Science...Religion in disguise, flaws and all.

From my understanding, religion is a belief or faith in something controlling or influencing existence. It is also my understanding that science tries to explain what the something is controlling or influencing existence.

Both require faith in the same "something", don't they? In many religions the something is God. In science the "something" is theories. Many may argue that these theories are proven facts, whereas a religious God is unproven, however in my opinion many of these theories are simply "assumptions of best fit", not proven facts.

Existence is a jigsaw puzzle with an infinite number of pieces. By making assumptions we place a finite limit on the number of pieces, ignoring the existence of the remainder. Both science and other "religions", are guilty of this. Issues are raised that cannot be explained or understood sufficently, thus are ignored and treated as being independant of other teachings. You can't complete a puzzle without all the pieces.

The problem is that whilst religions are regarded as reliant on personal preference, science is regarded as fact and taught as such.

It's time for science to come out of the closet and admit, "Hi my name is science, and I am just another religion."

That's too broad a brush to paint with imo. Mathematical science, physics and geometry, are proven. They are fact. Historical sciences and others like evolution require some belief.

Originally posted by mytym
Both require faith in the same "something", don't they? In many religions the something is God. In science the "something" is theories. Many may argue that these theories are proven facts, whereas a religious God is unproven, however in my opinion many of these theories are simply "assumptions of best fit", not proven facts.

Hey, you getting your brushes from the same store I do? 'Cause I tend to paint with big 'uns also.

Your opinion about theories not being proven facts, is in fact, not an opinion, but the way science works. Theories are never considered facts, in that they can be 'disproven' through observation and experimentation, forcing a new theory to be formulated. Theories don't require any faith to be considered a legitimate view of the physical universe. Religion has no mechanism for that type of adaptation. Religion is completely reliant on 'faith' and 'belief'; you can not 'disprove' the existence of God.

NC

I have absolutely no problem with provable science under closed conditions. I consider it fact. Evolution is not under closed conditions and is not fact.

As far as religion goes, I have no use for it. It is man made and not truth. The truth is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I have absolutely no problem with provable science under closed conditions.

As far as religion goes, I have no use for it. It is man made and not truth.

The experiments that prove science are also man-made. This is also a big problem in science, whereas the observers/participants/analyzers of the experiment can influence its outcome.

For example, a major theory on the birth of the universe is that a quark randomly appeared in a vacuum exploding in the big bang. But, one of the experiments "proving it" shows that quarks appear in vacuums on earth. But, now, that isn't the same kind of vacuum is it?

Perhaps religion and spirituality are their own versions of an experiment to prove God's existence and qualities.

[edit on 24-3-2006 by Jamuhn]

intrepid:
That's true. Perhaps mathematics shouldn't really be considered a science, or perhaps it should be considered the only science. Physics on the other hand is much broader and often suffers the same failings as other science's/religions.

NotClever:
Theories are not "intended" to be considered facts, however these assumption based theories "are" considered facts when developing new theories. Faith must be placed in these "theories" in order to develop new ones based on them.

This is also a big problem in science, whereas the observers/participants/analyzers of the experiment can influence its outcome.

I agree, that's why I said closed conditions.

Originally posted by Sun Matrix
I have absolutely no problem with provable science under closed conditions. I consider it fact. Evolution is not under closed conditions and is not fact.

As far as religion goes, I have no use for it. It is man made and not truth. The truth is, Jesus is the prophesied Messiah.

Amen to that.

That's true. Perhaps mathematics shouldn't really be considered a science, or perhaps it should be considered the only science. Physics on the other hand is much broader and often suffers the same failings as other science's/religions.

Physics relies heavily upon mathmatics. I've yet to see a theory in physics that doesn't use math of any kind. Alot of thing's have been proven in physics as well. You also seem to be taking quiet a liking to QM, a theory in physics and using that theory as a "Ha, told you so" excuse for a mystical universe and in the other thread you admitted to having no desire to learn more about the very theory that your praising so much while knowcking down the rest of physics, alot of which allows your computer and monitor to function or keep you from falling through your chair or allow magnets to stick to metals.

No one has faith in theories. People develop their theories and some may not like the theories and some may want to help furthur advance them. Other's will develop theories that fit better with the observations. Never is there any faith involved though.

Jamuhn,

For example, a major theory on the birth of the universe is that a quark randomly appeared in a vacuum exploding in the big bang. But, one of the experiments "proving it" shows that quarks appear in vacuums on earth. But, now, that isn't the same kind of vacuum is it?

This is the first time I've hear of this "major" theory, can you provide any sources, link's, anything on this?

Physics, at it's most basic level is the study of motion. Physics is a Mathematical science. There are holes in some of the Physical theories, but they only start to crop up at the really really small and really really large masses(Quarks and Black Holes respectively).

Math is a Science. It is the Science where all other Sciences are built upon and are improved upon whenever there is a Math breakthrough. Computer Science is starting to take this role within Science as well.

Jakamo, there is a new style of Expermiment that will become more and more popular, just so that the influence of the Experimenter is removed. It's called a Triple Blind experiment. Triple-blind experiments will emerge through massive non-invasive statistical data collection. No one, not the subjects or the experimenters, will realize an experiment was going on until later.

Originally posted by mytym
Theories are not "intended" to be considered facts, however these assumption based theories "are" considered facts when developing new theories. Faith must be placed in these "theories" in order to develop new ones based on them.

Assumptions made by scientists are generally referred to as 'hypotheses'. Theories are developed to support an hypothesis and are tested via experimentation and observation. Pure science places no 'faith' in theories...either they are supported by evidence, are predictable, or, they are garbage.

Mathematics seems so utterly fundamental to me that I don't consider it a science. How do you test for, or disprove, 1 + 1 = 2? Mathematics is facts.

heretic!

we all know that 1+1=10

seriously, to those who claim that science is all knowing from both sides of the argument i always offer the example of Alfred Wegener whose career was nearly destroyed for proposing the theory of plate tectonics - something that is ingrained in our current view of the world.
He proposed this around 1912 but it was not accepted into the scientific mainstream until the late 1950s...but i bet you cant imagine it not to be 'true'.


edit for being slightly pissed and unable to type

[edit on 25-3-2006 by mark ten]

Originally posted by mark ten
heretic!

we all know that 1+1=10

seriously, to those who claim that science is all knowing from both sides of the argument i always offer the example of Alfred Wegener whose career was nearly destroyed for proposing the theory of plate tectonics - something that is ingrained in our current view of the world.
He proposed this around 1912 but it was not accepted into the scientific mainstream until the late 1950s...but i bet you cant imagine it not to be 'true'.


edit for being slightly pissed and unable to type

[edit on 25-3-2006 by mark ten]

I'm not sure what your getting at? I've never heard science had all the answer's. But to use your example, there's also Galileo, the church pretty much ruined him for his heliocentric solar system idea and it took nearly 400 some odd years to apologize for that.

Originally posted by Prot0nThis is the first time I've hear of this "major" theory, can you provide any sources, link's, anything on this?

Mmm, I'm not sure what it's name is. I read about it in Scientific American awhile back. There are some other theories that seem more reasonable to me, but this is merely an example of how "observers/participants/analyzers [or environment] of the experiment can influence its outcome." Experiments themselves do not occur in objective circumstances. The philosophy behind science that it relies on falsifiability is great, but science is also subject to politics and its own dogma. Hence, it's subject to the influences of man. Our current scientific theory is all we have to go on for now, but never it should would perceive science as being "finished."

I'll have to do some diggin around at the library next weekend, see if they have that issue archived. I agree, science can be influenced by man, but we have to remember it's man discovering thing's or trying to come up with explanations for that he doesn't understand yet. I don't recall at anyone time anyone considering science or any particular theory in science to be "finished". We're even still discovering new types of math, so even something as fundamental as 1+1 still has more to learn about.

[Mod Edit - Removed unnecessary quote. - Jak]

[edit on 25/3/06 by JAK]

prot0n

my point is that science has none of 'the answers'

it has only the current, best evidence.

to believe that science can give us any more than this, any GUT, is an article of faith.

and the story of Alfred Wegener is only one example as is yours of Gallileo.

Originally posted by mark ten
prot0n

my point is that science has none of 'the answers'

it has only the current, best evidence.

to believe that science can give us any more than this, any GUT, is an article of faith.

and the story of Alfred Wegener is only one example as is yours of Gallileo.

I'm not sure where your tying faith and GUT in together?

Science does have 'some' of the answer's, obviously not all. And it's not really so much faith when trying to tie all the existing theories together. Obviously at the current state of todays theories, this isn't possible, but it's known that with each theory we get closer to unifying the forces. We've already been able to unify most of them, I think it's gravity and electromagnetism that's playing hard to get right now.

Prot0n
My point is that assuming that science has 'some of the answers' is just your advantage of hindsight.
100 years ago you, as a scientist, would have scoffed at any notion of plate tectonics. Yet now my nine year old can tell me about it.

To assume that 'some of the answers' are irrefutable is an article of faith.

(and therefore to hope for a GUT is also a wish which cannot be fulfilled)

(i think)

Our bodies consist of matter that vibrates at a consistent range of frequencies.

Other bodies vibrate at other frequencies; and we cannot interact with those very easily.

However, all thought is simultaneous and can transmit throughout the universe, once a person knows how to transmit and receive Thought.

The history of this planet contains the idea that there are several "levels" of existence here : "a Heavenly holodeck" where streets can be paved with gold or whatever you want to dream up; "a physical dimension" where "cause-and-effect" obtains; and "a Hell" where there is no time at all, no processes, no growth.

Obviously, physical characteristics of these "levels" differ markedly; yet all three apparently co-exist attached to the gravitational field of this planet.

Perceiving God is getting >PAST< these characteristics and differences in soul experiences. Communing with God is getting straight to Thoughts that convey Love, without respect to incarnation, level or circumstances in which a soul exists. After all, souls move from life to death and then move on. Or, they stay stagnant and stuck in a single thought pattern, as poltergeists do.

If you have ever gazed into the eyes of a newborn or met a whale at a SeaWorld petting pool, or tried to help an injured animal, you have seen God's unrestricted and unprejudiced gaze. Open to you.

"What is essential is invisible to the eye; only with the heart, one sees rightly." The Little Prince.

To assume that 'some of the answers' are irrefutable is an article of faith.

So you're saying that knowing the rate of decent on Earth due to gravity(9.17 m/s ignoring wind resistance) is an article of faith? It is irrefutable because it's been tested many times through Math and Experimentation within a vacuum.

Religion has never given us any tools to truely understand Nature to such an extent that we can predict the results of a phenomenon with Math. Like how long it will take a ball to reach the surface when droped from 1000 meters(1.82 minutes). Science has.

Falsifiability, Predictability, and Repetition is the foundation of the Scientific Method.

Praying to some bearded white guy sitting on a cloud up in "heaven" is Faith. Surely you can see the difference.

[edit on 25-3-2006 by sardion2000]