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: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 14 2011 @ 11:10 AM
link   
reply to post by 11azerus11
 


I'm sorry, but which link are we missing? We have quite a few of them. Now, do we have every single creature that ever lived as a fossil? No, but that's a good thing because there would be fossils everywhere.

This idea of a 'missing link' is something that is propagated by those who simply don't understand evolution.




posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


Thanks for your responsive answer, which I find sympathetic in many ways.

Before getting to the possibility of a constructive religion/science dialogue, there are some hurdles to pass.

Who are talking to who (e.g. position, competence). While I do not have any university hard-science education, I often find myself in situations on ATS, where I practically have to 'educate' theists on the simplests elements in a science/religion debate. There are people this time and day, who still don't know the difference between an assumption (often based on 'gut' feelings/inner messages) and an axiom.

Who have no idea of scientific/logic systematic methodology per se, but believe it to be some haphazard result of arbitrarily chosen ways of putting observations together.

Who have never heard the word epistemology (a potentially 'sound' meeting-place for religion/science), but accuse me of un-necessary intellectualism, when I bring it up.

Who can't or won't read a dictionary, a statistics or the self-definitions of the systems they often (mis)use.

That the same people, from this background of deep ignorance, often claim a certain degree of competence is something I find rather annoying, as it only can result in playground "is, isn't, is" repetitions and eventually sarcasm or worse.

Obviously "communication is only possible between equals" as Hagbard Celine (from R.A.Wilson's 'Illuminatus' trilogy put it). But with that there's a risk of elitism, society and its knowledge shouldn't be run by 'specialists'.

The next hurdle is that of change in respectively science and religion.

Science can be considered without or with philosophical implications (ofcourse specifically epistemology).

I can, on the simple condition of sticking to the 'territory it sets out to make a map of' not see any reason for newtonian science to change much. For all I care, it can even use reductionist materialism as a method. It's still functional and covers a considerable part of practical existence. But it's important, that it doesn't exceed its own authority, as the victorian scientists sometimes did (by defining away what they didn't accept). I guess, that the passive 'faith'-sciencefollowers amongst the non-scientifically educated part of mankind still live in that tradition (which was still alive and well in my youth).

The empirical element in this kind of science is legitimate and useful.

The other kind of science, needing philosophical support (at least for some time in the future), is getting increasingly abstract, using much conceptualized tools and methods, and has sadly lagged somewhat with formulating a systematic methodology suitable for recent experiments. Personally I believe, that it will take a considerable time before such a systematic methodology is developed, what with Einstein's twin-paradox, the double-slit experiment, the seemingly inconsistency between micro- and macro-cosmic models, 11 dimensions in string-theory and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle resulting in 'observer-created' models.

There are 'camps' amongst the 'new' scientists, supporting this or that of the potential theories on the new vistas, but hopefully being scientists at core, few will ascribe to the hijacking efforts made by all kinds of students of the paranormal, anomalies, the supernatural, the extra-mundane or by various religious groups.

I have on a few occasions followed up claims to the purpose of supporting such hijacking-efforts of real science (it occurs regularly here on ATS, when creationists present their own weird pseudo-science) and the field is a disgrace. When this falsification isn't done by laymen just repeating mumbo-jumbo they incompetently parrot, there's a growing group of con-men, who rather cynically give themselves fabricated 'authority' (e.g. by getting a 'degree' from a diploma-mill). Some of them actually getting a 'name' amongst the faithful.

Well Cuervo, this post is already too long (and the change in religion must wait), so I'll just conclude by summarizing the whole situation to my less optimistic attitude: There's a whole MESS to clear up, before a general dialogue between science and religion can take place (a very few specialists are doing it already, but far beyond public interest and understanding).

No-one except the fanatic, who puts answers before facts, can gain anything on premature 'conclusions' in an area, where even the originators (real scientists) still search for safe ground.


edit on 14-5-2011 by bogomil because: syntax



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 


Star from me, buddy. I think we are simply looking at the same linear path but from across the table in regards to pessimism/optimism. Advocating for or against the blending of science and spirituality is a vote of no-confidence for both. Meaning whatever happens will happen within the confines of science and by the consent of people.

And, most importantly, no matter how science/religion looks in twenty years from now, it will be exactly where it should be.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


what do i not understand that there was generations and generations and generations of mutating homo erectus with out any proof of this mutation? i do understand the process of evolution....



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 



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).


As bogomil has already covered this issue more than adequately, and I agree with his assessment of all the challenges involved of a dialogue between science and religion, I just wish to add one small observation.

There may be specific instances where science and religion do appear to converge in their respective evaluation of aspects of reality, but until gnosis or inner mystical experience is accepted as scientific evidence, (and this may not happen in the foreseeable future), the two will at best only have a parallel correspondence. Science and religion may be on the same page, but that page is located in two different books.



posted on May, 14 2011 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


You wrote:

["....but until gnosis or inner mystical experience is accepted as scientific evidence, ..."]

I can only give you my fullest and complete support on this, especially as I know, that you wouldn't suggest any sacrifice of scientific principles in the process.

For sceptics: The step towards Mysticnoon's 'vision' isn't really as big and counter-scientific as e.g. a blind acceptance of doctrinal religion would be.

The socalled 'soft' sciences already have methodologies, which could be adapted to such a use, and in any case there's no need to rush such an effort of making gnosis housebroken. It can be done gradually, though hopefully not quite so anxious of big-brother-hard-science, as para-psychology has been.



edit on 14-5-2011 by bogomil because: clarification



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 02:02 AM
link   
reply to post by bogomil
 



I can only give you my fullest and complete support on this, especially as I know, that you wouldn't suggest any sacrifice of scientific principles in the process.

For sceptics: The step towards Mysticnoon's 'vision' isn't really as big and counter-scientific as e.g. a blind acceptance of doctrinal religion would be


Thank you for your support and clarification of my statement. I seem to be slipping in my wish to be precise and unambiguous in my posts.

Yes, I am strongly in support of the scientific method, but I think there is potential to apply this method to experiences of an interior nature. Considering that the inner domain of experience, namely consciousness and spiritual awareness, is so fundamental to the human condition, I believe that science is limiting its expansion of knowledge by restricting its propositions to the external world.



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Science is a religion based on knowledge and religion is a science based on ignorance
[Faith].



posted on May, 15 2011 @ 09:46 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


I didn't mean to interfere by playing 'sage'. Your posts always do well by themselves.

As considered earlier, a constructive dialogue between science and religion could depend on premises not yet filled. But considering the really 'high weirdness' of quantum mechanics, overtaking both science fiction and the more bizarre religions, as quantum mechanics filters down to the man in the street (as Einstein'ian physics did in my late youth), weirdness will be more housebroken.

That is, if the quantum-religionists don't succeed in miscrediting quantum mechanics first.



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 



Yes, I am strongly in support of the scientific method, but I think there is potential to apply this method to experiences of an interior nature. Considering that the inner domain of experience, namely consciousness and spiritual awareness, is so fundamental to the human condition, I believe that science is limiting its expansion of knowledge by restricting its propositions to the external world.


i think this has been what i'm trying to say... there is more than this external world and science shouldn't limit its knowledge base... being human is an internal condition and it just seems like science has a broad external view and a very narrow mind on anything internal...

i know there are experiments on consciousness such as the Japanese monkey experiments.... i'll try and find the source later... but what they did was take one species of monkey on completely separated and isolated islands and took away their main food source... so all the monkeys went hungry until a baby monkey on one of the islands went to the shore and beat open a claim or oyster or something... so obviously all the monkey's on the one island learned to the same trick..... but then all of the monkeys on all of the islands started to do the same thing..... explain that one...

why would "open-minded" scientist ignore these types of experiments? i think it comes down to what fits into our current paradigm... open dialogue between the two should be open and the narrow minded bigots on both sides need to just quit... how can we fully progress with out questions in ALL fields?



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by 11azerus11
 


here is a link... to the 100 monkey thing but i'm at work and couldn't find a more credible source but i also included a source from Princeton that deals with mass consciousness

100 monkey

princeton



posted on May, 16 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
reply to post by inforeal
 


science is based on external knowledge and religion is based on internal knowledge



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join