Science and Its Belief System

I read the book “A Briefer History of Time” and it was only an amusing read. Stephen Hawking does not answer any questions, but he eloquently puts ignorance into words that appear to convey knowledge.

In regard to knowledge, it is nothing but a belief system that was stopped questioning. If anyone reads this scientific claptrap, then please think for yourself. Science is nothing but a religion, but the statement I made must be equal to heresy for many. People are belittled. On the blurb of the book “A Briefer History of Time” it says: “Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist.”
Does Stephen Hawking give you any answers? No. He sells you his belief system. He sells you his fears.

Alien life probably exists, but it may not be very intelligent. Well, Mr. Hawking, since you are on such an ego trip and you are obviously scared that someone is a bit smarter than your majesty, I understand your reaction.

Now I would like to ask a few questions:
Nobody has ever been inside a black hole. How do you know that there is an infinite point of singularity in the centre of the black hole? No proof equals belief system.

Has anyone ever seen a black hole? I guess not. You may see the effects of what you call to be a black hole, but that’s it; another belief system.
Is the universe expanding? Yes? No? If yes, then I thought science claims the universe to be infinite. Anything that is infinite cannot expand, because it would be already infinitely expanded. If it is not infinite, then where is the universe expanding into? Of course, space and time bends around itself, but only where the universe expands. Excuse me, how can anyone make such a claim? It is a nice belief system to me.

If space and time bends around itself, it could bend just anywhere and you might be captured in this very spot. A result would be that you never made a movement in your life. Maybe solipsism is real? Of course, scientists call it nonsense. Why? It is not testable? Excuse me, how many claims does science make that are not testable either? Science is another form of religion, but the average Joe loves to embrace what he or she is told. Beliefs have a good function. They make one feel good. And who doesn’t want to feel good? So let’s all believe.

Is the universe contained in something? If you look into an empty glass, you see nothing, but by having the glass that is empty, that nothing in the glass becomes something that you call nothing. Nothing is a concept. So if that nothing you can see in the glass only comes into existence by dint of the glass and you compare it with the universe, then does the universe need a receptacle too? Please no belief systems. I need proof.

What was before the big bang? Big crunch? Big bounce? Maybe even Big Mac? Everything we are told is nonsense, because it is a belief system.
If a person can be hypnotized and be told that he or she is alone in a room, even though he or she isn't alone at all, how difficult is it then to consider the possibilities that we are in a hypnotized state right now?

How many UFO sightings have we had? How many people have come and testified? How many people have seen aliens? Does anyone believe that they are all liars? How many crop circles have we seen? Is it all just faked? What about Astral Projection? Seeing entities? Is it all just another lie? How many people have had Near-Death-Experiences? I assume it is all nonsense too, right? And what about reincarnation?

Let’s see what Zecharia Sitchin comes up with. Oh, I guess he is just a fraud. OK. But what about the Nag Hammadi Library? I advise those scientific sheeple to read “On the Origin of the World”. However, I think people simply come and discard it.

I am not saying that the Nag Hammadi Library holds the truth and I haven’t read it all, but open-minded people must consider all possibilities and look into everything. Science, however, does not do that at all. Scientists rather choose to make attempts to debunk a person or ignore things entirely.

But when Mr. Hawking and his fellows speak up, the average Joe feels so great and happy if he or she understands a word. Oh my goodness, people are so conditioned into believing everything they are told, it is just incredible.
Science is a religion and refuses to take criticism. The Vatican has disabled the rating system on Youtube. I can see parallels here.

I choose not to believe. I choose to experience. I choose to be open-minded and if it means that I am all alone on this planet with an open minded, then so be it. Of course there are many open-minded people, but scientific sheeple are not open-minded at all and what you are told by scientists must always be taken with a grain of salt.

Greetings

ps: I know these wicked typos and grammar mistakes are everywhere.


[edit on 8-2-2009 by TheWriter]

I do beleive the big bang theory is a joke. They would like you to beleive that nothing exploded and created everything. now if they told me something exploded in the infinte universe and positioned our galaxy and others near by in the configuration that we see everything in today that is beleivable.

Two books worth your time are by Robert anton Wilson about this very subject, "The NEw Inquistion" and "Prometheus Rising" as well as "Quantum Psychology", I would recommend all his writings as well as anything by John Lilly or some stuff by David Bohm.

I think you fail to understand the scientific methodology. Where something is not proven a hypothesis is created to explain what we do see, it’s just an educated guess. This is then tested to see if it holds true, if not it is modified and the method starts again. Where something isn’t directly observed, such as you example of the singularity of a black hole science can hypothesize that one must exist to explain what is observed but this can be modified depending on what evidence is found through observation and testing but it is never closed to modification. I can’t see the wind blowing the trees outside but I can still know with a high degree of certainty that it’s there based on what I know about the phenomenon.

In the case of the Universe, no science does not say it is infinite; it’s about 90 billion light years in diameter.

I think you’ll find science to be very open to self correction and evolution of its methodologies. If it was such a dogmatic belief system as you say then how could we have had the big bang vs steady state debate or any number of others?

I also think you’ll find that science has done plenty of tests of psychics and astral projection and all that kind of thing.

he eloquently puts ignorance into words that appear to convey knowledge.

Very well put! Can I use that statement?

Growing up Christian, science was in many cases were pointed at as idiots to me. Partly for similar reasons you have stated, and for seemingly trying to show there is no God.

about 1/2 my possible life span later, I want fact and reasonableness. Religion does not offer that. I would say much of science does offer fact and reasonableness (theory falls under reasonableness).

What does the inside of a black hole look like? Theory and conjecture only. Sounds like the "Brain" has faith in these theories.

I suppose Faith goes both ways, from the non-provable to the non-provable on the other end. It sounds like he is making science into a religion at least for himself.

Besides as you said "he sells you..." that is the point. He made money off of you and the rest that bought his book describing his faith. I have never read his stuff, don't know if I ever will.

Ya, know I thought I had a point.....now I forgot the rest

Weird scientists..... little children taking apart their toys/world and don't know how to put them back together again with disastrous results. Today's scientific paradigms are tomorrows superstitions. Weird science.... once called witchcraft/magic/sorcery/etc...... then alchemy..... now "science". Science the magic behind the thugs who rule this planet. Trickle down science gives the peasants just enough to keep them buying their crap.... but the really weird scientific technological advances the peasants will never see because it is the "stuff" that gives their masters their god-like powers. Omniscience... omnipotent.... omnipresent........ 100% big brother surveillance the stuff of which nightmares are made. Welcome to the new and improved hi-tech enlightened scientific method man's world.

reply to post by Mike_A


Heres a methodology for you i will give you a box with nothing in it and you must use only what is in the box to create an explosion of untold size and power. Or just take the second part of it and create something from what was in the box(nothing). Is there a chance in hell you can do either one that alone both at the same time.

reply to post by JBA2848



I think you’re trying to set up a straw man argument. If I can’t make something form nothing then the big bang couldn’t have happened or something like that?

No one pretends to understand everything however that doesn’t mean observations can’t be articulated and consequences inferred from them. We may not know how the big bang came about or what came before it but that doesn’t change the fact that all observations point towards all matter in the universe beginning from a single point.

I’m not trying to argue in favour of the big bang theory by the way so there’s no point in quizzing me on its technicalities; I’m merely pointing out why the theory is not a dogmatic belief as per religion.

Science is not a belief system, it is a methodology. If you think otherwise you don’t understand science.


Out of interest, can I ask what all of your particular belief systems are?

[edit on 8-2-2009 by Mike_A]

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
Two books worth your time are by Robert anton Wilson about this very subject, "The NEw Inquistion" and "Prometheus Rising" as well as "Quantum Psychology", I would recommend all his writings as well as anything by John Lilly or some stuff by David Bohm.

Thank you for the recommendations. I am currently reading "The Holographic Universe", but I will make sure to check out the books you have mentioned.

Originally posted by Mike_A
I think you fail to understand the scientific methodology.
...
In the case of the Universe, no science does not say it is infinite; it’s about 90 billion light years in diameter.
...

Don't get me wrong, but if you say that the universe is NOT infinite and it is about 90 billion light years in diameter,
then what? Is there a sign that says: "End of Universe"? And how come that it is about 90 billion light years in diameter if it is supposed to be expanding?
And if the universe expands, where does it expand into? And is the universe held by some sort of a receptacle? And what about space time that bends around itself? I wrote a lot in my thread, so please re-read it if it's necessary.

I am not quizzing you on technicalities either, because I know you don't know the answers to the questions I have asked above.

But I think you failed to read all points I made in my thread. However it was quite a lot of text, so it's OK.

Greetings

Originally posted by bubbabuddha
Two books worth your time are by Robert anton Wilson

RAW should be recognised for being one of the greatest minds of the previous century IMO.

Writer;

The answers to your questions are irrelevant to your claim.

For example you ask what is the Universe expanding into. The answer to that question, whether it is “an area devoid of matter or energy” or “I don’t know”, doesn’t make science a belief system akin to religion because the answer is always based on what is observed.

Science does not claim to have all the answers or to be always correct, it is nothing more than a methodology for finding the best explanation for an observed phenomena.

Science starts with an observation and makes its explanations fit that observation. Religion starts with a belief and tries to makes the observations fit that belief.


I suppose you could argue that religion started out as science; after all it seems likely that most religions began as an attempt to explain what early man saw around him. Unfortunately they stopped there and didn’t correct their hypothesis as they were shown to be incorrect. From that perspective you could, instead of looking at science as a religion rather look at religion as an, albeit failed, branch of science.


Edit to add - Just because you look at a scientific theory and see contradictions (expanding universe, how can it be expanding if it's infinate) doesn't mean they are actually there. Perhaps consider that it is your own ignorance of the subject that is the fault (nothing wrong with that I'm certainly ignorant when it comes to the finer details of the origins of the universe!).

With that particular question in mind, I found this link quite interesting;

curious.astro.cornell.edu...


[edit on 8-2-2009 by Mike_A]

reply to post by Mike_A

Accually I picked apart the very basis of everything you beleive but you still hold steadfast to your beleif. Just becuase you look out into space and see the expansion from an explosion doesn't mean the center of the expasion was the begining of everything just the begining of that explosion.
Same can be said with the bible god created adam and eve they had two sons cane and able. cane killed able and god said as punishment i will mark your forhead so as you are removed from the garden of eve all people in the other twons and villages will know what you done and he took his wife and left. and you ask the question where did the wife the villages of people and towns of people come from. And you believe this tares apart the basis of the bible and how can you beleive any of it.
Just cause I don't beleive in the big bang I do still beleive most of the logical and proven facts. But I don't just blindly beleive something that can't be true.

Originally posted by JBA2848
Accually I picked apart the very basis of everything you beleive but you still hold steadfast to your beleif.

I didn’t tell you my beliefs, how could you have done that?

Your posts deal exclusively with the big bang theory, I didn’t say whether I personally thought that it is the best model or not. To be honest I don’t really know that much about the big bang theory from a truly scientific perspective so I can’t make any judgements on whether the current theory is correct.

What I am saying is that science is not the same as religion, the big bang is just an example that has cropped up. However from what I do know, and this is straying off topic imho, you are incorrect in your belief that the current scientific position is that the big bang was the start of everything. It is however considered the best supported model of how the universe came to be as we know it now; it doesn’t say what came before.

Back on topic, I say it is considered the best model because it best fits with what has been observed and has so far been consistent with the predictions made for this model (e.g. the expanding, or stretching, of the universe and the constant background radiation).

This is opposed to religion where there is no room for me to; for example, throw out Adam and Eve because it doesn’t fit with the observed facts of evolution.

Originally posted by Mike_A
Edit to add - Just because you look at a scientific theory and see contradictions (expanding universe, how can it be expanding if it's infinate) doesn't mean they are actually there. Perhaps consider that it is your own ignorance of the subject that is the fault (nothing wrong with that I'm certainly ignorant when it comes to the finer details of the origins of the universe!).
[edit on 8-2-2009 by Mike_A]

Mike_A, I see no reason why we have to agree on this subject. It is a discussion forum and no agreement forum, right? But here is another point I need to make:

In the article it says that if the universe is infinitely big, then the answer is simply that it isn't expanding into anything. So far so good. But then it goes on and says that every region of the universe, every distance between every pair of galaxies is being "stretched". Now it is getting really interesting and the article goes on with: ... but the overall size of the universe was infinitely big to begin with and continues to remain infinitely big as time goes on, so the universe's size doesn't change, and therefore it doesn't expand into anything.

OK. I may be entirely ignorant but next time you throw away old socks, just take one sock and imagine it is the universe. Consider this "sock" also to be infinitely big and now let's stretch this good piece. Stretch it. The word "stretch" means e.g. "to draw out or extend". Do you see any change in size?

The possibility that such an illogical scenario (that science claims) is real must be considered as a possibility, but I have got a problem that science gives you its BELIEF SYSTEM. The title of the thread is "Science and Its Belief System".

Greetings

[edit on 9-2-2009 by TheWriter]

From your posts it seems that you are trying to say that science is a religion because scientists support theories that you personally find contradiction in. If this is the case then your level of knowledge and understanding is a point to be debated. If you are a physicist and have produced sound papers outlining your objections and have had these refused based on nothing more than dogma then that would support your claim. However if you are as me, and probably most others on here, an informed enthusiast then I would suggest it is more likely that you just don’t fully understand the theory as presented.

The point isn’t whether or not a given theory is correct it is whether the theory is open to correction. The myriad of changes to countless scientific theories since the discipline emerged shows that it is open to that correction. If you presented your reasons for believing the big bang theory to be fundamentally flawed in a scientific manner, open to peer review you could change the theory. Of course that depends on you being correct.

It’s no good arguing on here the merits of a single theory when your subject is about the methodology as a whole.


As I said in the thread you quoted me from;

Science does not claim to have all the answers or to be always correct, it is nothing more than a methodology for finding the best explanation for an observed phenomena.

Science starts with an observation and makes its explanations fit that observation. Religion starts with a belief and tries to makes the observations fit that belief. That is why science is not a belief system akin to religion.

Originally posted by Mike_A
If this is the case then your level of knowledge and understanding is a point to be debated.

How do you want to debate my level of knowledge and understanding?
Have you, for example, ever been to the other side of the universe?
Have you, for example,ever been inside a black hole?
Have you, for example, witnessed the big bang?

Greetings

You’re missing my point, it doesn’t matter what the answers to these questions are because they deal with a specific theory that neither you nor I are qualified to debate on a comprehensive scientific level (unless you are a physicist as I mentioned earlier, hence your knowledge being a factor).

The point is that if your issues with the big bang theory (and others) are correct then the theory can be modified or thrown out. All you have to do is present your ideas to the scientific community and open them up to scrutiny. And that is why science is not the same as religion; that and its methodology of fitting its theories around its observations instead of its observations around its theories.