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.

 

Is Science a Religion?

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:59 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 





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.



mass media is not a form of direct control but neither is religion



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.



so every time the vatican sends out investigators to determine the situation that 100% of the time it is not god and there for provide no results to further along their belief in God...



bit different than studying ape learning patterns.


that is funny but is that not an attack on religious rituals... I believe that there is a spiritual side to things and that there are rituals that do serve a purpose... such as kuji-in that help focus and manifest your chi or what have you...



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?



there might not be anything wrong with the process but other factors can come into play and lead people to jump to conclusions.... such as the object being near a fire or what ever other factors that cause carbon dating to be wrong.... again not saying the process is wrong but there are factors that can sneak in there that are not accounted for and people take that and hammer the lid shut...



I mean, seriously, wouldn't you want people to understand what you're doing and why it's important


yes i would but that is simply not the case and that is my point... people just blindly follow


Religion also have their own miracles that are just as apparent as 1+1=2 and science can't explain


Name one.



there are medical miracles that science can not explain.....

and your telling me you've never experienced any type of intuition that you couldnt explain? not even thinking about the person that was fixing to call you? i really believe in science but there have been events in my life that science can't explain and only I would know if it was true or not.... i think everybody has things that happens to them that get blown of as coincidence.... i think the beauty of proof in divinity is how obvious and subtle the signs are... but they are there only if YOU choose to see them....




posted on May, 13 2011 @ 03:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 





All of the things people claim that sets science apart from religion are simply tenets of the faith; scientific method, self correction, etc.



my thoughts exactly... people take the facts presented by other people and have complete faith in it's validity... i also do not disagree with the scientific process, but unseen factors can cause errors and mistakes that are never even considered.... but the data is still concrete and full proof.... i am not trying to take anything away from science but there are mistakes in the scientific world that keep us locked in our current paradigm



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 06:39 AM
link   
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?

All the arguments have been threshed over endlessly;...all the knowledge, definitions and information are available for anyone using half an hour to search them, .....and the outcome is always the same: There's both a formal and functional difference between 'subjective' and 'objective'.

And once the semantics has been sorted out, rather well-defined positions manifest. Starting from highly individual 'faith' positions, via 'beliefs' with some evidence, to systematic methodologies which give rather precise answers to the part of existence they set out to describe. It's all a question of growing reliability, or if you wish, 'approximate truth'.

Eventually you could carry this to the outermost limit of epistemology (something which is done in science/logic, but practically never from faith-positions), and we would be back to square one, the acknowledgement of knowledge-gaps. Knowledge-gaps which STILL reasonably can't be filled collectively with any old subjective opinions.

So as an answer to the question of the WHY of such threads as this, I can only suggest: It's a way of manipulating/undermining the 'authority' of various models of existence (e.g. such as science).

The immediate and obvious theist-option of just saying: "This is MY subjective faith, which has a right to co-exist with all other subjective faiths on equal terms" is seemingly impossible to the invasive and missionary mindset. Hence we get this stream of more or less disguised propaganda-threads such as:

'Satanic science'; the 'necessity' of religious ethics; new-age-religion fringe-adapted 'science/logic'; creationist homebrewed 'science/logic'; semantic gymnastics (e.g. atheism as theism); falsified/cosmetically bettered 'statistics'; pseudo-psychology (by which non-theists are 'diagnosed' with this or that); pseudo-or embellished pedagogical models of why insane and brutal 'deities' in reality are 'loving' etc.

And all this results in demonstrating the monomania of the missionary, who lives in his/her own secluded fantasies. Thus scaring away people from his/her 'faith' rather than attracting only a few individuals in desperate need of straws to cling to.




edit on 13-5-2011 by bogomil because: syntax, spelling



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:04 AM
link   
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.
edit on 13/5/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: elaboration



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
reply to post by HardbeatAcolyte
 



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.


Really? And how can you make something that is fundamentally A-dogmatic a religion?



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.


...except that science has no faith required. You cannot equate reasonable expectation based upon results derived from testing and experimentation with unfounded religious conviction.



'Fundamentalist science', as I will call it, tries to answer many questions that people have traditionally sought answers for through religion and spirituality.


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.

Now we're moving on to morality, and I think the idea of a science of morality is one of the greatest leaps forward that humanity could accomplish.



It could be said that science can become the 'god' of those who aren't satisfied with traditional religion or spirituality.


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.



So yes, I do think that there's an uncanny connection between the zealots of fundamentalist science and other religions.


I like how you use weasel words there. "Zealots" and "fundamentalist science". You know what the greatest fundamental of science is? Questioning things.



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.


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.



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.


Yes, because you don't seem to understand anything about either.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 11:28 AM
link   

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...



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cuervo
Somebody else on this thread brilliantly said something to the effect that you can't empirically prove the scientific method.


The scientific method isn't something that you prove, it's the validity of the method itself that we can look at. The proof for the validity of the scientific method comes from it's results. Over and over again it has been demonstrated to be the best tool we have for learning about our universe.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:33 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


Science is a method. A method of control, just like religion, science has been used to control peoples thinking. Anything you think is your belief.
If you believe in science then it is your god.
Whatever you believe in will be 'your' god.
It may not be the 'one' true god, it may be a false god but it will be 'your' god.
And you will be owned by the one you believe in, you will be it's slave.
Until you realize the truth.
Only then will you be free.
edit on 13-5-2011 by Itisnowagain because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
Really? And how can you make something that is fundamentally A-dogmatic a religion?

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.


...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, 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.
edit on 13/5/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: elaboration

edit on 13/5/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: formatting fix

edit on 13/5/11 by HardbeatAcolyte because: clarification



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:34 PM
link   
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....



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by HardbeatAcolyte
 


thanks for the open minded reply... 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



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by 11azerus11
thanks for the open minded reply...

No problem, happy to give my two cents on the topic


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

Yeah, I think I agree with that



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 

Sorry madnessinmysoul, I just noticed that I used the term 'high-profile atheists and anti-theists' in my original post. What I meant is not to include atheists and anti-theists in the one basket, but that some people who are atheists but not anti-theists can be considered high-profile by hardcore anti-theists, whose words may influence their 'dogma', which is why I included them in a possible parallel 'clergy'



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HardbeatAcolyte
 


Again, still incorrect. You're lumping people who happen to reasonably speak out against religious organizations for the sake of...I dunno...rational questioning of certain practices (like mutilation of infant genitals) without the expectation of anyone necessarily bothering to listen to them beyond the weight of their argument to people who expect to be listened to regardless of the weight of their argument.

Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Tyson, Plait, etc...they're all people who want to be heard only if their voice is reasonable.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by HardbeatAcolyte
 



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).


I ridicule the possibility of plenty of deities...though not necessarily all of them. Some ideas are damn ridiculous. Now, that doesn't mean it's impossible, and I can think of no prominent atheist who would say that such things are impossible nor can I find a majority of lay atheists.

And we all believe in a higher power. It's that big ol' constant fusion reaction in the sky that you can't look directly in to.



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, just like it's so dogmatic to reject the Easter bunny, faeries at the bottom of gardens, leprechauns, invisible pink unicorns, invisible/intangible/heatless garage dragons, and so on...oh, wait, it isn't.

That which is asserted without evidence may be rejected without evidence. That's how rational thought works.



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.


There is no onus on the skeptic to disprove a positive claim.




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.


So we'll find out that the Earth is actually a dodecahedron tomorrow? That we're actually in orbit around Pluto? That our origins lie in eggs from Venus?



It's wise not to put an unreasonable amount of faith into what we know now, and to anticipate that scientific knowledge can change.


Yes, but that tends to fall within error bars. Scientists always work within margins of error. Shape of the world? We've actually got a margin of error on that. More generally we know that the Earth is an oblate spheroid. We know within an insanely small margin of error that we're in orbit around the Sun. We know that humans evolved from earlier primates within a reasonable margin of error (the margin of error there isn't on the 'evolved' part but on the specifics of what the ancestors were). And that health thing? Germ theory revolutionized so much.




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.


Well, I guess you could label the sum total of all scientific knowledge in all scientific fields as 'science'...but that's basically something that accounts for all human knowledge of the natural world.




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.


And thus it cannot be a religion.




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...


People who didn't understand science tried to use it to justify their own ideas about society in an unscientific manner. Eugenics was more of a class based policy more than anything else.




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.


At least you admit to it.




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.


And those speakers are the ones who try to open debate and minimize dogmatism. Hitchens continued to debate up until he recently lost his voice to cancer.




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'.


Accept that they have no authority. They are not given a mandate based on anything there. Clergy are individuals whose words are made powerful by authority, not people who gain authority through how convincing their words are.



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.


Being an atheist I think that it's impossible to separate the two to any reasonable degree. And considering that all anti-theists are either atheists or deists...

And the anti-theists tend to have a point.




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.


Except that the only people who follow religion dogmatically are some few ignorant people here and there like you get in any group. You get people who don't understand Ayn Rand yet try to follow it religiously.



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.


Give me a single example of anti-theism and dogma mixing.



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


i think that knowledge is like a block of swiss cheese.... there are holes in our paradigm and rightly so.... who's to say there is not a missing link in our evolution what if evolution happened all across the board and there was never a "missing link" our observations of bones lead us to take a leap of faith in our evolutionary heritage... they never found a missing link so how can people not question it? how can they have undeniable faith if science is a true interpretation of observations even with lack of observing?.

i just use the evolution theory as an example and good things do come with slow gradual change but great and amazing things happen all at once



posted on May, 13 2011 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by PieKeeper
 


the process is the best tool and there is not anything wrong with the scientific method, but what it doesn't include is the human interpretational element.... people stuck in a paradigm could interpret the data to fit their own views publish a few papers and boom it is set in stone.... and has a cult following... until some one comes along and proves them other wise... the point i make is not with the research or the scientist involved but the followers that take their word with complete faith just as their religious counter parts do



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:43 AM
link   

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...


Thanks for your answer, and before I go on, I must emphasize, that I'm all FOR a dialogue between science and religion. But this doesn't mean, that we (at least presently) can pretend, that their basic epistemological fundaments are even slightly identical.

The hard-science systematic methodology, resulting in what's formally called objectivity, has very little in common with the subjectivism of most religion, and efforts of blending the two by

a/ From ignorance about or conscious misinterpretation of science, ascribing much more uncertainty to its results than is justified

and

b/ on the other hand inventing false 'objectivity' in religious contexts

is a dishonesty, which mainly has a propagandistic purpose. And it doesn't serve this purpose very well, because with growing education, such primitive maneuvers will reflect back on the 'level' of religionists they originate from.

A dialogue IS possible, but is not served by sandbox tactics.

Now relating to your post:

Quote: ["Religion changes with each break-through in tolerance and mingling of other cultures."]

I'm sure you'll notice, that the major sharp criticism against religion on ATS is directed against extremists with exclusive elitist ambitions. Ofcourse there's another, more general criticism also, but that version is more academic in tone.

So religions being able to get along with each other aren't targeted much here.

Quote: ["It also changes because of science (which, at one time, the church facilitated quite nicely)."]

To my knowledge, the church has been the main reason for science's being a thousand years late.

Quote: ["Each scientific discovery changes the attitude of contemporary religion. Now days, science and religion are influenced by one another."]

It would be nice and constructive, if more of such open-minded religionists turned up on this forum. To me it seems, that we have a majority of preachers, propagandists and fanatics amongst our resident religionists.

Quote: [" Likewise, science is changing with each discovery."]

Remember, the topic is "Is science a religion?". Are you suggesting, that the inductive argument of common change makes them similiar?

Quote: ["Since we have discovered that the current physics model is no longer valid (depending on which physicist you ask), it leaves room for interpretation."]

Who are the 'WE', who have discovered this? Those totally ignorant of what science really is, but nonetheless have categorical opinions on it. The scientific uncertainties are at frontiers of science. Not an expression of a general scientific identity- and knowledge-crisis. (see above under point a/).

Quote: ["), 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".]

I am a lay-metaphysicist myself, with the equalent of a college-education in hard science. This is commonly known on this forum. I have never been scoffed at by atheists or agnostics here, whereas religionists propagandizing for exlcusive elitism can be rather 'scoffing'.

Quote: ["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)."]

It's not that I'm negative to this optimism, but you should maybe get some knowledge about REAL science first.

Quote: [" Somebody else on this thread brilliantly said something to the effect that you can't empirically prove the scientific method."]

The question of 'proving' science in a higher existential context falls inside what's called epistemology. On its own ground, on its own premises, science proves itself nicely on an empirical basis.


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.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 06:58 AM
link   

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....


I have ofcourse no objections to your OP as a manifestation of personal speculations, leading to some debate. This is completely 'legitimate'.

The problem arises, when such topics become part of a greater campaign directed at undermining the credibility of any non-theistic system such as science, logic, humanistic ideology, egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy etc.

It's no secret, that religion increasingly has problems in its competition with non-theistic models of existence. To the present point, where religion more seldom ventures into head-on confrontations with non-theism (apart from a few percent die-hard fundamentalists, who usually only succeed in making themselves appear as monomaniac ignoramuses).

So instead we see more and more of manipulative, relatively sophisticated, mis/dis-information tactics, addressed to the majority of mankind, who has little specialist knowledge (and probably little interest) of the finer points of the whys and hows of non-theistic systems, which are the fundaments of many modern societies.

Mankind mainly functions at a simplistic pragmatic level (no harm in that, I don't propose technocracy instead of theocracy), and doesn't immediately associate the (sometimes complex) principles of science/logic/philosophy/ideology with the availability of the beneficial expressions of contemporary society.

From the basics of e.g. an active functional democracy to its practical manifestations, there are many possibilities of putting sand in the machinery, without everybody noticing this; eventually grinding down the whole system.

Some vigilance is necessary, and everybody involved in debates on collective society has a responsibility for his/her participation.

As censorship naturally isn't an option for vigilance, I will alternatively suggest requests of playing with true colours. Clearly outlined positions, precise definitions, a minimum of semantic gymnastics and especially a respect for the integrity of whatever opposing system used/critisized.

There has been a notorious MIS-use of science/logic throughout this thread, and I do personally find it somewhat peculiar to see science/logic treated this way, semi-authoritative postulates seemingly based on little knowledge of real science/logic. It does make me wonder.

PS There IS more to everything than the present scientific results. Science will be the first to admit that, but this doesn't justify filling the knowledge-gaps with all kinds of wild speculations.
edit on 14-5-2011 by bogomil because: typo



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 10:11 AM
link   

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.


That's a great suggestion as you and I both agree there is no 1:1 analysis that can be observed. The difference between you and I is that I believe the inevitable conclusion of both side will lead to exactly that. I don't say that with a blind ignorance to science or a blind faith to religion. I am not religious. My views are inspired by recent breakthroughs in quantum physics and David Bohm's theories in proposed universal models. These leave room for many spiritual models (analogous with physics models).

What I mean by they both being on the "same page" in the future is that religion will have to change as the world begins to realize there is only one accepted reality and there is no room for conflicting religious views and that science will change as they begin to tackle several unexplained perspective viewer-hood by humanity.

Both science and spirituality are painting themselves in to the middle of the room and are about to have nowhere to go but to each other.



new topics




 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join