Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by jiggerj

Originally posted by cry93


I am multiracial. But I am African to the core.

no. No. NO!!!!

You are HUMAN to the core. To assign a label lower than this is to allow others to judge you according to that label, rather than forcing them to see you as 100% equal.

I'm tired of hearing about Black rights, women's rights, gay rights... It's all about HUMAN rights.

"To assign a label lower than this" - without me going over the top here.. i will just ask.. can you see the ignorance in this? Why not assume that he is expressing positivity rather than assume he has "lowered" himself because his label of HIMSELF is not up to your standard? I can truly understand how you might be tiring yourself with the ideologically policing you've assigned to yourself. Maybe you can just let it go and enjoy diversity however it's expressed. He's talking about himself. I don't see anything lower in it. I see the opposite.

I think you misunderstood him. I agree what he said...we are all human, and that is all that is true about our existance, All other etiquettes like race or nationality are a human invention and by that definition subject to bias or stereotypes.

I have often wondered why we need this separation from the rest of the humanity...why nations? why borders? why statesmanship? Because somehow one nation thinks it's different (better) than the other?

How about this for a change:

1. Nationality= earthborn
2. Place of birth = earth
3. State = third rock from the sun, system of Sol. Milky Way
4. species = human


This is all I need to identify myself in this wast universe. All other divisions are small and irrelevant to the big picture.

reply to post by rwfresh


What the hell did I just read.

Who are "they" exactly? Scientists? The field of science in general? WHO?

Lay out the cards.

Who exactly are you referring to and what exactly is your argument??

reply to post by rwfresh

Many atheists like Richard Dawkins.. who are not scientists have based their ideology of hate on the misuse and perversion of these ideas and theories.

Richard Dawkins isnt a scientist

End thread.

reply to post by rwfresh

There appears to be a growing ignorance among fools of the world who willingly hand their minds and lives over to the hidden "Church of Modern Science". These science cult members align themselves with vile ignorant beliefs about society, mankind and history. Their primary expression is one of hate and intolerance which is observable directly through their prideful propagation of their beliefs as "truth".

Judgmental much?

It is the church of Malthusian Darwinism. They wrongfully believe that somewhere along the line science was born as a fully mature world view with these two theories. Any suggestion that these certified theories are malleable or incomplete results in anger and violent behavior. The fruits of these particular cult members are truly evil as they stand only to dominate and destroy diversity and creativity, two cornerstones of inquisitive learning and real evolution.

Your ignorance of the history of science is appalling. The scientific method, and its accompanying world view, evolved over millenia. Aristotle and the Plinys were making scientific observations and Aristarchus was measuring the size of the Earth while religious charlatans were making sacrifices to lifeless pieces of stone. If learning that all human beings, irrespective of size, gender or color are all composed of exactly similar molecules, and that these atoms were forged in the heart of distant Suns is evil, I shudder to think what you value as good.

They are no different then religious radicals. In fact they are identical in behavior and motive.

Although I have known scientists who have said that they felt "raked over the coals" at a meeting, this is a figure of speech. Practitioners of religion have a long, well documented history of violence.

Their science is in fact a sect of modern religious belief that has little to do with Real Science. They oppose the REAL questions, while ardently holding onto observable phenomenon that they believe can ONLY be identified and communicated with their nomenclature. They despise investigation into anything they have no answer for. They detest hypotheses while only supporting the agreed upon conclusions delivered through bureaucratic peer "review" (ie: centralized agreed upon beliefs). Self investigation is their enemy. Questions are their enemy.

Science contents itself to ask the questions its methodology can answer. Religion does not. Science is an open ended process. It is always looking for a better answer, not the definitive one. Religion purports to be definitive, and condemns those who believe otherwise as "heretics"or "infidels."

This science is not science. It is the birth of a modern Religion NAMED Science. And while all those who participate in it are not evil and do not fully believe or support the ignorance, it's central tenants are based on ignorance and evil.

Can you provide a specific example?

You can identify these people by their hatred for questions they cannot answer and their vehement criticism to anyone who puts forth those questions. They exalt their priests into deity stature even while those priests encourage creativity and personal experience.

Many of the most esteemed scientists of all time have embraced philosophical questions. They simply don't confuse faith or wishful thinking with objective knowledge.

They believe their system is true. They have armed their belief system and are violently and shamefully attempting to demonstrate their domination and are willing to DIE for this because their active domination is the only way to prove natural selection. Their domination over all belief systems and ultimately people is their agenda. An agenda born of a hateful desire to be right at any cost.

Could you provide an example of this irrational behavior, please?

It's modern eugenics. It's hitler.. It's nazism. It's hateful and it has already failed. That is the sad reality of this newest radical religion.

Nazism was a religion that rejected modern science.

If you understand REAL science then support it. It is investigation into the most profound questions mankind will ever ponder. Support QUESTIONS and proof WHEREVER it might lead. Bureaucratic peer review belief system IS RELIGION. If you defend what does not stand in the face of Truth and Reality you will not evolve. You will not persist.

Sadly, the hatred that you have been spewing in this post suggests that you are as ignorant of true spirituality as you are of science. Let go of your delusions. Let go of your hatred. Let go of your ignorance. Stop labeling people and fearing what you do not understand. Open up. Breathe.

Edit to add additional material.

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Do they hold mass?

I'm more worried they don't have a mass, like a funky photon or something. A whole quasi-religious movement made-up of photons.

Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

There was one thing left that Scientists were not polluting.

Religion.

I misunderstood your title - Science rooted in what most would call "Religion". You are going on the science is religion angle, while I was thinking that you meant the science is rooted in religion.

Many scientific ideas came from religious sources. The big bang, plate tech-tonics, and even evolution can be found in the Bible's first book. Other religions contributed to other ideas, eastern philosophy is contributing to western physics right now. I bet the number zero was inspired by Islamic beliefs, but I haven't checked up on that one yet.

Anyway, science is certainly a philosophy to most, and possibly a religion to many.

What is religion?

reply to post by rwfresh


That's a pretty broad brush you're using. For being an experienced member of ATS, I'm surprised at you.

But I have a question for you: what "religion" would you hold us to? I think I know the answer, but I want to see it from your own hand.

Yes, science is based on some believes. We have (bit fuzzy) scientific method. If you want to productively work in "normal science" (T. Kuhn term meaning normal scientific work - which is NOT establishing new hypothesis) you have to believe that scientific method is correct. And here troubles starts: good scientist are occasionaly in doubt if The Base (i.e. scientific method) is correct approach to problem at hand. Bad scientists do not doubt and believe that scientific method can solve all problems. IMO OP is critic of this positivistic approach.
BTW this debate is alive (not so much in Europe, positivism is finally dead here) at least 100 years. Again I recommend everybody to read Thomas Kuhn: Structure of scientific revolutions. It is quite eye opener.

I think you are in a way refering to the selfproclaimed "openminded" person called Richard Dawkins that is on a rampage on anything that is apposed to his world image. I can sympethise with some of his ideas. Unfortunatly he has a blindspot where he misses part of reality because it does not fit in. I loved the show where he preached openmindness and then where told about chakras and called them superstitious. Well that showed how openminded he was and how much he understood . I could not stop laughting when I saw it. It reminded me of my own idiocy . To bad really that he have not experianced it himself. He could have been a true thruthseeker with that mind and he could probably had advanced all human knowledge (science and spirituality). Unfortunatly he is as caught up in duality as most Jew/Christians/Muslisms followers.

Some scientists and some followers of religon are caught up in duality and are in the own way both smallminded. That smallmindedness brings fustration on both sides fustrated on each other. Humans caught up in duality. The angels/blessed ones must laught at our idiocy sometimes.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Judgmental much?

No, i don't think i am judging any specific person. Rather i am describing a particular group of people who adhere to the ideology i described. Is it judgmental to say the Catholic Church has an issue with pedophilia?

Your ignorance of the history of science is appalling. The scientific method, and its accompanying world view, evolved over millenia. Aristotle and the Plinys were making scientific observations and Aristarchus was measuring the size of the Earth while religious charlatans were making sacrifices to lifeless pieces of stone. If learning that all human beings, irrespective of size, gender or color are all composed of exactly similar molecules, and that these atoms were forged in the heart of distant Suns is evil, I shudder to think what you value as good.

Good things aren't evil. But declaring superiority over others like the way the Nazis tried is evil. Remember.. I am talking about the ideology i described. Not the one you are describing.

Although I have known scientists who have said that they felt "raked over the coals" at a meeting, this is a figure of speech. Practitioners of religion have a long, well documented history of violence.

Yes practitioners of religion do have a long history of violence. I agree. And the religion of science is without a doubt part of that group. All weapons are a product of science. And the use of them is not restricted to any one religion. Ultimately it is the religion of science that conceives and produces them. Again, nothing wrong with science. But the religion of science is what we are talking about.

Science contents itself to ask the questions its methodology can answer. Religion does not. Science is an open ended process. It is always looking for a better answer, not the definitive one. Religion purports to be definitive, and condemns those who believe otherwise as "heretics"or "infidels."

Academic science is not an open ended science and if you've studied at, worked at or investigated the process of peer reviewed science you would freely admit this.. Unless you feel the need to defend it.

Can you provide a specific example?

ANYTIME science is used to dominate or promote hatred, fear.. There are so many instances that it should be obvious. Nazism is a historical and really obvious sect of this ideology i am talking about. Eugenics in general... a broader and larger example.

Many of the most esteemed scientists of all time have embraced philosophical questions. They simply don't confuse faith or wishful thinking with objective knowledge.

MANY absolutely have. But the followers of the religion of science ignore this very fundamental historical fact. Rather they twist fact and historical to declare ALL scientists who have made any significant contribution to science are atheists. And this is absolutely not the case.

Could you provide an example of this irrational behavior, please?

Nazism and eugenics.

Nazism was a religion that rejected modern science.

It was a sect of the religion of science. They absolutely did not reject modern science. They were the engine of modern science. This is historical fact. Please go and research more if you are interested. Nazis used science to dominate and kill as well as the religion of science as their underlying authority to carry out their agenda.

Sadly, the hatred that you have been spewing in this post suggests that you are as ignorant of true spirituality as you are of science. Let go of your delusions. Let go of your hatred. Let go of your ignorance. Stop labeling people and fearing what you do not understand. Open up. Breathe.

I'm sorry you find hatred in what i am talking about. I really am. But thank you for your advice. I will continue to strive to release anger and ignorance that i hold in myself. Labelling is a fundamental tenat of science. It's what any ideology attempts to do. Create a base of nomenclature for the formless reality. Breathing is good and thank you for reminding me!

peace

Originally posted by DeliriumAquarium
The key is to have an open mind and not to subscribe too heavily to any one belief system.

A healthy balance of science, religion, skepticism, and even faith is important in moving forward in a well-educated manner.

edit on 16-8-2012 by DeliriumAquarium because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-8-2012 by DeliriumAquarium because: and don't forget the arts!

The Middle Path/The middle way?

Originally posted by Merriman Weir

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by rwfresh

 

Do they hold mass?

I'm more worried they don't have a mass, like a funky photon or something. A whole quasi-religious movement made-up of photons.

Every day for your children in school/high school and collage and on the radio and tv.

Originally posted by MichiganSwampBuck
I misunderstood your title - Science rooted in what most would call "Religion". You are going on the science is religion angle, while I was thinking that you meant the science is rooted in religion.

Many scientific ideas came from religious sources. The big bang, plate tech-tonics, and even evolution can be found in the Bible's first book. Other religions contributed to other ideas, eastern philosophy is contributing to western physics right now. I bet the number zero was inspired by Islamic beliefs, but I haven't checked up on that one yet.

Anyway, science is certainly a philosophy to most, and possibly a religion to many.

Yeah sorry about that.. the title doesn't directly match with the content. I wanted to start by describing how modern scientific ideology is an extension of the most profound existential questions ever pondered by mankind.. Exactly in the same way that religions evolved. To demonstrate that science, the religion of science IS an ideology and is therefore subject to the same pitfalls as every single religion before it. Bureaucracy rises and perverts the central tenets and twists the goodness for the purposes of control. It is done covertly and for the sheep, leaves them completely vulnerable because they are deluded into believing the nomenclature is literal. Literal truth.

Originally posted by hp1229
What is religion?

Dualistic social view/knowledge of reality based on knowledge at that time or how the person wants reality to be. And science is a religon since it is not the thruth but an assumption/theory of thruth (the current state of all things and explanation of all things and their connection with each other).

reply to post by mideast


Which is why one of the most renowned paleontologists of the world is a priest.

reply to post by DJW001


He is just trying to repaint the Christian challenge that science and religion are the same thing and based on faith. He tried to make it sound like a spiritual post so you don't see intent.

But no matter how you word it, it is a really stupid point.

Originally posted by AfterInfinity
reply to post by rwfresh

 

That's a pretty broad brush you're using. For being an experienced member of ATS, I'm surprised at you.

But I have a question for you: what "religion" would you hold us to? I think I know the answer, but I want to see it from your own hand.

edit on 17-8-2012 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

Hi There,

What religion would i hold "us" to? I don't understand the question. I am describing an ideology which i am labeling a religion because it looks, acts and smells like one. Good science practiced by open and honest non fundamentalists is not what i am talking about.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by DJW001

 

He is just trying to repaint the Christian challenge that science and religion are the same thing and based on faith. He tried to make it sound like a spiritual post so you don't see intent.

But no matter how you word it, it is a really stupid point.

I am not a Christian. You are just trying to repaint the religion of science's denial that intelligent design follows scientific method because it's an agenda of "Christians" to get jesus taught in schools.

I am absolutely not a Christian and because of this i am free to see the dogma and hypocrisy of the science of religion.