Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: chr0naut
I agree that science is not a religion.
But by the same definition, neither is it truth.
It is just a successive approximation towards the truth.

That's correct Whoever said science was 'the truth' ? It attempts to discover and explain how things are. It comes to a conclusion which explains the observable phenomena. If further or extra information comes along which changes that explanation, and after it is tested and scrutinised, it is amended.

But if you want to believe that 2x2 != 4 and instead equals 100, then by all means, believe in that 'opinion'.

a reply to: Astyanax

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically. So who really is being dishonest here. Either you must have a greater intellect than Einstein or the ego the size of everest. Which is it?

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion. Or to put in bluntly, if mathematics can one day define GOD. Which is why I am personally interested in Gödel's theorems and its ramifications (which is still being digested by the science community). Instead, I have been wasting my time talking rubbish because you are upset because I quoted "Gödel's theorems". Oops I have done it again, are you angry with my second act of dishonesty.

Be gone, little man.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
a reply to: firefromabove

You have been authoring the same post for years.

How can he have authored the same post for years when he just joined the forum 4/1/17

a reply to: glend

If you want to know If science can be used to create a religion or even prove that God exists the answer is yes it could. Science deals with explaining reality and the universe as we observe it. Science doesn't care about anything other than searching for truths no matter where that would lead. If science proves there is a God I can see science being used in religion.

THIS # is what I was trying to avoid OP. I feel you are right. I WAS HOPING my focus on trying to have people stick to analyzing things by the SCIENTIFIC process Dr. Richard Feynman so gracefully explained over half a Century ago would lean people back to true scientific observation. I would have made my points so as to win the people like we have on ATS obfuscating that very approach for their political/religious belief in AGW for one. I hope that people of my ilk would be able to win the world back to the true art of the Scientific Process. Especially to address those who profess to be about THE TRUTH. I kept posting that I was very concerned we would get to the day were the populace, to paraphrase, would turn on us who make a living as Scientists.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
When Science do not follow the data and ignore information since it does not fit the story/model you want to create then the "Scientist" becomes faith driven fools.

"Scientist" could have been leaving pseudo science like psychology behind for real models on how information manifest within the brain and how information exchange between 2 separate brains is possible thru entanglement.

Will be interesting to see how objective science will evolve the next 300 years.

Something like this is where we are right now.

originally posted by: LittleByLittle
a reply to: firefromabove


The reason many souls do not have faith in some religions is because the notice hypocrisy and their souls will not have anything to do with that.

Sooner or later all soul get up that hill. It's only a matter of time.

Excellent point and that is why Paul ,originally called Saul of Tarsus, wanted people in the leadership positions of the 1st Churches to be non hypocritical so as to leave a legacy of good deeds that glorified God and was worthy of the sacrifice of Jesus. See Titus for an easy read on that very thought.There are only three short chapters.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically. So who really is being dishonest here. Either you must have a greater intellect than Einstein or the ego the size of everest. Which is it?

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion. Or to put in bluntly, if mathematics can one day define GOD. Which is why I am personally interested in Gödel's theorems and its ramifications (which is still being digested by the science community). Instead, I have been wasting my time talking rubbish because you are upset because I quoted "Gödel's theorems". Oops I have done it again, are you angry with my second act of dishonesty.

Be gone, little man.

let us be honest here for a moment. it occurs to me that what you really wanted to see is an equation that allows someone to bottle the almighty, thereby mastering divinity to the extent that someone else can effectively anchor the cosmos to the human species the way you tie a parent to a needful child using a leash...the perfect autopilot. the logic being that a truly helpful higher power would do everything in its power to make our pithy little species happy, never realizing that what makes us happy is rarely what we actually need. in a word, caging god for the sake of our infantile ego. a scheme born of self conscious insecure little minds such as yours. it is ironic, humans trying to prove they are enlightened and spiritual by pandering to their ego and sense of existential panic. you might as well demonstrate your humanity by feeding puppies and kittens to the starving homeless.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically. So who really is being dishonest here. Either you must have a greater intellect than Einstein or the ego the size of everest. Which is it?

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion. Or to put in bluntly, if mathematics can one day define GOD. Which is why I am personally interested in Gödel's theorems and its ramifications (which is still being digested by the science community). Instead, I have been wasting my time talking rubbish because you are upset because I quoted "Gödel's theorems". Oops I have done it again, are you angry with my second act of dishonesty.

Be gone, little man.

let us be honest here for a moment. what you really wanted to see is an equation that allows someone to bottle the almighty, thereby mastering divinity to the extent that someone else can effectively anchor the cosmos to the human species the way you tie a parent to a needful child using a leash...the perfect autopilot. the logic being that a truly helpful higher power would do everything in its power to make our pithy little species happy, never realizing that what makes us happy is rarely what we actually need. in a word, caging god for the sake of our infantile ego. a scheme born of self conscious insecure little minds such as yours. it is ironic, humans trying to prove they are enlightened and spiritual by pandering to their ego and sense of existential panic. you might as well demonstrate your humanity by feeding puppies and kittens to the starving homeless.

Yikes…

What happened to your funny bone…

Gave him the day off perhaps lol



- JC

originally posted by: Joecroft

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically. So who really is being dishonest here. Either you must have a greater intellect than Einstein or the ego the size of everest. Which is it?

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion. Or to put in bluntly, if mathematics can one day define GOD. Which is why I am personally interested in Gödel's theorems and its ramifications (which is still being digested by the science community). Instead, I have been wasting my time talking rubbish because you are upset because I quoted "Gödel's theorems". Oops I have done it again, are you angry with my second act of dishonesty.

Be gone, little man.

let us be honest here for a moment. what you really wanted to see is an equation that allows someone to bottle the almighty, thereby mastering divinity to the extent that someone else can effectively anchor the cosmos to the human species the way you tie a parent to a needful child using a leash...the perfect autopilot. the logic being that a truly helpful higher power would do everything in its power to make our pithy little species happy, never realizing that what makes us happy is rarely what we actually need. in a word, caging god for the sake of our infantile ego. a scheme born of self conscious insecure little minds such as yours. it is ironic, humans trying to prove they are enlightened and spiritual by pandering to their ego and sense of existential panic. you might as well demonstrate your humanity by feeding puppies and kittens to the starving homeless.

Yikes…

What happened to your funny bone…

Gave him the day off perhaps lol

- JC

my funny bone sometimes thinks it is funny to pick bones.

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

What distinction..are you implying science does not employ magical imagination to a whole host of topics?

Sure would be nice if science was a pure system free of BS and belief systems...but it is not.

I was not referring to science, but to those individuals who cannot differentiate between the process of science and a system of invariant beliefs.

a reply to: firefromabove

You do know that the drawings in the old Central and south American Aztec, Mayan and Olmec temples were not ancient astronauts but drawings of the scientific priestly class of that day who were in reclined positions mapping the stars. the etching tools were in their hands as they etched the maps on clay tablets for recording purposes.

And we all know what happened to them?

They just mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth some 1,000 years before Christ after falling into human sacrifice and cannibalism.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: glend

So what's really your beef in my communication with chr0naut.

The dishonesty. You wouldn't know Gödel's theorems if they bit you in a soft place; you aren't even aware of their implications if you think they prove all knowledge false. But that doesn't stop you from parroting what you don't understand as if you're some big Mr Expert.

I'll mark my calendar for future reference (Us guys can be so boorish in our ignorance of such periodical rhythms).

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: chr0naut
I agree that science is not a religion.
But by the same definition, neither is it truth.
It is just a successive approximation towards the truth.

That's correct Whoever said science was 'the truth' ? It attempts to discover and explain how things are. It comes to a conclusion which explains the observable phenomena. If further or extra information comes along which changes that explanation, and after it is tested and scrutinised, it is amended.

But if you want to believe that 2x2 != 4 and instead equals 100, then by all means, believe in that 'opinion'.

Surely I never said anything as absurd as that.

But you have every right to rant on irrationally and who am I to oppose such eloquence?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

What distinction..are you implying science does not employ magical imagination to a whole host of topics?

Sure would be nice if science was a pure system free of BS and belief systems...but it is not.

I was not referring to science, but to those individuals who cannot differentiate between the process of science and a system of invariant beliefs.

I can agree with that statement. The thing I am upset with is the whole IPP deal. Failed models and they keep posting tripe. The process says "test the theory, if it fails, pick another". Instead they keep saying the failed theory, models and all are right when they haven't made one prediction to my knowledge.

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Astyanax

So as a man of honesty, you can define every belief you have attained through life, mathematically. So who really is being dishonest here. Either you must have a greater intellect than Einstein or the ego the size of everest. Which is it?

The question I really wanted to see answered in this thread wasn't whether science was a religion, but if science was a road to religion. Or to put in bluntly, if mathematics can one day define GOD. Which is why I am personally interested in Gödel's theorems and its ramifications (which is still being digested by the science community). Instead, I have been wasting my time talking rubbish because you are upset because I quoted "Gödel's theorems". Oops I have done it again, are you angry with my second act of dishonesty.

Be gone, little man.

If I may interject, I believe Astynax is a woman (and perhaps a little one?) and with Asbergers near as much as I (which is explicatory of her abrupt conversational style).

This leads to a fairly hard definitive view which cannot countenance 'grey areas' such as; that the very methodologies we use to determine objectivity (observation and experimentation) are themselves, subjective processes.

Similarly, Astynax is suggesting a separation of the mathematical from the nature of the world, which I see as misplaced.

Mathematics is a symbological reductional representation of understandings about the nature of the world. We manipulate the relationships between the symbols and from it we can see attributes about nature that would be hidden by the greater complexity.

If we divest the symbols themselves of what they represent, then mathematics becomes irrelevant, telling us nothing about nothing.

In the case of Incompleteness, there is real world implication of the fact that an axiomatic system cannot fully define itself.

It must always be so.

Is not science just a methodology? Religion is also a methodology


The problem with science is that it doesn’t admit it uses faith and the problem with religion is that it doesn’t understand the limits of faith


Therefore, science is a religion (faith) that depends on knowledge and religion is a science (Methodology) that depends on faith

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
a reply to: firefromabove

You do know that the drawings in the old Central and south American Aztec, Mayan and Olmec temples were not ancient astronauts but drawings of the scientific priestly class of that day who were in reclined positions mapping the stars. the etching tools were in their hands as they etched the maps on clay tablets for recording purposes.

And we all know what happened to them?

They just mysteriously disappeared from the face of the earth some 1,000 years before Christ after falling into human sacrifice and cannibalism.

That is a reasonable explanation and the glyphs/pictograms support your theory.

ETA

there are a few that DO look like rockets and helmets on the 'riders' . This appear to give the impression there were spacecraft from Earth back then, way way back.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

What distinction..are you implying science does not employ magical imagination to a whole host of topics?

Sure would be nice if science was a pure system free of BS and belief systems...but it is not.

I was not referring to science, but to those individuals who cannot differentiate between the process of science and a system of invariant beliefs.

I can agree with that statement. The thing I am upset with is the whole IPP deal. Failed models and they keep posting tripe. The process says "test the theory, if it fails, pick another". Instead they keep saying the failed theory, models and all are right when they haven't made one prediction to my knowledge.

My apologies but I am not sure exactly what you are specifically referring to by "IPP deal". Would you please elucidate? Thanks in anticipation.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

What distinction..are you implying science does not employ magical imagination to a whole host of topics?

Sure would be nice if science was a pure system free of BS and belief systems...but it is not.

I was not referring to science, but to those individuals who cannot differentiate between the process of science and a system of invariant beliefs.

I can agree with that statement. The thing I am upset with is the whole IPP deal. Failed models and they keep posting tripe. The process says "test the theory, if it fails, pick another". Instead they keep saying the failed theory, models and all are right when they haven't made one prediction to my knowledge.

My apologies but I am not sure exactly what you are specifically referring to by "IPP deal". Would you please elucidate? Thanks in anticipation.

Mann, his hockey stick lie and so on.. Need I elaborate more?