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.

 

How is science NOT a religion?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Let's briefly examine the hierarchy of Catholicism. There are the laity, the people who don't really study the Bible, the clergy, people who for the most part just regurgitate what others have studied and researched, then there are the top researchers, the Bishops, the Saints, etc., all the way up to the Pope.

That's it in a nutshell.

www.youtube.com...

Listen to this debate on global warming, which includes terms of "laity" and "Eminent Scientists".

What even makes an Eminent scientist?

Doesn't matter.....what is important is Science is a religion, as much a hierarchical religion as Catholicism. Not everyone can understand Quantum Physics, so some Bishop or Saint studies Quantum Physics, he relates his findings through a "peer review" (exposed as a fraud anyway) to the clergy, who regurgitate it to the masses.

And we're just supposed to take their word for it? SERIOUSLY?

That is every bit as much a FAITH as any other.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 12:52 PM
link   
It depends on the science. Most science has been proven so they are beyond the claim of "theory". Then there's the theoretical. Evolution comes to mind. Loads of data to prove it but there are pieces of the puzzle still missing. Thus still a theory and yes, to believe in that requires an amount of faith. Let's not go "quantum". I barely understood Trig.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:06 PM
link   
You cant test regions in a test tube.

If you cant believe what you are seeing and explain fully with maths and science then you can call it what you like.

I can take any fully explained science and gather an experiment which will work out exactly as written.


Religions are referred to as faiths because you ONLY have words, nothing of any substance to test and examine for yourself.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:07 PM
link   

intrepid
It depends on the science. Most science has been proven so they are beyond the claim of "theory". Then there's the theoretical. Evolution comes to mind. Loads of data to prove it but there are pieces of the puzzle still missing. Thus still a theory and yes, to believe in that requires an amount of faith. Let's not go "quantum". I barely understood Trig.


Most science has been "Accepted", not proved. There is a stark and profound difference. It is usually accepted because it provides something useful to man, a geological explanation proves useful to finding more ore. A scientific principle proves useful to technology...etc.

But they aren't proofs.

Not only are they not proofs, but our technology is really limited, all our electricity comes from boiling water, and all our energy is used to move dirt around.

Humans have just become really good at boiling water and moving dirt.

That's about it. If those two things were to fail, our economies would crumble into dust.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Biigs
You cant test regions in a test tube.

If you cant believe what you are seeing and explain fully with maths and science then you can call it what you like.

I can take any fully explained science and gather an experiment which will work out exactly as written.


Religions are referred to as faiths because you ONLY have words, nothing of any substance to test and examine for yourself.


You can't take fully explained science and gather an experiment that is the point. Build your own nuclear reactor and get back to us on the veracity of Nuclear Physics.

You are lied to.

Look at the Global Warming Mess, two different opinions on the EXACT SAME SCIENCE. Opinions of GLOBAL CONSEQUENCE.
edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


What is proof to you?

Surely you are not asking for the proof of the origin of the atom?



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 





You can't take fully explained science and gather an experiment that is the point.


People repeat experiments every single day.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


You have that opinion and you think IM BEING LIED TO?

oooookay.

Do you need to get radiation poisoning attempting to make your own nuclear power before you will acknowledge science is real?

Nuclear stuff is extremely advanced, do you think electricity is a lie too? Because you can totally shock yourself at home to test it (i do not recommend it at all however).

Take just about anything, the food you eat and the reactions you have, the lights you have, your computer, how code works - all everyday science that very much exists. Its working everyday, all around you, a constant experiment proving over and over what we all KNOW as the truth.

Theres simply no way to compare being told about electricity and being shown it (and to play with it yourself). Faith is an idea with no proof or tests available.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 

Here's your video...




What even makes an Eminent scientist?

An eminent scientist is one who has proven to his/her peers to have excelled in grasping the dynamics of his/her given field. One who's understanding goes beyond cursory, and has an intimate understanding of the genre.


Doesn't matter.....

But it does matter. We aren't talking about someone who has just spent a lifetime reading books on the topic. This is someone who has done the research, and the experiments. One who has earned the respect they have been given.


what is important is Science is a religion, as much a hierarchical religion as Catholicism.

I won't argue this point. For some, it has become like a religion. They place as much faith in academia, as some place in God. However, their is a difference between faith in the scientific method, and faith in those who practice it. The former being much better founded, than the latter.


"peer review" (exposed as a fraud anyway)

Whoa there champ. Peer review has not been exposed as fraudulent. I will give you that peer review has its issues. Some of them are big issues, but to blanket all of the process as fraudulent is speaking from a lack of understanding, I feel. I did a thread on this. Researching it, and the input from Byrd and others, was very helpful in getting a realistic picture. www.abovetopsecret.com...


And we're just supposed to take their word for it? SERIOUSLY?

This is why white papers, and peer reviewed articles are presented. To give you the details on how conclusions were reached, and why. If you want to perform your own research and experiments. You're welcome to.

Don't get me wrong. I have my own problems with the academic heirarchy. Some of which can be evidenced, and some of which are suspicions. Not all those who look to science are religious about it. Those who do, need something to believe in as much as those who look to a god.



edit on 10/21/2013 by Klassified because: add link

edit on 10/21/2013 by Klassified because: clarity

edit on 10/21/2013 by Klassified because: redaction



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:15 PM
link   

FreeMason
Most science has been "Accepted", not proved.


Have to disagree with that. The vast amount of science that man has understood IS proven. If it wasn't how could we have gone to the moon? How could we have mapped the human genome? Continually beaten disease? Except cancer and we're well on the way to beating that bastard. 2/3 of Canadians with cancer survive now.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   

luciddream
reply to post by FreeMason
 





You can't take fully explained science and gather an experiment that is the point.


People repeat experiments every single day.


What experiments? Do you have a 2,000 supercomputer bank in your basement you're using to model climate sensitivity?

I don't think you actually get what I'm saying, the structure is that of a Mystery Religion. There is some Voodoo shaman at the top who sprinkles psychedelic drugs in the faces of an elite clergy and they dance around all mystical in front of you the lay person.

The science you claim is "repeatable" is in fact extremely limited in access. So you have NO way of telling yourself what conclusions they are really coming to. You cannot know.

You do not have a particle accelerator in your house.

The most "repeat experiments" you can do are simple things, child's experiments, like growing a cyrstal, or playing with bacteria in a petrie dish.

But because you can grow a crystal in a home kit, you think that you should believe these scientists and their conclusions on the Universe?

That is religion.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:19 PM
link   

intrepid

FreeMason
Most science has been "Accepted", not proved.


Have to disagree with that. The vast amount of science that man has understood IS proven. If it wasn't how could we have gone to the moon? How could we have mapped the human genome? Continually beaten disease? Except cancer and we're well on the way to beating that bastard. 2/3 of Canadians with cancer survive now.


We got to the moon by Classical physics which is KNOWN/ACCEPTED to be "FALSE" and "INACCURATE". So your example is perfect for my point.

The deeper the layers of the onion the more you realize we don't really know anything. We just have approximations that get us from A to B but explain nothing.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:22 PM
link   
Klassified I have examined your quote to see the "yvid" so I can use it from now on thanks.

As far as repeatabiilty of experiments, no, we just simply cannot. It's a nice thing on paper, like Communism, it just can't happen. Like I pointed out, we just don't all have access to Supercomputers and Nuclear Reactors.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


The two have nothing to do with one another, two completely different things

Science is an examination of formulas and mathematical theories to show proof for how things worth.
Religion is just faith.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   

unb3k44n7
reply to post by FreeMason
 


The two have nothing to do with one another, two completely different things

Science is an examination of formulas and mathematical theories to show proof for how things worth.
Religion is just faith.


If the two have nothing to do with each other then why are the two so similar in structure?

Why isn't science as accessible to the poor idiot masses as God? Except in these mystery religions where God is also not accessible to the poor idiot masses?

So why is science and these "religions" so similar in structure? Can you dwell on that?



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FreeMason
 


You're confused. The two have nothing to do with each other. At all.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

FreeMason
We got to the moon by Classical physics which is KNOWN/ACCEPTED to be "FALSE" and "INACCURATE". So your example is perfect for my point.

The deeper the layers of the onion the more you realize we don't really know anything. We just have approximations that get us from A to B but explain nothing.


No, if the science wasn't sound we couldn't have developed it further. Proven science is proven. Quantum, that's another story. You may be thinking about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:

en.wikipedia.org...

But most science that doesn't have a header like "The theory of...." is proven science. Math based. Damn I hate math.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:32 PM
link   

FreeMason

Look at the Global Warming Mess, two different opinions on the EXACT SAME SCIENCE. Opinions of GLOBAL CONSEQUENCE.
edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Typically denier distortion, here's the facts;
96% of scientists believe in the evidence of man induced global warming
4% don't

If you were about to board a plane and 96% of aero engineers said it will crash would you board or be skeptic and take the chance.......



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Well science can never be a "religion."

The reason for this is that science is always changing. Perhaps one year scientists think they have a really good explanation for something, but maybe new evidence arises and goes against what was previously thought. The only point of science is to find answers to questions.

Organised religions however, are religions because they go by faith, or hope. Religion is basically just the easy way of going about looking at the universe. Unlike science, religions claim that this and only this had happened. And when you look at religions, you begin to see that the logic behind it isn't very well thought out. Since in the bible you have talking snakes, 800 year old humans, giants, etc.

Plus, science doesn't promote the super-natural. It only wants to find facts about certain things. While religions have a strong insistence on the super-natural. And this super-natural ideology is what shapes that particular religion.



posted on Oct, 21 2013 @ 01:34 PM
link   

yorkshirelad

FreeMason

Look at the Global Warming Mess, two different opinions on the EXACT SAME SCIENCE. Opinions of GLOBAL CONSEQUENCE.
edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Typically denier distortion, here's the facts;
96% of scientists believe in the evidence of man induced global warming
4% don't

If you were about to board a plane and 96% of aero engineers said it will crash would you board or be skeptic and take the chance.......




You really bought hook-line-and-sinker the lie that climate change is anthropomorphic didn't you?

Do you have any evidence 96% of scientists agree? Or were you told that by your Bishop in the Church of Science?

NONE OF YOU CAN DENY YORKSHIRELAD'S FAITH IN HIS god!
edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join