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.
Which ones? Now, if you're going to say mass media...mass media cannot be used as a form of direct control unless the subject is willing. Aside from the simple fact that not all mass media outlets are putting out the same line, there are just a diversity of view points in general all them. Hell, they give equal time for whackjobs.
Except that those aren't results specific to religion. Science provides specific results. It helps us actually understand the world around us, helps us live more comfortable, long lives. Science actually makes progress in the world that is specific to science. And those formalities and paper work are there to let the person or organization giving the money out know exactly what it is being used for, sometimes down to the experimental set up.
bit different than studying ape learning patterns.
You mean that dating method that we can be accurate to within a few years of events? That dating method we can test against tree ring dating and get incredible result? I'm sorry, but where's your evidence that carbon dating is wrong?
I mean, seriously, wouldn't you want people to understand what you're doing and why it's important
Religion also have their own miracles that are just as apparent as 1+1=2 and science can't explain
Name one.
All of the things people claim that sets science apart from religion are simply tenets of the faith; scientific method, self correction, etc.
Originally posted by HardbeatAcolyte
I don't fully think that science in and of itself is a religion. However there are certainly those who 'make' it their religion - people who follow 'science' and the scientific thought of the day with fanatical religious zeal, including many fundamentalist anti-theists.
When people take up the banner of 'science' against 'religion', it is little different from a conflict between two religions - both sides have strong faith in their own beliefs, reached through different means, driven by different doctrines.
'Fundamentalist science', as I will call it, tries to answer many questions that people have traditionally sought answers for through religion and spirituality.
It could be said that science can become the 'god' of those who aren't satisfied with traditional religion or spirituality.
So yes, I do think that there's an uncanny connection between the zealots of fundamentalist science and other religions.
High-profile atheists and anti-theists can fulfill the role of clergy, and those amongst the anti-theist collective who 'have faith' in the teachings of the 'clergy' can fulfill the role of laity.
EDIT: I should also note that I generally consider the 'religion of science' and fundamentalist anti-theists as working hand-in-hand as the one movement.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by 11azerus11
The semantic and logical (=using inductive argumentation) shortcomings of the OP have already been mentioned, so I'll go straight to the next level: What's the purpose of bringing such topics up?
*snip*
Originally posted by Cuervo
Somebody else on this thread brilliantly said something to the effect that you can't empirically prove the scientific method.
Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Really? And how can you make something that is fundamentally A-dogmatic a religion?
...except that science has no faith required. You cannot equate reasonable expectation based upon results derived from testing and experimentation with unfounded religious conviction.
Yes. Like the shape of the world. The position of the Earth in our cosmos. The age of certain things. The origins of humanity. Hey, it got all of those right. It even broached health, did a great job there.
Except that science is a method, not a thing.
It is something that can be tested repeatedly. It is something that welcomes as many questions as possible and grows through conflict.
Oh, and people don't start wars in the name of science.
I like how you use weasel words there. "Zealots" and "fundamentalist science". You know what the greatest fundamental of science is? Questioning things.
Yeah, if you want to entirely distort the way things really are. I listen to Dawkins when he talks about evolutionary biology or zoology...because that's his actual field of expertise. Even then, I question it. The same goes for any other speaker. There is even debate amongst those.
The closest thing to clergy science can get is scientists, but you'd rather make incredibly ignorant and bigoted attacks against atheists because you clearly don't know the first thing about them.
Yes, because you don't seem to understand anything about either.
Originally posted by 11azerus11
thanks for the open minded reply...
Originally posted by 11azerus11
i know fundamental science is not a religion but the way science is being used today and the behavior of our society's views of science are very similar to the behavior of the religious
Originally posted by HardbeatAcolyte
Through hypocrisy. For instance, there are some people who trust in science, but openly ridicule the possibility of a higher power (not only the possibility of a deity, though that too).
Until such a concept can be proven/disproven, I think a true scientist should keep an open mind. When one combines such a personal belief with science, it pretty much begins to resemble dogma.
Yes, true science doesn't require faith, as science requires proof. However, if people use parts of science as a means to advance their own unproven beliefs, then it crosses the line of science into dogma.
Yes. Like the shape of the world. The position of the Earth in our cosmos. The age of certain things. The origins of humanity. Hey, it got all of those right. It even broached health, did a great job there.
Many things that are believed to be true as a result of science today may be revised tomorrow.
It's wise not to put an unreasonable amount of faith into what we know now, and to anticipate that scientific knowledge can change.
Except that science is a method, not a thing.
I consider it to also be a very broad field of knowledge. I accept that my usage of the word science could be wrong, though.
It is something that can be tested repeatedly. It is something that welcomes as many questions as possible and grows through conflict.
I can agree with that.
Oh, and people don't start wars in the name of science.
Uh huh, because something can't be considered religious until a war is started over it. Sure
People tried to use the science of the times to justify eugenics, and that didn't go so well...
I like how you use weasel words there. "Zealots" and "fundamentalist science". You know what the greatest fundamental of science is? Questioning things.
True, I suppose they are weasel words. And I agree with you on the true fundamental of science. But just as a 'fundamentalist Christian' isn't necessarily a better Christian, I think that someone who would follow 'fundamentalist science' isn't being true to science. In my opinion, when I think of 'fundamentalism' I think of dogma, and a fear of change. It's in this sense that I use the term 'fundamentalist science'. It's probably not the best term to describe what I mean though, I admit.
Yeah, if you want to entirely distort the way things really are. I listen to Dawkins when he talks about evolutionary biology or zoology...because that's his actual field of expertise. Even then, I question it. The same goes for any other speaker. There is even debate amongst those.
That's good. Debate and questioning should be encouraged, and dogmatism should be minimized. That is the way of science.
The closest thing to clergy science can get is scientists, but you'd rather make incredibly ignorant and bigoted attacks against atheists because you clearly don't know the first thing about them.
I disagree, the role of scientists is to further the understanding of science, not to attach dogma. When some take the results of scientists, and make it fit with belief or dogma, then you have 'clergy'.
I have no issue with atheists, it is only some anti-theists that irk me a little. Saying I'm bigoted against atheism is a huge sweeping generalization. You should know better than to confuse atheism with anti-theism.
Yes, because you don't seem to understand anything about either.
If you say so. And what do you know about the 'religion of science'? I'm drawing a line between true science, and those who 'religiously' follow 'dogma'. I am not saying that science in itself is a religion.
EDIT: To clarify, I think science is great, atheists are fine, and anti-theists are at least entitled to their views. When anti-theism and dogma mix, however, I smell hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Cuervo
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by 11azerus11
The semantic and logical (=using inductive argumentation) shortcomings of the OP have already been mentioned, so I'll go straight to the next level: What's the purpose of bringing such topics up?
*snip*
I'm not ignoring the rest of your post but I'd like to answer the first question you raised. The reason it is good to keep bringing such topics up is because time changes both science and religion.
Religion changes with each break-through in tolerance and mingling of other cultures. It also changes because of science (which, at one time, the church facilitated quite nicely). Each scientific discovery changes the attitude of contemporary religion. Now days, science and religion are influenced by one another. Not because they have to be but because they are actually benefiting from the arrangement.
Likewise, science is changing with each discovery. Increasingly, these discoveries are leading down a path veering away from Newtonian science. Since we have discovered that the current physics model is no longer valid (depending on which physicist you ask), it leaves room for interpretation. This interpretation is leading science to open doors to previously scoffed-at notions of the super natural and trying to quantify the "paranormal" or "spirituality".
Imagine what this convergence will lead to within ten year's time! I firmly believe that science and spirituality will be completely on the same page inside of 20 years (to the dismay and delight of people on both sides).
Somebody else on this thread brilliantly said something to the effect that you can't empirically prove the scientific method. And we all know you can't prove religion with religion so there's another similarity.edit on 13-5-2011 by Cuervo because: need. more. coffee...
Originally posted by 11azerus11
reply to post by bogomil
why post this thread?.... because this is for my own selfish needs... i am in no way undermining science or have a specific faith... this is for my own input and my own journey... sorry you feel this is a waste of time like others on here but i'm telling you, it is helping me along in my own journey.... i think that both need each other and one with out the other is a sad existence....
again not taking anything away from science just think there is more to this....
Originally posted by bogomil
I would like to make a general comment on your post with this suggestion: Instead of trying to create an artificial homogenizing through inductive arguments, it would be more constructive to concentrate on finding a dialogue between opposing systems.