Thread Rating:
  • 2 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Is science the new religion?
03-05-2011, 11:25 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 01:59 AM by hubbabubba.)
#1
Is science the new religion?
Is science the new religion?

Sometimes the sciences and the religions have been at war, sometimes they have been working together. Usually both at the same time.

The climate sciences is a good example of this. Now you are supposed to believe that it is getting colder because it is getting warmer. People that don't think this are called deniers. You have the same doomsday scenario and it's all because of our sins. Sounds pretty much like religion to me.

With atheism on the rise, is the sciences becoming the new world religion? The venus project is a good example of this. It's a nice piece of machinery they are planning, but where is the soul in their project. It's so clean and automated, but where is the spirituality? Democracy? Forum? Is humanity becoming just another cog in the machinery but made of flesh and blood? Is there a new god, the resource management AI, sitting in the center of all wiring? If so, who is doing the programming?
Reply
03-05-2011, 01:47 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-05-2011, 02:04 PM by rsol.)
#2
RE: Is science the new religion?
ok lets do it hereSmile

You cant put religion and science together. Propagation of a theory is not the same as everyone agreeing.

proof and evidence are only trumped by belief if you use religion as a means to decide.
Atheism is not a science it is a lack of need to believe. A true athiest does not have that empty feeling inside knowing there is no god.

You talk of religion in a spritualistic sense. thats not been the issue in science. science has never had a problem with religion, quite the reverse.

Evolution is damnable is the eyes of some. creation being taught as a "science" is where the grind has been of late. the whole debate is really belief vs evidence. The problem is. if you present creation as a science it has to be tested and shown to be correct or incorrect, not if it sounds cool or not.

Ive said this before. I have a soul like a rope is the soul of string. I am more than the sum of my parts, naturally. i think thats pretty special on its own. No middle man or imaginary friend required. im not a machine, that would require a creator.

I must explain weather patterns clearer to you. i find its best with a cup of water.

Imagine it on a hot plate at 50 degrees C nothing happening on the surface. but under the water you have currents forming from the centre with warm water hitting the surface and cooling to return to the bottom from the sides. take it to 90. still nothing. but its all starting to get a bit weird. the over all temp in the cup is fluctuating wildly with vapour starting to escape. push past the 100 mark and its bubbling. massive fluctuations of heat.

On a planetary scale flames of cold are purged and propelled by warm air as it tries to seek equalibrium. The hotter the warm air is. the crazier the weather patterns become as the relative temperature of the cold gets even colder. thus more winds that drive hot and cold air and more chance of adverse weather patterns regardless of the sunspot activity. this is basic environmental science. you explain it out of context. some dont worry about a slight rise in sea levels dont understand that a tidal rise is EXPONENTIAL to the amount of water in the ocean. tides like tsunami are already happening to lowlands. higher temperatures mean more chance of vapourisation of water thus more rain meaning more humidity and thus even more rise in temperature. feedback after feedback. with life in the seas (our main stay for equalising many greenhouse gasses) less and less life is ablt to exist as a constant stream of chemicals saturate the floor.

Its an overall. its not just about how much a cow farts. its a culture we have been stuck in for centuries just like religion. you have no proof such a model is sustainable and plenty to suggest otherwise. the danger of belief is it requires no proof and does not record error.


Reply
03-05-2011, 06:46 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 02:00 AM by hubbabubba.)
#3
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-05-2011, 01:47 PM)rsol Wrote: You cant put religion and science together. Propagation of a theory is not the same as everyone agreeing.

Both religion and the sciences are constantly changing. Much of this change comes from world politics. Only natural law is constant, and then maybe only if viewed within a short timespan. Science calls the change paradigm shifts, religion calls the change revelations. This change usually fits the agenda of the powers that be.

Quote:science has never had a problem with religion, quite the reverse.

I agree, that's why I say science is the new religion. Smile Something I added above: You have the same doomsday scenario and it's all because of our sins.

Quote:not if it sounds cool or not.

Neanderthal living together with homo sapiens, maybe as slaves, or even sex slaves? Is that cool or what? That's the stuff for poular sciences!

Quote:No middle man or imaginary friend required. im not a machine, that would require a creator.

But you still came to be? For that you would have to give thanks first to the universe, then to the galaxy, then to the sun, then to the moon, then to the earth, then to the water, then to the plants, then to the insects, then to the mammals, then to your parents and lastly to yourself for respecting life. Then maybe you would wonder what is beyond or before the universe, what the universe gives thanks to.

Quote:I must explain weather patterns clearer to you.

As I said in another thread. What we are discussing here is small fluctuations in a endless fractal loop. The fractal loop being the sun fluctuating between long periods of more or less activity, thus creating long periods of cold and warm climate on the earth, resulting in ice ages and relative warm periods in between.

My guess is that AGW theories are used for personal gain on small small fluctuations in this enormously big and complex galaxy - solar - planet system. If Al Gore and buddies get rich or not doesn't matter in the scale of things (or maybe it does?). Pollution and exploitation of natural resources, on the other hand, is a totally different issue.

Quote:you have no proof such a model is sustainable and plenty to suggest otherwise. the danger of belief is it requires no proof and does not record error.

I agree if you talk about pollution and exploitation of natural resources but not if you talk about the climate.

I can't prove I'm right, you can't prove me wrong, you can't prove you're right and I can't prove you are wrong. What is left is belief.

You believe in the established sciences, such as the IPCC and popular sciences. I believe in the alternative sciences, such as the solar and sun spot sciences. I think my belief is rooted in reason and your belief in sciences derived from politics which is religion. Hopefully no offense being taken.
Reply
03-06-2011, 07:31 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 07:44 PM by JazzRoc.)
#4
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-05-2011, 01:47 PM)rsol Wrote: It's a culture we have been stuck in for centuries just like religion. you have no proof such a model is sustainable and plenty to suggest otherwise.
Like a succession of religions, each parasitizing the previous one, stealing its best moves, and propagating them as if they were its own.
The strongest religion is the strongest meme parasite.
The only test of religions is their damnable effectiveness. They are still able to turn basically nice people into deadly indiscriminate killers.

Quote:The danger of belief is it requires no proof and does not record error.
Rsol, you have greatly improved in my estimation. Of course, you're quite correct.

Hubbabubba, you haven't the first appreciation of science.

Science isn't a belief system at all, save in the case where practising scientists believe in the general effectiveness of publishing science in professional institutions which subject all work to the scrutiny of others equally well qualified and experienced.

The work itself is always an expression of disbelief in the putative nature of any process, and the disproof of any of these processes may one day overturn the present-day theory - whatever that theory may be.

There is NEVER any "belief" in science. The thread is self-contradictory; its only utility is in educating people like hubbabubba.

Science will one day supplant religion - much as humans have supplanted apes.

It is LOGIC and REASON (science) which puts humans ahead of the apes: let the apes have RELIGION.
Reply
03-06-2011, 08:21 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 10:01 PM by hubbabubba.)
#5
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-06-2011, 07:31 PM)JazzRoc Wrote: Science isn't a belief system at all, save in the case where practising scientists believe in the general effectiveness of publishing science in professional institutions which subject all work to the scrutiny of others equally well qualified and experienced.

As I have understood it, this is the way AGW research has been done, with peer review. The Climategate affair showed that this peer review system was open to corruption.

Quote:The work itself is always an expression of disbelief in the putative nature of any process, and the disproof of any of these processes may one day overturn the present-day theory - whatever that theory may be.

Yes, science is right until proven wrong, then there's a paradigm shift and science is right yet again, into infinity.

Quote:There is NEVER any "belief" in science.

So how about the big bang? Or evolution theory? AGW?

Quote:The thread is self-contradictory; its only utility is in educating people like hubbabubba.

So educate me.

Quote:Science will one day supplant religion

That's exactly what I am saying here. Instead of holy water there will be vaccines, instead of meditation there will be happy pills and so on.

Reply
03-06-2011, 09:07 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 09:09 PM by rsol.)
#6
RE: Is science the new religion?
science is the use of information gained to further a product or aid someone.

Religion is about HOW we live with each other and has no relevance as to how we came to be.

The main problem religion has with science is, if people dont believe we were made by some great creator, how will they believe the rest of the statements in the bible? What if my "god given" rights disappear because of it?

Its actually another state vs the individual debate. its just shrouded in this charade of god and gods place in society. You dont have to answer to the state if you have a god to back you up. the supreme authority....

holy water vs vaccines? i know which one id go for in a polio epidemicSmile the only way that it would replace the holy water is if it were water.

You will find many Christian based conspiracy theories about communism, feminism, science and scientific dictatorships. this is the fear of the mark.

As ive said before, you follow the fear and you find the evil that breeds from it.
Reply
03-06-2011, 09:55 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 10:06 PM by hubbabubba.)
#7
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-06-2011, 09:07 PM)rsol Wrote: science is the use of information gained to further a product or aid someone.

It really doesn't matter if AGW is true or not. Still CO2 taxes in all forms are paid by you and me to some global thing that develops to a new world government that controls everything; energy, water, food and production. Who is aided by that? Well, depends on the guys running the new world government I guess. The world will still get warmer or colder, as that is dictated by the sun.

Quote:Religion is about HOW we live with each other and has no relevance as to how we came to be.

Religion is to believe in dogma, something that can't be proved, just like AGW.

Quote:holy water vs vaccines? i know which one id go for in a polio epidemicSmile the only way that it would replace the holy water is if it were water.

I think I would agree, if the epidemic was true, and the vaccines weren't poison.

Go back to the middle-ages.

The priest(scientist) is screaming, the devil(epidemic) is coming, come(buy) for your holy water(vaccines)!

The devil never came and religion won it's false war against satan.
Reply
03-06-2011, 10:20 PM,
#8
RE: Is science the new religion?
JazzRoc Wrote:So how about the big bang? Or evolution theory?AGW?
a scientific theory isn't just something people think like say i could come up with a theory that up Nick Cleggs arse is David Cameron's hand hand(metaphorically probably right-ish but not a fact) ... it's something that is tried and tested with reliable evidence .
i may upset some people but i don't buy the global warming thing as it's "sold" to us s it were and the whole scandal about fixing numbers and destroying evidence didn't do science in general any favours at all. just smell the money really and that's the case there.
however in retort i could list an array of religious "faux pas" if you really like?
Evolution though, has to be absolutely established as fact.
there is a vast chain of evidence that anyone with the merest hint of sense can see is factual.
this "intelligent design" "argument" is utter bullshit , it's just a way of saying "god did it", wrapping superstition in cloth made to look like science but absolutely isn't.
evolutionary science is helped along the way with other sciences such as geology ,archaeology,biology,genetics,palaeontology and more which give the people who think the world is a mere 6 thousand years old a bit of a spanking.
religion requires indoctrination and then faith/belief.
Science uses empirical research , facts and checkable results and checkable evidence.
big Bang Theory.. well i'd go for that rather than "shazaam" and it came to be!
remember in scientific theory... there is a chain of evidence and facts.... often with big ones like that backed up by other disciplines which meet to agree in an academic sense.
whereas with religious faith..... all you need is that faith......... and nothing further is needed to sustain your belief.
many times here i ave said i am of the Stoic persuasion and here's partly why...... look at the description of physics in Stoicism.... remind me of stringy quantum things..lol the "universal mind fire" reminds me of string theory.

[Image: siolflag.gif]
Reply
03-06-2011, 11:10 PM,
#9
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-06-2011, 10:20 PM)pax681 Wrote: the whole scandal about fixing numbers and destroying evidence didn't do science in general any favours at all.

See below.

Quote:Science uses empirical research , facts and checkable results and checkable evidence.

See above.

Quote:religion requires indoctrination and then faith/belief.

As did AGW.

Quote:Evolution though, has to be absolutely established as fact.

Why is it then called a theory? And why does it have large black holes in it's evidence chain. And how do you fly with a half-developed wing?

Quote:big Bang Theory.. well i'd go for that rather than "shazaam" and it came to be!

Well, if you didn't notice, that is "shazaam" and it came to be!

Why do I sometimes get the feeling I am talking to sect members?
Reply
03-06-2011, 11:48 PM, (This post was last modified: 03-06-2011, 11:51 PM by rsol.)
#10
RE: Is science the new religion?
where are these black holes of evidence in evolution?

Quote:And how do you fly with a half-developed wing?

That statement is not from someone having an understanding of evolution.

If you understand even elemental (pardon the pun) quantum theory you can see that a universe is/was inevitable. can i ask why the universe NOT existing is a natural state for you?
Quote:Why do I sometimes get the feeling I am talking to sect members?

Its probably most of us here agree on certain scientific processes. To dash them as some belief system will get you surrounded by folks who may know a touch about the subjects. Its interesting how you can trust it to fly you across a country or hold your life against otherwise mortal infections and injuries. however when it may state that our uses of energy have a finite margin, its hokum.

The climate-gate scandal only showed how there are far too many paranoid people out there. it did hone my ability to spot the shallow streams that make the most noise.
Reply
03-07-2011, 12:49 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-07-2011, 12:55 AM by pax681.)
#11
RE: Is science the new religion?
hubbabubba Wrote:Quote:big Bang Theory.. well i'd go for that rather than "shazaam" and it came to be!


Well, if you didn't notice, that is "shazaam" and it came to be!

Why do I sometimes get the feeling I am talking to sect members?
erm.. way to miss the point ENTIRELY

"shazaam" chosen as a word... ..you know.. in the beginning was the word.... i chose shazaam as that word
the big bang theory is VASTLY different to that.
for example there are still echoes of it you can STILL pick up NOW.
there is proof of it over the "steady state."
hubbabubba Wrote:Why is it then called a theory?
i tild you why... i can link you to wiki or elsewhere that will show you but i think you are being deliberately facetious .
as for big black holes... erm.... aye right... sorry but evolution certainly does not.
As for half formed wings... well.. that's a GENETIC MUTATION... that mutation not being one which will help it survive then it won't breed and pass that genetic mutation on to the next generation.
rsol is spot on, anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of biology can figure that one out.
hubbabubba Wrote:As did AGW.
i don't buy the whole global warming bullshit tbh. never did.
it's an example of BAD science as i said, due to it's DOGMATIC approach to things.... speaking of dogma....
however.... what about the earth being 6000 years old?
ALL the evidence points that this is, to put it as midly as i can. complete and utter bullshit above and beyond even the most bullshit filled bullshit.
you seem to like circular logic with your see above, see below bollocks, and it is indeed utter bollocks.
i would say that there are , based on known undeniable facts,far more holes in this crapiocatastic "intelligent design"
i think that you are basically going to sue typical trolling techniques here throwing in as much circular logic, straw men and perhaps we will; see some logical fallacies too, all sorts of guff just because you have no other actual points of debate.
i am still split between whether you are a troll or if you are sitting with your fingers in your ears shouting "la-la-la-la i can't hear you!!!"
i am happy to debate, discuss points however if you want to debate let's do it properly and not this fallacious nit picking and circular "logic"
if science is so bad.. then why not put the fucking mouse down, step the fuck away from the PC and go and join the quakers or some such bunch where all that is shunned???


mind you.. tell you what..... enlighten me.. PROVE to me that god exists, that creationism is right and show proof for that "intelligent design"
prove it , show evidence make a solid case.
also care to explain the 13.7 billion year discrepancy between the biblical start and what all the evidence proves??



[Image: siolflag.gif]
Reply
03-07-2011, 01:11 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-07-2011, 01:13 AM by hubbabubba.)
#12
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-06-2011, 11:48 PM)rsol Wrote: where are these black holes of evidence in evolution?

It's those big jumps that happen when an arm suddenly mutates to a wing or an ape suddenly is standing upright.

Quote:That statement is not from someone having an understanding of evolution.

To develop a fully functional wing takes a lot of mutations. These are supposed to be random and bred through generations, adding more and more to this useless half-wing until it miraciously is a fully functional wing. This would take about 100 random mutations for how many generations I don't know.

http://www.integralworld.net/visser20.html

Quote:If you understand even elemental (pardon the pun) quantum theory you can see that a universe is/was inevitable. can i ask why the universe NOT existing is a natural state for you?

?

Quote:Its interesting how you can trust it to fly you across a country or hold your life against otherwise mortal infections and injuries.

If you call mimicking nature and repairing body parts science, so sure, that's usefull. But to have theories of the universe exploding from the knob of a hairpin, that's religion.

Quote:however when it may state that our uses of energy have a finite margin, its hokum.

Ok, peak oil might be true, but it also can be a way to use science's good name to raise the prices. I don't disbelive the scientific process as such, I am sceptic to how it sometimes is used for political reasons and even can be tampered with. Did you know that the big bang theory was approved by the vatican before released?

I am also sceptical to the subjective nature of the observing scientist when he makes his experiment. There is no objective truth when measuring reality, it's a subjective process. This is postmodern thoughts and might be a little more complex to understand than the very easy to understand "big bang out of nothing where it came from and what was before and why no one knows" theory.

Quote:The climate-gate scandal only showed how there are far too many paranoid people out there.

You sound like a true believer! You didn't notice anything strange with IPCC and the AGW research?

Reply
03-07-2011, 01:16 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-07-2011, 01:22 AM by pax681.)
#13
RE: Is science the new religion?
hubbabubba Wrote:
Quote:If you understand even elemental (pardon the pun) quantum theory you can see that a universe is/was inevitable. can i ask why the universe NOT existing is a natural state for you?

?
sorry but BWAHAHAHAHA!
seems rsol "plucked a string on the physics guitar" you've never heard

(03-07-2011, 01:11 AM)hubbabubba Wrote: You sound like a true believer! You didn't notice anything strange with IPCC and the AGW research?
not addressing my questions then?
if not then you sound like true avoider of awkward questions
[Image: siolflag.gif]
Reply
03-07-2011, 01:33 AM, (This post was last modified: 03-07-2011, 01:40 AM by rsol.)
#14
RE: Is science the new religion?
Quote:To develop a fully functional wing takes a lot of mutations. These are supposed to be random and bred through generations, adding more and more to this useless half-wing until it miraciously is a fully functional wing. This would take about 100 random mutations for how many generations I don't know.

look at the bone structure of the wing and you will see an arm and hand. nothing is random in evolution.
[Image: wing-evolution-1.gif]
you once again miss its concept.

monkeys already can stand on two legs. we can do it better. we didnt evolve from a chimp, the chimp and us evolved from a common ancestor.

Quote:"big bang out of nothing where it came from and what was before and why no one knows" theory.

said by someone who can only see the universe in the old paradigm, flat earth science. If it doesn't produce a sound or reflect light its obviously nothing. Why is space made of nothing? who told you that? if there is nothing between you and the moon, how come you cant touch it?
Reply
03-07-2011, 01:36 AM,
#15
RE: Is science the new religion?
(03-07-2011, 12:49 AM)pax681 Wrote: "shazaam" chosen as a word... ..you know.. in the beginning was the word.... i chose shazaam as that word
the big bang theory is VASTLY different to that.

So what's the difference? If you say "shazaam" or "big bang" and the world came to be. It still came out of nothing!?!

Quote:there is proof of it over the "steady state."

Yes, it is spiralling, growing, retracting, moving... maybe it's alive, I don't know. The big bang still don't explain what was before or why it happened.

Quote: i tild you why... i can link you to wiki or elsewhere that will show you but i think you are being deliberately facetious .

I'm sorry, it's still a theory.

Quote:that mutation not being one which will help it survive then it won't breed and pass that genetic mutation on to the next generation.

Exactly, if a wing takes about 100 mutations to make in a about 100 generations, why did the previous generations keep the useless wing for 100 generations?

Quote:rsol is spot on, anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of biology can figure that one out.

Sorry, but your religion isn't that easy and crystal clear.

Quote:i don't buy the whole global warming bullshit tbh. never did.
it's an example of BAD science as i said, due to it's DOGMATIC approach to things.

That's good to hear, and even though it may not sound like it in this thread, I still believe in good science. I consider AGW, evolution theory and big bang bad science.

Quote:however.... what about the earth being 6000 years old?

I just ran into that theory recently and saw a docu on it. I found it mind boggling. I'm still thinking about it. Archeology have theories millions of years back in time and these are really theories with a big T, which they admit. So the difference between archeologist and 6000 year creationists is that the former admits to not knowing what they are doing while the later know it as a fact of faith.

Quote:you seem to like circular logic with your see above, see below bollocks, and it is indeed utter bollocks.

I'm sorry, I thought it was rather fun pointing the paradox out. But it seems that both you and I can see the difference between some of the bad and good science.

Quote:i would say that there are , based on known undeniable facts,far more holes in this crapiocatastic "intelligent design"
i think that you are basically going to sue typical trolling techniques here throwing in as much circular logic, straw men and perhaps we will; see some logical fallacies too, all sorts of guff just because you have no other actual points of debate.

Icon_biggrin LOL. That was actually quite funny of you! Maybe I am a troll.... Dodgy

Quote:mind you.. tell you what..... enlighten me.. PROVE to me that god exists, that creationism is right and show proof for that "intelligent design"

Why should I prove something I don't promote?

Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Video Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK drummer 14 2,107 06-17-2014, 05:21 AM
Last Post: R.R
  Cosmos: A Space Time Odyssey - Science or Scientism? thokling 0 557 03-13-2014, 06:41 AM
Last Post: thokling
  The "Most Relaxing Tune Ever",According to...Science? drummer 3 1,039 02-13-2012, 05:44 PM
Last Post: thokling
  Recommended Reading for Science, Tech & Discoveries Easy Skanking 6 3,236 05-26-2011, 01:44 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  Reboot Your Brain? Science Says It's Possible mastermg 0 879 09-18-2009, 04:24 AM
Last Post: mastermg
  Popular Science The Future of.. FastTadpole 0 756 09-16-2009, 05:08 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Science ponders 'zombie attack' Weyland 0 680 08-20-2009, 01:04 AM
Last Post: Weyland
  Science and society: Attention and awareness in stage magic: turning tricks into research --- 0 866 05-08-2009, 02:00 AM
Last Post: ---
  Science Cannot Fully Describe Reality, Says Templeton Prize Winner --- 8 1,795 03-24-2009, 01:56 PM
Last Post: rsol
  Debate Did Copenhagen Organizers Exaggerate the Science? --- 1 687 03-23-2009, 09:05 AM
Last Post: ---

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)