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.

 

Science the new religion

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
I am not comparing science to religion, just by accident at one time they didn't differentiate between the two.

Who were the ancient scribes of Egypt? They were also the priestly caste.

What about the Sumerian priest kings who invented the ancient cuniform script and charted the stars?




Imhotep, Doctor, Architect, High Priest, Scribe and Vizier to King Djoser


www.touregypt.net...




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.


www.wsu.edu...




the Sumerians invented astrology, and astrology produced the most sophisticated astronomical knowledge ever seen to that date, and astrology produced even more sophisticated mathematics.







[edit on 24-8-2007 by Stormdancer777]




posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 05:57 PM
link   


melatonin:
Religion - all concepts concerning the belief in god(s) and goddess(es) as well as other spiritual beings or transcendental ultimate concerns


Ok. What about faiths that don't exalt or personify divinity? For example, is Taoism a religion?



from religio = reverence


Ok. The etymology is nice, but are you intending meaning by it, or simply sharing to offer background to the discussion? I mean...having reverence for science is not uncommon amongst scientists. Are you suggesting that any experience of reverence is by definition religious? Or, again...were you simply providing historical background?



Science - A process by which knowledge can be gained by empiricism


Empiricism?

From wikipedia


In philosophy generally, empiricism is a theory of knowledge emphasizing the role of experience, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, while discounting the notion of innate ideas.


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.

This is obviously not what you meant. Please rephrase.



and the collective knowledge obtained by said process (me)


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?



Natural = based in nature, that is, the material
Supernatural = beyond nature.


This doesn't work for two reasons:

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."

So, once again...if we're going to use these words, we need to agree on what they mean.

What do you mean by "natural"?



I'm sure this is just going to descend into semantic BS...


Only if you let it. I'm ok with the conclusion coming out either way. I just want the path that we take to get to it to make sense. If we simply assert that "science and religion are not the same thing" without actually being able to logically demonstrate it...then we're guilty of exactly the same thing that the religious are doing: having faith in a doctrine without having examined it sufficiently.

So let's be clear.

Somebody give me definitions for these words that are internally consistent, describe the phenomenon we're talking about, and logically demonstrate that science is not a religion.

If it's true, it shouldn't be difficult.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 06:01 PM
link   


MajorMalfunction:
you can't ask for definitions and then throw them out because they prove the point you don't like.


That's not at all what I did. I just asked you to clarify. Like I said in the above reply to melatonin, we can't define science using the word "natural" and then leave it open for just anybody to come along and mess it up. I mean...if you ask some people, they'd say that faeries, and druidic tree worship is "natural." So...let's be clear about what we mean.



Natural means anything of the natural world
Supernatural means anything that lies outside of natural law.


Again, you're using circular definitions here. You can't do that. It doesn't mean anything.

If you can't meaningfully describe to me what you're talking about...maybe you don't know?



You can't re-define something just because you don't like the way the definitions point out the truth.


I'm not redefining anything. I'm just asking you to give me a definition that meaningfully describes what you're talking about, doesn't contradict itself, and can't be applied to the things you insist it doesn't describe.



By definition, there is no such thing as the supernatural because there is no
"outside" of natural law that can be proven exists.


...so everything that exists is natural? Ok. So..."natural" means "everything." So...the study of anything would be "science?" Is that really what you mean?



that can be proven exists.


"Proof" is a mathematical concept. It cannot be applied to the physical world. It is not possible to "prove" anything. There is always the possibility of new knowledge coming along that contradicts the old. If you ask me, I would say that the entire concept of "science" is based on this idea, that it isn't possible to "know" anything. That you never dismiss information based on assumptions. This is the whole point of "science" as a method. To never "have faith" in anything, always test the information you currently have, always be willing to consider new information, and always be willing to refine, and update your old knowledge when new knowledge becomes available.

If you ever believe anything, you are exhibiting faith. Nothing is exempt from this. If you , against all indication to the contrary, continue to have blind faith that science is not a religion, then you are guilty of the very thing you find so repugnant:

Having beliefs based in faith.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 07:09 PM
link   

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?


Keep in mind there are many ways to observe from a distance to find answers.


Or even what is the basis for matter when we can't even see atoms,

S.T.E.M. 's can see atomic structures
Scanning, Tunneling, Electron, Microscopes. In fact, IBM and a few other companies can even manipulate electrons while watching them.


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?

OK, many innocent people have gone to jail based on a belief. For example, a witness misidentified the person.
SCIENCE later exonerated that person through DNA testing.


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.

Actually a THEORY is not "guess work".

Here's a definition of THEORY:

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations. It ties together all the facts about something, providing an explanation that fits all the observations and can be used to make predictions. In science, theory is the ultimate goal, the explanation. It's as close to proven as anything in science can be.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


You're arguing semantics by comparing science and religion.

Here's the difference between the two in a nutshell
SCIENCE: relies on proof to believe in something.
RELIGION: relies on belief in something with the absence of proof.

You may be able to compare the two as a completely philosophical exercise but in reality, they are nothing alike.



posted on Aug, 24 2007 @ 08:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
Ok. What about faiths that don't exalt or personify divinity? For example, is Taoism a religion?


Yes, mostly. There are various forms of Taoism, those that contain supernatural and transcendental are clearly religion. Those that are more philosophical would be classed as philosophy bordering on religion.

As I said earlier, you're just playing a BS semantics game.


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.


Well, I could have said the scientific method, but the scientific method is an empirical method. I'm sure if you carried on to the next paragraph on wiki, you would have seen the definition used in the philosophy of science.

More semantics again.



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?


It meant it was my definition.

My definition is as good as any. If you want to find one go ahead, but I'm sure it's not that different to my own. I have enough experience to know what science is.


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."


You're just playing semantics. And it bores me.

I said that natural is that which is based in nature or the material. So it is both the material and that which is based in it.

Electricity is based in the material, so is magnetism, causal. The number one is a symbol, an abstract, which can be readily applied and based in the material, a method of representing the quantity of material or a state of material. To divide is a process used mathematically, which is readily applied to the material. Just like 'science' isn't a concrete object, but is an abstract which describes a process which is applied in the material. Just like you can't hold a 'mind' in your hand, but it is based in the material brain. All these are used to represent states of the material. Some are processes, some are representations.

This is why philosophical masturbation is just a waste of time. Thank FSM for the bastard child of philosophy - science.

Whilst philosophers sit around discussing the nature of abstract concepts and how many angels can stand on a pinhead - like good mysterians - science just keeps rolling back ignorance.

[edit on 24-8-2007 by melatonin]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:32 PM
link   
AH HA!!!! I found an example of what I was trying to say and basing my questions off.
The map is not the territory --Wikipedia Entry
Can you deny the above?

[edit on 25-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
And it's ALL semantics children. Do you not think in words? Or those gooshy mutable compulsions called emotions? And cannot the two be mashed together or react off each other at times?

[edit on 25-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 05:33 PM
link   
AND might I add science people that you have gaps in your logic?
I could sit here and point them out. And you could probly sit here and point to the gaps in mine, though I have yet to hear a concrete point out yet. Some of the crap I have said is based on the fact that LIKE EVERYONE I have failings. And one is impulsiveness. But at least I am willing to admit mine. Anyway. Please answer the question in the first thread.


[edit on 25-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 25-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 25 2007 @ 07:40 PM
link   
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.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 06:18 AM
link   

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.


Answer my question. Afraid to? Stop attempting to dance around it and answer the folcking question.And just in case you have forgotten the question allow me to restate:

"Can you or can you not agree with the above Wikipedia entry? You know the one about the map NOT being the territory." It's a simple yes or no answer surely you can answer that.

Unless you know where this is going and you find you just like your "just because" excuses better than the truth of the matter. And if that is the case just say so and I shall drop it, but of course you will by default be admiting that you are not from an unarguably true position and you can't have that. So answer the question and we shall follow this little trail where it ends and you might learn something. Because that is what we all must do after all right? Learn.

You fall back on semantics (dictionary terms made by man because ALL words and their meanings are made by man, which is the BASIS of semantics) and then say I (and those that agree with me) are playing loose with semantics when it is ALL semantics anyway, after all we ARE using those things made up by man called letters that form words, that are meant to convey an object or idea, that form sentences right?
And I might add you might wanna take a close look at yourself before you feel so rightous in mocking others. Religion types at least have THAT right. Even if most of them act like you are acting now.

Simple fact of the matter that has you people SO POLARIZED is all based on man's eternal search for reason or order in this chaos we call life, forged with the inability to admit that you just might be wrong, or misled as the christians like to believe (no I am not christian or believe in their mythology). And I don't think either side has it completely right but its man's nature to polarize for some screwed up reason til the fight has more importance than the original question that caused the fight.

So in a nutshell. ANSWER THE QUESTION or get lost! You will probly proceed to ignore the question and attack me based on what I have said before and after but hey, at least I am trying to move this into the realm of actual discussion rather than the gratuitus beating over each others heads with with each others beliefs.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:42 AM
link   
Here is the wikipedia entry you are refering to

The map is not the territory is a remark by Alfred Korzybski, encapsulating his view that an abstraction derived from something, or a reaction to it, is not the thing itself, e.g., the pain from a stone falling on your foot is not the stone; one's opinion of a politician, favorable or unfavorable, is not that person; a metaphorical representation of a concept is not the concept itself; and so on. A specific abstraction or reaction does not capture all facets of its source—e.g., the pain in your foot does not convey the internal structure of the stone, you don't know everything that is going on in the life of a politician, etc.—and thus may limit an individual's understanding and cognitive abilities unless the two are distinguished. Korzybski held that many people do confuse maps with territories, in this sense.

Korzybski's dictum ("The map is not the territory") is also cited as an underlying principle used in neuro-linguistic programming, where it is used to signify that 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"). The originators of NLP have been explicit that they owe this insight to General Semantics.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


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.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:57 AM
link   
OK,
I watched the video 10 more time. Here is what I noticed

1. That dot is about the size of the nose of the plane about to strike the tower. Thats one big laser dot !

2. Why is the supposed laser dot moving? When painting a target, it would need to remain fixed.

3. I still see no evidence that the nightshot mode was on.

4. Here's a good way to debunk the nightshot myth. Does anyone have an older camera that still allows nighthshot activation in the daytime? If so, could you please take some outdoor video and post it for comparison?

5. Finally, does anyone know when nightshot was redesigned so it could not be activated in the day?


Technological night vision works on one of two principles. The first is by detecting infrared radiation, which is a form of energy emitted by all objects regardless of the ambient light conditions. A device based on this principle is called an infrared camera. The second is by intensifying the small amount of light present even at night, from the stars and the moon.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 08:59 AM
link   
oops,
I apologize for posting the last post in this group. I hit the wrong button



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:02 AM
link   


I assume you are asking me whether I agree with this or not.


I fail to see how there can be any doubt that I was in fact asking. I am in no measure a fool though I am sure you feel I am, nor was I in any way obscure in my request. That and I repeated myself as I am more often than not given to doing.



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.




Bare with me. Ok. You agree to a point. What are the points you disagree with? Be precise please. I do have a point I am trying to convey.

Remember this is a discussion and if you are in fact right I will admit it but the trail I see points somewhere else.

And messed uh. Wrong thread for that last part.


[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

one's opinion of a politician, favorable or unfavorable, is not that person


This may or may not be true. Simply because it's an opinion doesn't mean it's wrong.



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.


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.



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 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.



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 09:59 AM
link   


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. A word is never the reality. It is a reality in and of itself but it is not THE reality and it is a reality made by man, and thusly the subject to his failings.



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 and if that is so you don't need a god anyone because in a sense to you you are one.

Or even to take it one step further you exist because you believe yourself to exist. Sure if you didn't you'd be wrong (and crazy) because to even have any belief, even one that says whether or not you exist you have to exist. When you boil it down. It's ALL based on belief. To believe something is true is all well and good but when you boil it down its all a belief. And beliefs can be wrong or right as alot of people like to say about religion and science. Respectively. Or the oddballs like me that say both are not 100% right, not giving percentages because I don't gift myself with the illusion of infalablity or ultimate knowledge.

Your turn. I am rather enjoying this now.


[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 10:19 AM
link   

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.


[You're missing the point. The quote implies that the opinion is automatically wrong. I'm giving the opinion the option of both.



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.


Again, one reality unless you want to start discussing the mechanics of parallel universe theory.


PERCEPTION DEFINITION
In psychology and the cognitive sciences, perception is the process of acquiring, interpreting, selecting, and organizing sensory information. Methods of studying perception range from essentially biological or physiological approaches, through psychological approaches to the often abstract 'thought-experiments' of mental philosophy.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


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.



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.


YES IT SHOULD.
A book is a word that describes an object. The word has a definition which describes the object associated with it.


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.


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



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 11:09 AM
link   


You're missing the point. The quote implies that the opinion is automatically wrong. I'm giving the opinion the option of both.


Your breathing into it whats not there. It is not saying (directly saying) anything of the validity of whatever opinion. It merely states that it is an opinion NOT the object.



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.


In order.
1) Huh? I did not dispute that there is only one reality (that we know of) kindly stop breathing meaning into things.
2) Once all the way through to be 100% honest. Bits and pieces ever after. But it did not give me my views.
3) But an inaccurate perception changes what reality is to that person. Thusly changing reality for them. Sure it doesn't change the under lying fact of reality. Now lets add into that. Millions of people decide to agree with that perception or come to it by their own terms and state it as fact as both sides of the argument do.



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]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   
And I might add we have to PERCEIVE those undeniable truths of reality you are touting so much. Unless your now going to argue that perception is now flawless would be no small retraction on your part. Or I guess you can say that whatever the majority (or as I suspect those you want to agree with for whatever reason) agrees on reality is reality and we just go right back to my original point. It all has its start in humanity (not reality its self because the map is NOT the territory) and his perceptions of the world. The very words of religion and science are human constructs not some divine unalterable umm stuff.



[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



posted on Aug, 26 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   
And you have provided snippets with NO backing by way of link my friend. Seeing above. And might add in my review of the past of this thread damn you science is not religion types are claiming WE are pulling semantics BS? Sheesh read your own posts PLEASE.

[edit on 26-8-2007 by WraothAscendant]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join