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

Invalid tests such as looking for the moon from inside a room with no windows and conlcuding that it doesn't exist because you can't see it. I already explained this didn't I? If you could levitate only under ther circumstances you mention then the scientific method of testing levitation you preach, would be another example of an invalid test, wouldn't it? Destined to lead to the wrong conlcusion that you couldn't levitate, when in fact you could under certain circumstances.

Ok, the issue here being, no idiot would look for the moon from inside a room without windows. Honestly, and I'm positive I've mentioned this before, stupid analogy. Again, your so called "explanation" is flawed beyond all belief that I'm surprised that even YOU believe it's right lmao.

Again, there is no reason to believe that anyone can levitate when you can't see it with your own eyes, can't video tape it etc. Honestly, you can't ... ugh, nvm ... You can ..

You keep harping on the not wanting to learn angle. Let me clarify this for you one more time. I mentioned how my research in quantum physics had raised the idea of higher dimensions. From this you jumped to the conclusion that I was using the teachings of quantum physics to explain what these higher dimensions entailed, when all quantum physics did was provide a catalyst for me to find out more about these higher dimensions. The role of quantum physics had expired at this point in my quest. You then went on to encourage me to learn more about quantum physics in order to learn more about these other dimensions, to which I replied that quantum physics doesn't know anything about these higher dimensions other than the possibility that they exist, thus I had no desire to learn any more about it. What could it possible teach about something it knows so little about? Since that time you persist in making broad assumptions that I don't wish to learn about anything.

Honestly Mytym ... learn more about QM. It's not the way your probably picturing it.

In regards to science being a religion, I provided a definition of what a religion entails, and proceded to demonstrate how science satisfies the prerequisties of this definition.

Yes, you have ... in YOUR opinion. Yet, redefining science and religion to fit your opinions doesn't make them true or facts. Sorry.

If you have no idea of what you are talking about when you say proof, then stop trying to explain the concept to me. I don't claim to know what you are thinking, I merely make assessments based on what you post, and my assessment on this matter is that you were incorrectly using the word proof. As a result I provided a more suitable alternative in scientif proof.

Great, another BS artist. Show where in my post's that you were able to assess how I was using the word proof in the scientific proof sense. Again, let's disregard all attempts to correct you on your assessment.

Why should I retype a few predictions for you? If you have so little time to look them up, how do I know you will have enough time to read what I retype? You seem to have enough time to continually examine and re-examine every word of every post I write, so I doubt the integrity of this claim of yours.

Common sense bud. I've been replying to your replies when I've had the chance haven't I? Common sense ... No, I haven't had the time to go back and re-examine your post's. It's called a brain and memory.

If mising the point were an olympic sport, you would surely win the gold medal. You disputed promising that you would not be posting any more on this thread, saying that you simply stated you would not be posting on this thread any more. This is what I was referring to. If you made this statement, and now you are posting on this thread, you were lying weren't you? For all I know you may not even be as big a fan of mine as you profess, and there may not even be any website that you have created to honour me. I just cannot trust anything you say.

Uh ... wtf? lmao

more to the point ... lol

"For all I know you may not even be as big a fan of mine as you profess, and there may not even be any website that you have created to honour me."

Don't recall saying I was a fan of yours at all, at any time on ats lol! AND, to top that off (ffs, again ) The website thing was a joke. You do have a memory don't you?

What have I lied about, and more to the point, what does it have to do with any of this any way?

Many thing's, but if it doesn't have anything to do with this, then there's no real good reason for either you or I to point our that we're both "liars".

Comments in this thread are getting dangerously close to personal attacks.

LOL, it's been that way for quiet some time. Doesn't really bother me. I can *try* my best to tone it down.

Whether an idiot would perform such a test is beside the point. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate how an invalid test can lead one to draw an incorrect conclusion.

How many times do I have to point out, that I have no interest in learning about enlightenment through the teachings of Quantum Physics. What don't you understand about this? I'm sure Quantum Physics raises some interesting ideas, but it will offer me no assistance in attaining a more enlightened state. Feel free to point out where Quantum Mechanics teaches about enlightenment and I will be happy to learn.

You are correct, this is my opinion and I don't claim it to be a fact. If you believe my definition of religion is incorrect, then why don't you attack that? If you agree with it, then why don't you attack how science doesn't fit this definition? If you believe that science does, we are agree that science is a religion. Pretty simple.

In regards to scientif proof you asked why should I doubt anyone who claims to be God but is unwilling to provide proof. I queried the form of proof you meant and you gave some examples such as making an animal out of thin air or reading ones mind. To this I replied that God may have already proven himself in ways that don't adhere to your accepted scientific criteria (scientific proof), and you agreed. Pretty obvious.

Amazing that you are able to reply with specific reference to the example I provided in regards to proof of God in an earlier post, yet you now have no recollection of it. Surely you could use a brain and memory to recall your own posts?

You didn't specifically state you were a big fan of mine, but I can read between the lines. I know what you mean when you refer to me as the "Great" mytym. I'm flattered really.

I'm drawing the conclusion that you are lying based on the untruthful statements that you have made. Your claims about my honesty have no basis, or at least none that you are able to demonstrate. I can't see that it has anything to do with what has been discussed. If you can, please show me?

In regards to personal attacks, you can do more than try, as you are in complete control of choosing to use this technique or not. I haven't made too many, if any, so I certainly can't tone it down any more. I merely respond to what others post.

Whether an idiot would perform such a test is beside the point. The purpose of the analogy is to demonstrate how an invalid test can lead one to draw an incorrect conclusion.

You should perhaps try using a real world example or something abit more realstic. Your analogy is flawed as it stands imo. Using common sense as a starting point, the anology makes no sense at all as no one I know would look for the moon in such a way.

How many times do I have to point out, that I have no interest in learning about enlightenment through the teachings of Quantum Physics. What don't you understand about this? I'm sure Quantum Physics raises some interesting ideas, but it will offer me no assistance in attaining a more enlightened state. Feel free to point out where Quantum Mechanics teaches about enlightenment and I will be happy to learn.

Enlightenment in what mytym? Which of the hundreds of different views that claim enlightenment are you talking about, which do you consider true?

You are correct, this is my opinion and I don't claim it to be a fact. If you believe my definition of religion is incorrect, then why don't you attack that? If you agree with it, then why don't you attack how science doesn't fit this definition? If you believe that science does, we are agree that science is a religion. Pretty simple.

Been there done that. We've already gone over the whole science is not a religion issue and is nothing more then a method of discovery easily conducted by anyone. A method or process of learning is not a religion. Let's label school as a religion to while we're at it. I've tried my best to explain how science doesn't fit the definition of religion and I've tried pointing you to other sources of information as well as definitions. I'm not sure if you took the time to learn more yourself or if you decided to remain ignorant on the issue.

In regards to scientif proof you asked why should I doubt anyone who claims to be God but is unwilling to provide proof. I queried the form of proof you meant and you gave some examples such as making an animal out of thin air or reading ones mind. To this I replied that God may have already proven himself in ways that don't adhere to your accepted scientific criteria (scientific proof), and you agreed. Pretty obvious.

There's something else obvious in this quote. See if you can point it out

Amazing that you are able to reply with specific reference to the example I provided in regards to proof of God in an earlier post, yet you now have no recollection of it. Surely you could use a brain and memory to recall your own posts?

I don't have photographic memory and I haven't refrenced the issues in question, which would be why I asked you to repost them as I don't have the time to look back through and try to find them all. Geez, talk about obvious.

You didn't specifically state you were a big fan of mine, but I can read between the lines. I know what you mean when you refer to me as the "Great" mytym. I'm flattered really.

Haha, nice joke.

I'm drawing the conclusion that you are lying based on the untruthful statements that you have made. Your claims about my honesty have no basis, or at least none that you are able to demonstrate. I can't see that it has anything to do with what has been discussed. If you can, please show me?

I did agree this doesn't have anything to do with the discussion, so what's your purpose for trying to continue it?

My analogy serves it's purpose, however you are entitled to feel it is flawed if you wish. Enlightenment in true reality is what I'm interested in. Which view of enlightenment I consider to be true, if any, has little to do with what I'm talking about as it can primarily only be enhanced through my own experiences.

In relation to this thread, the question that you need to ask yourself is not "what is science", but "what is religion". This is what I have done and science fits into my definition of a religion, thus I categorise as such.

There is one thing I don't understand. You indicate that a couple of points I made in my last post were obvious, yet you still require me to produce these explanations. Why would you need me to do this if I'm simply stating the obvoious?

I was referring to your comment that I'm a liar, having no relevance to the conversation, that is all.

Originally posted by mytym
My analogy serves it's purpose, however you are entitled to feel it is flawed if you wish. Enlightenment in true reality is what I'm interested in. Which view of enlightenment I consider to be true, if any, has little to do with what I'm talking about as it can primarily only be enhanced through my own experiences.

Your anology served no purpose, perhaps for other's with similar views as yours or for those who also have flawed views of reality. But for those of us who "get it", know your anology make's literally no sense and ...

You say your looking for enlightment in "true reality". Yet, all you've shown here on ats is your inability to understand reality, or even simple concepts for that matter. You seem more interested in learning about thing's that conform to your opinionated views of reality.

In relation to this thread, the question that you need to ask yourself is not "what is science", but "what is religion". This is what I have done and science fits into my definition of a religion, thus I categorise as such.

Your definition ... Don't think I have to say much more on the issue.

There is one thing I don't understand. You indicate that a couple of points I made in my last post were obvious, yet you still require me to produce these explanations. Why would you need me to do this if I'm simply stating the obvoious?

In an attempt to get you to re-look at what your saying and what I've been saying. You still haven't. Someday ... you'll learn. I hope.

These are all your opinions, and you are entitled to them, just as I am entitled to mine. Obviously your opinions make sense to you, that's why you chose them, just don't assume to know the minds of those who "get it", and the opinions they hold. Of Course my view of reality is influenced by my opinion, if I knew what reality truly entailed, why would I need to learn any more about it? I can recognise what involvement my opinion plays, can you?

That's right, it's MY definition of religion, if you disagree, show me how it differs from YOUR definition of religion, rather than telling me what science entails. That is my point.

If you were able to comment that I had made some obvious points, doesn't that mean I have a good understanding of what you were saying? In which case, what more am I to learn on the matter seeing as how we both agree?

I think it may be wise for me to clarify one point at this stage. With this thread I am implying that religion is a broad umbrella and science is one of many areas that are covered by this broad umbrella. I am not saying that religion falls under the umbrella of science. There is a significant difference. Perhaps the following example can demonstrate this better:

Let's suppose a religion can be defined by any name that contains the letter "E"
Let's also suppose a science can be defined by any name containing the letter "C"

Science contains the letter "E" thus it is a religion and it also has a "C" thus it is a science

Religion contains the letter "E" thus it is a religion however it does not contain the letter "C" thus is not a science

As a result arguing that religion doesn't fit into the definition of a science is irrelevant. All that is relevant is whether or not science fits into the definition of a religion.

Perhaps I've confused you all, but hopefully it helps clear things up a little.

Let's suppose you quite going to school in the 3rd grade because it was simply to difficult for you to understand. Let's also suppose that you make literally no sense to anyone but yourself. Let's also suppose that your ignorance is angering the god damn hell out of me. And let's furthur suppose that this site proclaiming such a statment as deny ignorance should not allow such ignorance to prevail through it's site.

mytym:

"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."



www.m-w.com...

Religion

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY

....

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith



Faith

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Old French feid, foi, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE

...

2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust

3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs



Now lets see how Science is defined:


Science

Main Entry: sci·ence
Pronunciation: 'sI-&n(t)s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin scientia, from scient-, sciens having knowledge, from present participle of scire to know; probably akin to Sanskrit chyati he cuts off, Latin scindere to split -- more at SHED

...

3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena



Proof

Main Entry: 1proof
Pronunciation: 'prüf
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, alteration of preove, from Old French preuve, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove -- more at PROVE

1 a : the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b : the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning

...

3 : something that induces certainty or establishes validity

...

7 : a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality




As these definitions show, Science is not a "Religion" in disguise, these two institutions are fundementally different, so much so that it is tempting to describe them as mutually exclusive in that science requires proof and methodology while religion requires the suspension of disbelief in the form of faith.

Simply put, Science will by its very methodology will ask - who, what, why, where, when and how ... while most if not all religions promote the notion of "faith" or belief in a preexisting dogma or view.

Another aspect to the divergence can be found in the global "theme" or charter ...

Science or Scientific Methodology will start from the absence or lack of knowledge - which will be accumulated over time by means of a painstaking, disciplined and well documented experiments ... to be analyzed and cross examined by many individuals for the purpose of validity/data integrity assessment.

Religion on the other hand starts from the hypothetical stance of absolute knowledge as passed down to us by some divine entity or entities. This being the case, belief or faith in this body of knowledge is required with little or no disputation.

LCKob



[edit on 31-5-2006 by LCKob]

LCKob:
Firstly, let me just thank you for taking the time to research the definitions of some pivotal terms in regards to this discussion.

Now as I mentioned previously, we need only consider the definition of religion and ascertain whether or not science fits the criteria presented. Therefore, does science use faith (as per the definition of faith presented) to uphold it's causes, principles or systems of beliefs? To answer this we must determine what the causes, principles or systems of belief science stands for. Would you agree that these could be defined as theories established for the purpose of explaining how elements of the physical realm interact with one another?

Is there anything that we can say with certainty is a fact? (The Big Bang? Evolution? The expansion/contraction of the Universe? The extreme cold temperature of the nucleus of a comet? The inner workings of a black hole? Quantum Physics? DNA component control?) If the answer is no, which I believe it may very well be, then we must develop theories to explain how we think a certain process operates. A given theory is then tested to help validate it. Once the testing has been completed, the theory that was able to stand up to all, or often, most tests subjected to it, becomes the accepted theory. In the absence of facts, a given theory that reaches this point becomes the assumption of best fit that we have faith in to create a base for establishing other theories.

As a result, yes, science does use faith (in the absence of facts, we have faith in the validity of a given assumption) to uphold the theories (theories based on these assumptions) established for the purpose of explaining how elements of the physical realm interact with one another.

You mentioned that science requires proof, but I did not see proof mentioned in the definition. I did note the term general truths however, which are either facts, or in the absence of facts, which is the predicament we most often find ourselves in, assumptions of best fit that passed each (or failed the fewest) test subjected to it. These assumptions require faith that no other test exists that could possibly contradict the assumption, which accurately fits the definition of a religion you presented.

Religion does not prohibit the questioning of who, what, where, why and how thus the argument that science asking these questions excludes it from being labelled a religion is invalid. Similarly, the absolute/lack of knowledge comparison is not a fundamental criteria of what defines a religion as presented, thus differences between the methodolgy do not give rise to science being excluded from being a religion.

Now I'm pretty sure you concur with the principles of science I stated, thus from the information I have presented above the only assumption I have made in regards to what we agree upon is the absence of facts. If you feel any of the examples I provided are facts, please let me know.

mytym:

Now as I mentioned previously, we need only consider the definition of religion and ascertain whether or not science fits the criteria presented. Therefore, does science use faith (as per the definition of faith presented) to uphold it's causes, principles or systems of beliefs? To answer this we must determine what the causes, principles or systems of belief science stands for. Would you agree that these could be defined as theories established for the purpose of explaining how elements of the physical realm interact with one another?

LCKob:

Actually, no, science uses a linear and reproducable regimen for the testing and prediction of the phenomena under study. Faith does not enter into the picture of a properly conducted experiement, nor the interpretation of raw data gained.


Mytym:

Is there anything that we can say with certainty is a fact? (The Big Bang? Evolution? The expansion/contraction of the Universe? The extreme cold temperature of the nucleus of a comet? The inner workings of a black hole? Quantum Physics? DNA component control?) If the answer is no, which I believe it may very well be, then we must develop theories to explain how we think a certain process operates. A given theory is then tested to help validate it. Once the testing has been completed, the theory that was able to stand up to all, or often, most tests subjected to it, becomes the accepted theory. In the absence of facts, a given theory that reaches this point becomes the assumption of best fit that we have faith in to create a base for establishing other theories.

LCKob:

Actually science acknowledges this in a more truthful and matter of fact way, by staying away from absolutes in the description and or promulgation of said phenomena. Simply put, science puts for ideas based upon data and context to explain phenomena. These ideas are never referred to as facts in and of themselves, they may involve facts in the form of collected data, but they are merely possible and plausible explanations for the causal question at hand. Religion often deals with absolutes, science deals with trends, statistics, probabilities which are reinforeced or not by projective predictive accuracy or corroboration from other experiments/data.

mytym:

As a result, yes, science does use faith (in the absence of facts, we have faith in the validity of a given assumption) to uphold the theories (theories based on these assumptions) established for the purpose of explaining how elements of the physical realm interact with one another.

LCKob:

Faith as you call it is the conviction in the absence of evidence ... science uses or promotes the mindset and methodology that emphasizes a quantifiable problem solving approach that requires a body of data or evidence to support the working model of the phenomena in question. Faith removes itself from proof, Science requires such proof or evidence as the ratifier or justification for inclusion into the domain of hypothesis and working model with pridictive capability.


mytym:

You mentioned that science requires proof, but I did not see proof mentioned in the definition. I did note the term general truths however, which are either facts, or in the absence of facts, which is the predicament we most often find ourselves in, assumptions of best fit that passed each (or failed the fewest) test subjected to it. These assumptions require faith that no other test exists that could possibly contradict the assumption, which accurately fits the definition of a religion you presented.

LCKob:

Once again, I must stress that science never claims absolutes ... even theories are just the best working model predictors for the phenomena under question. The difference here, is that a theory, while not absolute is based upon an exhaustive database of experimentation and chance for refutation ... consequently, such theories are generally very good predictors of the target phenomena ... so much so that extensions of the theory have often been used (with accuracy) for applied technologies. Keep in mind that a cornerstone of Science is constant self assessment, validation and an open framework for adoption or rejection of hypotheses and theories based upon their intrinsic ability to accurately explain any and all permutations and extension of the said phenomena.

mytym:

Religion does not prohibit the questioning of who, what, where, why and how thus the argument that science asking these questions excludes it from being labelled a religion is invalid. Similarly, the absolute/lack of knowledge comparison is not a fundamental criteria of what defines a religion as presented, thus differences between the methodolgy do not give rise to science being excluded from being a religion.

LCkob:

Perhaps not all religions prohibit the asking of questions ... case in point Buddhism ... but the majority of the religions I have studied tend to abide by established dogma as evidenced by the bible and such works.

[edit on 1-6-2006 by LCKob]

continued from previous post ...

mytym:

Religion does not prohibit the questioning of who, what, where, why and how thus the argument that science asking these questions excludes it from being labelled a religion is invalid. Similarly, the absolute/lack of knowledge comparison is not a fundamental criteria of what defines a religion as presented, thus differences between the methodolgy do not give rise to science being excluded from being a religion.

LCkob:

Perhaps not all religions prohibit the asking of questions ... case in point Buddhism ... but the majority of the religions I have studied tend to abide by established dogma as evidenced by the bible and such works ... where the established world view as documented is or becomes the basis for the fixed belief system.

As for the lack of knowledge, as a basis, tell me can you name a religion or religions that are designed as being "modular" or open ended? Or perhaps even amenable to change or significant difference in opinion. I would argue that religions very stongly tend to be considered "complete unto themselves" while science claims the opposite.

... and in the vein of asking questions, one should take into account the well documented historical frictions between established religions and the then fledging sciences when "such questions were asked". In general, religions don't take kindly to anything that may undermine the validity of that particular view.

Examples of religious inflexibility can be found throughout history as the creation of sects, separate relgions and or strife between differing views.

Case in point,

The Jewish faith vs Christianity vs. Islam vs. ???
or perhaps, Catholics vs. Protestants vs ??





[edit on 1-6-2006 by LCKob]

LCKob:
You persist in demonstrating how science is not a religion via identifying the definition of science. As previously mentioned, the only valid method of proving your point in this instance is to show how science does not adhere to your previous definition of what constitutes a religion. Faith in it's principles (theories).

Faith, belief or whatever else you want to call it, is always invloved in the absence of facts. You yourself admit that there science steers clear of absolutes (facts) and prefers to deal with possibilities or probabilities (assumptions of best fit) thus some degree of faith, belief or whatever you want to call it, must be involved to account for the percentage of uncertainty, no matter how small it may be.

I do appreciate the effort you have put into presenting your case, but I fail to see how any theory that is not a fact can be used as a base to develop further theories without involving some degree of confidence (faith) that the theory is correct. As a result this satisfies the criteria of a religion satisfactorily.

You have to remember folks that math and science only represent a "hierarchy of systems" and "scale and position". Symbols alone are not all that exists, even that which we can't percieve with visual tools cannot be entirely symbolized. There are infinite positions and tools of scale but those which we use now as in the past will one day seem primitive. There are infinite possibilities and science is frankly just one. When we dream we experience worlds that simply defy spacetime, in many creative people worlds that most science could only ever speculate can be experienced. Altered states of consciousness show most people that use these tools that infinite "beliefs and tools" are possible. Imagining reality as just one experience is not sanity, yet many people that percieve in multiple realities are simply scoffed at or worse locked away. Nature already has infinite possibilities within it's existence, a simple map is just a tool, not the fact. A place in time is a man made construction of reality, not a natural, infinite complex phenomenon. Time is like a loop that can be replayed or fast forwarded not just in movies or music but in reality. Only a limited understanding of infinite possibilities would shrug or claim impossibility, only vested interests would deny a scientific paradigm that allows for all possibilities or probabilities. Science can only be a symbol of nature it cannot even come close to approximating what is on my mind and what of the thousands of interactions i will possibly create tomorrow or in 20 years.

Common sense notions of cause and effect, premise and proof, rely on time's flow as an intrinsic aspect of reality, when in fact it is an artifact of our mode of observation. Choice allows non-sequential transcendence, Decisions use symbols, language, definitions, and the general rule of exclusion to break down the matrix of reality into segmentary concepts. A new idea is unacceptable unless it can be manipulated into a symbolic sequence where it forms the sequential conclusion. By the time this occurs, it has been sapped of it's liberating characteristics and sanitized to "safely" coexist with the uninspiring drivel that passes for everyday thinking.

The problems with our old archetypes, paradigms, and myths is that they are maps of a predefined territory. They allow for no independent ventures into unknown territory. We are compelled to use their sequential logic and causal reasoning. These in turn force us to adopt polarized premises that become the basis of our most fundamental life decisions. And if our premises are biased, the resulting decisions are likely to be out of kilter with our needs.

Society or Science is the culprit here, becuase it insists we use it's antiquated blueprint. The old mythology incarcerates individuals within a prison of associations that may be meaningless outside a social context, making a natural creative existence all but impossible. Because the creation of a new calculus for harmonious being directly challenges the status quo, the full force of society's aresenal of symbols is brought to bear against any such project, to oversee it's utter failure.

mytym,

It's all about reading comprehension. Did you bother to read what he said or did you skim through it quickly and gleaned only what you felt was pertinent to your case?

"I do appreciate the effort you have put into presenting your case, but I fail to see how any theory that is not a fact can be used as a base to develop further theories without involving some degree of confidence (faith) that the theory is correct. As a result this satisfies the criteria of a religion satisfactorily."

This one itty bitty sentence out of his entire post answer's your issue's.

"Religion often deals with absolutes, science deals with trends, statistics, probabilities which are reinforeced or not by projective predictive accuracy or corroboration from other experiments/data. "

Your the only person, well maybe beside's Sun of course, who REFUSES to learn anything. You just want everyone to conform to your own opinionated and erroneous views rather then just admit to being wrong. You come off with these arrogant idiotic analogies that make no sense and do nothing more then show your lack of knowledge in what your trying to put across.

Science, please stop using that word. It's a METHOD, technically. The problem you have is with accepted theories. The main reason you have problems with those theories is beyond me, as the reason they are accepted, as LCKob pointed out is through DATA, validatable data. Your lack of knowledge in said data doesn't change jack poopy. Your ignorance of definitions, terms, common sense again also doesn't change jack poopy. But please, just drop using the word science and try to use the word theory from now on.

Prot0n:
Really? If you are aware it's about reading comprehension why don't you practise what you preach? Besides, why would I need to address points that are not pertinent to my case?

In regards to the itty bitty sentence you raise, as I have mentioned 3 or 4 times in the last few posts, it attempts to define what constitutes science rather than what constitutes a religion, thus cannot aid an argument for or against science being a religion.

The definition of a religion given by this poster basically says that it requires faith in it's principles. This is the only relevant part to base an argument on. There is no mention of the method in which religion deals with it's principles, thus it makes no difference if science uses different methods to deal with it's principles.

The only point of contention is whether or not science requires faith in it's principles, and as I have already pointed out, in the absence of absolutes, faith to some degree, must be called upon. If you disagree, demonstrate how faith is not required when not dealing with absolutes, don't produce lists of differences between sciences and other religions, as there is often great variation between one religion and the next.

I don't care if people conform to my views or not, but judging by you constant insistance that I am unwilling to learn anything, it seems that you want me to conform to your views. I simply stated my thoughts on the subject and have defended my point of view when others have attacked the validity of such a stance. That's what these types of threads are all about aren't they?

Your partially correct. I do have a problem with accepted theories, but only those which are disguised as factual rather than assumptions of best fit which they are. The Big Bang comes to mind straight off the bat. You seem to think that because a theory is accepted, it is beyond challenge. Forgive me if I wish to question that which others blindly accept. Isn't that what denying ignorance is all about?

In closing, I'll leave you with a most valid thought in this regard that I have brought up previously:

"If it walks and roars like a lion, don't assume it to be a lion, ruling out the possibility that it may be a tiger"

is not quantum mechanics based on faith. it works but it is not proven.

Now i am going to jump on the science band wagon here, but i do understand the opposing point. Science does require faith, it requires faith in a theory. Religion on the other hand requires faith aswell, faith in dogma. Now a theory is something that is not proven a fact, and that is observable, and testable to be able to be proven false. A dogma is meant to be fact. It is the word of god, and his words are the laws of nature.
So yes you are right in saying that both religion and science both require a similar trait "faith" but if we are to go on one similar trait, saying that because sharks and humans both are eyes the are one in the same is false. Now i am not trying to put your point down what so ever, your gods words might be 100% true. But i prefer to rely apon facts that are giving to me through people who have dedicated their lifes to prove asimple little stuiped scientific fact, like when objects are further away they get smaller, or that light travels into the eye, or that all light is not of a "pure white" nature, or newtons laws of relativity, or e=mc2. You can stay with "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth" if thats a fine explanation to you.

mytym:

You persist in demonstrating how science is not a religion via identifying the definition of science. As previously mentioned, the only valid method of proving your point in this instance is to show how science does not adhere to your previous definition of what constitutes a religion. Faith in it's principles (theories).

Faith, belief or whatever else you want to call it, is always invloved in the absence of facts. You yourself admit that there science steers clear of absolutes (facts) and prefers to deal with possibilities or probabilities (assumptions of best fit) thus some degree of faith, belief or whatever you want to call it, must be involved to account for the percentage of uncertainty, no matter how small it may be.

LCKob:

Quite so, Scientific Methodology by method and process stays away from the unsubstantiated and subjective so... Faith as you (and I ) can agree on relies on the absense of proof and yet it is considered fact. Now this is diametrically opposed to the view that the absence of evidence merely points to ... just that an absense of evidence for an area not explored ... no assumptions, or subjective valuations are appliced for is no substantive basis.

"Faith in it's principles (theories)." hmmmm

Actually that is not an accurate descriptor ... for that would translate into something line ... "SM has conviction without proof or evidence in its principles (theories)"

... in which case faith is not a component because SM requires evidence/data.


mytym:

I do appreciate the effort you have put into presenting your case, but I fail to see how any theory that is not a fact can be used as a base to develop further theories without involving some degree of confidence (faith) that the theory is correct. As a result this satisfies the criteria of a religion satisfactorily.

LCKob:

To reiterate, only religion adheres to the absolute concept of fact ... in the form of an unreproachable truth ... i.e. dogma.

Science makes no such pretensions in the exploration of the causal world. A theory can and will have impact upon society (even given the "fact" that it is not an absolute fact) due to the degree of predictive and projective accuracy the theory generates. Thus the "confidence" you cite is not faith based in conviction, but generated and reinforced by quantitative and qualitative indicators that can and are demonstrated upon demand for all to see in the real world as material evidence for the theory at hand.

Now, you may contend that when the scientific method or process begins, it starts with an idea ... and that this idea requires a degree of "faith" due to the "lack of evidence" ...

In which I contend, that this starting idea or hypothesis is just a possible best guess as to the how and why of something ... any interest is centered on the collected data and what can be concluded from this information.

Faith and religion in general rely on an already established view ... where faith is the mechanism to support the said view ... irregardless of potential indicators to the contrary. Faith takes such matters as a given or often as an immutable fact that is sufficient unto itself with no disputation.

On the other hand, the Scientific process when properly applied NEVER claims the immutable fact, nor does it provide for the motivation or explanation of a phenomena outside of the given data or information. Such a model is continually refined and or modified as further data is collected or a better hypothesis is formed (in which case the older explanation is discarded in favor of the more effective model with better predictive potential.

You say that science i.e. the scientific process to some degree relies on faith, I disagree, if assumptions or elements of faith are present, it has to do with human failings in regards to the proper application of the Scientific Method, and not the method itself. SM is designed to elimnate the subjective and the variable ... from the corellative data into a meaningful set of indicators and predictors that help to elaborate on causal processes.

In other words, the role of data collection is to SUPPLY the scientist with the building blocks for a conclusion (not THE conclusion)

- this is the basis for SM


... whereby in religion, you start with a set of building blocks with the express intent of justifying them as in immutable and above reproach - this is the basis for Faith and Religion in general.

Example -

"There is the one true God"

Religion presupposes this as non negotiable and as "fact"


Scientific Method merely asks the question "Is there a god?"

hmmmm what evidence do we have for and against this question?

So the critical difference is in this notion of Faith ... SM does not subscribe to an idea in and of itself, let alone promote it as "fact", and yet, this is the central tenet of Faith ... which in turn is indispensable to the basis for religion.



[edit on 1-6-2006 by LCKob]

In regards to the itty bitty sentence you raise, as I have mentioned 3 or 4 times in the last few posts, it attempts to define what constitutes science rather than what constitutes a religion, thus cannot aid an argument for or against science being a religion.

It helps a great deal in arguing against it being a religion. It's a god damn METHOD. Again, the issue you have is with THEORIES.

The definition of a religion given by this poster basically says that it requires faith in it's principles. This is the only relevant part to base an argument on. There is no mention of the method in which religion deals with it's principles, thus it makes no difference if science uses different methods to deal with it's principles.

I would have an easier time arguing against this statement if it made abit more sense.

The only point of contention is whether or not science requires faith in it's principles, and as I have already pointed out, in the absence of absolutes, faith to some degree, must be called upon. If you disagree, demonstrate how faith is not required when not dealing with absolutes, don't produce lists of differences between sciences and other religions, as there is often great variation between one religion and the next.

As I've tried explaining before, science isn't about absolutes, religion is. Science (still can't figure out why your so frigging hung up on that word), is a method. A tool. Faith doesn't even come into play in regards to theories (the CORRECT word you should be using). Theories are developed through observations, experimentation, collected data, etc etc etc. There are no "principles" in such a manner as religion has "principles".

For instance, if you had bothered to learn you'd know that the 'big bang' has already been proven, while back ago now. The METHOD, which is the theory behind HOW it happened, is what's in debate. No one know's what initiated the big bang, all we know is that it happened. That's probably all we'll ever know about it as we can't see event's prior to our universe for obvious reason's.

Another example, evolution. It does happen. The exact method behind it is again, what's in debate. What initiated the first spark of "life" is unknown. We can't even come to a definitive answer as to the initial conditions on our planet some 4.6 billion-ish years ago. Without full knowledge, all the data, we can't come to a definitive answer on how it started, but we've gather plenty of data to know it DOES happen.

Neither of these two thing's require faith in the religous context and thus does not make science METHODOLOGY a religion, nor any theories formulated through gathered DATA.

I don't care if people conform to my views or not, but judging by you constant insistance that I am unwilling to learn anything, it seems that you want me to conform to your views.

You don't seem to care about alot of thing's. It's your choice to remain ignorant, sound ignorant, and live in ignorance.

I simply stated my thoughts on the subject and have defended my point of view when others have attacked the validity of such a stance. That's what these types of threads are all about aren't they?

Agreed, 99% of the threads on ATS are created for nothing more then flame baits, attacks and arguments. Such as this thread, especially with such an ignorant topic of discussion filled with bad analogies and personal opinions that don't mean jack poopy.