It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

page: 10
8
share:

posted on Nov, 25 2013 @ 07:40 PM

What is your explanation that many religious people play these disingeneous word games?

Mine is that they are fooling themselves, as they feel their beliefs are threatened.

posted on Nov, 26 2013 @ 07:30 AM

leostokes

This does not mean that the current mathemathics is based on belief.

There is a sense in which it does.

Before the Greeks invented mathematics around 300BC people went to the Delphic Oracle to get answers. Then they took his advice (I assume).

The custom of consulting an oracle is a belief system. If you change the oracle you get different advice but you do not change the fact that it is a belief system.

Today mathematicians are the oracles.

There are facts and there are belief systems.

It is not a belief system, if I multiply the sides of a square to get the area of the square, it is a proven fact and the answer will always be 100% correct, as long as I personally do not make measurement errors or calculation mistakes.

In some very complex shapes, especially in larger curved space, certain formulas and methods simply provide more accurate answers , the other formula might have error of +- 2%, while this one provides a range of +-1% error , for example non-Euclidean math provides more accurate answers in navigation and other parts of space (celestial mechanics, in certain calculations about universe). These are simply borderlines, which will develop in the future and currently we just know that non-euclidean is more accurate from measurements, although the exact mathemathical nature of the universe is still unknown, which is the most correct and well in every case provide right answers . For everyday math, math we use, Euclidean math will always provide the correct answers. When we get to borderlines, in certain cases non-eucledian is more accurate, although average person will currently near to never need such calculations, as computer calculates the areas for you and you have not much need to start calculating the orbits of different planets and stars.

Math is not a belief system. There is not a single way to prove that the oracle will always be 100% right, while in mathemathics proofs exist, which prove that the formula will always provide right answers in these circumstances. Something is not a belief system if it can be proved that it will provide the correct answers.

edit on 26-11-2013 by Cabin because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:09 AM

KrzYma

MichaelPMaccabee
Any scientist worth their salt understands that -nothing- in science is taken on faith.

So no, science is not a religion. It is a tool of understanding based on exploration, experimentation, and explanation.

sure? if I say Einstein was wrong, QT is BS, wouldn't they crucify me ?
that's what I'm thinking...

Yes. Unless you have a good reason to show they are flawed in a significant way, or you can provide a theory that is better supported by experimental data.

You need to understand, that universities around the world are filled with physicists trying to do exactly these things. Science only advances by developing and demonstrating a superior theory.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 04:55 PM

BO XIAN

You may well be more or less correct that I don't keep strictly to a formal logic sequential paradigm in narrow terms.

However, Ravi Z and deceased Walter Martin and some others can give anyone hereon a much better run for their money with any amount of formal logic they are up to:

www.rzim.org...

Particularly:

The Incoherence of Atheism - Ravi Zacharias

SEEKING ALLAH, FINDING JESUS (At Georgia Tech)

= = =

HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT CHRISTIANITY IS THE ONE TRUE WORLD VIEW?

= = =

RAVI Z . . . answers STEPHEN HAWKING PART 1

= = =

RAVI Z AT PRINCETON: WHY I'M NOT AN ATHEIST

= = =

RAVI Z ... THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST:

= = =

RAVI Z ... RICHARD DAWKINS GAFFE 2012

= = =

RAVI Z ... WHO ARE YOU, REALLY?

= = =

RAVI Z ... A MUSLIM STUDENT CHALLENGES RAVI Z

= = =

RAVI Z ... WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE HUMAN?

= = =

Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion

= = =

Science, Atheism & Freewill - Dr. Ravi Zacharias respond

= = =

RAVI Z ... THE PROBLEM OF PLEASURE

= = =

Ravi Zacharias - The Mystery of Evil and the Miracle of Life

= = =

Ravi Zacharias - How To Measure Your Choices

= = =

A Muslim Confronts Ravi Zacharias In Regards To Christianity.

= = =

Sufficient Evidence - Ravi Zacharias Q & A

= = =

WHAT IS TRUTH-- Ravi Zacharias and Dennis Prager respond

= = =

Is science & evidence against religion - Ravi & Dennis respond Q&A

= = =

Ravi Zacharias Q & A: God's Sovereignty and the Genocide of the [Old Testament]

= = =

Richard Dawkins Mocks Religious and Ravi Zacharias Responds

= = =

www.amazon.com...

NICK VUJICIC AT DUMC

= = =

THE SIGNS OF GOD'S EXISTENCE--DOCUMENTARY--FULL VERSION

= = =

WRETCHED: AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR CONVERTS TO CHRISTIANITY

= = =

Besides, my logic is NOT THAT FAR from formally rigorous on some points and in many respects. I just don't trot it out in that form.

I watch the first part of Ravi at Johns Hopkins.

My first reaction is that I did not know that anyone ever addressed these questions about faith and logic.

My second reaction is that I did not know that there is a living example of a man who went from Hinduism to Jesus.

My third reaction is that the feeling part of music and the arts is akin to moral law. I think this is what he said. I find that to be true. Beethoven has to me the status of a prophet.
edit on 27-11-2013 by leostokes because: add part of

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:03 PM

It is not a belief system, if I multiply the sides of a square to get the area of the square, it is a proven fact and the answer will always be 100% correct, as long as I personally do not make measurement errors or calculation mistakes.

You contradict yourself. You find the area of a square by multiplying the sides because you believe it will give you the answer.

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 05:27 PM

Sometimes I mix those I met overseas up. IIRC, I met Ravi in Taipei. He's the real deal.

Yes, music strikes to the core of our being as little else can.

I forget who said . . .

Let me write the songs of a culture, I care not their politics.

He meant, he could control the people far better through the songs than the politicians could.

Alas, the globalists knew that long ago and began in the 1960's to destroy our culture, families, peace and freedoms through . . .

music . . .

paradoxically . . . often with songs about . . . freedom, peace . . . and love.

What devilish tools they've used musically ever since.

BTW, all Ravi's youtube's are worth the time.

He slices through a LOT of BS very well.

Oh, a lot of Hindu's have become Christians. They recognize the emphatic authority over demonic forces that Hinduism failed to demonstrate.

.

edit on 27/11/2013 by BO XIAN because: added

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 07:46 PM

BO XIAN

Sometimes I mix those I met overseas up. IIRC, I met Ravi in Taipei. He's the real deal.

Yes, music strikes to the core of our being as little else can.

I forget who said . . .

Let me write the songs of a culture, I care not their politics.

He meant, he could control the people far better through the songs than the politicians could.

Alas, the globalists knew that long ago and began in the 1960's to destroy our culture, families, peace and freedoms through . . .

music . . .

paradoxically . . . often with songs about . . . freedom, peace . . . and love.

What devilish tools they've used musically ever since.

BTW, all Ravi's youtube's are worth the time.

He slices through a LOT of BS very well.

Oh, a lot of Hindu's have become Christians. They recognize the emphatic authority over demonic forces that Hinduism failed to demonstrate.

.

edit on 27/11/2013 by BO XIAN because: added

The Russell paradox in mathematics strikes me as having a kinship with things RAVI says about the difference between a problem and a mystery. You can not solve a mystery because you are part of it.

Here is a similar sounding wording from Wittgenstein (from wikipedia on Russell paradox):
The reason why a function cannot be its own argument is that the sign for a function already contains the prototype of its argument, and it cannot contain itself.

By the way. Go to soundcloud and search on "ivan sokolnikov". Scroll down and click "Compare Sokolnikov Furtwangler".

posted on Nov, 27 2013 @ 09:34 PM

leostokes

You contradict yourself. You find the area of a square by multiplying the sides because you believe it will give you the answer.
So, according to you, there is no such thing as a fact, anywhere?

It seems to me like we have defined the area of a square to be the product of its sides, so in order for it not to be true you would have to show some fallacy in the premises as the original poster implied, like the measurements are wrong, or it's not really a square, but even if that's the case, it doesn't falsify the claim that "You find the area of a square by multiplying the sides". Of course if the measurements are wrong or it's not really a square, then that definition is not applicable.

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 10:18 AM

leostokes

It is not a belief system, if I multiply the sides of a square to get the area of the square, it is a proven fact and the answer will always be 100% correct, as long as I personally do not make measurement errors or calculation mistakes.

You contradict yourself. You find the area of a square by multiplying the sides because you believe it will give you the answer.

No. It's a mathematical proof. It's impossible to have a square where the area isn't equal to the square of a side by the definition of the shape. There's no belief involved.

In science something is accepted until it it is proven wrong. In Maths once something is proven it exists forever as it's pure logic.

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 12:36 PM
This is something that has interested me for a long time.

Basically, I do feel its a belief system, but one that is setup to adapt to changes over time using a unifying core of exploration (scientific method).

Math is as close as we can get to the "Truth" or the "True Language" of the universe, and we make use of this through observing patterns and attempting to apply them in new ways. Math itself, however, is little more than a human interpretation of the patterns we see in play. In that, they are inherently limited and not all encompassing.

Science, much like religion, is limited to the human experience and what we can bring into it to observe.

Is science a belief-system? Yes, most certainly. However, it may have an edge up on the competition in that our understanding is ever-changing and its a system explicitly set-up to complement this. I would even go as far as saying that we should be applying the scientific method to everything from the economy to helping those in need.

In that way, I think that the method we use in science is the best currently available. Given the idea of science, it is difficult to claim that even that method is something that will never advance. In the same respect, our understanding of numbers and their interactions may be limited as well.

All that said, I have seen a rise in the general public (at least my access to it) that is starting to feel that science has pretty much explained everything and has omniscient-esque access to all knowledge available in the universe. This attitude is extremely, extremely close to what religions claim and the attitudes are strikingly similar. I view this kind of as the "teenage years" of science, where we have a lot of the basics down to the point where we can utilize them in every day life, but.. as we all know from our own teenage years, the lessons go so much deeper than we understood at that point.

So, you have a couple of societal interactions taking place. One approaches science very, very much like a religion. Even as far as it being indistinguishable from each other. The second is that science is a limited exploration of universal variables. The math may be as close as we get to the "Truth," but our interpretation and implementation of those patterns is extremely limited. We believe these things to be true, because we can use them and repeat them. It doesnt mean the human understanding of something much larger than us is accurate universally, or even locally.

Its a conundrum in a way! And one that drives many scientists to continue learning, experimenting, and inventing. Because of this, you will rarely find an actual scientist who speaks in absolutes. It is the "congregation" which does that, and in my experience, can influence the scientists as well.

I pool all exploratory systems (including science, religion, and philosophy) into different cultural attempts to explain what is happening within us and around us. To determine what is universal "fact" requires omniscience. Given that we do not have that, all we can do is devise methods which, at the very least, allow us to learn about such things in a way that enables us to use it to our own benefit.
edit on 28-11-2013 by Serdgiam because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 28 2013 @ 06:04 PM

Math is as close as we can get to the "Truth" or the "True Language" of the universe, and we make use of this through observing patterns and attempting to apply them in new ways. Math itself, however, is little more than a human interpretation of the patterns we see in play. In that, they are inherently limited and not all encompassing.

Thanks for your reply. It is refreshing to get a view that is supporting. Most posters are just trolls waiting at the bridge to attack anyone who crosses.

Do you know the story of Bertrand Russell?
He poised the question "what is truth?".
In his search for the answer he turned naturally to mathematics. He formulated a scheme to suit his purpose that amounted to what we call "set theory". Disaster struck when he found a contradiction. It is called The Russell Paradox.

This caused mathematicians to closely examine their foundations. See Howard Eves: Foundations and Fundamental Concepts of Mathematics.

Russell said:

Thus mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.

I think his tongue was in his cheek.

edit on 28-11-2013 by leostokes because: add russell quote

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 03:06 PM

posted on Dec, 11 2013 @ 09:10 PM
I always thought science was continuously evolving. People come up with theories and other people take them and evolve them over time. Hence our massive advancement in science over the years.

Im sure there are people who cannot prove their theories 100% and have a blind belief in it just like a lot of other things.

But things like evolution is a massive jigsaw without all the pieces.

Religion is stagnent.
edit on 11-12-2013 by Horus12 because: (no reason given)

posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 12:58 AM

Religion is stagnent.

I can think of two examples where Popes changed Catholic doctrine in the 20th century.

One pope admitted that the church manufactured false evidence against Galileo at his trial.

A different pope (I think) said that there is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome. This sets the record straight. Previously the Catholics said their church is the one true church because it was founded by Peter in Rome.

posted on Dec, 12 2013 @ 08:22 AM

So the OP has watched a few youtube clips and decided for himself that science is a "religion like believe system".

Yeah... well whatever floats your boat.

new topics

top topics

8