Science rooted in what most would call "Religion"

I'll believe in any religion that can buttress its claims with empirical evidence and, in turn, leaves itself open to scrutiny.

Let me know when your religion of choice does thus, OP, and I'll be the first to jump on board.

Originally posted by exponent

Originally posted by rwfresh
The people i am talking about are fundamentalists. Many have not even read the complete texts but promote these writings and ideas as 100% infallible and fundamentally true. Fundamentalist Darwinites.
...
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.

But Richard Dawkins is a scientist and does not say that The Origin Of Species is 100% infallible. Could you name anyone else you think does?

Nomenclature and descriptions are not Truth. Ideologies are not Truth. Ideologies are subject to revision as the theory of evolution dictates. The theory itself will evolve into something unrecognizable. But the fundamentalists deny this even as the declare it eternally true.

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

I don't know a single biologist who still believes in many parts of The Origin Of Species, and so if you are accusing people of being fundamentalists and those people don't exist, I think it's fair to say your point is nonsense.

Could you show that any of these people actually exist?

Dawkins doesn't need to say things like that to make educated people still think of him as an ignorant fool.

He spends most of his time bashings every religion he can make a case against, but fails to address the ones he has nothing to say about.

He has no clue about Buddhism, he admits this himself. Now, I really ask myself the question, if ANYONE else, in ANY OTHER AREA of expertise, were to neglect, say 50% of said area, would anyone take him serious? Nope. Yet Dawkins can do so without sanction, and sell books about his ignorance on top of that too, brilliant!

You don't just go bashing Christianity and Islam, but when someone then asks you about Buddhism say "oh I don't know much about that one", like studying physics but you're not really that interested in gravity, completely absurd.

Why does he not address Buddhism? Because his ignorance-filled books would not sell otherwise, I'm sure he's not too keen on admitting that Buddhism, a religion, is right on so many levels and goes perfectly hand in hand with science, no, he has to bash on stereotypical views of Christianity and as such, to me he is a complete clown who probably doesn't even take himself very serious (because if he did, he would have studied Buddhism by now, something I believe he did, but doesn't wish to admit because then he would have to answer questions about it, which would go against everything he stands for (i.e. religions are for deluded people))



And to me, this is where the whole Dawkins argument ends. I don't want to discuss someone who is completely and blatantly obviously biased in his research, like Dawkins is, because whenever valid points are brought up in front of them, such as questions relating to Buddhism, he simply says he doesn't know much about that. How anyone can take a person like that serious is beyond me, these are facts, this is not a conspiracy, this is plain reality.


I want to make the analogy with ATS for a second, because I am pretty sure that the people who support Dawkins, would also be the ones to instantly reject what I were saying in the analogy;

Imagine I came here with an entirely plausible conspiracy theory, I claim to be an expert in the field, and know pretty much everything about the subject. Then, someone asks me a question to which I do not have an answer, or to which I DO have an answer, but when I reveal it it would take apart my entire theory. So instead, I would just say; "Oh I don't have an answer for that, haven't studied it yet!"

Would anyone here take me serious? I'm going to go with 99% no. Yet when Dawkins does this nobody minds?


Deny ignorance, please, even if it is from someone who has fooled lots of people into believing his own deluded words. I love debating with a Dawkins-follower, the conversation usually ends pretty soon with a bruised ego, and it ain't mine, because when I talk about "religion", I feel confident in saying that I know a thing or two about the most important ones, unlike the clown who bashes two religions for a profession and know nothing about the others out there.

Originally posted by rwfresh

Originally posted by Cassius666
Look up what the scientific approach constitutes. So far it hasnt confirmed anything of the bible, not Aquaman moses and neither zombiejesus. And earth took a wee bit longer than 7 days to form too.

Seen as we might end up swallowed by a sun turning red giant the bible kinda got it right with the fiery end of days scenario though.

But why immediately turn to the bible when confronted with the information I've presented? Where does that come from? Why is it that ANYONE who asks questions or points to a group that proclaims themselves science believers immediately an ignorant Christian with an evil agenda? Yes those Christians exist. I am not one of them in anyway.

They turn to the Bible because it is the most convenient target and this is the method utilized in most argumentation...the hell with the fact it is just as big a leap as the faith they decry...

Never mind the science that resulted from people of the Islamic faith...never mind the fact our understanding of the Universe is owed in large part to people of faith...

Originally posted by Heresy

Science is the tyranny of fact over fiction.

“Fiction is the truth inside the lie.” -Stephen King

You've really failed to grasp that mythology, like fiction, is not just 'made-up' bull#. I guess that's because you can't stick it in a test-tube?

Scientism thralls need to pull their heads out of their asses and study comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparattive mysticism before they shoot their mouths off. "Science" can't tell you the nature of religion, myth, metaphor, poetry, fiction, wisdom, philosophy, or even consciousness. But scientism sure seems to want to think it can. Maybe scientism thralls tend to be white male control freaks?

Same goes for exoteric religious fundamentalist simpletons. Two sides of the same damn coin.

“The poem is a little myth of man's capacity of making life meaningful. And in the end, the poem is not a thing we see - it is, rather, a light by which we may see - and what we see is life.” -Robert Penn

reply to post by CaptChaos

Why is the Sun's corona far hotter than the Sun itself? Good luck explaining that one. This proves that the THEORIES about the Sun being a ball of nuclear fusion are totally wrong.

No, it shows that our current understanding of solar dynamics is incomplete. As I stated before, science does not provide definitive answers, only progressively better ones. It is open ended. This is precisely what differentiates it from religion, which speaks entirely in absolutes.

On what do you base your idea of the Big Bang? Where does that nonsense come from? Redshift? Explain, "scientists":.

You can observe the Doppler effect in every day life. It is how you know whether a fire engine is approaching you or getting further away. A similar thing happens with light; you can observe the effect with a telescope and prism for yourself. It is not nonsense. After observing this effect in starlight from distant galaxies, it was logical to conclude that the universe is expanding. If the universe is expanding, it may have originated at a single point in space and time. The rest is mathematics.

Black holes? A theoretical object which has never been observed. Gravity so strong nothing, not even light, can escape it. Except when sometimes it shoots stuff out for thousands of lightyears. Explain.

The effects of black holes have been observed. Unlike religion, science observes the nature of physical reality and attempts to understand it. Religion proceeds from a set of beliefs, and denies observation and experience when they conflict with dogma. Do you really want me to explain how matter falling on to the event horizon of a black hole can release enormous amounts of energy? U2U me, it's more than a bit off topic.

reply to post by BlueMule

Scientism thralls need to pull their heads out of their asses and study comparative mythology, comparative religion, and comparattive mysticism before they shoot their mouths off. "Science" can't tell you the nature of religion, myth, metaphor, poetry, fiction, wisdom, or even consciousness. But scientism sure seems to want to think it can. Maybe scientism thralls tend to be white male control freaks?

But scientism is not the subject of this thread, science is. There are indeed people who simply treat what writers for "Discover" magazine say as some sort of gospel. That is not science. The OP does not understand what science actually is. He cannot even tell tell difference between science and religion, never mind the difference between science and technology. Where did your blatantly racist aside come from?

reply to post by ThisIsNotReality

And to me, this is where the whole Dawkins argument ends. I don't want to discuss someone who is completely and blatantly obviously biased in his research, like Dawkins is, because whenever valid points are brought up in front of them, such as questions relating to Buddhism, he simply says he doesn't know much about that. How anyone can take a person like that serious is beyond me, these are facts, this is not a conspiracy, this is plain reality.

Not discussing something you are not knowledgable about is a mark of intellectual integrity.

reply to post by DJW001


And the point is this is where Dawkins fails in his argumentation. You cannot disbelieve in anything you have not studied.

reply to post by DJW001


Can you point out a science defender in this thread who is not a scientism apologist in disguise? Essential science has been so abused that it is virtually synonymous with scientism, materialism. Religion has been likewise been abused and is virtually synonymous with fundamentalism, literalism.

reply to post by totallackey

And the point is this is where Dawkins fails in his argumentation. You cannot disbelieve in anything you have not studied.

But he does not fail in his argumentation. Buddhism is not a religion. Popular Buddhism is, and has many of the same attributes that other religions have. These aspects fail any objective examination. The Dharma, however, is a practical philosophy. Dawkins showed his wisdom in not attempting to discuss it.

reply to post by BlueMule

Can you point out a science defender in this thread who is not a scientism apologist in disguise? Essential science has been so abused that it is virtually synonymous with scientism, materialism. Religion has been likewise been abused and is virtually synonymous with fundamentalism, literalism.

I not only do not defend scientism, I abhor it. I also abhor attempts by egotistical fools to denigrate science in favor of their own superstitions. Religion can play an important, even positive, role in society. Unfortunately it can also poison the mind. Spirituality is an entirely different question.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Can you point out a science defender in this thread who is not a scientism apologist in disguise? Essential science has been so abused that it is virtually synonymous with scientism, materialism. Religion has been likewise been abused and is virtually synonymous with fundamentalism, literalism.

I not only do not defend scientism, I abhor it. I also abhor attempts by egotistical fools to denigrate science in favor of their own superstitions. Religion can play an important, even positive, role in society. Unfortunately it can also poison the mind. Spirituality is an entirely different question.

What's a superstition?

reply to post by BlueMule

What's a superstition?

A superstition is an irrational belief, the origin of which is unknown to the holder.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule

 

What's a superstition?

A superstition is an irrational belief, the origin of which is unknown to the holder.

Is it your position that science is the way to discern superstition from fact?

Is it your position that beliefs are supposed to be rational? That religion should be rational? That science is a tool for 'exorcising' irrationality from the human psyche? From society? From religion?

If so, there may be more scientism in you than you would like.

reply to post by BlueMule

Is it your position that science is the way to discern superstition from fact?

Objective observation and analysis is the best way to determine whether an action is effective.

Is it your position that beliefs are supposed to be rational? That religion should be rational? That science is a tool for 'exorcising' irrationality from the human psyche?

No. Rational beliefs tend to lead to more productive actions. Religion, by its very nature, is irrational. Nevertheless, it can have positive effects if it is administered rationally. Science is a tool for examining the nature of reality; exorcism is a religious ritual.

If so, there may be more scientism in you that you would like.

Sorry, but your strawmen didn't stand up very long.

reply to post by DJW001


Your attempt to "slice and dice," is noted...Buddhism is a religion and always has been. And here.

Buddhism is a religion...

Now, if Buddhism was not a religion, do you not think Buddhists would be able to change that statement on Wiki? Of course they would...and it would be changed....the reason it is not is because Buddhism is a religion...There is of course many philosophies associated with many religions. But to say Buddhism is not a religion is in and of itself the most extreme example of dishonesty I have ever seen.

For people claiming honesty and a pursuit of truth, self-professed atheists and cockeyed scientists sure are a dishonest and lying bunch...

OP started out kind of rough in tone, but this turned out to be a pretty interesting thread.
I would tend to lean toward OP's main point--that some fundamental, base ideas of science have grown into beliefs. When you have a belief, then it gets personal. You're put in the defense and get one step closer to a full-blown ideology.

Beliefs are, of course, not infallible, but neither are they archetypal. They extend from observations and experiences. So in the beginning, at least, they reside in factual, experiencial knowledge. Having them morph into closed ideologies is a problem. Some avenues of science are starting to walk down this same path that many religions took.
I believe both scientific and spiritual matters have the capacity to avoid this pitfall, but until then we'll keep battling it out.

Originally posted by DJW001
reply to post by BlueMule

 

Is it your position that science is the way to discern superstition from fact?

Objective observation and analysis is the best way to determine whether an action is effective.

Underneath that statement, deep in your mind, is there a belief that reality is objective? An unconscious implicit philosophical bias? Deep down, do you hold a philosophical belief that reality is "out there"?

If not, then why isn't subjective observation and analysis equally valuable?

What if the objective/subjective dychotomy is false? What if mysticism is the best way to determine whether that is so? What if reality is omnijective, and by indulging in a knee-jerk bias toward "objective observation" and "fact" you are missing the boat?

reply to post by totallackey

Your attempt to "slice and dice," is noted...Buddhism is a religion and always has been. And here.

Buddhism is a religion...

Now, if Buddhism was not a religion, do you not think Buddhists would be able to change that statement on Wiki? Of course they would...and it would be changed....the reason it is not is because Buddhism is a religion...There is of course many philosophies associated with many religions. But to say Buddhism is not a religion is in and of itself the most extreme example of dishonesty I have ever seen.

I suggest you review the revision history of the Wiki you are quoting with such iron clad authority:

en.wikipedia.org...

You must live in an extraordinary world where a true statement is the most extreme example of dishonesty you have ever seen. Buddhism is a practical philosophy that has engendered a multi-faceted popular religion.

For people claiming honesty and a pursuit of truth, self-professed atheists and cockeyed scientists sure are a dishonest and lying bunch...

Wow. I don't suppose it would ever occur to you that I'm a Buddhist who is just trying to explain things to you.

reply to post by BlueMule

Underneath that statement, deep in your mind, is there a belief that reality is objective? An unconscious implicit philosophical bias? Deep down, do you hold a philosophical belief that reality is "out there"?

No. There is no distinction between subject and object, but objective analysis is the most effective for practical purposes.

If not, then why isn't subjective observation and analysis equally valuable?

They are equally valuable, but in different domains. You can subject the work of Rembrandt and Picasso to all sorts of objective measurements, but that will not settle which is the better painter.

What if the objective/subjective dychotomy is false? What if mysticism is the best way to determine whether that is so? What if reality is omnijective, and by indulging in a knee-jerk bias toward "objective observation" and "fact" you are missing the boat?

As I said, the distinction between subject and object is illusory. Ironically, the tools of objective science have led to some of the same conclusions arrived at by practitioners of meditation. Both are formal disciplines with exacting methodologies, each suited to a different domain of knowledge. People who reject "science" often lack the discipline to practice meditation properly as well. They then confuse their fantasies, based on ego delusions, with some sort of insight or revelation.