Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

again, that is petty. trivial. trifling. it is literally insane (by einsteins definition) to test fire every day to confirm that it is still hot. or to verify that water continues to be wet, gravity continues to pull things to the ground, and that hydrogen continues to have one proton and one electron. your expectations are unreasonable and intentionally so. you accuse me of misrepresenting your point...you sir are misrepresenting science by imposing irrational standards on the scientific method with the pretense that without such irrational standards, science is irrational. no, YOU are irrational.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.

you mean like the bible and the parachute are the same? how about a crucifix necklace and a bottle of penicillin? i suppose i cant really make my point without giving you a crippling infection or dropping you out of the sky, but perhaps imagination will suffice. unless you are too skeptical to entertain such scenarios.

No they're not the same.

perfect. then you concede the point: faith in a higher power is not the same as trust in scientific authorities. good on you for admitting it.

once again, ATS fails to prove that science is a religion. what a surprise.

You misrepresent the point again.
I've explained numerous times exactly what the similarity is.

i agree that you have split enough hairs to impress barbers worldwide. you already admitted that they are not the same thing. they are similar but not identical.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

No he isn't.

The examples I used of cloud chambers and potatoes can be extended. It isn't unreasonable to accept the findings of CERN when we can experiment on smaller scales using the same principles.

I didn't say it was unreasonable to accept any findings.
I didn't even say it was unreasonable to accept them without testing for yourself.

Just that people do.

In that light, is it possible we're all arguing at cross-purposes and actually have common ground here?

the common ground is that we all have good hearts and staunch beliefs.

We do indeed.

I'll be ducking out now though as threads like this can go on forever.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Ruiner1978

He knows what you're trying to say.

Let me try a different tack?

If a religious believer is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd likely resort to anecdotes and intangibles. This isn't me being dismissive, I'm speaking plainly as someone who is an agnostic. We cannot summon miracles to prove our faith to others or the existence of a higher power.

If a science 'believer' is asked to demonstrate or prove their faith, they'd be able to do so.

Now obviously, the latter would be limited in the examples they could prove. If you were to challenge them to prove the Higgs-Boson's existence, it'd be unrealistic - they cannot have a super-collider built on a whim. Instead, they could show you a cloud chamber and prove to you the existence of particles. From there, they could show you the Standard Model of particle physics and how it predicted such things as the famous Higgs-Boson. That little cloud chamber experiment would be like an infant version of the LHC in the way it subsequently demonstrated the physical existence of the Higgs.

Even easier would be a potato battery as a means of demonstrating electric charges and the science that explains it. The 'science' applications of electricity are self-explanatory and exist with no recourse to faith.

Does this make sense now?

Yes it makes sense and again, I'm not disputing the difference.

The point is people DON'T prove it, yes they CAN but they DON'T. They just parrot what they have been told without fully understanding the facts they are regurgitating.

the fact that kandinsky just explained it to you demonstrates quite clearly that we are not just parroting anything. its just plain petty to make monkeys dance to prove they have legs. your splitting of hairs is equally petty.

Unless you are claiming to have tested and proved every fact you have subscribed to, then you are just as much parrot as the rest of us

again, that is petty. trivial. trifling. it is literally insane (by einsteins definition) to test fire every day to confirm that it is still hot. or to verify that water continues to be wet, gravity continues to pull things to the ground, and that hydrogen continues to have one proton and one electron. your expectations are unreasonable and intentionally so. you accuse me of misrepresenting your point...you sir are misrepresenting science by imposing irrational standards on the scientific method with the pretense that without such irrational standards, science is irrational. no, YOU are irrational.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.

you mean like the bible and the parachute are the same? how about a crucifix necklace and a bottle of penicillin? i suppose i cant really make my point without giving you a crippling infection or dropping you out of the sky, but perhaps imagination will suffice. unless you are too skeptical to entertain such scenarios.

No they're not the same.

perfect. then you concede the point: faith in a higher power is not the same as trust in scientific authorities. good on you for admitting it.

once again, ATS fails to prove that science is a religion. what a surprise.

You misrepresent the point again.
I've explained numerous times exactly what the similarity is.

i agree that you have split enough hairs to impress barbers worldwide. you already admitted that they are not the same thing. they are similar but not identical.

I never claimed they were identical. Just that it's the same principle in that context.

I hope you've not missed my last reply to you...

a reply to: Ruiner1978

What is the point of signaling out the similarity if not to try to equate the two actions?

That is usually where it ends up so don't be surprised if some people try to cut to the chase.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

What is the point of signaling out the similarity if not to try to equate the two actions?

Because there are similarities, and I find them interesting.

That is usually where it ends up so don't be surprised if some people try to cut to the chase.

It's not a surprise. The reactions when the similarities are highlighted are just as interesting.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Because there are similarities, and I find them interesting.

That is great but they are inconsequential.

It's not a surprise. The reactions when the similarities are highlighted are just as interesting.

You want to point out the similarity and someone else wants to point out the differences. The OP obviously wanted to compare them and you started out sounding similar to the OP.

It gets old. If that is not where you are going with it then why push it after the last time I said they were inconsequential?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

I never claimed they were identical. Just that it's the same principle in that context.

I hope you've not missed my last reply to you...

you are contradicting yourself.

same
sām/Submit
adjective
1.
identical; not different.
"she was saying the same thing over and over"
synonyms: identical, selfsame, very same, one and the same
"we stayed at the same hotel"
2.
of an identical type; exactly similar.

they are the same but not the same, is what you seem to be saying. you cannot tell me i am misrepresenting your point when your point is demonstrably flawed.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Because there are similarities, and I find them interesting.

That is great but they are inconsequential.

It's not a surprise. The reactions when the similarities are highlighted are just as interesting.

You want to point out the similarity and someone else wants to point out the differences. The OP obviously wanted to compare them and you started out sounding similar to the OP.

It gets old. If that is not where you are going with it then why push it after the last time I said they were inconsequential?

Because people always defend their beliefs in the exact same ways when they perceive that their beliefs are under attack, no matter what their belief system is.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm
If you use the Homology argument you can see the similarities between Bill and and the head of any faith based program (priest, preacher,) and conclude they all originate from a religious mind set.

I know Bill is a red herring here, sorry. Carry on.

bill nye asserts no facts that cannot be confirmed. you are welcome to conclusively prove him wrong on any point...if you can.

The argument is not between science and religion it is with scientism and religion. No one should be anti science. Just because one is religious does not make him anti science, and vice verse.

I love science and appreciate the time and effort that my doctor put into his studies, however I know my God is behind the science that he is using to diagnose my illness, my great fullness ultimately still falls on God and not only man.

My gripe is when scientist pound their theological conclusions down your throat. You can't watch a video on Comparative Anatomy with out a theology lesson inserted into the science discussion, Why? Let science be science. I can make my decision for myself.

Science is not a solution for God, and that goes the same for creationist. Scientism can trap Christians as well. They keep hoping that someday their science will prove God exists. When the the proof is in thier faith.

God did not commission man with the task of proving he exist. God laid out questions to make man pursue a deeper understanding of what he created. Knowing that we would use these discoveries to help others, to love our neighbors. At the same time keeping in tack the risk that free will could corrupt what was intended to be used for good.

Science should be kept pure from dogmatic conclusions. Science when it's free to be objective can truley change how we see the world. We can better understand our purpose when we allow science to point anywhere rather than steer it to one direction, utopian ideologies.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

So you really didn't want to discuss the similarities out of sheer interest, you went where the discussion always goes.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

So you really didn't want to discuss the similarities out of sheer interest, you went where the discussion always goes.

Do you believe I am "against" science?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, I said that that post went to the bundling of beliefs.

That is where we thought you were going to end up and you came through.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Because there are similarities, and I find them interesting.

That is great but they are inconsequential.

It's not a surprise. The reactions when the similarities are highlighted are just as interesting.

You want to point out the similarity and someone else wants to point out the differences. The OP obviously wanted to compare them and you started out sounding similar to the OP.

It gets old. If that is not where you are going with it then why push it after the last time I said they were inconsequential?

Because people always defend their beliefs in the exact same ways when they perceive that their beliefs are under attack, no matter what their belief system is.

we are not defending, we are explaining. you are not attacking, you are thumbing your nose. you have nothing to attack with and we have nothing to defend against.


a reply to: Observationalist

The argument is not between science and religion it is with scientism and religion. No one should be anti science. Just because one is religious does not make him anti science, and vice verse.

sci·en·tism
ˈsīənˌtizəm/Submit
nounrare
thought or expression regarded as characteristic of scientists.
excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

are you suggesting that our trust in the scientific method is unwarranted? that science does not deserve our respect and deference?

I love science and appreciate the time and effort that my doctor put into his studies, however I know my God is behind the science that he is using to diagnose my illness, my great fullness ultimately still falls on God and not only man.

it is your right to see things that way. however the method you thank your god for indicates there is no god to be thanked. there is a certain irony in that.

My gripe is when scientist pound their theological conclusions down your throat. You can't watch a video on Comparative Anatomy with out a theology lesson inserted into the science discussion, Why? Let science be science. I can make my decision for myself.

theology inserts itself in many places it is neither welcome nor helpful.

Science is not a solution for God, and that goes the same for creationist. Scientism can trap Christians as well. They keep hoping that someday their science will prove God exists. When the the proof is in thier faith.

science gives us control over our fate so we dont have the rely on the kindness of forces that dont care if we live or die. faith is not proof, any dictionary will tell you that.

God did not commission man with the task of proving he exist. God laid out questions to make man pursue a deeper understanding of what he created. Knowing that we would use these discoveries to help others, to love our neighbors. At the same time keeping in tack the risk that free will could corrupt what was intended to be used for good.

in my humble opinion the question has never been one of whether or not there is a higher power or whether that higher power gives a crap what happens to any of us. such questions are irrelevant and miss the point. they are meant to feed the ego and appease our sense of infinitesimal futility and isolation and relieve us from our cosmically oriented daddy issues. we want a sense of purpose but we dont want to forge it ourselves. we want a map but dont want to endure all the hard questions that leave mapmakers with heavy hearts and worn souls. we want to walk through the fires of existential insecurity and self doubt unscathed and carefree. sorry, but as far as those things go...religion is a scam. you dont need religion to do those things. you need something religion cant give you: character. grit. focus. perception. introspection. ironically, many people who are religious use their so called spirituality to cut corners in all of those qualities and expect that they will be better people for it. no no, they just sleep easier. those who need religion, religion cant help. and those who can be helped by religion, dont need it. life is funny like that. but im getting off the track here..."scientism".

"the view that the characteristic inductive methods of the natural sciences are the only source of genuine factual knowledge and, in particular, that they alone can yield true knowledge about man and society".

scientism is a label that was invented by religious people who wanted to drag science down to their level so they can beat it with experience. its like those movies or books where the villain tries to convince the protagonist that they (hero and villain) are the same...but not the same. kinda like ruiner1978 but more convincing. they try to convert the hero by using some cliche doublethink to make good and evil switch places in an entertaining feat of mental gymnastics. but science doesnt use the methods and tools religion does. it doesnt use the same devices to study reality. it doesnt ask the same questions. religion is all about WHY, science is all about HOW. and really, it is spirituality that asks WHY...organized religion is the business aspect of a philanthropic field. religion makes money doing what spirituality does for free. and thats why religion is a little louder, a little bigger, a little more in your face - because thats what business does. thats how marketing works. and marketing says that if they can make the competition look just as dirty, competition will stop being a threat. and thats how scientism happened. its a smear campaign. this is not to say that a purely materialist perspective is the ultimate source of knowledge and understanding. rather, it is an essential half of the seamless whole. and the other half of that whole is spirituality...but not religion. note the difference. sentiment is the right brain of the cognitive machine and spirituality is the nurturing of the right brain. religion monetizes and militarizes the right brain. bad monkey, no banana. even though science is not the complete answer, organized religion is not the answer. it is a farce.

Science should be kept pure from dogmatic conclusions. Science when it's free to be objective can truley change how we see the world. We can better understand our purpose when we allow science to point anywhere rather than steer it to one direction, utopian ideologies.

when people say that, it sounds like a poetic way of saying "science needs to stop thinking independently and start supporting predetermined conclusions by interpreting evidence through a god-tinted lens so we can stop looking bad for trying to make them look bad"...

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Because there are similarities, and I find them interesting.

That is great but they are inconsequential.

It's not a surprise. The reactions when the similarities are highlighted are just as interesting.

You want to point out the similarity and someone else wants to point out the differences. The OP obviously wanted to compare them and you started out sounding similar to the OP.

It gets old. If that is not where you are going with it then why push it after the last time I said they were inconsequential?

Because people always defend their beliefs in the exact same ways when they perceive that their beliefs are under attack, no matter what their belief system is.

we are not defending, we are explaining. you are not attacking, you are thumbing your nose. you have nothing to attack with and we have nothing to defend against.

Yes, it always helps when we're selective of the points we choose to contest doesn't it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

No, I said that that post went to the bundling of beliefs.

That is where we thought you were going to end up and you came through.

Well that is fundamentallly what it all boils down to.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Then why act like there was some other interest or beat around the bush acting like it was just a similar principle in a certain context?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Because there are similarities, and I find them interesting.

That is great but they are inconsequential.

It's not a surprise. The reactions when the similarities are highlighted are just as interesting.

You want to point out the similarity and someone else wants to point out the differences. The OP obviously wanted to compare them and you started out sounding similar to the OP.

It gets old. If that is not where you are going with it then why push it after the last time I said they were inconsequential?

Because people always defend their beliefs in the exact same ways when they perceive that their beliefs are under attack, no matter what their belief system is.

we are not defending, we are explaining. you are not attacking, you are thumbing your nose. you have nothing to attack with and we have nothing to defend against.

Yes, it always helps when we're selective of the points we choose to contest doesn't it.

its done well for the religious folks so far hasnt it?

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Then why act like there was some other interest or beat around the bush acting like it was just a similar principle in a certain context?

You know what?
I don't even know.

I've got carried away with myself here I think. What the bloody hell does any of this matter??

I think my issue is with myself and I have been projecting onto others.

My sincere apologies to all.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I wish I had time to break down my reply as well as you did to mine, but is dinner time here in Cali and kids are home.

In regards to who started the conflict and if there even should be any conflict between science and religion. I want you to look at this and tell me what you think: Conflict Thesis

Do you think that back in the day Christians used to think the earth was flat?

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'm going to make a big rubber stamp with this statement on it.

science gives us control over our fate so we dont have the rely on the kindness of forces that dont care if we live or die. faith is not proof, any dictionary will tell you that.