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: 8
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:24 AM
link   
A pertinent quote I saved off the web once :

"Folks, fundamentalist know they are right because they have read the truth in a holy book and they know, in advance, that nothing will budge them from their belief. Per a fundamental, the book is true, and if the evidence seems to contradict it, then the evidence must be thrown out, not the book. What folks should do is base their opinions off facts from evidence. It really is a different matter.

When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously does not happen with holy books."




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:43 AM
link   
a reply to: elgaz

That's the exact point i was trying to make earlier but you done chosed better words



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: elgaz

I pray to thee, oh gospel of science!



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:08 AM
link   
Constants changing showing that many scientist do not do real science. Fudging the numbers. Solved the problem of speed of light by changing the definition of meter so the constant is always correct. Old dogma thinking (false truths) inhibiting real science.

A real scientist would want to keep the meter definition to make sure time and space was not changing even if it seem very improbable. A real scientist would say that if G fluctuates then there is something we have overlooked and that our models are wrong.

Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK

edit on 1-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:16 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Oh my, Rupert Sheldrake? Really?

You mean the guy who time and time again has been busted for doing crappy, unscientific studies?

He's your poster child for "real" science?

Riiight.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:18 AM
link   

edit on 162016 by TerryDon79 because: Not worth commenting on the obvious troll thread



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:24 AM
link   
To make it clear. I love the scientific method.

But I think people of science often are not following it and I think scientist should be held to a very high standard of broad mind and constant being reexamining what they have been told by other scientist so that a subjective view of false truths do not limit science.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Oh my, Rupert Sheldrake? Really?

You mean the guy who time and time again has been busted for doing crappy, unscientific studies?

He's your poster child for "real" science?

Riiight.


Maybe he is a bad scientist and his resonance theory is a bit out there for me. But that does not mean he is not right about the G constant. You are in a way now behaving like he is a heretic who have dared to question the great constant that we all know is a real thing G. Ad hominem attacks against the unbeliever.

This have a tendency to become the no true Scotsman fallacy.

edit on 1-6-2016 by LittleByLittle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:34 AM
link   
So many people on this site don't understand the meaning of the words they're using, it's hilarious.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:39 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Changing the definition of a metre to something much more reliable, like the speed of light is proof that science works, quite contrary to what you seem to think.

The first time a metre was used as a measurement, it's definition was..

The French National Assembly decides that the length of the new metre would be equal to the length of a pendulum with a half-period of one second.

This was in 1790.

To digress slightly, if such a thing were stated in a religious text, well the first definition would still be the accepted norm.

That is the fundamental difference here.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
It's like that dude that kept trying to tell everyone that stomach ulcers were caused by a virus and he was mocked and ridiculed for years.




posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 06:50 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

That doesn't mean it is a religion, that means that science, at least in part, requires belief.

One of the big differences is that when something is dis-proven in science, scientists change their minds. They entertain the notion that what they believe is to the best of their knowledge, true. They build upon these scientific theories and form new conclusions, sometimes disproving the original contention. But once again, if dis-proven, they change their minds.

Religion does not do this. Religion is unwavering faith in what you believe, irrespective of what is proven, dis-proven or otherwise theorized.

Science itself does not get corrupted, paradigms are introduced by politics and desires. People disregard factual information in an attempt to reinforce their own biases, this is not religion. This is a flaw with belief and the human mind. Fancy that, science explains it.
edit on 1/6/2016 by LilFox because: A correction



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: elgaz


When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously does not happen with holy books."



originally posted by: elgaz

When a science book is wrong, somebody eventually discovers the mistake and it is corrected in subsequent books. That conspicuously does not happen with holy books."


Yes but...what about time that passed between ? what about generations upon generations of children that have been regurgitating the "truth" (that was at a later date proven to be incorrect) as "gospel"...since surely...it was peer reviewed since it was in a Science book ?

What about millions that have been by that time firmly indoctrinated to the "truth"...since they "believe" in the Science ? What happens to them...? They are long gone from schools...are you going door to door to apologize for the mistakes in Science books ?

When OP speaks about Science as a religion...it is a reference to this Scientific "higher" authority...sometimes named as peer review. You can see it all over ATS...the calls for links to peer review papers...as if it's God himself.

In that sense...Scientists...or Scientists wannabes are not much different than any religious zealot. Shoot down any claim which is not written in the holy book of science...that is peer review.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:22 AM
link   
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What exactly is your complaint here? That science is an incremental process that sometimes takes a sidestep before a step forwards? How exactly is that "indoctrination"?

If we had all the answers then we wouldn't need to ask questions in the first place. What's the alternative... stop asking questions and just make crap up instead?



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: LittleByLittle

Calling out someone who calls themselves a scientist for doing crappy science is not an "ad hominem". But nice try anyway.
edit on 1-6-2016 by GetHyped because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:52 AM
link   
Neither Science nor Religion can tell me where life came from, whether there is life elsewhere, whether the Universe is closed or unbounded, etc.

I can surmise these things, but I don't really know and neither do they. Ones things for sure, they will never work together on it, having been thoroughly divided by their dogma.

I think science stumbles in the dark but learns the truth as we go along, then religion 'catches up', adopting new science discoveries as they become available.

For instance,


if the electromagnetic spectrum were a reel of film 2500 miles long (stretching from California to Alaska), then the band of visible light would be around 1 inch! According to my calculations, if these numbers are correct, that means that we only perceive 0.00000000631313% of what is really there. So why does mainstream science place so much faith in our 5-sense reality and disregard the unseen as fantasy or imagination, when we are so blind?

Science discovered all that spectrum, not religion. Science is open to more possibilities, unlike organized religion, though they will add another spectrum if one is discovered…
edit on 1-6-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 07:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What exactly is your complaint here?


My complaint is that you sell Science as dogma...until it is proven otherwise. Up until that time...you and your kind are willing to destroy people for not accepting science at face value.

Teach it as a "possibility"...as an unfinished book....which it always is...as you and everybody in Science states.."it is a process". But you are not teaching it as if it's an everlasting process.

To make it more clear...a small example...instead of writing this in a science book...

"universe began 13,8 billions of years ago...with a Big Bang" ---> because this sounds like a finished chapter

write this....

"A prevailing theory on the beginning of the Universe is the Big Bang theory, which states the universe began 13,8 billion years ago. This is of course just a theory based on the current level of our knowledge" ---> this would encourage further research for the next generations to come.

But for the guys in Science...the Big Bang is "settled science"...which I will never accept.

Just take a look at today's hype over AGW deniers...there are many attempts to demonize, to destroy, to ridicule...everyone not convinced. The science on AGW is pretty shaky...mostly theoretical when it comes to the conclusion on what exactly is the reason for alleged warming. Even not all Scientists agree on it...yet somehow...an average Joe is supposed to accept it blindly.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Tuesday 31 May 2016



"Science is a religion with its own priests (who wear white coats not black gowns). It requires belief (faith) in its unprovable theories (doctrine)."



Science is only un-provable to those who chose to be willfully ignorant of it's theories and laws or those that feel threatened by its findings.

Science:

Simple Definition of science
: knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation
: a particular area of scientific study (such as biology, physics, or chemistry) : a particular branch of science
: a subject that is formally studied in a college, university, etc.

Full Definition of science
1
: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2
a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study
b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3
a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science
4
: a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws

Religion:

Simple Definition of religion
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group

Full Definition of religion
1
a : the state of a religious
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

edit on 1-6-2016 by defiythelie because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:19 AM
link   
a reply to: defiythelie




Science is only un-provable to those who chose to be willfully ignorant of it's theories and laws or those that feel threatened by its findings.


Show me undeniable proof of Big Bang...

Show me proof that increase in CO2 causes Earth warming...and not the other way around.

And while you do that...dont forget the age old scientific claim...that correlation does not equal causation.



posted on Jun, 1 2016 @ 08:25 AM
link   
At school we learn an awful lot of things. 95% of it (or higher) is correct, proven, and sticks.

Biology. Physics. Chemistry. IT. What is water made of. Why does a light bulb illuminate. How does a computer use 1's and 0's to make decisions. What is a cell. And so on, and so forth.

If science has to make the occasional apology and say "look guys, we really genuinely believed this was true for years, but new information has come to light and we have to hold our hands up and say we got it wrong - but we're going to go with the new information from this point forward!" ........................... then people should accept that apology. Not that it even needs to be made in the first place.

Science is not the end result. It is the process of learning, and it's an incremental process. The whole concept of how science works depends fully on mistakes being made, and corrections being made, and things being tested time after time after time. No-one gives you a rock-solid guarantee about anything in life.

I still have much more confidence in science and it's occasional published mistake, than any book thousands of years old written with contributions from many different individuals over the course of many years, which still professes to be be one we should live our lives by, and which has never been revised or admitted even one word may be a mistake.
edit on 1-6-2016 by elgaz because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
59
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join