Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

THANKS for a meaty reply. I do think some of your assumptions are flawed.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
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...?

I think a lot of astronomy has a lot of faith in it. Dr Chuck Missler has a whole youtube on that topic, alone.

Evolution is on the way out--even in the 'scientific' community--but that whole charade has tankers full of faith in it.

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.

I wish it were that simple.

I've worked in academia--taught at universities on 2 continents--all my adult life. It's NOT a minority. And it's NOT from merely the scientific illiterate.

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.

I think the "true scientists" (vs the TRUE BELIEVERS in the Religion of Scientism) appear to be in a decided minority. And, they have to work hard to keep a relatively low profile if they want to maintain their academic jobs. Ditto to some degree for those in industry etc. If they say the wrong thing in an article up for peer review; at a conference etc. then they are at risk for at least never getting promoted. Many are at risk for getting fired and never being able to work in their profession again.

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.

Then, I think you are overdue for being worried. They have done exactly that. Welllll, not that they have done it--but they are in the employ of those who have done it--using them as stooges. Tyson & Nye are merely poster boys of the general rule.

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.

WRONG.

The regimes the last 100 years which elevated science above religion have killed many 10's of millions more than any other values orientation--by far. I forget the calculated total . . . 130-150 million?

a reply to: LittleByLittle

THANKS MUCH.

INDEED.

Why do you think such facts are sooooooo difficult to apprehend for otherwise bright folks?

Seems to me, it has to be the science-as-god factor.

Bravo. You hit the nail squarely on its head.
a reply to: BO XIAN

a reply to: elgaz

If science has to make the occasional apology and say "look guys, we really genuinely believed this was true for years, but new information has come to light and we have to hold our hands up and say we got it wrong - but we're going to go with the new information from this point forward!"

OP point proven.

Science should not be about belief...of any kind. But why do you require belief in the first place...because you dont really really know.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
write this....

"A prevailing theory on the beginning of the Universe is the Big Bang theory, which states the universe began 13,8 billion years ago. This is of course just a theory based on the current level of our knowledge" ---> this would encourage further research for the next generations to come.

That is what scientists write; The article below calls it a "broadly accepted theory". I don't think you're reading scientific papers to know what the scientists are actually saying, because they already speak in the language you're suggesting. NASA's site calls it a theory and refers to postulation:

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

It then goes on to say that theory rests on two other theories, General relativity and the Cosmological principle, both of which are constantly being tested and re-examined in light of new and better data.

a reply to: LittleByLittle

THANKS THANKS.

Great video.

It's so refreshing to hear someone who 'gets it' and is articulate and accurate about the 'real' world.

Of course, the Religion of Scientism acolytes and high priests will probably find plenty of inaccurate and meaningless rocks to throw at him. LOL.

Ahhhhhhhh . . . right.

Theories based on theories . . . requiring some degree of

. . . drum roll . . . .

FAITH

that each of the theories . . . and each of the factors supporting said theories . . .

have SOME degree of reliable validity.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

FAITH in theories . . . is more of a reliable constant . . . than . . . uhhhhh . . . Big G . . . gravity!

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
write this....

"A prevailing theory on the beginning of the Universe is the Big Bang theory, which states the universe began 13,8 billion years ago. This is of course just a theory based on the current level of our knowledge" ---> this would encourage further research for the next generations to come.

That is what scientists write; The article below calls it a "broadly accepted theory". I don't think you're reading scientific papers to know what the scientists are actually saying, because they already speak in the language you're suggesting. NASA's site calls it a theory and refers to postulation:

map.gsfc.nasa.gov...

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

It then goes on to say that theory rests on two other theories, General relativity and the Cosmological principle, both of which are constantly being tested and re-examined in light of new and better data.

INDEED.

I think his factual statements can stand on their own quite well.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle

Maybe he is a bad scientist and his resonance theory is a bit out there for me. But that does not mean he is not right about the G constant. You are in a way now behaving like he is a heretic who have dared to question the great constant that we all know is a real thing G. Ad hominem attacks against the unbeliever.

This have a tendency to become the no true Scotsman fallacy.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: defiythelie

Science is only un-provable to those who chose to be willfully ignorant of it's theories and laws or those that feel threatened by its findings.

Show me undeniable proof of Big Bang...

Show me proof that increase in CO2 causes Earth warming...and not the other way around.

And while you do that...dont forget the age old scientific claim...that correlation does not equal causation.

If we go into global warming I have a few questions on water vapor as maybe a part of Global warming. I am neither for or against the theory of AGW. I simply cannot make up my mind.

1 If we are heating the oceans with Fission plants and man maybe chemical waste would not that heating cause more water vapor?
2 Will this access heat disappear after a while or will it be added to other contributes like CO2?
3 If we are creating a water vapor problem why are the Politicians only worried about CO2?

www.nasa.gov...

a reply to: wheresthebody

Certainly definitions are important.

My Dissertation Committee Chairman was big on that. My definitions section of my Dissertation was 20 pages long.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

What exactly is your complaint here?

My complaint is that you sell Science as dogma...until it is proven otherwise.

Nope, this is merely your scientifically illiterate understanding of science.

Up until that time...you and your kind are willing to destroy people for not accepting science at face value.

See above.

Teach it as a "possibility"...as an unfinished book....which it always is...as you and everybody in Science states.."it is a process". But you are not teaching it as if it's an everlasting process.

Yup, this confirms my above suspicion that you've never been involved in scientific research or education.

To make it more clear...a small example...instead of writing this in a science book...

"universe began 13,8 billions of years ago...with a Big Bang" ---> because this sounds like a finished chapter

write this....

"A prevailing theory on the beginning of the Universe is the Big Bang theory, which states the universe began 13,8 billion years ago. This is of course just a theory based on the current level of our knowledge" ---> this would encourage further research for the next generations to come.

But for the guys in Science...the Big Bang is "settled science"...which I will never accept.

Just take a look at today's hype over AGW deniers...there are many attempts to demonize, to destroy, to ridicule...everyone not convinced. The science on AGW is pretty shaky...mostly theoretical when it comes to the conclusion on what exactly is the reason for alleged warming. Even not all Scientists agree on it...yet somehow...an average Joe is supposed to accept it blindly.

See above.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
Science is not a religion but materialism is.

I have had the same idea and Richard Dawkins is one of the priests of materialism bashing anything that does not fit.

You can see how the dogma ideas are counter scientific, for instance Quantum effects like quantum coherence cannot exists in warm and noisy environment that is now proven.

Just watch 16:00-18:00 below.

Why was it only Roger Penrose who was questioning this idea? Why make the assumption that only because you have a problem creating quantum coherence in noisy wet environment it is impossible? It is like saying since we have bad tools there are no good tools. Just because it is hard for us to create a communication device that can do instant communication using entanglement over light years without moving in the media between the points, do not automatically make it impossible.

I am happy when people follow where the science lead them and give up materialist dogma. The good thing about people who follow the scientific principle. Once you prove something most of them follow the objective facts and give up subjective ideas.

imho, MATERIALISM is merely a primary, super-ordinate dogma, construct of the Religion of Scientism. It is a foundational dogma.

Besides, I don't know how, can't conceive of how one would go about separating science from materialism in our current culture.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

Science should not be about belief...of any kind. But why do you require belief in the first place...because you dont really really know.

A good point, but what if God incarnated to lucidly tell the whole Truth to humankind? What if this incarnation performed miracles and demonstrated how to triumph over the death and limitations of this world?

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.

I've actually been dismayed to observe how absolutely fickle science can be--in the persons of those leading it's major institutions.

originally posted by: dreamlotus1111
correct me if im wrong but in religion isnt there an entity that is TYPICALLY worshipped? what entity would that be in this case?

THINGS, institutions, objects, construct, ideologies etc. can be worshiped just as golden idols can be worshiped.

I assume you really knew that in some corner of your awareness.

a reply to: Sremmos80

I'm sorry, but you can't look at the ideal of the scientific paradigm under the auspices of the scientific method and claim that as the reality. IT'S NOT...

Look at the ACTUAL practice of the scientific paradigm, then we can talk.

Jaden

originally posted by: GetHyped

Nope, this is merely your scientifically illiterate understanding of science.

This statement is redundant. "Nope, this is merely your illiterate understanding of science" would have sufficed. Isn't it ironic that your claims of illiteracy are riddled with illiteracy?

Yup, this confirms my above suspicion that you've never been involved in scientific research or education.

in elementary school we are bombarded with "facts" that claim the total antithesis to true human history. We've all been duped by an ignorant system led by the secularist dogma which surely wants you to think any Higher Power is non-existent. Some study of the Bible would tell you who is ultimately behind this mass deception...

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
Science is a process. A process that has proven it gets results.

I suppose you could call it a religion if you looked at people and distorted things, but doing so would change the situation from "all religions are equal" to "one religion is clearly superior."

In order to declare, determine, judge

that A is better/worse than B etc.

one does well to know 3 things:

1. WHAT IS THE GOAL involved?
2. WHAT IS THE CRITERIA, STANDARD OF MEASURE that declares that the goal has been reached?
3. WHAT IS THE CONTEXT?

For me, the Religion of Scientism is NOT the better religion in terms of the eternal, lasting goals that mean the most, to me.

In many cases, the Religion of Scientism is not even a better goal at establishing and maintaining good families, good government, good cultures, good nations, good medicine . . .

a reply to: Woodcarver

Not at all. See my reply just above to another post.

The Religion of Scientism is a horrid religion AND a horrid science.

INDEED.

The 'scientific method' has been construed in the popular mind and certainly in the general population acolytes of the Religion off Scientism as the ULTIMATE ARBITER OF TRUTH; THE ULTIMATE INFALLIBLE DISCOVERER OF TRUTH

Oh, sure, they'll admit temporary fallibility . . . until the theory is . . . ultimately TO BE proven. But, typically, they seem to believe deeply and intensely in their hearts, minds and souls that the 'scientific' method is the paragon foundation and application of truth and all that is true.

What nonsense.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
a reply to: dreamlotus1111

While you are correct that most religions involve the worship of some type of entity, some religions are nontheistic.

To answer your question, the closest comparable aspect of science that is "worshipped" would probably be the Scientific Method.