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.
Imhotep, Doctor, Architect, High Priest, Scribe and Vizier to King Djoser
the Sumerians developed a sophistication with mathematics that had never been seen before on the human landscape. And all that number crunching led the Sumerians to begin crude speculations about the nature of numbers and processes involving numbers—abstract mathematics.
the Sumerians invented astrology, and astrology produced the most sophisticated astronomical knowledge ever seen to that date, and astrology produced even more sophisticated mathematics.
melatonin:
Religion - all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns
from religio = reverence
Science - A process by which knowledge can be gained by empiricism
and the collective knowledge obtained by said process (me)
Natural = based in nature, that is, the material
Supernatural = beyond nature.
I'm sure this is just going to descend into semantic BS...
MajorMalfunction:
you can't ask for definitions and then throw them out because they prove the point you don't like.
Natural means anything of the natural world
Supernatural means anything that lies outside of natural law.
You can't re-define something just because you don't like the way the definitions point out the truth.
By definition, there is no such thing as the supernatural because there is no
"outside" of natural law that can be proven exists.
that can be proven exists.
How can you prove what resides in the center of a star since we have no way of getting inside? Or what truly causes the formation of a blackhole? Simply put if we aren't there how can we truely know for sure?
Or even what is the basis for matter when we can't even see atoms,
Sure the evidence may point a certain way but how many people have gone to jail innocent for the crimes of which they were accused only to be later exonerated?
Simple fact is a theory is guess work, sure educated guess work but guess work all the same. Yet so many theories are accepted as fact.
Originally posted by LordBucket
Ok. What about faiths that don't exalt or personify divinity? For example, is Taoism a religion?
i]Empiricism?
So, in general, knowledge that is gained through experience, as opposed to intuition, qualifies as empirical. So...anyone who says they felt the Holy Spirit...or for that matter, claims that they hear voices in their head, is dealing with empirical knowledge.
Wait...when you say "me" do you mean you personally? So, you're defining science as being a concept relative to you personally? So...if somebody else also defined science so far it was relevant to them personally, would you be ok with that?
1) Saying that "natural" means "based in nature" doesn't mean anything. It's a circular definition. You might as well say that "foo" means "based in foo." It 's nonsensical.
2) Limiting "natural" to only the "material" again, is obviously not what you mean. Is electricity supernatural? Is magnetism supernatural? Clearly you would say no, but these things are not "material." What about math? Math has absolutely no basis in the physical world whatsoever. There is not such thing as a "one." There is no such thing as a "divided by." But I think it's kind of silly to suggest that math is "supernatural."
Originally posted by jfj123
OK, here's your answer.
NOPE. Science is not a religion. The definitions of the two are completely foreign to each other.
So the answer is NO Science is not a religion.
Philosophy and science aren't necessarily the same thing.
I assume you are asking me whether I agree with this or not.
My answer is: TO A POINT.
Also I am not entirely clear what this has to do with science and religion. Your thread asks whether science is a religion. The answer is still NO. The two are not interchangable STILL.
one's opinion of a politician, favorable or unfavorable, is not that person
individual people in fact do not in general have access to absolute knowledge of reality, but in fact only have access to a set of beliefs they have built up over time, about reality.
So it is considered important to be aware that people's beliefs about reality and their awareness of things (the "map") are not reality itself or everything they could be aware of ("the territory").
This may or may not be true. Simply because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's wrong.
First, there is only one REAL reality, unless you want to get into that whole parallel universes thing.
This is a very over dramatized way of saying, perception changes peoples views of reality. This however does not actually change reality.
So, under certain circumstances, the above quote may be true. But for example, regardless of everyones beliefs built over time, we all know 2+2=4 unless of course someone can't add.
This should be rewritten to say
So it is considered important to e aware that people's beliefs about reality and their awareness of "things" MAY not NECESSARILY be reality itself.
The way this is written implies that nobody knows what reality is because their beliefs mask it. This is written as an absolute which simply cannot be true.
This may or may not be true. Simply because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's wrong.
Ah but it doesn't mean it's right either.
First, there is only one REAL reality, unless you want to get into that whole parallel universes thing.
This is a very over dramatized way of saying, perception changes peoples views of reality. This however does not actually change reality.
So, under certain circumstances, the above quote may be true. But for example, regardless of everyones beliefs built over time, we all know 2+2=4 unless of course someone can't add.
Yes there is one reality (that we know of) but there are a great many different ways of interpting reality. And a persons perception of reality is ALL that person has, heck anyone has. With out our perceptions there would be no outside reality TO US, or probly even a US to begin with. And perceptions can be skewed intentionally and unintentionally. And yes there are things that can't be argued doesn't mean what you built on top of that foundation is infalable. You know diamond in the rough, etc etc etc etc.
This should be rewritten to say
So it is considered important to e aware that people's beliefs about reality and their awareness of "things" MAY not NECESSARILY be reality itself.
No. It shouldn't. In no way EVER is the word I use called book an actual book. It conveys all the things we expect and associate with that object we call a book but it will never be the actual object we call a book.
The way this is written implies that nobody knows what reality is because their beliefs mask it. This is written as an absolute which simply cannot be true.
Why not? Or is that the only absolutes that are allowed are the ones that you yourself believe? Because if that is what you are seeming to be assuming you don't need a god because in a sense you are one.
You're missing the point. The quote implies that the opinion is automatically wrong. I'm giving the opinion the option of both.
Again, one reality unless you want to start discussing the mechanics of parallel universe theory. Exactly how many times have you seen The Matrix?
Reality is real. Peoples perception of reality, may or may not be accurate. The inaccurate perception of reality doesn't change it.
YES IT SHOULD.
A book is a word that describes an object. The word has a definition which describes the object associated with it.
[\quote]
Oh really now? You contridict yourself sir. A description is a group words used to describe something correct? What are words? Your argument is circular and not very valid if you think about it. The definition is not the obejct either since it is a collection of words it's self.
Although people may have some their own beliefs and perceptions that make them individuals, we all share a core understanding that allows us to interact and function as a society, thats why not. If nobody shared a core understanding of reality, we wouldn't be able to interact and function.
Here's a little example. In the US, we all know what a red traffic light means. If nobody did....well I hope you can figure out what would happen
Once again in order.
1) Yes I agree we do share a core understanding but what is the core can be debated as it obviously is otherwise we would not be having this conversation.
2) Bad example my friend allow me to show you. Yes but how many people choose to ignore what that stop light means at times?
Simple fact that you cannot refute is that a person's perception of reality IS reality to them. And since perception can be misled intentionally (as some seek to do for their own ends) and/or unitentionally,as has happend to all of us unless you wish to claim perfection and then I'd have to laugh at you.
And in essense it sounds like you do not agree with the statement AT ALL though you say you do to a point. You refute the very meaning it attempts to convey.
[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]
[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]