Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: MystikMushroom

DAWKINS?

LOLOLOLOLOL

. . . slaps fingers to avoid shifting into glorious rant mode . . .

What a farce.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

NOPE.

Wasn't getting into that. AT least, not yet.

No doubt there are plenty of historic examples of science being horribly wrong--and extremely dogmatically so.

I started this thread primarily to discuss the psychological/sociological aspects that go into making science a religion in so many lives. I guess . . . given the one post about it--I'd lump materialism in with science on such scores.

As to your earlier post:

I'm only at the top of page 2 in replying to posts methodically, in sequence.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
No doubt there are plenty of historic examples of science being horribly wrong--and extremely dogmatically so.

No doubt, but the fact that you can say that shows that eventually science considered new information or evidence that changed the accepted model, which is exactly what religions DON'T do. So your argument actually proves science is NOT a religion.

Religions don't change their sacred texts based on new evidence.

originally posted by: damwel
Just another attempt to discredit credible concrete things by people who believe there is a giant ghost in the sky who loves them so much, he makes them suffer.

The sky ghost loves you too but you're going to burn in hell for eternity for saying that.

Oh man Bo. Too tired to get into the meat and potatoes of this thread but SnF from me. I can't wait to read the "nuh uh, you're wrong and I'm right" posts. Glad you put this thread together.

The fundamental belief that science is a religion is flawed. Unlike religion, science is an evolution (no pun intended) of ideas that change as our understanding of the world changes. The basic premise of good science is to disprove or reject the null. Religion on the other hand is the opposite. We are told to believe in the relationship between different things because a book or an interpretation of its writings say to...without challenge and without any real knowledge or testing conducted by ourselves to prove its true.

a reply to: BO XIAN

A scientifically illiterate proclaims science to be a religion.

ROFL.

a reply to: moebius

It is gold, isn't it?

The OP is quite happy to post threads filled with junk science, and clings to it with such conviction, almost to the point that his pseudo-science is becoming a religion, but calls mainstream science a religion!

Ohh the irony.

originally posted by: staple
It was pretty cool when Scientist Newton proved religion was a bucket of superstitions by proving the Earth was NOT the center of the universe.

Do you know the difference between red and blue shift and why from our vantage point in the galaxy we observe so much of one and not the othe

Can you postulate scientifically why so much red shift?

Great show of scientific ignorance
Maybe even search red shift earth is at around the center of the universe

Anyway, lest it turns into another topic and the thread is ruined, I will leave it here

Scientific facts, are facts which are proven (oxymoron yes). The experiments that lead to these facts can be repeated over and over again yielding the same results. - FACTS people, how hard is that? There are constants within the universe which we can build models of facts around.

Yes, there are a lot of people who try to abuse science for their own gains, but these are usually easy to discern from the actual truth.

Come up with a hypothesis, create a test or multiple tests for said hypothesis, the outcome of said test will determine the validity of said hypothesis, repeat until fact.

Experiments must be repeated, whatever someone claims to be fact must be scrutinized by others - peer reviewed - and then you have science.

Sounds very much like a factual process to me. Either way, if my options are religion or science, I'm choosing science every time.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: namelesss

NOPE.

That is the perfect example of a 'philosophical debate' with a 'believer'!
"Nope!"

Hahaha! *__-

originally posted by: BO XIAN
Hmmmmmm . . . Perhaps you have not read much about how dangerous it is to question much of anything in certain disciplines--particularly at certain Universities and in the offices of most peer reviewed journals.

Example please. Give me an example of your claim.

But to really question the core of some approved dogma sort of research . . . or to question the foundational underpinnings . . . not allowed--at least not if one wants tenure or wants to be published.

Like what? Name an underpinning you cannot question without ridicule?

No. That was not my meaning. I'm talking about a religious/political elite doing the gate-keeping in every scientific discipline on the table/planet. Gate-keeping is a professional sociology term, BTW.

Gate-keeping is a professional sociology term. But your statement is wrong. Who/Which elite gate-keep science? Tell me.

And regardless of how successful your experiments were, IF THE RELIGION of Scientism decreed that your findings were off-limits--it would be--in scientific circles and publishing and teaching--as though you and your experiments had never existed.

No. Again, if the evidence, which can be easily verified and repeated, demonstrated new understanding, it wouldn't be off-limits. WHat are you talking about? Again, which verifiable, evidence-based scientific discover or advancement recently has undergone this 'off limits' embargo you claim of?

Nonsense. That's not remotely been my experience. But that's not exactly the center of this topic.

Really? Give me some evidence then of religion, something that proves its real? You cant. But when question, religion hides behind 'ultimate' truths and huge faith - both of which require huge evidence - which it cannot provide, so it circles back on itself ti maintain its belief.

originally posted by: GreenGunther
Scientific facts, are facts which are proven (oxymoron yes). The experiments that lead to these facts can be repeated over and over again yielding the same results. - FACTS people, how hard is that? There are constants within the universe which we can build models of facts around.

Science does not make 'facts' or 'proofs', science makes TENTATIVE 'theories'!
Tentative because they are intellectually honest enough to know that new data and evidence can pop up at any moment, and usually does, that will make that TENTATIVE theory either obsolete, or 'adjusted'...
And if not refuted in experiment, it is tentatively accepted.

Your 'facts' are no more than a 'belief infection' in disguise!
'Beliefs' are pathologically symptomatic, egoic/imaginary malware, rather than rational living thought.

"New study of the brain shows that facts and beliefs are processed in exactly the same way."

www.newsweek.com...

a reply to: MystikMushroom

is the Bible only book in religion?

if you would put focus on other religions like buddhism and zen, you could discover many things about new insights. People in religions where meditation is more valued than philosophy are constantly updating their methods towards enlightenment even today.

beings who reached complete enlightenment often updates some commentaries and explanations about the mind and even sometimes drop some old ideas if they seem "out of their time".

but I am talking about esoteric part of religions and what you are talking about is exoteric parts. exoteric is just a beginner stage towards real understanding, towards some practice of esoteric...this is where the real juice is, not just blind beliefs, but actual experiences and there are many systems in religions one can take as base for spiritual progression.
Practice and observation of one's own mind and progress towards liberation. Very much like science, only it is based on personal observations of the mind!

Yes, also Christianity has esoteric parts but they are overlooked by a lot of people...it is all just put into "religion category".

Similar to science where you have four main branches.
Natural sciences
Formal sciences:
Social sciences
Applied sciences

yet to "normal" people all this is just "science category".

there are some great "scientific religions" and then there is some bad "religious science" or vice versa...it goes both ways in my opinion. It seems to me that religion and science is very similar. On both sides of the coin there are people who like to settle for their own confirmation bias and than "attack" other-minded people with information.

much like I am doing now maybe?
sorry if it seems that way, but in two posts you mentioned something about the bible and updates and how science does that...so I felt this needed to be said, that there are parts of religions which are still updated even today.

a reply to: moebius

A scientifically illiterate proclaims science to be a religion.

ROFL.

My PhD is at least as high a quality as yours.

You do have one, right?

a reply to: noonebutme

I've already done some of what you ask.

The bulk of it you are, no doubt, reasonably capable to track down yourself . . . IF . . . you seriously are interested in the TRUTH about such things.

I have no need to . . . spend time, at the moment, to satisfy your hostile DEMANDS.

a reply to: UniFinity

Great points.

Thanks.

Careful, informed, THOUGHT-FUL pondering seems to be a scarce thing in our era.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: moebius

A scientifically illiterate proclaims science to be a religion.

ROFL.

My PhD is at least as high a quality as yours.

You do have one, right?

This has nothing to do with having a PhD, but with you not having a clue what you are talking about.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: noonebutme

I've already done some of what you ask.

The bulk of it you are, no doubt, reasonably capable to track down yourself . . . IF . . . you seriously are interested in the TRUTH about such things.

I have no need to . . . spend time, at the moment, to satisfy your hostile DEMANDS.

Nope. You made the claim -- it's not my responsibility to track down your evidence for you.

"Hostile"? Don't be a drama queen

a reply to: BO XIAN

No doubt there are plenty of historic examples of science being horribly wrong--and extremely dogmatically so.

No #,But I'm talking about how Science being re branded as a religion rather than a system of knowledge in anyway effects the validity of the evidence Scientists use to support their hypothesis's...All you did here was explain an obvious fact. Could you maybe name something that science supports that you considered to be faith based...?

There are no doubt issues within the scientific community,the "Dogmatic" behavior you keep referring to in this thread comes from the mass scientific illiteracy that goes on in most parts of the world. Any encouragement for this behavior on behalf of the community itself,is done solely at the discretion of the minority of scientist who exploit that weakness for political and/or monetary gain. The true scientists are out there pursuing their fields of study for new knowledge,teaching the next generation of scientists and creating innovative tech for all of us to benefit from.

You're over generalizing an entire community of researchers,doctors and professors on the basis of a minority who "preach" science dogmatically. Most of those people are just activists of science and have no professional association with the scientific community. Granted you have astrophysicists Niel DeGrasse Tyson who can be a bit dogmatic at times,or you have Bill Nye who actually advocated for penalization against those who denied climate change(Global Warming).
However they are a minority,If they gain enough political power to enact and enforce some of their crazy ideas than I would be worried.

Religion thus far stands alone on most atrocities committed by it's own dogmatic views...So if anything you should be more worried about them Moslems,Jews and Hindus than scientists advocating for rationalism. But # I guess anyone who isn't a God fearing christian is already a bad egg in your book.

originally posted by: BO XIAN
My PhD is at least as high a quality as yours.

LOL!

Did you collect tokens from the back of cereal packets to get yours?

>Claims to have a PhD

>Doesn't appear to be even remotely familiar with how academic research is conducted