Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

originally posted by: TzarChasm
...but science isn't a person. Are you talking about science here, or people? They are not synonymous. Science is a methodology independent of the minds that practice it. Science is a discipline, but it's the application of this discipline that has earned it such respect. Again, the proof is in the execution.

. . . .

And . . . which has earned the discipline the fitting DISRESPECT

for those portions of it which have become afflicted with wholesale corruption, graft, hidden & not so hidden money driven agendas, power-mongering, selfishness, turf guarding, personal kingdom building, etc. etc. etc. a list of features common to the worst of religions--particularly the Religion of Scientism.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Can you be more specific, maybe provide some examples?

Thanks for a worthy and fitting post with wonderful points.

originally posted by: Brokenmirrorpng
This is the precise reason why I have stopped trusting people when they call me crazy for the things I have seen, the things other people have seen, ect.

As the opening said we don't even see 1/10th of a percent of all there is to see and yet the yokels expect me to believe 'we don't see it, it doesn't exist' Humankind is so blasted simpleminded it nauseates me to my core.

It has always struck me as UNSCIENTIFIC for soooooooo many Religion of Scientism acolytes to be soooooo knee-jerk dismissive of things THEY PERSONALLY just happen to have NOT seen . . . as though their extremely finite and tiny slice of observed reality encompasses all that has ever occurred to anyone anywhere ever. What ignorant and arrogant stupidity!

It is AT THAT VERY POINT that the arrogance of the Religion of Scientism rears it's ugly, myopic, narrow, rigid and ignorant head.

Much of the paranormal is based on energy waves and other such things we have no hope of explaining. The fancy science men might be able to. But this 'NWO' will make sure to keep us good and ignorant. Only letting out whatever small shreds of 'truth' to keep the LCD[lowest common denominator] Satisfied. The fools..I won't delude myself into think[ing] there are people out to ruin everyone's individual lives. However I DO agree the people that rule over the rulers do exist and they have agendas.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. And they are masterful at creating and manipulating religious fervor under a variety of guises and labels to further their deadly and tyrannical agendas. A lot of the rabid contrarians on this thread flinch at the least notion that ANY religion might crimp their style, clip their wings or influence or control them in the least way. All the while they appear to be utterly blind to how seriously, comprehensively, and tenaciouisly the Religion of Scientism ALREADY !!!CONTROLS!!! them.

However where it goes into conspiracy territory for me is i feel there is something puppeting the puppetmasters. This is what we call 'god' Whether you believe such a thing is inconsequential.

I'd call it the imposter god pretending to be and aspiring to be Almighty God. He knows he won't succeed but he's sure intent on trashing as many humans as he can in the attempt. And he IS a SUPER master at manipulating humans via their pride, greed, corruption, selfishness, insecurities, immaturities etc.

I just feel this is a good place to let me true feelings out unlike most websites. This is not to say I don't believe science isn't real. There have been genuine discoveries.

Of course. And what a wonderful benefit so many of them have been to individuals and families far and wide. That has NEVER BEEN THE ISSUE NOR THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD! Sheesh.

However many more discoveries i feel have been stifled to keep the population ignorant.

I'd have thought that was public knowledge at this point. It is 'certainly elementary, my Dear Watson!' And it's not just been an isolated invention or principle or process here and there. I'd guesstimate there have been many dozens of such and possibly many 100's.

And the primary point I want to make is I'm not going to let people say my belief in the paranormal is invalid because some men in white coats have yet to prove it yet. And if the multiverse theory is any indication, many things have access to our reality. We would have to study thousands of different versions of the same general entity to even get the tiniest spectrum of how they act on the cosmic scale. This is why so many don't witness the same thing.

Excellent points.

Thanks for your impressive understanding and perceptiveness. Congrats.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... no one has a link to the website of the Church of Scientism?

About about their Credo?

Anyone testifying how glad they are to be Scientismatics?

We keep seeing this claim made here, about the "religion" of scientism ... but not a single shred of evidence has been presented.

This is a false claim.

(Dispute with actual evidence.)

The first rule of the Church of Scientism is that you cannot talk about the Church of Scientism.



More seriously:
Scientism - Wikipedia.
What is Scientism? - American Association for the Advancement of Science
Scientism - Rational Wiki
Scientism - The Basics of Philosophy

Apparently, it's a thing.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Thanks for a worthy and fitting post with wonderful points.

originally posted by: Brokenmirrorpng
This is the precise reason why I have stopped trusting people when they call me crazy for the things I have seen, the things other people have seen, ect.

As the opening said we don't even see 1/10th of a percent of all there is to see and yet the yokels expect me to believe 'we don't see it, it doesn't exist' Humankind is so blasted simpleminded it nauseates me to my core.

It has always struck me as UNSCIENTIFIC for soooooooo many Religion of Scientism acolytes to be soooooo knee-jerk dismissive of things THEY PERSONALLY just happen to have NOT seen . . . as though their extremely finite and tiny slice of observed reality encompasses all that has ever occurred to anyone anywhere ever. What ignorant and arrogant stupidity!

It is AT THAT VERY POINT that the arrogance of the Religion of Scientism rears it's ugly, myopic, narrow, rigid and ignorant head.

Much of the paranormal is based on energy waves and other such things we have no hope of explaining. The fancy science men might be able to. But this 'NWO' will make sure to keep us good and ignorant. Only letting out whatever small shreds of 'truth' to keep the LCD[lowest common denominator] Satisfied. The fools..I won't delude myself into think[ing] there are people out to ruin everyone's individual lives. However I DO agree the people that rule over the rulers do exist and they have agendas.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED. And they are masterful at creating and manipulating religious fervor under a variety of guises and labels to further their deadly and tyrannical agendas. A lot of the rabid contrarians on this thread flinch at the least notion that ANY religion might crimp their style, clip their wings or influence or control them in the least way. All the while they appear to be utterly blind to how seriously, comprehensively, and tenaciouisly the Religion of Scientism ALREADY !!!CONTROLS!!! them.

However where it goes into conspiracy territory for me is i feel there is something puppeting the puppetmasters. This is what we call 'god' Whether you believe such a thing is inconsequential.

I'd call it the imposter god pretending to be and aspiring to be Almighty God. He knows he won't succeed but he's sure intent on trashing as many humans as he can in the attempt. And he IS a SUPER master at manipulating humans via their pride, greed, corruption, selfishness, insecurities, immaturities etc.

I just feel this is a good place to let me true feelings out unlike most websites. This is not to say I don't believe science isn't real. There have been genuine discoveries.

Of course. And what a wonderful benefit so many of them have been to individuals and families far and wide. That has NEVER BEEN THE ISSUE NOR THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD! Sheesh.

However many more discoveries i feel have been stifled to keep the population ignorant.

I'd have thought that was public knowledge at this point. It is 'certainly elementary, my Dear Watson!' And it's not just been an isolated invention or principle or process here and there. I'd guesstimate there have been many dozens of such and possibly many 100's.

And the primary point I want to make is I'm not going to let people say my belief in the paranormal is invalid because some men in white coats have yet to prove it yet. And if the multiverse theory is any indication, many things have access to our reality. We would have to study thousands of different versions of the same general entity to even get the tiniest spectrum of how they act on the cosmic scale. This is why so many don't witness the same thing.

Excellent points.

Thanks for your impressive understanding and perceptiveness. Congrats.

Examples??

If you break science down it consists of only a few things

First you ask a question. ( Example... Does a ski hat generate heat) Many children believe ski hats generate heat because their heads get warm when they wear them

Second, you devise a test to answer the question. ( Example Put the ski hat in a controlled environment and also place a thermometer in the ski hat)

You can the answer the question.

Third you ask follow up questions and you may use the results of the first experiment in doing follow up research.

That is the scientific method in a nutshell.

Do scientists get things wrong.. Sometimes yes sometimes they get it right. That's where publishing your work in peer reviewed journals comes into play. If you do sloppy work, you will be harshly criticized by your peer group. (Other scientists who work in the same area)

Is that religion... I don't think so

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

...

Science makes claims based on evidence. Religion makes claims based on belief.

...

Are you sure that this is always and only ever the case?

Demonstrate the evidence for the Big Bang, black holes or cosmic inflation to me. Not a few weird facts that fit the theories, real evidence that excludes all other possibilities.

Or perhaps look at the numbers of people who have received miraculous revelation or witnessed events that are only explicable as miracles? Most are only a 'one off' so you'd probably say it isn't evidence enough for you or a scientist, but there is less 'evidence' for things science assumes to exist, like the Big Bang, black holes & cosmic inflation, than there is for several reported 'miracles'.

a reply to: chr0naut

LOLOLOL.

GREAT LINKS. Thanks tons.

I didn't actually realize that others had used the term. It just seemed like a logical term to coin, to me. LOL.

I'm glad others saw such things before me.

I was going to start looking up some links about some of our assertions but just haven't gotten to it, yet.

BIG THANKS.

Of course, I have NO DOUBT that the contrarian Religion of Scientism acolytes screaming and whining the loudest on this thread will admit anything about those links.

Their !!!DEMANDS!!! for evidence are evidently not about a real, true desire to see evidence as much as their demands are a strategy to find additional excuses to whine and throw poo and dust in the air and all over the thread.

I've known better behaved 2 year olds.

a reply to: Wildbob77

You are talking about straw dogs again.

You insist on talking about 'wet birds flying at night' when that's NOT the topic of the OP.

Again, the topic of the OP is about the sociological and psychological factors and influences that have contributed to the morphing of great chunks of the scientific establishments into a true religious movement, force, ideology.

originally posted by: Wildbob77
If you break science down it consists of only a few things

First you ask a question. ( Example... Does a ski hat generate heat) Many children believe ski hats generate heat because their heads get warm when they wear them

Second, you devise a test to answer the question. ( Example Put the ski hat in a controlled environment and also place a thermometer in the ski hat)

You can the answer the question. That is the scientific method in a nutshell.

Is that religion... I don't think so

That is really, really oversimplifying it. And here is the question I really want answered: why would science want to deny a deity? If control is the point, history proves that a lot of people are willing to kill or die for a god, for something bigger than themselves. Science could just give us a god and have us eating out of some big wigs hand. It's much more convenient to give everyone exactly what they want. New world order would be a monarchy under the wizard of Oz. What's the hold up?

a reply to: TzarChasm

Stay tuned . . . I doubt that science at most levels will cease to deny the looming deity on the not distant horizon . . . not too many years hence.

The trends building toward that day have to reach their apex before tooooo long. It would be counter productive to allow that apex to come and go without the revealing of said world leader/'deity.'

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So ... no one has a link to the website of the Church of Scientism?

About about their Credo?

Anyone testifying how glad they are to be Scientismatics?

We keep seeing this claim made here, about the "religion" of scientism ... but not a single shred of evidence has been presented.

This is a false claim.

(Dispute with actual evidence.)

The first rule of the Church of Scientism is that you cannot talk about the Church of Scientism.

More seriously:
Scientism - Wikipedia.
What is Scientism? - American Association for the Advancement of Science
Scientism - Rational Wiki
Scientism - The Basics of Philosophy

Apparently, it's a thing.

I'm aware of the term. It's a made up "thing." You know this. You know the context in which those sources discuss the "idea."

So again, a bit more honestly ...

Where are the Church of Scientism websites? Where are the worshippers claiming that Scientism changed their lives? Where are the "I *heart* Scientism" t-shirts? Where is the Catechism of Scientism, the Credo, or even the Songbook?

Oh, that's right, they don't exist.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: chr0naut

LOLOLOL.

GREAT LINKS. Thanks tons.

I didn't actually realize that others had used the term. It just seemed like a logical term to coin, to me. LOL.

I'm glad others saw such things before me.

I was going to start looking up some links about some of our assertions but just haven't gotten to it, yet.

BIG THANKS.

Of course, I have NO DOUBT that the contrarian Religion of Scientism acolytes screaming and whining the loudest on this thread will admit anything about those links.

Their !!!DEMANDS!!! for evidence are evidently not about a real, true desire to see evidence as much as their demands are a strategy to find additional excuses to whine and throw poo and dust in the air and all over the thread.

I've known better behaved 2 year olds.

Imagine that someone on ATS asks for evidence to back up a claim. That is unusual.

I wasn't aware that asking for something ... anything ... to back up wild assertions as have been made here was so out-of-line.

So ... if you're done with the sad attempts at passive-aggressive diffusion and diversion, please, kindly, with all honor, provide links to an actual Church of Scientism, or followers giving their testimonies about what Scientism has done for them, or any sort of statement of faith or beliefs for the supposed Church ... and when you can't, could you at least acknowledge the truth of the matter?

That'd seem to be the Christian thing to do ... /shrug

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: chr0naut

...

Science makes claims based on evidence. Religion makes claims based on belief.

...

Are you sure that this is always and only ever the case?

Demonstrate the evidence for the Big Bang, black holes or cosmic inflation to me. Not a few weird facts that fit the theories, real evidence that excludes all other possibilities.

Or perhaps look at the numbers of people who have received miraculous revelation or witnessed events that are only explicable as miracles? Most are only a 'one off' so you'd probably say it isn't evidence enough for you or a scientist, but there is less 'evidence' for things science assumes to exist, like the Big Bang, black holes & cosmic inflation, than there is for several reported 'miracles'.

So, provide evidence but only that which excludes everything you don't approve of?

Sorry, that's belief, not science. That's apparently your bivouac not mine.

The "numbers" of people who have received miraculous revelation? Like whom? Surely if there are "numbers" you can cite this ample evidence? Let's take a look at it rather than having you dodge the issue with logical fallacies.

Notably, your false equivalence comparing accepted theories and models based on actual evidence that anyone can observe with subjective, belief-based religious experiences (that offer no opportunity for anyone at any time to objectively review the claim) is ludicrous (not to mention specious and very nearly dishonest) on its face.

As far as a basic primer on the facts regarding these ideas about natural (i.e. real) phenomena that you've chosen ... may I suggest Wikipedia to start?

Then when you've got a grasp on what the observations actually are that backup the models and theories, you can offer your alternative solution that better fits the facts?

Awesome.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: chr0naut

LOLOLOL.

GREAT LINKS. Thanks tons.

I didn't actually realize that others had used the term. It just seemed like a logical term to coin, to me. LOL.

I'm glad others saw such things before me.

I was going to start looking up some links about some of our assertions but just haven't gotten to it, yet.

BIG THANKS.

Of course, I have NO DOUBT that the contrarian Religion of Scientism acolytes screaming and whining the loudest on this thread will admit anything about those links.

Their !!!DEMANDS!!! for evidence are evidently not about a real, true desire to see evidence as much as their demands are a strategy to find additional excuses to whine and throw poo and dust in the air and all over the thread.

I've known better behaved 2 year olds.

There are those who see science like the hammer of reason, and for them, everything looks like a nail. But science really is vastly different than faith.

Science will never save your soul.

originally posted by: chr0naut
But science really is vastly different than faith.

Agreed.

/thread

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: chr0naut
But science really is vastly different than faith.

Agreed.

/thread

So what that means is that People dont need to have faith in science. That dont add up. All you People who dont understand science must have faith in science sinse you claim you do understand it.

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: chr0naut
But science really is vastly different than faith.

Agreed.

/thread

So what that means is that People dont need to have faith in science. That dont add up. All you People who dont understand science must have faith in science sinse you claim you do understand it.

Chr0naut stated that faith and science are vastly different. I agreed, and humorously used the "/thread" marker as that counters the OP's contention succinctly and completely.

For the record though, "having faith" in science is not required. Science speaks from observable, reproducible evidence.

Unless you are using "faith" when you mean confidence. Is that what you mean?

Signed, One of the People

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

imho and in my experience . . . my Christianity has offered farrrrr MORE answers that have been far more reliable to what I've observed in life

than science has.

For me it hasnt. But to each his own without my PC i would have been getting layed far less often.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: chr0naut
But science really is vastly different than faith.

Agreed.

/thread

So what that means is that People dont need to have faith in science. That dont add up. All you People who dont understand science must have faith in science sinse you claim you do understand it.

Chr0naut stated that faith and science are vastly different. I agreed, and humorously used the "/thread" marker as that counters the OP's contention succinctly and completely.

For the record though, "having faith" in science is not required. Science speaks from observable, reproducible evidence.

Unless you are using "faith" when you mean confidence. Is that what you mean?

Signed, One of the People

But science and faith aren't mutually exclusive.

For instance, I have a Christian faith AND a love of doing science.

I would suspect that the majority of Christians are similarly not prejudiced against science.