blame, it is entirely ourselves we need to look at... not any deities. If They had any effect in bringing the tools of warfare into battle, it was through inspiration and the desire to get an upper hand on a perceived enemy. This is why machine guns, tanks and nuclear weapons came to be and had the same effect as steel against bronze in primitive times.

The circular argument that really matters is the one which calls for war. It's staying power with humanity outstrips all religions. Getting better at killing comes with eternal practice and innovation.


War is inevitable...it is the means by which the powerful stay powerful and those that wish to attain power gain power...that being said...Science and Scientists could have said no, or it doesn't work or we can't split the atom like that...but in their conceit they focused more on the goal of discovery and less on the morality and use.
Its an age old question of is the blame on those that use or those that create....and I say the same of religion is the blame on those that preach peace and way of life(faith) or those that bend it to suit their own needs for power and control...

The simple answer is science in its true form is harmless and religion in its true form is harmless..both try to answer the basic questions of existence one through trial, error and testing, and one through faith, belief, and understanding..both have their importance to they that believe in them..



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
War is inevitable...it is the means by which the powerful stay powerful and those that wish to attain power gain power...that being said...Science and Scientists could have said no, or it doesn't work or we can't split the atom like that...but in their conceit they focused more on the goal of discovery and less on the morality and use.


Couldn't religious people have simply said no in the past, when they burned people alive for blasphemy or were told to invent all kinds of torture devices? It's silly to blame the scientists who are getting paid to research XYZ. They don't determine how the technology is used. They don't decide when to go to war. They only experiment to figure out how things work. How we use that knowledge is totally up to the people in power (who are mostly religious btw). It is flat out delusional to think scientists have a say in that or that they can just flat out refuse to do research they don't like without hurting their careers.

The big difference is that religion directly tells people that they should stone folks that commit adultery and that homosexuality is an abomination, things that directly divide people and cause others to be treated unfairly. Science doesn't say that nuclear technology should be used to commit mass murder. Nuclear energy is a huge benefit. Unfortunately, the technology can also be used in bombs. Blaming the scientists because the government chooses to use it in bombs is ridiculous.

Human responsibility is slowly disappearing. These days everybody needs a scapegoat to blame the world's problems on. Instead of accepting the fact that you slipped on a banana peel because you weren't paying attention to where you were walking and were texting, you blame the banana, blame the company that did the sidewalk, blame the city maintenance. Whatever it takes to avoid admitting responsibility for your own actions (by you, i mean you in general, not you personally btw).


edit on 6 8 16 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

Nah science isn't a religion but it often seems like it might be. The way it is presented to the majority of the public often uses some of the same indoctrination tactics as religion and there are probably a growing number of academics studying how to manipulate the public so even though science isn't a religion many colleges have many of the same characteristics as religion as I explained previously in Is the academic world defending democracy? or corrupting it?

Many so-called scientists rely on the ignorance of the public and even many students that supposedly learn scientific methods better to indoctrinate them based on ideological grounds. Some of the most common beliefs involve fiscal ideologies like Capitalism that ignore simple facts like rewarding deceptive advertisers more than workers doesn't provide good incentives. Other ones include research into UFOs and explaining how ancient megaliths were moved among many other unexplained phenomena that both skeptics and believers often get wrong.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 01:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: zacherystaylor
a reply to: BO XIAN

Many so-called scientists rely on the ignorance of the public and even many students that supposedly learn scientific methods better to indoctrinate them based on ideological grounds.


Name one.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 03:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
War is inevitable...it is the means by which the powerful stay powerful and those that wish to attain power gain power...that being said...Science and Scientists could have said no, or it doesn't work or we can't split the atom like that...but in their conceit they focused more on the goal of discovery and less on the morality and use.


Couldn't religious people have simply said no in the past, when they burned people alive for blasphemy or were told to invent all kinds of torture devices? It's silly to blame the scientists who are getting paid to research XYZ. They don't determine how the technology is used. They don't decide when to go to war. They only experiment to figure out how things work. How we use that knowledge is totally up to the people in power (who are mostly religious btw). It is flat out delusional to think scientists have a say in that or that they can just flat out refuse to do research they don't like without hurting their careers.

The big difference is that religion directly tells people that they should stone folks that commit adultery and that homosexuality is an abomination, things that directly divide people and cause others to be treated unfairly. Science doesn't say that nuclear technology should be used to commit mass murder. Nuclear energy is a huge benefit. Unfortunately, the technology can also be used in bombs. Blaming the scientists because the government chooses to use it in bombs is ridiculous.

Human responsibility is slowly disappearing. These days everybody needs a scapegoat to blame the world's problems on. Instead of accepting the fact that you slipped on a banana peel because you weren't paying attention to where you were walking and were texting, you blame the banana, blame the company that did the sidewalk, blame the city maintenance. Whatever it takes to avoid admitting responsibility for your own actions (by you, i mean you in general, not you personally btw).



Except in the case of the atomic bomb where they knew they were making an atomic bomb...weaponized viruses are created to be weaponized viruses...so in those cases millions of lives were lost because scientists needed to see if it worked rather than taking the moral high ground and saying no.... Oppenheimer only regretted his part in the creation after it was used...which is a clear indicator of remorse rather than forethought....and I'll agree they didn't choose to use it but they did choose to create it...

As far as religion goes there is only One religion on this planet that directly tells it's followers to kill or subjugate nonbelievers through scripture and that would be Islam. Christianity has examples of "historical events" in the old testament of wars waged in God's name and a and crucifixions, however I challenge you to find anywhere in the new testament where it tells followers of Christ to kill or stone nonbelievers....and considering the vast majority of churches follow the teachings of Christ then I doubt there are warmongering Christians floating around the planet looking to convert by force.

That being said I stick to my original point that both science and religion have great capacity to do good on a physical level and a spiritual level, and that man is the common denominator in the perversion and misuse of both...but it would be wrong of me or anyone to condemn either solely based on their misuse.

Final thought: I encourage those of you who have never read or studied science in any depth to do that and those of you who have never studied or read about religion to do that too, then, and only then, can you formulate a valid opinion of both..science teaches you to disprove things through constant reevaluation of the knowns and too seek new ways to approach a problem, so if your not learning both sides then your a shill and have no business speaking about either topic.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   
a reply to: zacherystaylor

In other words, you agree that scientific establishment and its paradigms ARE religion, but that science as a method is NOT.. Which is exactly what the op and several of us have been arguing...

JAden



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: zacherystaylor

In other words, you agree that scientific establishment and its paradigms ARE religion, but that science as a method is NOT.. Which is exactly what the op and several of us have been arguing...

JAden


Schools are a religious institution, but education is not a religion. Yeah, see, that still doesn't sound right.



posted on Jun, 8 2016 @ 10:07 PM
link   
And as has been pointed out by many of the contributors in this thread, all human institutions bear some resemblance to all other human institutions (because there are, you know, humans involved). However, the differences between science and religion are vast, and it is these differences that define them, both as institutions and as processes.


edit on 8-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 10:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: StopWhiningAboutIt
Except in the case of the atomic bomb where they knew they were making an atomic bomb...weaponized viruses are created to be weaponized viruses...so in those cases millions of lives were lost because scientists needed to see if it worked rather than taking the moral high ground and saying no.... Oppenheimer only regretted his part in the creation after it was used...which is a clear indicator of remorse rather than forethought....and I'll agree they didn't choose to use it but they did choose to create it...


You do know that the Ernest Rutherford, who discovered nuclear fission (splitting the atom), was a Christian, right? You do realize that splitting the atom was not just about nuclear bombs, right? I'm sorry, but your accusations are a bit simplistic. Once the discovery was made and was understood, the government chose to weaponize it. It wasn't just the scientists trying to figure out if it was possible. Plus it could be argued that using the nukes actually saved way more lives than it took, because a full scale invasion of Japan would have killed many more people. I don't personally agree that it justifies it, but it can be argued that without the nukes, way more would die and who knows if we even beat Japan in WW2.


As far as religion goes there is only One religion on this planet that directly tells it's followers to kill or subjugate nonbelievers through scripture and that would be Islam. I challenge you to find anywhere in the new testament where it tells followers of Christ to kill or stone nonbelievers....and considering the vast majority of churches follow the teachings of Christ then I doubt there are warmongering Christians floating around the planet looking to convert by force.


Islam most definitely is not the only one, and the Quaran actually refers to non believers that oppress them, not just all non believers.

Also the old testament is part of the Christian bible so to discount it is silly. If Christians wanted to ignore those past scriptures it wouldn't still be part of their holy book.


Deuteronomy 17
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant; 17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; 17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel; 17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.


That directly says to stone people for worshiping other gods. I know it's Old testament, but it's still part of your holy book.


That being said I stick to my original point that both science and religion have great capacity to do good on a physical level and a spiritual level, and that man is the common denominator in the perversion and misuse of both...but it would be wrong of me or anyone to condemn either solely based on their misuse.


I agree with this. Humans lie, corrupt, cheat, and steal. Anytime humans are involved, it can lead to corruption of anything. It happens with religion and it happens with folks that try to use scientific knowledge for bad purposes.



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Except mainstream science is hardly a belief system. It relies on empiricism, that which can be observed, tested, and repeated in a controlled setting.
edit on 9-6-2016 by logicsoda because: changed "replies" to "relies"



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:31 PM
link   
"Islam most definitely is not the only one, and the Quaran actually refers to non believers that oppress them, not just all non believers."

"The Quran contains at least 109 verses that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Some are quite graphic, with commands to chop off heads and fingers and kill infidels wherever they may be hiding. Muslims who do not join the fight are called 'hypocrites' and warned that Allah will send them to Hell if they do not join the slaughter."

"Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)"

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority".

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (2:191-193) - "And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah [disbelief or unrest] is worse than killing...
but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until there is no more Fitnah [disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah] and worship is for Allah alone. But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun(the polytheists, and wrong-doers, etc.)" (Translation is from the Noble Quran) The verse prior to this (190) refers to "fighting for the cause of Allah those who fight you" leading some to believe that the entire passage refers to a defensive war in which Muslims are defending their homes and families. The historical context of this passage is not defensive warfare, however, since Muhammad and his Muslims had just relocated to Medina and were not under attack by their Meccan adversaries. In fact, the verses urge offensive warfare, in that Muslims are to drive Meccans out of their own city (which they later did). Verse 190 thus means to fight those who offer resistance to Allah's rule (ie. Muslim conquest). The use of the word "persecution" by some Muslim translators is disingenuous (the actual Arabic words for persecution - "idtihad" - and oppression - a variation of "z-l-m" - do not appear in the verse). The word used instead, "fitna", can mean disbelief, or the disorder that results from unbelief or temptation. This is certainly what is meant in this context since the violence is explicitly commissioned "until religion is for Allah" - ie. unbelievers desist in their unbelief.

Now compare that with the passage you cited and tell me if you think that Christians are instructed directly to stone the unclean in a modern context...

To be fair there is one verse that speaks to you idea of the Quran and it's fight against oppressors.

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

But that is 1 of 109 verses that prescribe death and mutilation of nonbelievers...and if that's not enough let's compare the last words of each religions icons.

Christ in his final words forgave those who killed him..as opposed to Mohammed (pedophilia be upon him) cursed the Jews and nonbelievers and told his followers to seek them out and kill them).


the Quran explained



posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 08:46 PM
link   
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Redundancy is a fantastic business policy. What's better than one martyr for one faction? A martyr for every faction. Then turn them on each other and go up to the next level of social division. Politics, economics, religion, it's turtles all the way down.




posted on Jun, 9 2016 @ 09:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Redundancy is a fantastic business policy. What's better than one martyr for one faction? A martyr for every faction. Then turn them on each other and go up to the next level of social division. Politics, economics, religion, it's turtles all the way down.



Not really sure if this is an attack on my views or a cheep attempt to pigeonhole me into stereotype perpetuated by an SJW apologist.

You are well on your way to a job in the Ministry of Truth...

"You are a slow learner, Winston."
"How can I help it? How can I help but see what is in front of my eyes? Two and two are four."
"Sometimes, Winston. Sometimes they are five. Sometimes they are three. Sometimes they are all of them at once. You must try harder. It is not easy to become sane."
George Orwell, 1984



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 12:40 AM
link   
a reply to: StopWhiningAboutIt

Sort of like three is one and yet infinite at the same time, and the effect is its own cause, and sacrificing yourself to yourself because of reasons.



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Is science a religion? Well it shouldn't be. But there's a bit more to it than that, as I suspect we all know.

Science is just a method one can apply to explain the nature of a certain phenomenon, and it's also the body of knowledge derived from applying the scientific method. It goes somewhat like this:

Question; this is where one wants to find out about a certain phenomenon
Hypothesis: This is where one reasons out a possible explanation for said phenomenon
Prediction: based on the hypothesis, one should be able to predict further properties of the phenomenon being looked at
Experiment: Develop and conduct experiments that test the hypothesis
Analysis: See if the outcome of the experiment corresponds with the hypothesis and the predictions. If not, go back to square one and start again.

Other principles come into play as well, such as replicability and it should be falsifiable, for instance.

Having gone through the whole process, one ends up with a THEORY that explains the original phenomenon. This theory is valid until the day a better theory comes along that explains the phenomenon better and/or in more detail.

To my knowledge, this is our best best method of obtaining knowledge so far.

However, there is some confusion. Often materialism and science are being confused.

Materialism is more of a philosophy, which often likes to make the CLAIM that it's philosophical points are scientific. But that's really easy to debunk, as we shall see shortly.

One such claim for instance is that consciousness is an emergent property of complex brain structures. There are several problems with that notion.


Some neuroscientists and philosophers speculate that consciousness is an ‘emergent’ property of the brain. ‘Emergence’ happens when a higher-level property arises from complex interactions of lower-level entities. For instance, the fractal patterns of snowflakes are emergent properties of complex interactions of water molecules. But to merely state that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain is rather a cop-out than an explanation. In all known cases of emergence, we can deduce the emergent property from the characteristics of the lower-level entities that give rise to it. For instance, we can deduce the fractal shape of snowflakes from the characteristics of water molecules. We can even accurately simulate the formation of snowflakes in a computer.

However, we cannot – not even in principle – deduce what it feels to see red, to be disappointed or to love someone from the mass, charge or momentum of material particles making up the brain. As such, to consider consciousness an emergent property of brains is either an appeal to magic or the mere labeling of an unknown. In both cases, precisely nothing is actually explained.


www.bernardokastrup.com...

Yet there are these materialists (such as Richard Dawkins) who keep professing faith that their philosophy (materialism) will one day be able to completely solve the 'hard problem' of consciousness. And that's where we start veering into religious territory.

That wouldn't be so bad if these people actually admitted that their stance is as of yet unscientific, and actually metaphysical. Yet here they are misrepresenting science by claiming that their ponts of view are actually scientific. They are not! At best all they have is a hypothesis, but that hasn't been corroborated by experimentation and/or replication. They haven't even gone through the process to come up with a working theory of what consciousness actually is.
edit on 6201610 by payt69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: payt69

Other principles come into play as well, such as replicability and it should be unfalsifiable, for instance.


I think you mean "falsifiable," not "unfalsifiable." Falsifiability is a basic tenet of all scientific theories. In other words, if it were false, there has to be some test result that would prove it.

For example, Evolution is falsifiable because a pre-cambrian hippo fossil would falsify it. Relativity is falsifiable because measuring a speed of light other than c in a vacuum would falsify it.

Multi-verse theory, string theory, brane theory, holographic universe theory, etc. are all unfalsifiable, and therefore can at best be referred to as highly theoretical science. I personally think this is where science most resembles religion (although even here there are KEY differences, to be clear), but most of the complaints in this thread are focused on other things that tend to be common to all human institutions and which in no way undermine the importance of the differences between religion and science.


edit on 10-6-2016 by Greggers because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: logicsoda
Except mainstream science is hardly a belief system. It relies on empiricism, that which can be observed, tested, and repeated in a controlled setting.


Science is secular religion.
Science certainly is a belief system, its foundation is a commitment to the beliefs that:

- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."

Thus, science has little concern for (and sometimes denies the importance of) topics such as:
- The existence of God
- Life after death
- Personal experience/observation that is not accessible to an "objective" third party
- Value judgments

To be sure, most disciplines have limits regarding their focus of concern or interest.

But the most distinguishing feature of science that resembles religion is orthodoxy.
Ideas, theories or hypotheses that challenge accepted orthodoxy are not well accepted. Immanuel Velikovsky's work is a good example of this. Admittedly, many (or most) of Velikovsky's alleged facts were not correct. But the principal thrust of his work was theoretical. While he acknowledged that some planetary change happens gradually, he proposed that other planetary changes were the result of catastrophic events (comets, meteors, etc.). In 1950, scientific orthodoxy embraced gradualism, but not catastrophism. As Velikovsky's work sought to incorporate catastrophic events into the general understanding of the history of the solar system, he was unorthodox and his works were, therefore, not well received. Well into the 1970s the scientific community ridiculed Velikovsky, ostracized him, and even tried to prevent publication of his work and deny him academic employment. The scientific community's attitude towards Velikovsky was significantly quieted when the Shoemaker-Levy comet struck Jupiter in the 1990s.

Here's the point - if one wants to be accepted as a legitimate employable academically respectable scientist, there are specific beliefs which one must accept. Failure to do so precludes becoming or remaining part of the scientific community.

The overwhelming majority of professional scientists claim to be "atheists." But, the scientific community has an orthodoxy situated within the context of a hierarchical distribution of positions of authority. And this enforced orthodoxy is what leads some to refer to science as "secular religion."



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:47 AM
link   
a reply to: birdxofxprey


- Empirical observation is the most efficient and accurate way to gain knowledge about the world.
- Isolation and controlled conditions produce the most useful observations.
- Observations (under the above conditions) are "objective."


Can you prove it doesn't work?



posted on Jun, 10 2016 @ 09:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Realtruth

science has dogma.

10 years ago if an archaeologist gave a date that was pre-clovis, they may find themselves out of work.

any institution where peoples legacy is vested within that institution will have dogma. always.

whats worse: scientific dogma is 'sweetened' with terse responses to simple queries. if you don't feel inadequate, just ask a phd a question about their field.


If it is dogma, why has the discussion changed in less than a decade? If everyone was being forced out of a job, how did the discussion change in less than a decade?

Sure there are vested interests, but if the science was predicated on religious dogma, discussion let alone concepts wouldn't change regularly.



new topics




 
59
<< 31  32  33    35  36  37 >>

log in

join