Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 187

Thread: The equivalence of religion and science?

  1. #101
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Sorry, ignore them? What are you on about ?

  2. #102
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by TA Guy View Post
    ...Did the the big bang happen?...

    ...Science ... has accumulated more than enough evidence, direct, circumstantial and indirect, to prove the big bang did occur. I guess it's up to the individual whether they believe it or not...
    I contest that. Science has found evidence consistent with that theory, and not sufficient evidence to disprove it, for most scientists.

    As an exercise in scientific method many years ago I developed an alternative theory of creation - the "tiny pop" theory, and set out to disprove it. I have so far failed because of lack of time, expertise and resources.

    One part of the theory was that matter made matter. All it needs to disprove this is to find a spherical cold planentary body with a uniform surface. My theory predicted that more matter would be generated at he heavy core, leading to a build up of pressure which would crack the body and generate lava flows. This might account for the fact that the Earth is not a sphere covered in water. Smaller bodies might actually explode, which could explain the asteroid belt. This would mean that all "dead" planetary bodies would have a non-uniform surface, like the mare on the Moon.

    Background Cosmic radiation would not be the last echoes of the birth of the universe, but a sign of current growth.

    I have no belief that this theory is right. It was just an academic exercise. It does indicate that there might be alternative explanations yet to be put forward.

  3. #103
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I read "state atheism" as just another way of saying "secular democracy" which is what all "western democracies" have.
    I would call that secularism. State atheism occurs where atheism is the national religion and all other religions are discriminated against. It only happens when militant atheists acquire a position of power.
    State atheism was "not about atheism" in the same way that the Inquisition was "not about Christianity".

    Quote Originally Posted by Stuart M View Post
    Yes but the "state atheism" (Communism) in each case was a belief system* in all but name
    Oh, right. So they're not true atheists then? Similarly Crusaders weren't true Christians, and suicide bombers aren't true Muslims. How very equivalent of you.

  4. #104
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Sorry, ignore them? What are you on about ?
    DS, I can keep this up ad-infinitum, and although it is fun it's also a negative thing to do: so I'll give it a rest as I'm sure it's not helpful to you either to spend your time going backwards and forwards with me on what I'm sure we would agree is a fairly pointless exchange of posts. What you intend to do is, of course, entirely up to you.

  5. #105
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    I contest that. Science has found evidence consistent with that theory, and not sufficient evidence to disprove it, for most scientists.
    Now that's a perceptive insight and actually leads directly to the root of the problem, because it is at the very heart of scientific methodolgy. If scientists can't disprove the evidence that supports their theory, they will believe that it is 'probably' true until a theory comes along that does conclusively either disprove, or prove it.

    So: they have Faith in the belief of evidence that supports a theory which whilst it can't be conclusively proved, cannot be disproved either. They also have Faith that proof, based on the history of scientific methodology, will become evident in the future. That is the dogma of science... Now doesn't that sound equivalent to the way you could define the religious belief in God?

  6. #106
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    I would call that secularism. State atheism occurs where atheism is the national religion and all other religions are discriminated against. It only happens when militant atheists acquire a position of power.
    State atheism was "not about atheism" in the same way that the Inquisition was "not about Christianity".



    Oh, right. So they're not true atheists then? Similarly Crusaders weren't true Christians, and suicide bombers aren't true Muslims. How very equivalent of you.
    There is no sense in which atheism can be called a religion. Check your definitions.

    You can't even attach any particular philosophy to atheism. Secular humanism, yes; that's a belief system. But not all atheists are secular humanists. By definition, the only thing that atheists have in common is that they believe there is/are no god(s).

    Stalin may very well have been a true atheist, I've no idea. For all I know he may have spent his life wrestling against the orthodox christian beliefs he learnt as a child in Georgia. But whatever he did he did in the name of consolidating his grip on power in the USSR. It wasn't done as part of some atheist crusade; Stalin didn't care if people believed in god so long as the church had no alternate power structure within the soviet republics which could challenge his own, which meant that belief was tolerated but worship was forbidden.

    People were sent to Siberia or were executed for challenging soviet rule, not for believing in god.

    Crusaders, on the other hand, went with the blessing of and indeed were financed by the Pope, which in pre-reformation days meant that they did so on the highest christian authority in the world. Refusing to obey the orders of the pope could result in being excommunicated, thus imperilling your immortal soul; the same punishment was known to be used simply to punish reluctant princes, never mind those in outright rebellion.

    There is no such single, unifying authority within Islam. But there is plenty of authority within the Koran for the slaughter of infidels, apostates, and so forth. As long as the religion of islam cleaves to its holy book, it is impossible to prove to persons who wish to place a savage and murderous interpretation on the Koran that they are mistaken. That is the deadly horror of revealed wisdom and sacred texts. They are not open to reason.

  7. #107
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    ... If scientists can't disprove the evidence that supports their theory, they will believe that it is 'probably' true until a theory comes along that does conclusively either disprove, or prove it.

    So: they have Faith in the belief of evidence that supports a theory which whilst it can't be conclusively proved, cannot be disproved either..
    Science tests theory by making predicitions which are capable of examination. If X, then Y. They look for Y, and if it is not so the theory fails.

    What scientists are looking for is a statement "If there is a God then ...", where the consequence is testable. Instead they meet up with a God that is not directly testable. Believers are asked to have faith, and faith in people long dead that heard voices and saw visions and, for the most part, recounted second hand stories. It is a rcist God that selects one set of people at one time as "chosen", to spread the word as people of superior insight and convert the unbeliever.
    Oddly there are many other religions that claim one God, but their God(s) have a different message, a different chosen people. The one thing in common is that their God(s) refuse to be proven too.


    They also have Faith that proof, based on the history of scientific methodology, will become evident in the future. That is the dogma of science...
    Wrong. Any theory only holds whilst there is no evidence exists that it is wrong. No matter how much proof there is that a theory is correct there is always the possibility that a better theory will be found, and that there will tests that one or both will fail.

    Now doesn't that sound equivalent to the way you could define the religious belief in God?
    No.
    Religion says "Have faith".
    Science says "Have doubt".

  8. #108
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Science tests theory by making predicitions which are capable of examination. If X, then Y. They look for Y, and if it is not so the theory fails.
    That's what I inferred. Bearing in mind that we ARE talking here specifically about the origins of the Universe. Science can't prove the singularity concept that originated the Big Bang so at the moment they have constructed a theory based around evidence that they can't disprove. Yes, they can prove evidence of CBR but they can't say for sure that what originated that was a singularity. It's pretty much one and the same thing. You 'think' you can prove you exist, but you can't necessarily prove to me that you exist - as far as I'm concerned you could be a figment of my imagination. It therefore follows that whilst I can 'prove' you exist by carrying out tests on you, as you would test in the way I would expect if you were a creation of my imagination, it therefore also follows that I can't disprove your existence either. It's all quite straightforward really..


    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Wrong. Any theory only holds whilst there is no evidence exists that it is wrong. No matter how much proof there is that a theory is correct there is always the possibility that a better theory will be found, and that there will tests that one or both will fail.

    No.
    Religion says "Have faith".
    Science says "Have doubt".
    Again - let's just confine this to a discussion about our existence. Everything in the Universe has at its heart a quantum effect. And as yet there is no GUT of quantum gravity that unites all this. And what does science say on this? They have every belief that one day it will be found. If you read anything on String Theory, there is always the bit in there that says, 'this is all currently unprovable, but many scientists believe String Theory, in time will lead to a workable quantum theory of gravity'. So, you can go around that anyway you like that, but to me, that is a statement of faith in the future revelation of a higher order of Nature...

  9. #109
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    Science tests theory by making predicitions which are capable of examination. If X, then Y. They look for Y, and if it is not so the theory fails.

    What scientists are looking for is a statement "If there is a God then ...", where the consequence is testable. Instead they meet up with a God that is not directly testable. Believers are asked to have faith, and faith in people long dead that heard voices and saw visions and, for the most part, recounted second hand stories. It is a rcist God that selects one set of people at one time as "chosen", to spread the word as people of superior insight and convert the unbeliever.
    Oddly there are many other religions that claim one God, but their God(s) have a different message, a different chosen people. The one thing in common is that their God(s) refuse to be proven too.


    Wrong. Any theory only holds whilst there is no evidence exists that it is wrong. No matter how much proof there is that a theory is correct there is always the possibility that a better theory will be found, and that there will tests that one or both will fail.

    No.
    Religion says "Have faith".
    Science says "Have doubt".


    Except believers are asked to have faith in people (the writers of the texts) who claimed that other people had had visions or heard voices and so forth. The evidence is indirect to at least the second degree, often more. Technically - though maybe not practically - it would be possible to speak to cutting-edge researchers in any science and ask them about what they have discovered and what they are working on.

  10. #110
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    I would call that secularism.
    So would I.

    State atheism occurs where atheism is the national religion and all other religions are discriminated against.
    Two seperate things. Atheism is not and cannot be a religion. Discrimitation against religion, however, has been used by governments in the past - and it makes sense if you want complete control of the populace. It doesn't matter what the personal beliefs of ANYONE involved actually are, just that state tries to ban religion.


    Oh, right. So they're not true atheists then? Similarly Crusaders weren't true Christians, and suicide bombers aren't true Muslims. How very equivalent of you.
    Now you're being silly To be an atheist you have to have no belief in gods. Thats it. The concept of a "true" atheist is a nonsense.

    Its not so clear cut with religion, as the "true" label can be applied by other members of the same religion who disagree with a particular interpretation. You hear this in America all the time, where certain Christian denominations are not "true christians" according to other Christians.

    So for the "state atheism" idea you propose (thought i disagree with the name) it is not necessary for the ruling class, whoever they are, to be atheists - they are trying to exert complete control.

  11. #111
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Worcester, UK
    Posts
    4,157
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Atheism is not and cannot be a religion.
    Semantics. I disagree, for the reasons I've given before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Discrimination against religion, however, has been used by governments in the past - and it makes sense if you want complete control of the populace. It doesn't matter what the personal beliefs of ANYONE involved actually are, just that state tries to ban religion.
    In the cases I am aware of, the rulers professed to be atheist, and professed to be implementing state atheism because all religions are bad.
    Similarly, in the cases of Sharia Law I am aware of, the rulers professed to be Muslim, and professed to be implementing Sharia Law because Islam is good and other religions are bad.
    I wouldn't want to speculate about the actual motives.

    The evil committed in the name of atheism seems less than that committed in the name of some other religions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    I disagree with the name
    Semantics. Take it up with historians.

  12. #112
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    ...And what does science say on this? They have every belief that one day it will be found. If you read anything on String Theory, there is always the bit in there that says, 'this is all currently unprovable, but many scientists believe String Theory, in time will lead to a workable quantum theory of gravity'. So, you can go around that anyway you like that, but to me, that is a statement of faith in the future revelation of a higher order of Nature...
    You forgot to put "many" in bold too. Many scientist, and possibily many more, are sceptical. You have to believe that a particular theory is a contender in order to spend your life working on it. There have been too many scientists throughout history that have devoted their lives to lost causes. Scientists are human and limited too, and can and do get it wrong. What science does not do is say "have faith, and don't do the tests, don't do the math."

  13. #113
    Commercial Operator Rocky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    1,895
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    You forgot to put "many" in bold too. Many scientist, and possibily many more, are sceptical. You have to believe that a particular theory is a contender in order to spend your life working on it. There have been too many scientists throughout history that have devoted their lives to lost causes. Scientists are human and limited too, and can and do get it wrong. What science does not do is say "have faith, and don't do the tests, don't do the math."
    I toyed with the idea of putting revelation in bold as well to complete the trinity of faith, belief and revelation, but thought it was tooooo much.

  14. #114
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Semantics. I disagree, for the reasons I've given before.
    Its not semantics. You are wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

    I wouldn't want to speculate about the actual motives.
    In the case of theocracies, it is likely (for some anyway) a mix of strongly held beliefs that they are right coupled with power seeking. With "state atheism" its purely about power - removing power from religions to increase the governments control.

    The evil committed in the name of atheism seems less than that committed in the name of some other religions.
    I don't see how it can be evil committed in the name of atheism anymore than the nazis were evil committed in the name of Christianity. And at least Christianity is a collective entity that could have such a committed action in its name. Atheism cannot be something you work towards, as it is the absence of something - i suppose its like "amoneyism" being a term you would use when you've spent everything you have. Sounds silly.

    Not that it bothers me - I'm more of a pantheist .

  15. #115
    An Eclectic Toaster
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Glasgow
    Posts
    2,042
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Semantics.
    Quote Originally Posted by MartinHarper View Post
    Semantics.
    I'm sure there's a variant of Godwin's Law, concering the point in any debate where someone resorts to using this word.

  16. #116
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    . Atheism is not a religion.
    I'd agree - otherwise, you could say any system of principles is a religion - for example, Western secular democracy, vegetarianism, or the Cult Of Gillian McKeith.

  17. #117
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
    Cult Of Gillian McKeith.
    That first word sounds - not quite right...

  18. #118
    Papa Smurf
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Planet Scathe
    Posts
    12,528
    Blog Entries
    6
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    That first word sounds - not quite right...
    pffff thats a DOCTOR you're dissing you know....she's got a piece of paper to prove it.


    Incidentally I've got a diploma on my wall that proves I'm the "High Emperor of the Internet". Don't cross me, I'll slow your connection down to 300 baud

  19. #119
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    pffff thats a DOCTOR you're dissing you know....she's got a piece of paper to prove it.
    This bit is always worth requoting:
    Regarding McKeith's membership of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants, Goldacre writes that he purchased a "certified professional membership" from the same institution for $60 on behalf of his late cat, Henrietta.


    I think most of us, despite our disagreements, can agree on Gillian McKeith...
    Gilt and Vetinari shared a look. It said: while I loathe you and every aspect of your personal philosophy to a depth unplummable by any line, I'll credit you at least with not being Crispin Horsefry.
    And:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadful Scathe View Post
    Incidentally I've got a diploma on my wall that proves I'm the "High Emperor of the Internet".
    Can I have one?

  20. #120
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Sunny South Hampshire
    Posts
    873
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: The equivalence of religion and science?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    Science can't prove the singularity concept that originated the Big Bang so at the moment they have constructed a theory based around evidence that they can't disprove. Yes, they can prove evidence of CBR but they can't say for sure that what originated that was a singularity. It's pretty much one and the same thing.
    Duh! Nope. It's nothing like one and the same thing. That's just another way of confusing the 'did it occur' with the 'how did it occur' questions to expedite your flawed argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rocky View Post
    And what does science say on this? They have every belief that one day it will be found. If you read anything on String Theory, there is always the bit in there that says, 'this is all currently unprovable, but many scientists believe String Theory, in time will lead to a workable quantum theory of gravity'. So, you can go around that anyway you like that, but to me, that is a statement of faith in the future revelation of a higher order of Nature...
    It is currently a cornerstone of certain religious groups to try and present science as requiring faith. It's part of trying to present science as a religion.

    The problem in trying to present science as a religion is manyfold, not least that religions priori beliefs in supernatural forces is unacceptable within the confines of scientific method. In fact, you could argue that science is actually a method of proceeding. That when people talk of science, they mean the scientific method. Since religions are loathe to contemplate 'change' or moving forward, again, a fundamental dichotomy.

    Sorry, anyway, back to faith...
    Science, or the scientific method do not require faith. They require proof, or at least, a facsimile of proof. Religion requires faith.
    Scientists on the other hand are human beings, human beings sometimes have faith, but it is incorrect to use that to imply that science requires faith just because some humans who happen to be scientists have faith.



    In does bring up an interesting question tho. Why is religion.... certain groups within religion anyway, trying to perform this 'science is a religion' sleight of hand ?
    The obvious answer is the illusion of equal footing, but I'm sure there are some more subtle answers.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •