Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: cooperton
No one is saying science isn't real. It is the deluded leaders of the theoretical faithwork of science that are the problem. They tout theory as fact and excommunicate anyone who disagrees.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The RELIGIOUS FERVOR that CHARACTERIZES personal, group and institutionalized BELIEFS about science and the topics of science--the RELIGIOUS FERVOR, religious habits, religious strategies, religious memes, religious dynamics etc. USED BY THE LEADERS of scientific institutions are the issue.

And, mostly, I consider that to be a SCIENTIFIC FACT--more or less unarguable.

Either the light switch is on, or it is off.

Either the behaviors, pontifications, choices, actions, attitudes etc. MATCH the RELIGIOUS PATTERN, or they don't.

And this psychologist/sociologist insists that they IN FACT, DO MATCH the RELIGIOUS PATTERNS true for more or less all religious around the world--including the RELIGION OF SCIENTISM.

originally posted by: GetHyped

You posted a bizarre attempt to reconcile religious scripture with your own misunderstandings of animal biology prefaced with some mumbo jumbo that also manages to deny pretty much all of the fields of natural science.

What did I deny from the field of natural science? Do you not know what the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous system are? You are incapable of thinking beyond the commands of your scientific priesthood, so any concepts that contradict your beloved theories are disposed without question - can you challenge any of the scientific fact that I presented?

BO XIAN, these are your bedfellows. Enjoy!

You're a textbook parrot stuck in the 19th century.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

The RELIGIOUS FERVOR that CHARACTERIZES personal, group and institutionalized BELIEFS about science and the topics of science--the RELIGIOUS FERVOR, religious habits, religious strategies, religious memes, religious dynamics etc. USED BY THE LEADERS of scientific institutions are the issue.

It is a shame too. If their infallible dogmatic theories could be forgotten for just a day of teaching they would realize the paradoxical nature of their beloved theories. Because anyone that challenges their dogma must be a "scientifcally illiterate" person, their ears are closed.

a reply to: Sremmos80

The peer review process is saturated with RELIGIOUS dynamics.

It is corrupt almost to an extreme degree.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: cooperton

No one says theory is fact except for you all to set up the strawman. Theory is an explanation, one that is supported by observation and experiments that can be reproduced that are then peer reviewed.

I wish you were right, but people act as though theory is fact, and infallible:

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

Evolution is a fact. If you are unwilling to learn about it, thats fine. But dont spread lies.

Evolution is FACT.

originally posted by: peter vlar
genetics seals the deal here. Evolution is a fact.

^^^this is how ravenous this religious fervor has become. Any empirical evidence that contradicts such dogma is immediately dismissed by the priesthood

a reply to: cooperton

Classic, we've stooped straight into science denial! Exactly as expected.

The irony of decrying science as a religion when you instead deny science in favor of fundamentalist religion is not lost on you.

Edit: Now we've got the fundamentalist religious science denialist cards on the table, what next? Vaccines cause autism? Bo, got any views on that? Come on, let's get 'em all down for all to see.

a reply to: cooperton

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

Gate-keeping OUT contrary perspectives, theories, data, findings

is A RELIGIOUS dynamic and happens routinely in "science" . . . at universities, peer reviewed journals, professional conferences etc.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Classic, we've stooped straight into science denial! Exactly as expected.

The irony of decrying science as a religion when you instead deny science in favor of fundamentalist religion is not lost on you.

What are you talking about? I have not denied science (defined as the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment). I have only denied obsolete ignorant theory.

a reply to: cooperton

Anyone can click through your posting history on the Origins & Creationism forum to see how far you bend logic to deny science.

Vaccines cause autism? Any takers?

Or perhaps Wi-Fi causes cancer? I'm open to all offers.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: cooperton

Anyone can click through your posting history on the Origins & Creationism forum to see how far you bend logic to deny science.

No one here is denying science, we are just trying to dismantle the "infallible" priesthood from their thrones and show their acolytes the fallacy of their theoretical beliefs.

The fact that you're calling anyone who doesn't fall in line with your beliefs a "science denier" exemplifies the fervor of your religious beliefs.

a reply to: cooperton

No one is saying science isn't real. It is the deluded leaders of the theoretical faithwork of science that are the problem. They tout theory as fact and excommunicate anyone who disagrees.

The meaning of the word "theory" in the scientific sense is drastically different to what it means among laymen. Which definition are you using?

Who are the "leaders"? There may indeed be a problem with the leadership and the development of cult-like attitudes but that is a problem of humans and human corruption rather than inherent to science itself.

Some measure of "faith" in science is necessary for the population at large because the alternative is beyond feasible. Some people can barely write coherent sentences using their primary language, let alone develop a complex and near-perfect understanding of all aspects of "science" ranging from genetic modification to quantum mechanics.

The problem we once again will ultimately run into is that if you define science as a religion than the paradigm shifts from all religions being ultimately equal to one religion being clearly superior, standing over all others. (Science.)

The difference between science and (for instance) Christianity is that science gives you the internet and Christianity gives you a man who is not a man but may or may not actually be the son of God yet also God as well as an ambiguous third entity that died approximately two thousand years ago to absolve you of sins there is no way of measuring or otherwise perceiving until after death inherited from the first human created by a God that has not revealed any obvious signs as to Its ambiguous presence while having many ascribed characteristics that contain fundamental logical contradictions. There are also hundreds of other religions with similarities and dissimilarities that also claim to be the one true interpretation.

(the religion of) Science tells you it's the best and shows you why it's the best by giving you essentially all of human civilization.
The majority of religions just tell you they're the best and leave it at that. Any possible results are typically only observable after death, which is useless and irrelevant. Threats of punishment if you do not follow them are also common. It's like an invisibility potion that only works if you've already been discovered by the thing you needed it to avoid discovery by. Perhaps the effects of the potion are genuine, but they are impossible to confirm until it is already too late. Also, not buying the potion means the person you love will hate you forever.

If there is some sort of Christian-like God, I'm looking forward to hearing Its story. Perhaps It just set the universe in motion and decided to watch it like a TV show because It was bored. Of course, that's giving motivations and perspective similar to our own to a nigh-omnipotent entity with no beginning that created (or set in motion) All That Is, which is absolutely RIDICULOUS.
Generally we do this to make us feel important in the grand scheme of things - a scheme that may or may not even exist. The alternative is to admit that we are even less important than the singular molecule of glucose contained within a bacterium three meters underground on an uninhabited island.

Human conceit.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Genius thinking. Most people are unaware of the reality of the new "Age of Reason": indeed, many become the fanaticists as described below.

From "Survivre" no. 9, August/September 1971:

The pursuit of science "is just as irrational and emotional in its motives and just as intolerant in its daily practices as any of the traditional religions it has taken over from... It is not enough for it that it claims that its myths alone are true; it is the only religion which has the arrogance to claim that it is not based on any myth at all but on Reason alone, and whose particular mixture of intolerance and amorality is presented as tolerance."

From "Mythology" (Chambers Compact Reference):

"Science...presents itself as Truth, other than which there is none; it denies everything which cannot be encompassed within its sphere. The only justification for this exclusion is subjective. It is not founded on reason, it is irrational. It does, in fact, display a mythological nature.

Like the classical myth, 'scientism' has its images: the ideal society where everything is listed, counted and measured (Aldous Huxley, Brave New World). Like the classical myth, it is separated from the man of today by time (past or future); like the classical myth, it is full of social rites, churches and clergy; like the classical myth it is sustained by faith, sometimes even by fanaticism. In short, it has created a new form of myth."

Nope. The atomic clocks are erroneously showing faster time coz, in conditions of time dilation the caesium atom puts out a higher freq than normal as the time vector is stretched. In fact opp of einsteins GR is true
a reply to: Masterjaden

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn

Who are the "leaders"? There may indeed be a problem with the leadership and the development of cult-like attitudes but that is a problem of humans and human corruption rather than inherent to science itself.

Certainly not a problem with science itself. by "leaders" i mean those, such as Richard Dawkins, who are going around touting theory as fact, and dismissing any historical or empirical observation that contradicts such beliefs. The acolytes are the ones who listen to these teachers of the law without consulting the empirical evidence on their own.

Some measure of "faith" in science is necessary for the population at large because the alternative is beyond feasible. Some people can barely write coherent sentences using their primary language, let alone develop a complex and near-perfect understanding of all aspects of "science" ranging from genetic modification to quantum mechanics.

Although i think all are capable of coming to true understanding, I see what you are saying. And unfortunately these are often the biggest proponents of these theories, touting them as fact, when the extent of their studies is the opinions of others.

The problem we once again will ultimately run into is that if you define science as a religion than the paradigm shifts from all religions being ultimately equal to one religion being clearly superior, standing over all others. (Science.)

I look at spirituality and science as being two sides on the coin of understanding. A time is coming and has already come when these two fields will be lucidly united, its just a matter of knowing where to look in the pool of empirical evidence.

The difference between science and (for instance) Christianity is that science gives you the internet and Christianity gives you a man who is not a man but may or may not actually be the son of God yet also God as well as an ambiguous third entity that died approximately two thousand years ago to absolve you of sins there is no way of measuring or otherwise perceiving until after death inherited from the first human created by a God that has not revealed any obvious signs as to Its ambiguous presence while having many ascribed characteristics that contain fundamental logical contradictions. There are also hundreds of other religions with similarities and dissimilarities that also claim to be the one true interpretation.

Syncretism is the field of finding the commonalities among various religions. You'll find they agree considerably on many concepts once you look beyond the semantic differences. The mysteries of the Christ are surely very deep. A narrow-minded viewpoint that microscopes too deeply into scientific theory without acknowledging the human experience, spirituality, love, etc, renders the truth-seeker blind from the bigger picture.

(the religion of) Science tells you it's the best and shows you why it's the best by giving you essentially all of human civilization.

Yes, but the promised land on earth for those who unveil the secrets of the words of the Living God are much more grandiose than any human-made technology.

The majority of religions just tell you they're the best and leave it at that.

Have you read the Gospel/New Testament recently? Within it are the keys to Life anew, True Liberation from limitation.

Any possible results are typically only observable after death, which is useless and irrelevant.

"In the Eternal Sea
Where stands the sacred Tree of Life.
Do not wait for death
To reveal the great mystery;
If you know not your Heavenly Father
While your feet tread the dusty soil,
There shall be naught but shadows for thee
In the life that is to come."
Essene Gospel book 2

Also see John 8:51-58 ("Whoever obeys my words will never taste death") and John 11:25-26

In other words, don't stop seeking until you have found. It is a satanic misnomer that Heaven can only be achieved after death. He is God of the Living, not the dead.

Threats of punishment if you do not follow them are also common.

Not so much a threat as it is a matter-of-fact statement; if you want to find Real Life, beyond this Babylonian nightmare, follow his commands. (Hint: most "Christians" do not actually follow his commands") Here is one who did: The Enlightenment Part 0

Generally we do this to make us feel important in the grand scheme of things - a scheme that may or may not even exist.

This is why the secularist agenda is so detrimental - it makes people believe that life is meaningless and we're lucky to even be alive, when the fact of the matter is that there is much more to life for those who earnestly seek it, rather than fall in line with the robots.

originally posted by: aethertek
a reply to: BO XIAN
No not trying to ban anything, not trying to censor you.
You're free to rant all the ignorant nonsense that you wish.
Please continue as I find it entertaining, I just ask that you take your delusional posting to the proper forum.

The Science & Technology forum is for the discussion of exactly that, science & technology not useless religulous fantasy visions of conspiracy.

K~

You see how angry and up-in-arms people are getting? It's a case study in zealotry. The majority of these people don't understand the majority of the science they're so zealous about. Similar to the way that Medieval church-goers were taught liturgy in Latin, though they couldn't understand Latin themselves.

originally posted by: ReprobateRaccoon
Science allows me to build my own destiny based on my personal research and achievements.

Sounds pretty religious to me.

Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

You ain't just a whistlin Dixie there.

True Story.

Just like the Deification of the STATE.

Science is being deified now.

Funny that science is meant to be questioned.

But whole lot of it's worshippers saying you can't.

It's settled.

Just like RELIGION.

Incontrovertible proof !

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.

Science and religion are two completely different things. In fact, together, science and philosophy (the latter of which religion is a component), comprise the totality of human knowledge and wisdom.

They are both tools used by people to understand the world. Because these are human tools, humans mess them both up tremendously.

However, please understand, both science and philosophy are equally important.


First, let's talk about philosophy. It is the framework behind all things which CANNOT BE FALSIFIED, such as morality, ethics, religion, spirituality, etc.

Science, on the other hand, is the framework behind all things which CAN BE FALSIFIED, the ONLY suitable tool for understanding cause/effect relationships in the natural world.

They really are very different things.

I find statements like "modern science is a religion" to be blanket statements loaded with bias, and therefore not conducive to meaningful conversation. The truth is in the details (and so is the Devil).

In my experience, the kind of people most likely to accuse science of being a religion are people who have a particular pet theory which has been soundly refuted by actual observation and measurement. But the beauty of science is that it's all FALSIFIABLE. Don't believe in evolution? No problem! Just go find a Pre-Cambrian hippo fossil. Don't like relativity? No problem! Just go find a reference frame where the speed of light in a vacuum is not measured at C.

Saying that science is a religion does not falsify anything.

Most scientists on this planet don't wear white coats at all. They're one and only use is for laboratory experiments. Every time you see a scientist on TV or in movies wearing a lab coat. 95% of the time it's just for show, to make the audience know who the scientist in the room is.

a reply to: Nochzwei

absolutely, that is an illustration of the ops point though and WHY I stated it doesn't PROVE time dilation, merely supports it. All it REALLY shows is that when close to a source of gravity, the oscillation frequency of the atom changes.

The fact that many BELIEVE that it PROVES time dilation, is EXACTLY what the op is talking about. That includes MANY scientists BTW...

Jaden

I do agree and it's good to see people are starting to catch onto this. Obviously, I am NOT saying that the processes which make my computer work are not real or that science didn't make it all possible. I am saying that the reverence for science that the general public has, has been, continues to be and will continue to be one of the most widely abused facts (outside of religion) in human history.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Nochzwei

absolutely, that is an illustration of the ops point though and WHY I stated it doesn't PROVE time dilation, merely supports it. All it REALLY shows is that when close to a source of gravity, the oscillation frequency of the atom changes.

The fact that many BELIEVE that it PROVES time dilation, is EXACTLY what the op is talking about. That includes MANY scientists BTW...

Jaden

Time is merely the ticking of a clock, or -- in this case -- the oscillating of an atom. Time appears to dilate per the rules of GR, at least in the near-earth fields where we have been able to conduct measurement.

That does not mean that every element of GR is proven. GR is a theory, and as such, can never really be proven -- only supported. However, it is one of the best supported models in all of science.