is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

bastion

leostokes
reply to post by bastion

 

I personally find it disturbing and insulting

Why do you say this to some one you disagree with? Why make it personal?

If every one agreed with each other, lawyers would be out of business.

I'm a private tutor in Science, Maths and English and think teaching is one of the most noble professions there is, so see abusing that position as disgusting. I see lying to children and misleading them in this way as child abuse. Teaching them 'logic' in this fashion means having to lie about the entire process of logic, scientific method etc...which deprives people of an education and puts them at a major disadvantage for the rest of their lives. Instead of being able to separate fact from fiction themselves, they're always going to be at the mercy of others to tell them what to think if they don't learn these essential skills.

There's nothing wrong with having beliefs as long as people don't try and pretend they're facts.

edit on 6-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2013 by bastion because: (no reason given)

Teaching is indeed a noble profession. Teachers should take care that what they teach is correct.

However, people do not agree on what is correct. Therefore it becomes the judgement of the individual teacher to present the lesson.

Sometimes the teacher finds himself in court. The famous Scopes Monkey Trial pitted evolutionists against creationists in disagreement as to what should be taught as correct. That was in 1925 but the issue is still alive today.

reply to post by leostokes


If an answer is not known it doesn't mean you get to make one up, you just say it's not known yet.

Evolution vs Creationism is one of the topics I find disturbing as there's plenty of solid evidence for evolution and none for creationism. The only reason creationism is still around is because people interpret the bible as fact and skew all evidence to fit into that assumption and also cherry pick data which is completely illogical so should have no place in the classroom.

leostokes's logic:

mole 2 (ml)
n.
1. Any of various small insectivorous mammals of the family Talpidae, usually living underground and having thickset bodies with light brown to dark gray silky fur, rudimentary eyes, tough muzzles, and strong forefeet for burrowing.
2. A machine that bores through hard surfaces, used especially for tunneling through rock.
3. A spy who operates from within an organization, especially a double agent operating against his or her own government from within its intelligence establishment.
4. A small congenital growth on the human skin, usually slightly raised and dark and sometimes hairy, especially a pigmented nevus.

Therefore my skin is covered in small insectivorous mammals.

leostokes, seeing as you are playing a game of semantics, pick ONE definition and stick to it. Otherwise, there is no logical consistency to your argument. However, by doing so you will find the definitions that apply to science and religion are in fact mutually exclusive. Picking different definitions as and when it suits your (transparent) agenda is intellectually dishonest and, quite frankly, displays an embarrassing lack of reasoning skills.

reply to post by bastion


1. What personally insulting, assaultive and hostile things to say.

2. Actually, for a time, I was Chairman of the Univ Dept overseas.

3. You are wholesale wrong and evidently willfully avoidant of the evidence for a Creator. Alas, there's no accounting for taste and sometimes little for rigid, blind bias. In spite of there being ABSOLUTELY NO tangible REAL LIFE EVIDENCE for organized complexity arising out of chaos, you still cling dogmatically to the unprecedented absurdity that it happened. Not only that it happened, but UNSCIENTIFICALLY that it happened in preposterously short time span . . . even allowing the absurd logic of the probabilities involved in chance plus time = organized life giving self-replicating molecules.

Ridiculous.

HOWEVER, I'm confident that when the globalists begin more en mass to march the Christians to the death chambers and guillotines, your mantra will be sung and shouted far and wide. You'll have plenty of company cheering alongside your perspective, then.

.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Bolding your words doesn't make them more impressive. Nor does it make up for the conspicuous lack of evidence.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


As usual, your ASSUMPTIONS about my preferences for textual forms is grossly lacking in understanding and perceptiveness.

Help's one understand why you so wholesale seem to miss facts in other more foundational areas.

However, it is in character with the ATTACK THE MESSENGER--instead of deal meaningfully in a quality way with the message--habits of so many hereon.
.

reply to post by bastion


NOPE.

Even bright tribal peoples without any clue to Christianity know emphatically that all this did

NOT spring magically from chaos & nothing on a Thursday morning.

The ignorant fantasy that ordered complexity sprung spontaneously from chaos and nothing is a rather new stinking pile on the philosophical scene. Evidently it was awaiting the arrogance of the "modern" era.

reply to post by BO XIAN


reply to post by BO XIAN


Just because we're not yet certain doesn't mean someone/something created it. It simply means we don't know, adding anything to that is pure speculation.

There's plenty of evidence for it, see evolution of planets, galaxies, solar systems out of chaos. There's also plenty of models on evolution of life which describe how the process takes place. Using these models has allowed artificial life to be created in various labs - giving us proof of concept.

I honestly have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that me saying faith by definition is illogical means I'm calling for a holocaust of Christians.



Claiming that people instinctively know the answers to mysteries is precisely why we need science and logic as tools to separate fact from fiction.

leostokes

-PLB-
reply to post by leostokes

 

Since you do not seem to use this rather unusual definition you use of "faith" to equate science to religion it’s not a very big deal.

Still, when people talk about faith, in general they are talking about a belief that is not based on evidence. If not, then faith is nothing more than a synonym of belief, there would be no semantic difference between the words. Maybe English is not your native language (it’s not mine) but to me the inherent lack of evidence seems to be the discriminating factor between faith and belief.

An alternative would be to not use the word faith at all, and instead always write "belief without evidence" or invent a new term for it. But it seems to me that the word faith suffices already, as most people will interpret like that anyhow.

Bertrand Russell noted, "Where there is evidence, no one speaks of 'faith'. We do not speak of faith that two and two are four or that the earth is round. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins criticizes all faith by generalizing from specific faith in propositions that conflict directly with scientific evidence. He describes faith as mere belief without evidence; a process of active non-thinking. He states that it is a practice that only degrades our understanding of the natural world by allowing anyone to make a claim about nature that is based solely on their personal thoughts, and possibly distorted perceptions, that does not require testing against nature, has no ability to make reliable and consistent predictions, and is not subject to peer review.

(Wikipedia)

There is no question that science is based on logical deduction and religion is not. They are not similar in this way. But I assert that people should know that mathematics is based on a belief system. Namely that logic is better equipped to lead to the truth. But mathematical truths are not absolute. People who look to science for salvation are in deep trouble.

My rather unusual definition (as you call it) of faith as "strongly held belief or theory" comes straight out of the dictionary.

As I said, we merely disagree on the definition.

edit on 5-11-2013 by leostokes because: add

So your computer (whether the hardware or software), nearly every other technology you use, /whether mechanical, electronical, hydraulic, pneumatic etc) works based on a belief system? These are all largely based on mathemathics behind them, which determines the outcome of the particular product.

Nearly every item you use is largely based on physics, math and chemistry.

As I described before no scientific field is complete, even mathemathics. Constantly new discoveries, new formulas, new proofs are derived. Euclidean, non-euclidean math are simply two sides of the same coin. Nearly everything around us is based on euclidean math. Although in certain situations, when it comes to certain curved spaces (elliptic , spherical or hyperbolic surfaces )non-euclidean math provides more accurate results based on evidence . There is no uniformed theory yet on Eucledian/Non-Eucledian Geometry, although scientists are working on it constantly, trying to reach perfection, the uniformed theory.

This does not mean that the current mathemathics is based on belief. Results show enough, as you can measure what is on Earth and determine which provides the most accurate results for which situations-

In foundations of science, in what we learn more specificly during school, there is a consensus. Even on university level there is consensus. Although the more specific and the more advanced fields get, at some point we reach the top of our current knowledge and start grasping new areas. That is where sometimes consensus does not exist due to us having not enough data or evidence (often due to too small or too large systems) for any particular theory. Sometimes exceptions to the rule are found, like the non-euclidean math. This simply means that our current system needs additions. Certain definitions might need to be updated, some axioms be added, so that the things that were correct now would stay so and the things that were not would become correct and explained.

Hypothesis are formed, theories created based on these and with advances in technology, computing and new discoveries sooner or later some of the theories gets the proof behind it to become a fact.

Science is not based on faith, it is simply incomplete - but in time the picture becomes fuller and our understanding of the surroundings of us become clearer.

Even though I am atheist, I do not leave out the option that some higher power might exist, although stating that science is a belief system shows simply lack of understanding of scientific method. You know bits and pieces from here and there, but you lack the fundamental understanding of it, which creates the confusion. We would still live in middle ages, if there was no science.

bastion
I honestly have no idea how you arrived at the conclusion that me saying faith by definition is illogical means I'm calling for a holocaust of Christians.

Elementary Dear Watson . . .

When the blather matches the sort of sequential marginalizing, ostracizing, blackwashing, hostility

e.g. 'how terminally horrible that you're allowed to teach' etc. etc. etc.

akin to Hitler's sequential step by step labeling, blackwashing, marginalizing the Jews . . .

It's really very simple.

If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, lays eggs like a duck, flies like a duck . . .
.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Well if that's your idea of logic, evidence and proof I rest my case and repeat my sympathies to those you 'taught'

Better go and warn all my religious mates I'm Hitler...

reply to post by bastion


Hail Bastion! Hail Bastion! Haha...

reply to post by bastion


Please continue the nastiness.

It's a fairly faithful correlation with the anti-God perspective.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Please continue the nastiness.

It's a fairly faithful correlation with the anti-God perspective.

Yeah right. Unlike some, I don't need a god to be a good person. You're just spewing vitriol for lack of any reasonable points to make. You're not fooling anyone who doesn't want to be fooled.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Oh give over. You just accused me of being Hitler reincarnated while also accusing me of personal attacks so don't try and play the innocent one here.

BO XIAN
reply to post by bastion

 

NOPE.

Even bright tribal peoples without any clue to Christianity know emphatically that all this did

NOT spring magically from chaos & nothing on a Thursday morning.

Bright tribal peoples thought "all this" came from snake semen, or a giant ornery playtpus or 5 thousand other origin myths.

Grouping ignorance together makes for more ignorants.

Not one bright tribal people explained the cosmic background radiation and statistical characteristics of its asymmetry and fluctuation spectrum.

Deny Ignorance.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Who created the creator then? Just came out of nothing (chos)? You re saying complexity can not rise from chaos, yet the creator of a complex world must be even more complex than the creation itself.

bastion
reply to post by leostokes

 

If an answer is not known it doesn't mean you get to make one up, you just say it's not known yet.

Evolution vs Creationism is one of the topics I find disturbing as there's plenty of solid evidence for evolution and none for creationism. The only reason creationism is still around is because people interpret the bible as fact and skew all evidence to fit into that assumption and also cherry pick data which is completely illogical so should have no place in the classroom.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

This is a valid question. If you answer chicken, you are a creationist. If you say egg, you are an evolutionist.

This question exists independently of the Bible.

reply to post by Cabin

This does not mean that the current mathemathics is based on belief.

There is a sense in which it does.

Before the Greeks invented mathematics around 300BC people went to the Delphic Oracle to get answers. Then they took his advice (I assume).

The custom of consulting an oracle is a belief system. If you change the oracle you get different advice but you do not change the fact that it is a belief system.

Today mathematicians are the oracles.

pick ONE definition and stick to it

reply to post by GetHyped


That is exactly what I in fact did.