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: 5
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2016 @ 06:57 PM
link   
Most "real" scientists know the limitations and range of applicability of their fields BUT, simply because a theory or a science is not perfect does not then mean that the other views are correct. Both systems of belief may be wrong but, in different ways, and some systems of belief may be more incorrect than others.

This is the basis of science.




posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: deloprator20000
Most "real" scientists know the limitations and range of applicability of their fields BUT, simply because a theory or a science is not perfect does not then mean that the other views are correct. Both systems of belief may be wrong but, in different ways, and some systems of belief may be more incorrect than others.

This is the basis of science.


AGREED.

However,

The Religion of Scientism mentality prevents a sizeable chunk of folks from even questioning

1. the findings at all, in any respect for any reason

2. the design & structure of the experiment(s)

3. the motives of the experimenters

4. the quality and integrity of the reporting of the research/experiments.

5. the implications and applicability of the research/experiments

6. the limitations of the research/experiments

The last two have been wholesale run roughshod over and even trashed and left in the dust with the initial research into potential biological 'causes' of homosexuality. The RELIGIOUS DOGMA of the purported 'science' involved took over #3, #5 & #6 wholesale virtually from the beginning.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: BO XIAN

Per Merriam-Webster:

www.merriam-webster.com...


BEGIN QUOTE
Full Definition of GOD:
. . .

2 : a being or object [emphasis added] believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality.
END QUOTE

[can't get quote within quote to function properly]

The RELIGION OF SCIENTISM holds that and tries tirelessly to control the view that

SCIENCE ALONE can accurately, adequately, sufficiently, truly totally or near totally define and examine REALITY.

BEGIN QUOTE
3 : a person or thing of supreme value
END QUOTE

The RELIGION OF SCIENTISM holds that the SCIENTIFIC METHOD and the whole set of dogma, beliefs, gate-keeping, vetting, high priesthood, education/catechism etc. involved in & with the scientific method is of SUPREME VALUE--surpassing all other value orientations and systems in accuracy, usefulness, truth, value . . . etc.

edit on 31/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: Quote tags not working

edit on 31/5/2016 by BO XIAN because: tags



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
The Religion of Scientism mentality prevents a sizeable chunk of folks from even questioning...

How? How does it stop people questioning it? THAT is exactly what science welcomes, encourages and would be nothing WITHOUT people questioning it.

Do you mean due to the complexity and amount of knowledge one may need in a particular field prevents said person from questioning science? In the immediate instance, perhaps. But that is not to say it isn't possible.

I am not a nuclear physicist. If I met one and he/she explain theory X to me - it would be very hard for me to question it and argue whether or not they are right as I simply do not have that experience of education.

However, *if* I were to educate myself, read the science and become fluent in how it operates, I could devise experiments to try and prove said theory wrong. Or, come to the same conclusions following the same, repeatable experiment ANYONE can follow

Not so with religion, it does not allow that -- it only has circular logic to keep itself alive when question/confronted. You can't prove it wrong because it doesn't exist in the first place.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: BO XIAN
The Religion of Scientism mentality prevents a sizeable chunk of folks from even questioning...

How? How does it stop people questioning it? THAT is exactly what science welcomes, encourages and would be nothing WITHOUT people questioning it.


Hmmmmmm . . . Perhaps you have not read much about how dangerous it is to question much of anything in certain disciplines--particularly at certain Universities and in the offices of most peer reviewed journals.

Oh, there are fluff questions that are allowed.

But to really question the core of some approved dogma sort of research . . . or to question the foundational underpinnings . . . not allowed--at least not if one wants tenure or wants to be published.



Do you mean due to the complexity and amount of knowledge one may need in a particular field prevents said person from questioning science? In the immediate instance, perhaps. But that is not to say it isn't possible.


No. That was not my meaning. I'm talking about a religious/political elite doing the gate-keeping in every scientific discipline on the table/planet. Gate-keeping is a professional sociology term, BTW.



I am not a nuclear physicist. If I met one and he/she explain theory X to me - it would be very hard for me to question it and argue whether or not they are right as I simply do not have that experience of education.

However, *if* I were to educate myself, read the science and become fluent in how it operates, I could devise experiments to try and prove said theory wrong. Or, come to the same conclusions following the same, repeatable experiment ANYONE can follow


And regardless of how successful your experiments were, IF THE RELIGION of Scientism decreed that your findings were off-limits--it would be--in scientific circles and publishing and teaching--as though you and your experiments had never existed.



Not so with religion, it does not allow that -- it only has circular logic to keep itself alive when question/confronted. You can't prove it wrong because it doesn't exist in the first place.


Nonsense. That's not remotely been my experience. But that's not exactly the center of this topic.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: deloprator20000
Most "real" scientists know the limitations and range of applicability of their fields BUT, simply because a theory or a science is not perfect does not then mean that the other views are correct. Both systems of belief may be wrong but, in different ways, and some systems of belief may be more incorrect than others.

This is the basis of science.


Good points.

I agree that both systems may be wrong or partly wrong.

I agree that some systems and sets of values may be more inaccurate than others.

George Kelley dealt with this somewhat with his role construct theory. No culture was found to have more than 26 bi-polar constructs with which to construe reality. The typical most super-ordinate construct is good/evil or some variation on those labels.

Construct systems which best describe reality and which are MOST USEFUL in navigating reality involve some stability and yet some permeability & flexibility.

Hyper-RELIGIOUS systems--e.g. Hoffer's TRUE BELIEVERS . . . e.g. the INDISCRIMINATELY ANTI-RELIGIOUS; the INDISCRIMINATELY PRO-RELIGIOUS; THE EXTRINSIC RELIGIOUS folks tend to have construct systems which are far too narrow and far too rigid to accurately describe reality and to be of optimum use in navigating reality.

The Religion of Scientism demonstrates just that kind of narrowness and rigidity in a list of ways.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sremmos80

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.


Maybe third times a charm?
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.
edit on stTue, 31 May 2016 19:37:16 -0500America/Chicago520161680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: BO XIAN

= = = =
www.merriam-webster.com...

BEGIN quote
Full Definition of WORSHIP

2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power;
END quote

Agreed that the Religion of Scientism does not acknowledge a supreme being or supernatural power.

HOWEVER, I've often read hereon, word choices, tones of reverence, attitudes in tones and sentence structures elevating "Nature*" and even the Paid UFO debunker that wrote CONTACT--Carl Sagan.

*Francis A Schaeffer noted decades ago in HOW SHOULD WE THEN LIVE that when the culture 'killed God off' it elevated NATURE to the status of God.

BEGIN quote
also: an act of expressing such reverence
END quote

CERTAINLY there are many acts, tones, statements, attitudes evident no almost every hand documenting such worshipful reverence for the Religion of Scientism and its dogmas. A list of scifi movies can easily demonstrate that just by watching the audience's responses. They are every bit as RELIGIOUS about and toward the science themes, memes, dogma as an energetic, intense Pentecostal service.

BEGIN quote
3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual [Emphasis added]
END quote

The Religion of Scientism CERTAINLY has its CREEDs and RITUALS. The gate-keeping; vetting their High Priests; elevating of their chosen high priests; vetting their published papers; etc. etc. is brazenly displayed in fiercely religious terms, memes, styles, tones, attitudes.

BEGIN quote
4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem [Emphasis added]
END quote

= = =

I think the DEVOTION aspect of the Religion of Scientism has been fairly evident on this thread. Certainly it has been evident the last 11 years on ATS in a long list of threads.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

I tend to be fairly methodical. I suspect, given that, that I'll eventually get to every post that asks for my responses.

However, I will note that IMPATIENCE and DEMANDS to kowtow to a given dogma or stance . . . are features of DOGMATIC RELIGIONS.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 07:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: BO XIAN
www.merriam-webster.com...

BEGIN quote
Full Definition of RELIGIOUS

1 : relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality [emphasis added] or deity.
END quote

CERTAINLY, a huge chunk of, if not virtually all of the Religion of Scientism's most loyal acolytes are very faithfully DEVOTED to heralding their belief that it is DOGMATIC FACT that the Religion of Scientism alone accurately and truly defines reality.

BEGIN quote
2 : of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances
END quote

CERTAINLY the Religion of Scientism is intensely devoted to their dogmatic RELIGIOUS beliefs and observances. Just try to cross them; undermine them; discount them; dismiss them; question them on any big university campus and virtually any peer reviewed professional journal.

And watch their High Priests prance proudly with their new sanctioned titles and positions in the religious hierarchy. Their Bishops of Scientism can be among the worst of religionists of any flavor.


BEGIN quote
3 a : scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS
[emphasis added except for b--red was in original]
END quote

DITTO. Some of the Religion of Scientism's high priests have called for all Christians to be exterminated--as a threat to--the highest religious dogma of "pure" (LOLOL) science--as a major tenant of their dogmatic faith.

= = =



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:04 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

a reply to: BO XIAN

BEGIN quote
Per Merriam-Webster:

Full Definition of RELIGION
.
1 b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
END quote

Even here, the Religion of Scientism fits. Their devotion to their fiercely held and just as fiercely DENIED FAITH in their RELIGIOUS dogma and observances can be almost comical and certainly outrageously absurd in their prissy attitudes of SUPREMELY LOFTY OMNISCIENCE.


BEGIN quote
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices [Emphasis added]
END quote

The Religion of Scientism is BOTH personally held by millions . . . and rigidly and powerfully institutionalized.

BEGIN quote
3 archaic] : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS [emphasis added except for conscientiousness--where red was in the original]
END quote

The conscientiousness of many of the acolytes and high priests of the Religion of scientism would put even a lot of Mormon missionaries and JW's to shame.

BEGIN quote
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith [emphasis added]
END quote]

I don't see how any of the Religion of Scientism's acolytes and high priests can begin to deny the ARDOR invested in their dogmatic beliefs and faith in their system of values etc.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:26 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

imho,

This is another example of the Religion of Scientism . . . institutionalized as part of the authoritarian state:

SCIENCE IN THE AUTHORITARIAN STATE:
.

www.thevaccinereaction.org...
.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

So instead of answering you just attack me?
Merely thought you missed it and can see you are answering other people.. and yourself...
edit on stTue, 31 May 2016 20:31:26 -0500America/Chicago520162680 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Sremmos80

No, I did not attack your personhood.

I noted the impatience etc. and that such an inclination was consistent with dogmatic values orientations such as the Religion of Scientism.

I'm likely going to take a shower shortly.

Your list of things requires, imho, more than a quick, short answer. I wish to give it some thought and deliberation rather than an off-the-top-of-my-head response.

I've already spent a fair amount of time at the end of a somewhat tiring day doing what I noted yesterday I would do on the thread today.

I have responded quickly to some posts that caught my eye and were amenable to such quick responses.

I don't know if I'll be energized enough by the hot shower to go back to page one and begin the long process of responding to each post I have yet to respond to, or not. If so, I will. If not, I'll likely go to bed.

Tomorrow, I hope to go to the college about as early as I did today. I don't know how long I'll last at my project there. I did stop by on the way home today and helped my friend with the 4 fused neck vertebrae take his shower so I don't have to bother about that tomorrow.

This is an interesting and important thread, to me. I fully intend to treat all the posts with whatever level of respect they appear to be due, imho. I don't know how long that will take.

You may continue to be snippy toward me, if you wish. I doubt it will hasten the hour of my responding to your post.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

'Religion' is the congregation of those infected with the same strain of 'beliefs'.
'Beliefs' are a pathologically symptomatic infection of the imagination, the ego! Vanity!

These 'scientists', addled by 'beliefs', either do not work in the area of those 'beliefs', or they are not 'true' scientists, as you say.
But your absurd assertion that all scientists are belief-addled, is refuted by the computer, at which you are presently ... worshiping!
And claiming that all science (mainstream) is a 'religion' is what the already belief-addled need to do to validate their absurd insane beliefs!
If science says that snakes do not talk, demonize/deny science, like belief-addled religion has always done in it's pathological march into extinction!



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:13 PM
link   
Science works entirely differently than religion. Religion requires FAITH to believe things WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Science uses EVIDENCE to prove theories. If the evidence shows a theory is wrong, science will modify or throw out the theory. Religion does not do this.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:15 PM
link   
It was pretty cool when Scientist Newton proved religion was a bucket of superstitions by proving the Earth was NOT the center of the universe.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: namelesss

NOPE.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:19 PM
link   
a reply to: staple

Isaac Newton was more a student and scholar of The Bible

than he was of science.

He postulated that there were codes buried in the Bible and worked toward revealing such. I don't recall how far he got toward that goal.

IIRC, He was a fairly fierce Christian regardless of his contrary dabblings.



posted on May, 31 2016 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

Actually, My flavor of Christianity does that fairly routinely.

It can depend on each congregation . . . but most are given to labeling charlatans accurately . . . and dismissing phony 'miracles' while supporting and documenting authentic ones.



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join