Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Observationalist
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?

pythagoris is thought to be the fellow who proved the earth was round. 500 years before the stories of jesus took place. Some christians still deny it.

originally posted by: Observationalist
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?

religion tends to display a cheap lazy approach to intellectual practices by borrowing almost everything science does and tacking "...because god" on the end of it like it requires no more effort than simply saying it. which to me is a mockery of the grinding painstaking processes that science relies on to make sure the job is done right. the people who are supposed to prove god have ended up proving we dont need a god. and thats why it seems somewhat obvious to me that theists insist on wedging god into the picture anyway, because their insecurities wont settle for anything less. it is a cosmic insult to our ego that the universe could just accidentally produce what we perceive to be the majestic earth and the ingeniously crafted human race and then fail to acknowledge us even a tiny bit. science doesnt care if the universe acknowledges us or not. the point is not to be acknowledged.

I think the goal of posting is thread is not to discredit science but keep people wary of those who would deceive us under the guise of science.

Science is a belief system of rules and methods not a belief system of faith. The reason it has so many "believers" is the methods are tried and tested over and over and anyone who has taken a science class has seen the results.

So why not trust scientists? There is really no reason not to trust scientist. They get paid to do it, and some scientific discoveries have made scientist very wealth and even famous. So I'm not too concerned about the scientist at NASA trying to pull the wool over our eyes (especially cause physics is awesome). The scientist I would be worried about are the ones that don't make the big bucks. Scientists are still human and need to feed themselves so they are as equally prone to corruption and greed as anyone else. There are scientist that have faked results to enhance their career, There are scientist that have used their position to falsify data for, anti-vaccination, Stem cell research, psychology. These are some of the ones we have caught. They were caught because of the checks and balances of that are inherent in science. Although the peer review system is not perfect. It manages to get discoveries out eventually: peer review

Now any big discover is going to be debunked almost immediately just because of the impact on society and its financial implications. Its a race for money so there is no chance those are ever going to last. The science you have to worry about is the ones that don't have a big impact. Think of it as little white lies. Like the psychologist article I linked. Its pop science, little informational tidbits that you make a good news article and small talk but don't really effect our daily lives.

They do however change our perception because we believe it to be true. Now I can't imagine World War 3 is going to ignite because of falsified Social Science results. It does show that falsified information does have sway over our perception when shown through a scientific lens.

The problem isn't so much the science itself but those that would pervert our trust in science for their own ends. Like the people in people in product marketing.

People need to eat fat.

Fat free is a sin against science.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

I don't expect you to understand the mechanics of a faith that you have never stepped into. You can't relate with an amputee just because you hopped on one leg for while. For a christian faith is important. For you it is just unattractive and keeps you away from religion but unattractive does not mean useless.

Do you believe a person can compartmentalize his or her faith while they pursues knowledge in the sciences?

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

I don't expect you to understand the mechanics of a faith that you have never stepped into. You can't relate with an amputee just because you hopped on one leg for while. For a christian faith is important. For you it is just unattractive and keeps you away from religion but unattractive does not mean useless.

Do you believe a person can compartmentalize his or her faith while they pursues knowledge in the sciences?

faith is essentially ego saying "hey, i firmly believe that i deserve the consideration of whatever higher power is curious enough to keep a vigilant eye on this world". and to abrahamics, those who subscribe to the abrahamic religions, ego is important. ego is critical. because their god is the personification of ego. he relies on ego to keep those who trust him bound to their inner reflection of his ego. the ego to believe he has the right to create a world, the ego to believe he has the right to rule it, the ego to believe he should command the fates of those who inhabit it, and the ego to believe he should punish those who deviate from his designs. the ego to believe he is perfect and therefore deserving of perfect children. the ego to believe that any who are not perfect should submit themselves to his will so that he might perfect them. the ego to believe he is the end all, be all of everything that is worthwhile and valuable. it is all ego, and ego is him.

A question for the OP. A serious question, not an attack. So a polite intelligent answer would be appreciated and would indeed show some intellectual honesty on your behalf ( so I know this whole conversation is not just trolling ).

Plenty of religions and religious leaders throughout history have embraced both their religion and science. What has led you to the conclusion you are smarter than ALL of them ?

a reply to: DiaJax

" So why not trust scientists? There is really no reason not to trust scientist "

Unfortunately now there is. Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of science, but "believing" most scientists, researchers and academics are honest despite the evidence, is bordering on religion.

Just a taste of the crisis in science .......

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

www.slate.com...< br />
www.youtube.com...

ethicalnag.org...

www.collective-evolution.com...

www.bbc.com...

In 36 years of working in development fields......... I have meet only 1 full disclosure researcher. Every other one I have had to deal with has compromised themselves to some degree.

Hard not to be jaded.

a reply to: thedeadtruth

Here's is my point if you haven't revised the equations it is irrelevant whether or not they may or may not be able to be solved because at the end of the day you still don't know for yourself which is the same as having faith that the calculations are correct

Here I will post the equation for electromagnetism

sin(π/6)*[√4] + (3!)^2 - (46,656)^(1/3)

And I just posted some BS random equation that when calculated is equal to 1, but you you wouldn't know that if you couldn't solve the equation for yourself.

If someone were to search Google "equation for electromagnetism"and had that equation appeared how many people do you think would believe that is an equation for electromagnetism without a second thought?

a reply to: thedeadtruth

Good thing I don't believe in drugs.

I definitely could see big pharmacy do this to the medical industry. Really makes you question capitalism. Money mindlessly destroying the world.

a reply to: omniEther

And someone said the difference is that religion isn't provable 6000 year old earth, bibles etc.. I don't disagree

But I have to ask is the big bang provable? Is the sun 93,000,000 miles away provable? And before you say a scientist can prove it using an instrument that you probably have never seen and/or will never have acces to. I'm talking about can YOU prove it.

a reply to: omniEther

I will jump in here, sorry if uninvited....

Probably not provable for the average person .... But often science relies on the most reasonable explanation to start with. Long before proof can be obtained. I know I do rely on my own critical thinking abilities to develop new protocols in mortuary science, or designing new VT units.

Things like the sun make sense because of our experiences with light and heat coming from other sources.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Observationalist
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?

pythagoris is thought to be the fellow who proved the earth was round. 500 years before the stories of jesus took place. Some christians still deny it.

Yup Pythagoras was pretty smart dude.

Did you read the link about the conflict thesis? Do you think the majority of theist during the times of Columbus thought the earth was flat?

a reply to: Observationalist

What do you mean by theists?

I'm pretty sure the average person thought the earth was flat back then. May have been that the heads of the church knew better. Not sure what your point is.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist
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?

religion tends to display a cheap lazy approach to intellectual practices by borrowing almost everything science does and tacking "...because god" on the end of it like it requires no more effort than simply saying it. which to me is a mockery of the grinding painstaking processes that science relies on to make sure the job is done right. the people who are supposed to prove god have ended up proving we dont need a god. and thats why it seems somewhat obvious to me that theists insist on wedging god into the picture anyway, because their insecurities wont settle for anything less. it is a cosmic insult to our ego that the universe could just accidentally produce what we perceive to be the majestic earth and the ingeniously crafted human race and then fail to acknowledge us even a tiny bit. science doesnt care if the universe acknowledges us or not. the point is not to be acknowledged.

When is evolution going to get rid of whining?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Observationalist

originally posted by: Woodcarver
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.

I don't expect you to understand the mechanics of a faith that you have never stepped into. You can't relate with an amputee just because you hopped on one leg for while. For a christian faith is important. For you it is just unattractive and keeps you away from religion but unattractive does not mean useless.

Do you believe a person can compartmentalize his or her faith while they pursues knowledge in the sciences?

faith is essentially ego saying "hey, i firmly believe that i deserve the consideration of whatever higher power is curious enough to keep a vigilant eye on this world". and to abrahamics, those who subscribe to the abrahamic religions, ego is important. ego is critical. because their god is the personification of ego. he relies on ego to keep those who trust him bound to their inner reflection of his ego. the ego to believe he has the right to create a world, the ego to believe he has the right to rule it, the ego to believe he should command the fates of those who inhabit it, and the ego to believe he should punish those who deviate from his designs. the ego to believe he is perfect and therefore deserving of perfect children. the ego to believe that any who are not perfect should submit themselves to his will so that he might perfect them. the ego to believe he is the end all, be all of everything that is worthwhile and valuable. it is all ego, and ego is him.

Where did you read this stuff about the ego? Interesting secular view of faith.
unfortunatly that view is possible because of what the church (Catholic and other legalistic denomination) portray to a casual by stander.

Religion rushes its people around telling them not to doubt and if you do then do this and that. Yet doubt is a important component of faith. Doubt is what helps us ask questions.

I wish you can see it the way I do. I honestly feel I have more freedom than what you perceive I do. Maybe it's better for you to believe I'm a mindless slave who doesn't count, a convenient conflict.

A conflict that give you all sorts of motivation to stay on your side and explore only that which has been explored and carefully crafted for your ego to consume.

a reply to: Observationalist

There might be a good point in there but the OP isn't about religious peoples wiggle room in regards to their faith.

a reply to: firefromabove

it's seriously like you sat down at the computer and thought to yourself, "what can I post to make it as blatantly obvious as possible that I am absurdly, embarrassingly uninformed?" In which case, congratulations. You've succeeded admirably.
Do you somehow not realize that many of the things you cite as things that scientists just guess at or imagine, can be proven concretely by observable fact? You have to be mind-bogglingly uninformed to somehow not realize that we have actual proof and evidence of things like black holes, white dwarves, the distance of stars, etc etc. They aren't just guessing these things or making them up, you clown.

So, no... science is nothing like religion. One is based upon a collection of demonstrably false parables and asks you to willfully ignore the evidence that refutes it and just "believe " The other is based on observable fact, concrete evidence, repeatable experiments and demonstrations, etc etc. Not to mention that religion claims itself to be infallible and true despite loads of evidence to the contrary, whereas science admits what it knows and what it simply surmises. Hence, some things being theories rather than facts.

In other words: your entire point is incredibly stupid, and the amount of igo rance required to believe it is downright embarrassing.