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

page: 8
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 03:53 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I do not know what word game you are referring to. The definition of the word "faith" is a strongly held belief or theory.
This definition applies equally well to science or religion.

My view is that "organized religion" has misrepresented the Bible.

Here is an example. The concept of the trinity (god the father, god the son, god the holy ghost). The concept is supported by organized religion. However, it is not supported by the Bible. My authority for this assertion is Isaac Newton. His study of the scriptures showed that the trinity is not supported. Indeed, he showed that two texts (1 John 5:7 and 1 Timothy 3:16) were corrupted to support the doctrine.

I just now found this by googling "newton and the trinity"

edit on 5-11-2013 by leostokes because: add link




posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 06:56 PM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by -PLB-

 


I do not know what word game you are referring to. The definition of the word "faith" is a strongly held belief or theory.
This definition applies equally well to science or religion.


That is not the case. In the context of religion, faith means:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Besides this twisting of definition, your definition is not a proper description of science. Science does not require anyone to believe in it, as it is verifiable regardless of what anyone believes. You can do a scientific experiment and simply reject the outcome and not believe in it. The science however will still be based on the outcome of the experiment, not what the experimenter believes.

And then there is of course the flawed logic: Religion is based on faith, science is based on faith, therefore science is a religion. This logic is analog to a dog has a nose, a human has a nose, therefore a human is a dog.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 07:03 PM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 



I merely stated my perspective.


You gave me a very vague and transparent reason for refusing to explain your perspective.


Attacking & blaming the messenger of a viewpoint you are hostile to is not a very SCIENTIFIC way to have a discussion.


Attacking? I'm not attacking anyone. I'm attempting to get a clear read on your position, but you're jamming my signal because who knows why.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   

AfterInfinity
How does the behavior of a photon change between particle and wave? How do these states behave differently?


Well, it's more complex than that, but in quantum optics and QFT the wavefunction is a wave functional (function of a function).

There are different 'bases' (coordinate systems) that you can represent the current state---this is part of quantum mechanics. Some of the bases are 'particle like' and some are 'wave-like'.

The photon doesn't change between one state or another on its own, it just is---the different perspectives are different ways of looking at it. Just like normal QM.

The undistributed quantum E&M field is just in a given state which could be an eigenstate of particle basis, and not an eignestate of wavelike basis or vice versa. Now in QM there is a matrix operator (not a finite dimensional basis for QFT) representing the interaction with other stuff which ends up measuring something about the EM state.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   

BO XIAN
reply to post by KrzYma
 



ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The history of science is riddled with horrific, tenacious, dogmatic, entrenched and successful efforts to hold progress back on a number of fronts.


which are utterly insignificant compared to their equivalents in religion and politics.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:16 PM
link   

-PLB-

leostokes
reply to post by -PLB-
 


I do not know what word game you are referring to. The definition of the word "faith" is a strongly held belief or theory.
This definition applies equally well to science or religion.


That is not the case. In the context of religion, faith means:

Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

Besides this twisting of definition, your definition is not a proper description of science. Science does not require anyone to believe in it, as it is verifiable regardless of what anyone believes. You can do a scientific experiment and simply reject the outcome and not believe in it. The science however will still be based on the outcome of the experiment, not what the experimenter believes.

And then there is of course the flawed logic: Religion is based on faith, science is based on faith, therefore science is a religion. This logic is analog to a dog has a nose, a human has a nose, therefore a human is a dog.


As I see it we are merely using different definitions of the word "faith".

I am saying that mathematical truths are relative. I demonstrated that above. I say this in opposition to those who say mathematical truths are absolute and hence require no faith.



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


Since you do not seem to use this rather unusual definition you use of "faith" to equate science to religion it’s not a very big deal.

Still, when people talk about faith, in general they are talking about a belief that is not based on evidence. If not, then faith is nothing more than a synonym of belief, there would be no semantic difference between the words. Maybe English is not your native language (it’s not mine) but to me the inherent lack of evidence seems to be the discriminating factor between faith and belief.

An alternative would be to not use the word faith at all, and instead always write "belief without evidence" or invent a new term for it. But it seems to me that the word faith suffices already, as most people will interpret like that anyhow.



Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins criticizes all faith by generalizing from specific faith in propositions that conflict directly with scientific evidence. He describes faith as mere belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. He states that it is a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions, that does not require testing against nature, has no ability to make reliable and consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review.


(Wikipedia)



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

-PLB-
reply to post by leostokes
 


Since you do not seem to use this rather unusual definition you use of "faith" to equate science to religion it’s not a very big deal.

Still, when people talk about faith, in general they are talking about a belief that is not based on evidence. If not, then faith is nothing more than a synonym of belief, there would be no semantic difference between the words. Maybe English is not your native language (it’s not mine) but to me the inherent lack of evidence seems to be the discriminating factor between faith and belief.

An alternative would be to not use the word faith at all, and instead always write "belief without evidence" or invent a new term for it. But it seems to me that the word faith suffices already, as most people will interpret like that anyhow.



Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins criticizes all faith by generalizing from specific faith in propositions that conflict directly with scientific evidence. He describes faith as mere belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. He states that it is a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions, that does not require testing against nature, has no ability to make reliable and consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review.


(Wikipedia)


There is no question that science is based on logical deduction and religion is not. They are not similar in this way. But I assert that people should know that mathematics is based on a belief system. Namely that logic is better equipped to lead to the truth. But mathematical truths are not absolute. People who look to science for salvation are in deep trouble.

My rather unusual definition (as you call it) of faith as "strongly held belief or theory" comes straight out of the dictionary.

As I said, we merely disagree on the definition.
edit on 5-11-2013 by leostokes because: add



posted on Nov, 5 2013 @ 10:57 PM
link   

leostokes


There is no question that science is based on logical deduction and religion is not.


I mostly disagree. My faith is built on a very logical foundation. Just because others with different biases deny my logic and my foundation does not change the truths of the logic or of the foundation.

I decline to belabor the logical deductions at length because of the common hostility such perspectives trigger on such threads as this. It is not remotely my idea of a favorite recreation.

I suppose I could briefly summarize . . . in that standing on the Biblical record, I've periodically asked God to make Himself and His will for me clearer--and He has.

Further, I've found the Biblical record to be very accurate about me and about mankind. Given the accuracy, it would be foolish NOT to believe it.

It is a LOGICAL DEDUCTION to believe in the face of meaningful responses from God to me and those I love.





But I assert that people should know that mathematics is based on a belief system. Namely that logic is better equipped to lead to the truth. But mathematical truths are not absolute. People who look to science for salvation are in deep trouble.

My rather unusual definition (as you call it) of faith as "strongly held belief or theory" comes straight out of the dictionary.

As I said, we merely disagree on the definition.
edit on 5-11-2013 by leostokes because: add


I agree about faith is a strongly held belief or theory being quite the accurate dictionary definition. It's a matter of arrogance and bias that refuses to accept that truth.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 01:28 AM
link   

leostokes
But I assert that people should know that mathematics is based on a belief system. Namely that logic is better equipped to lead to the truth.


We disagree on that. But again is comes down to definition. What you call a belief system here, I would call an axiomatic system. An axiom is different from faith based belief. I don't see any purpose in stating that mathematics is based on a belief system, except for the reason I already gave, it opens the door to equate it with religion. A belief system is about subjects such as ideologies, morals, the supernatural, philosophy. When I believe that the earth revolves around the sun or that the oceans contain a lot of H2O, then that is not a belief system. That would be an improper use of the term.


But mathematical truths are not absolute. People who look to science for salvation are in deep trouble.


I don’t see what salvation has to do with truth. In science there is no such thing as absolute truth, and I never seen anyone claim that you can get absolute truths about reality using mathematics. Science gives you the current most probable explanation or theory. If you are looking for absolute truths religion is your thing. That doesn’t mean it’s actually true, but at least most religions claim to have them.


My rather unusual definition (as you call it) of faith as "strongly held belief or theory" comes straight out of the dictionary.


You need to look at the use of the word in practice and also take context in consideration. You will notice that nobody will ever say “I have faith that 2+2=4” even though it would be a perfectly fine thing to say according to your definition. Ergo, your definition is lacking, and I already pointed out why.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


I think we are using "logic" in two ways. The definition that I have in mind is formal logic like that taught in college.
Your use of the word seems more general. Yes there is plenty of evidence of a logical nature to support the Bibile.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 


Your comments are getting longer and mine are getting shorter.

Now that we agree that we are both using valid but different definitions, where do we go from here?

I will leave it to the readers of this debate draw what conclusions they can from our comments.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:38 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


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


www.youtube.com...


SEEKING ALLAH, FINDING JESUS (At Georgia Tech)

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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

www.youtube.com...

= = =

RAVI Z . . . answers STEPHEN HAWKING PART 1

= = =


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

= = =

RAVI Z ... THE UNIQUENESS OF CHRIST:

www.youtube.com...


= = =

RAVI Z ... RICHARD DAWKINS GAFFE 2012

= = =

RAVI Z ... WHO ARE YOU, REALLY?

www.youtube.com...


= = =

RAVI Z ... A MUSLIM STUDENT CHALLENGES RAVI Z

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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

www.youtube.com...

= = =

Is Tolerance Intolerant? Pursuing the Climate of Acceptance and Inclusion

www.youtube.com...

= = =

Science, Atheism & Freewill - Dr. Ravi Zacharias respond

www.youtube.com...


= = =

RAVI Z ... THE PROBLEM OF PLEASURE

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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


www.youtube.com...

= = =

Ravi Zacharias - How To Measure Your Choices

www.youtube.com...

= = =

A Muslim Confronts Ravi Zacharias In Regards To Christianity.

www.youtube.com...

= = =

Sufficient Evidence - Ravi Zacharias Q & A

www.youtube.com...


= = =

WHAT IS TRUTH-- Ravi Zacharias and Dennis Prager respond

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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

www.youtube.com...


= = =

Richard Dawkins Mocks Religious and Ravi Zacharias Responds

www.youtube.com...


= = =

www.youtube.com...


www.amazon.com...


NICK VUJICIC AT DUMC

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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

www.youtube.com...

= = =

WRETCHED: AN ATHEIST PROFESSOR CONVERTS TO CHRISTIANITY

www.youtube.com...

= = =

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.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:47 AM
link   
reply to post by leostokes
 


I am tying to explain that your definitions are wrong. Your conclusion that we agree that both definition are correct is odd at least. It seems you did not read my post and you ignore any argument I bring to the table. Your only counter argument seems to be that my post is longer and that should imply something?

Anyway, people won't change their mind over an internet exchange. Religious people will continue to use similar incorrect definitions as you are and will continue to equate science with religion.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:53 AM
link   
reply to post by BO XIAN
 


Ok, thanks for the information. I am way behind on this. Give me some time to catch up.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by -PLB-
 





The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance it is the illusion of knowledge.
-- Stephen Hawking


That quote from your signature

very much slices both ways.

That you seem unaware of that FACT is very telling.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 08:56 AM
link   

-PLB-
reply to post by leostokes
 


I am tying to explain that your definitions are wrong. Your conclusion that we agree that both definition are correct is odd at least. It seems you did not read my post and you ignore any argument I bring to the table. Your only counter argument seems to be that my post is longer and that should imply something?

Anyway, people won't change their mind over an internet exchange. Religious people will continue to use similar incorrect definitions as you are and will continue to equate science with religion.


Well if you want to continue this I will be more explicit. My definition came from the dictionary and is therefore correct. I will not change from this position.

I have acknowledged the validity of your definition.

It seems to me that you consider this debate a sport where you are determined to win and have the last word. You seem to insist that I yield. You are a cyber bully.

I leave it to the readers to act as judges to designate the winner of the debate.
edit on 6-11-2013 by leostokes because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2013 by leostokes because: spelling



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:16 AM
link   

BO XIAN

leostokes


There is no question that science is based on logical deduction and religion is not.


I mostly disagree. My faith is built on a very logical foundation. Just because others with different biases deny my logic and my foundation does not change the truths of the logic or of the foundation.


You believe in a creator when there's absolutely no evidence for it. In order to support this belief you interpret the bible as an incredibly loose metaphor where days become billions of years, yet other places are interpreted as truth for some reason.

It's the complete opposite of logic and I personally find it disturbing and insulting if you were able to teach while holding such backward views/no understanding of science and logic.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:28 AM
link   
reply to post by bastion
 





I personally find it disturbing and insulting


Why do you say this to some one you disagree with? Why make it personal?

If every one agreed with each other, lawyers would be out of business.



posted on Nov, 6 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   

leostokes
reply to post by bastion
 





I personally find it disturbing and insulting


Why do you say this to some one you disagree with? Why make it personal?

If every one agreed with each other, lawyers would be out of business.



I'm a private tutor in Science, Maths and English and think teaching is one of the most noble professions there is, so see abusing that position as disgusting. I see lying to children and misleading them in this way as child abuse. Teaching them 'logic' in this fashion means having to lie about the entire process of logic, scientific method etc...which deprives people of an education and puts them at a major disadvantage for the rest of their lives. Instead of being able to separate fact from fiction themselves, they're always going to be at the mercy of others to tell them what to think if they don't learn these essential skills.

There's nothing wrong with having beliefs as long as people don't try and pretend they're facts.
edit on 6-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join