Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

Consider the work of author Charles Fort.

The Book of the Damned was the first published nonfiction work of the author Charles Fort (first edition 1919).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

Dealing with various types of anomalous phenomena including UFOs, strange falls of both organic and inorganic materials from the sky, odd weather patterns, the possible existence of creatures generally held to be mythological, disappearances of people under strange circumstances, and many other phenomena, the book is historically considered to be the first written in the specific field of anomalistics.

The title of the book referred to what he termed the "damned" data - data which had been damned, or excluded, by modern science because of its not conforming to accepted guidelines.

The way Fort sees it, mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe.

He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists, implying that the supposed "battle" between science and religion is just a smokescreen for the fact that, in his view, science is, in essence, simply a de facto religion in of itself.

Hes absolutely right, humans are generaly dogma-driven creatures, very very few people are actually able to embrace the true nihilism of the scientific method and instead treat the scientific consensus as scared doctrine.

Its amazing how many people opperate under the mis-apprehension that simply algining yourself with the current consensus is 'being scientific'. In real terms it isnt atall its simply religiosity.
Being scientific is actually probing the unknown and atempting to explain the unexplainable.

I think Thomas Kuhn had a better angle on this...science only moves forwards by providing the null hypothesis.
Things have moved on since Fort although scientists appear to be practising ritualistic and dogmatic behaviours that could be misconceived as religious; this of course is amplified by those outside of science who use (believe)and disseminate data without understanding it or referencing it properly. Also everyone practices ritualistic behaviour whether theist or atheist - so this negates Forts description.
A self-aware scientist operates from first-principles, provides a null hypothesis, and makes no allowance for top-down religious sentiment.

Vizzie...this book deals with paranormal phenomena inclusive of "UFO sightings", "Loch Ness Monsters", "Sargasso Sea" etc etc etc. All unsubstantiated claims of supernormal events, with absolutely no repeatable or empirical evidence or sometimes not even scientific basis.

People claiming these things are as per norm simply asked for proof. When being unable to do so, they are placed in the same category as religion...claims which are unlikely to be true. There's no 'censorship' or 'damnation' by the scientific community. Granted these folks get laughed at...but that is so forgivable, when you claim a 30 foot long green dragon-snake nosed your boat, or your a$$ was probed by a little grey 3-fingered creature...and you can't PROVE it.

What, do you expect the AMA to excommunicate people from medical attention because they're paranormal enthusiasts?

Your attempt to parallel science with religion is useless, and far too oft a tactic.

Keep in mind your source author...a journalist and largely unsuccessful sci fi writer. Hardly a trained psychologist. Plus Fort himself is quoted as saying "I believe nothing of my own that I have ever written"...i.e. multiple theories can fit facts discovered, and perhaps that his own writings may or may have any basis in reality.

Vizzie...maybe his "theory" that science is a religion is one of those convenient assumptions that are completely wrong?

Just thought I'd stir the hornet's nest a little bit.
Not near the response I thought I'd get.

Yes Enterprise, you have some points....but....
There's always a "but" isn't there?

I have observed this same behavior in science still yet today.
His books were written well before the UFO craze that started in '47, and the Sargasso Sea phenomna are what started the current interest in whats now called the Bermuda Triangle......

He coined the phrase "teleportation", and metamorphosis is a fact of life.
We are all just tadpoles in the muddy waters of life, are we not?

He had a valid point still as valid today as one hundred years ago.
Science is a religion, and a faithless one at that.
The tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

Just ask Oppenheimer if that knowledge they found was used for good.
It never will be.
Not till the root of evil is removed from the heart of man.
The Kingdom.....is in you, remember.

What religious symbolism and tenets does science use?

Lets start with the AMA....you're onto one of my pet peeves now.
What symbolism....?
The serpent on the pole.

The symbol of divine healing.
Jesus Christ became sinful flesh, a man as one of us to do away with the curse on mankind and bring healing to our souls.
He was actually the One on the pole....which is the cross, so why is He symbolized as a serpent.
Can you do the math?
The serpents influence over man is what He came to destroy.

And they...the AMA, have latched on to that symbol to express the small part God has given to the medical profession in the physical healing of man.
It was therefor a sacred trust.....one many have now broken, the Hippocratic oath.



What, do you expect the AMA to excommunicate people from medical attention because they're paranormal enthusiasts?
Yes I do, and for a lot less than that.
I personally know one doctor coming back from ten years in China, who was told by the AMA if he spoke of the cures they have for cancer over there....He would have his license revoked.


Your attempt to parallel science with religion is useless, and far too oft a tactic.



Look at all the pharmaceutical companies with their adds running non-stop on T.V.....
"Ask your doctor if this might be right for you".....
With them knowing full well the "placebo effect" has a psychosomatic influence on a certain percentage that hears those adds.

Thats why fast food companies force "suggestive sell" techniques on all their employees.
You go through the "dive" through at Micky Dee's for a "happy meal"...and they ask if you want an apple pie with that......right?
Of course they do.
They know what they are doing.


They are not looking for cures.....that wouldn't bring a profit to their shareholders.
They are looking for expensive ongoing "treatments"....that also cause side effects that have to be latter addressed with still more of their drugs.

The last real major disease that was totally cured.....was Polio in 1954.
Salk's wife had the disease.
So he went all the way and cured it.
They never let that happen with their resources again.

You still like that tree your eating from?

AMA...is that the American Medical Association? That is not a scientific body, its a medical one. Also the Caduceus is a symbol of the healer not the scientist.

You keep telling yourself that......
Science isn't a religion, science isn't a religion, ect....

Do it enough times and you may just start believing it, like all those elderly people they target with their adds watching non-stop, back to back "Lipitor" commericals on the "Hallmark channel".

Repetition does have a certain effect.
But that won't make it true.

Try to become an Archaeologist, or a Doctor, or a Nuclear Physicist....
You'll find out quick how alive and well the ""no allowance for top-down religious sentiment" theory still is today.

You don't get your shingle....unless you do it their way.

Stand against them and that makes you a single "quack" against all of their "certified" experts.
Sounds like Elijah against the 400 schooled prophets of Ahab to me.

Things haven't changed that much.
Science is just the new false religion.

So, what religious symbols and tenets does science use?

What.... medicine isn't supposed to be based on science?

It doesn't count?

Symbols don't make or break my statement here anyway......I haven't looked into it.

You are missing the point here I'm afraid.

Whether or not science has adopted some religious symbol is not required to make it a religion.
It is a religion.
More than just a religion, it has the backing of governments.
The same governments under the before mentioned influence.

It should all make sense to anyone looking.

It is that strange but true law of opposites at work.
Going back to where this started, on a world influenced by powers of "the damned"....
Should not a book that dares to uncover truth against the tide be called a "Book of the damned"?

They called Jesus, Beelzebub.....remember.
That's just how it works here.
Sad, but true.

How would you define a religion and what makes science a religion?

Sorry....let's try this,
"Ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth"

Go look that up and read the context of the whole statement.

Then science will appear to you as a religion but not to everyone. Good luck - interesting thread

You are right about that.
Not to everyone.

Very few will lift their heads from the trough, while moving down that wide heavy trodden path of least resistance that leads to destruction.

Straight is the way and narrow the gate, and few there be that find it.
Good luck to you as well.

Vizzie...this book deals with paranormal phenomena inclusive of "UFO sightings", "Loch Ness Monsters", "Sargasso Sea" etc etc etc. All unsubstantiated claims of supernormal events, with absolutely no repeatable or empirical evidence or sometimes not even scientific basis.
How exactly do you think empirical data is aquired in the first place?
I think youre putting the cart before the horse here.
All substantiated knowledge starts out with someone going out on a limb without clear evidence either way, i mean i hate to tear down anyones illusion of how accepted knowledge becomes 'accepted' but the foundation of knowledge essentially rests on people taking a chance/going out on a limb.
You also made a false claim - ufos (or saucer shaped craft) are a verfiable form of arial phenomena with so much empirical evidence in favour of their existance that noone seriously atempts to claim that they dont exist anymore.

People claiming these things are as per norm simply asked for proof. When being unable to do so,
Really depends on whats being investigated to be honest, i dare say most of its based on varying quantities of evidence, along with abit of faith, and personal experience/bias. These are generally the ingredients apon which 'substantial evidence' are aquired.



Your attempt to parallel science with religion is useless, and far too oft a tactic.
I dont think anyones claiming science are religion are the same - obviously there are clear differences. But the problem of dogma and bias exists in science whether you like it or not, infact this is the entire basis of the 'double blind test'.
You cant trust people *not* to skew the findings and simply champion their version of the truth in favour of the objective.


Keep in mind your source author...a journalist and largely unsuccessful sci fi writer. Hardly a trained psychologist.
He doesnt need to be, just about every scientist worth their salt understands the problem of dogma in science, thats why it generally takes an entire generation for new ideas (not matter how well proven) to be accepted.

Yes, mainstream science is indeed dogmatic in refusing to give up current beliefs when new ideas are presented.

Compare classical physics which dominated mainstream science for a few hundred years until about 1905. Relativity and Quantum theory were developed between about 1905 & 1925 by far sighted physicists. Mainstream physics never accepted these new ideas. They stuck with classical physics.

If physicists had not been so close minded, we might have developed lasers, computers, solid state devices, and all sorts of wonderful technology.

Yes, mainstream science is indeed dogmatic in refusing to give up current beliefs when new ideas are presented.

Compare classical physics which dominated mainstream science for a few hundred years until about 1905. Relativity and Quantum theory were developed between about 1905 & 1925 by far sighted physicists. Mainstream physics never accepted these new ideas. They stuck with classical physics.

If physicists had not been so close minded, we might have developed lasers, computers, solid state devices, and all sorts of wonderful technology.


The proof is in the pudding Dinosaur. You cannot expect science to blindly accept what could turn out to be a flight of fancy. Yes relativity turned out to be right...but it required proof!

Using this logic you can 'demand' that 'open minded' astro-physicists accept the existence of heaven!

Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

I stopped reading here. I don't even know what you said, but I'm sure it's stupid.

How exactly do you think empirical data is aquired in the first place?
I think youre putting the cart before the horse here.
All substantiated knowledge starts out with someone going out on a limb without clear evidence either way, i mean i hate to tear down anyones illusion of how accepted knowledge becomes 'accepted' but the foundation of knowledge essentially rests on people taking a chance/going out on a limb.
You also made a false claim - ufos (or saucer shaped craft) are a verfiable form of arial phenomena with so much empirical evidence in favour of their existance that noone seriously atempts to claim that they dont exist anymore.

All you say? Really? Did someone go out on a limb at started raving that 2 + 2 is 4? Perhaps there was no clear evidence either way that fire is hot? Let's get tricky here...how about going out on a limb to say some force that keeps us planted on earth exists? hm?

Helio, you're using semantics to justify the opening question. ALL knowledge does not start with a wild guess ... as opposed to observation. Some I will grant, however, these 'wild guesses' MUST still be proven. How does this make science anywhere close to a religion? Religion's wild guesses fly with no proof whatsoever! (Ooh! Limbo exists!....<later> Ooh! Limbo doesn't exist!)

Conversely: science may be very process driven and extremely dependant on ceremony, but these are descriptive and very versatile words. Ceremony for one endeavour does not equal that of another.


Really depends on whats being investigated to be honest, i dare say most of its based on varying quantities of evidence, along with abit of faith, and personal experience/bias. These are generally the ingredients apon which 'substantial evidence' are aquired.

You're speaking of driving forces and intangibles here, mixed in with evidence to seem as if you're only talking about evidence. An AI, given the same input data will come up with the scientific fact that water boils at 100 degrees C the same way a human would. LOL I wonder who went out on a limb to wildly guess this claim?



I dont think anyones claiming science are religion are the same - obviously there are clear differences. But the problem of dogma and bias exists in science whether you like it or not, infact this is the entire basis of the 'double blind test'.
You cant trust people *not* to skew the findings and simply champion their version of the truth in favour of the objective.

Vizzie is:
Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.



He doesnt need to be, just about every scientist worth their salt understands the problem of dogma in science, thats why it generally takes an entire generation for new ideas (not matter how well proven) to be accepted.

You are attempting to place religious attributes to science (and interchanging 'dogma' with 'red tape' :p ).

A dogma is absolute and unchallengeable. While it may be true that if an individual challenges a tenet of science he finds himself in an extremely stressful battle; if said individual has evidence to back himself up he will be justified. Try challenging a Scientology or JW authority and see how quickly you'll be slapped down, brainwashed or ignored (or worse).

As a simple example, scientific texts undergo periodic revisions to correct any theory that may have been inaccurate, or to add new discoveries. The only revisions religious texts undergo is translation into other languages. The quran, the bible et al are accepted as infallible.

How is science dogmatic again?

Using this logic you can 'demand' that 'open minded' astro-physicists accept the existence of heaven!

Open minded Astro-Physicists have probably already proven the existence of heaven.
Multidimensional realities that exist in the same space.

Science will itself break into the great laboratory secrets of God.

That is it's true objective whether you know it or not.
Nuclear energy is the process that powers the stars.....so that makes it very ancient technology.
Think about that.

Wonder what creature whispered those secrets into some scientists ears?

You hear from your origin.....your father which is in heaven.
Whatever one that may be.
Not everyone is from the same source.

Anyone watch the Stargate episode where a Gou'ld named Nerti is doing experiments on children to create a Hac-Tar.....?
A Hac- Tar was an advanced Terran with supernatural abilities they...the Gou'ld, can then use as hosts.
You see......the dominate life form, dominates the host vessel.

Life imitates art....or is it the other way around?
I get them confused sometimes.

But are you......."pickin up a theme here"?

The bible says the serpents meat.....is the dust.
That is also what man was made from.

Science is the very religion that is being used to finish what started with the worlds first false religions......
What was the tower of Babel?

It is a continuation of the true "War of the Worlds".
A War older than the "foundation of the world" as it is today.
The Battle for Earth is already won.......He came to lead "captivity captive".
What side will you find yourself on?
That is the only question that remains.

It is a matter of the heart, where your true origins lie.
The Kingdom of Heaven.....is in you.

VIZZIE!!!!! As much as I love Stargate...it is SCIFI!!! It's even on a channel DEDICATED to scifi!!!

If you want to carry on this ridiculous comparison...did you ever notice how the Ori are extremely similar to Christianity? Art imitates life right...

Yeah I caught that too.
Hollywood is not known for painting Christains in a favorable light are they?

But....
Because there is science fiction, that doesn't mean there couldn't be something close to it in reality.
They even did an episode on that remember.......Wormhole Extreme.
Plausible deniability....

I liked Stargate too Enterpise, but I'm going to have to quit the tube just like a bad habit.
It's vexing ... the drug commericals alone have me talking to myself.
They insult human intelligence.
If there is such a thing....
Sometimes I wonder.

Vizzie...dude...pull the dogmatic stick out of your bum and enjoy life!

[Advert to Website Deleted]
-MT

That is not the answer Mosh.....lets all join hands, despite what we believe?
They make the Word of non-effect.

No that is not the answer, but it may be tried.
The world council of churches is a similar move.
Just not a move of God.

Pff. Boring. I only read it to se if anyone had mentioned the famous Devil's Footprints:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Devil%27s_Footprints

The Devil's Footprints was the name given to a peculiar phenomenon that occurred in Devon, England on 8 February 1855. After a light snowfall, during the night, a series of hoof-like marks appeared in the snow. These "footprints", measuring 1.5 to 2.5 wide and eight inches apart, continued throughout the countryside for a total of over 100 miles, and, although veering at various points, for the greater part of their course followed straight lines. Houses, rivers, haystacks and other obstacles were travelled straight over, and footprints appeared on the tops of snow-covered roofs and high walls which lay in the footprints' path, as well as leading up to and exiting various drain pipes of as small as a four inch diameter.
I reckon it was Spring-Heeled Jack (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Heeled_Jack) what done it.

Yes, mainstream science is indeed dogmatic in refusing to give up current beliefs when new ideas are presented.

Compare classical physics which dominated mainstream science for a few hundred years until about 1905. Relativity and Quantum theory were developed between about 1905 & 1925 by far sighted physicists. Mainstream physics never accepted these new ideas. They stuck with classical physics.

If physicists had not been so close minded, we might have developed lasers, computers, solid state devices, and all sorts of wonderful technology.

Hasn't this been achieved?

You keep telling yourself that......
Science isn't a religion, science isn't a religion, ect....

Repetition does have a certain effect.
But that won't make it true.

You claim science IS a religion, yet haven't made an argument to defend your position, other than repeating the claim over and over.

And since religion is loosely defined as the belief in supernatural powers that control human destiny, how does this definition fit in with your claim?

Does your computer and internet connection work due to supernatural powers?

All you say? Really? Did someone go out on a limb at started raving that 2 + 2 is 4? Perhaps there was no clear evidence either way that fire is hot? Let's get tricky here...how about going out on a limb to say some force that keeps us planted on earth exists? hm?
Well fire being 'hot' or 'hottness' are subjective quantities of experience, thats not really science, also think 2+2 is a bad example since thats an enclosed system of logic (not a judgement or proposition made about the outside world).
Newton's concept of gravity is alittle nearer the mark though, certainly he did go out on a limb, his ideas would have been completely heretic initially.


Helio, you're using semantics to justify the opening question. ALL knowledge does not start with a wild guess ... as opposed to observation.

Thats not really what im claiming, guesses in science are offen well reasoned, but its still a leap of faith which ever way you spin it (dark matter anyone?), and by following your little leap of faith theres always the distinct possiblity of being completely and utterally wrong and becomming a scientific pariah.


Some I will grant, however, these 'wild guesses' MUST still be proven. How does this make science anywhere close to a religion? Religion's wild guesses fly with no proof whatsoever! (Ooh! Limbo exists!....<later> Ooh! Limbo doesn't exist!)
Well they must be proven at 'some point' yes, this is clearly where science differs from religion - remember i specifically said that science and religion have clear defined differences. If youre arguing against the idea of religion and science being the same thing then youre arguing against noone because thats not my position : p
My position is that most humanbeings are belief/dogma driven no matter what the paradigm, all you can do is put checks and balances in place to make sure the dogma doesnt start to become a substitute for truth itself.



You're speaking of driving forces and intangibles here, mixed in with evidence to seem as if you're only talking about evidence. An AI, given the same input data will come up with the scientific fact that water boils at 100 degrees C the same way a human would. LOL I wonder who went out on a limb to wildly guess this claim?
Youre dealing with an incredibly simple observation, if all observations were this simple then youre absolutely right there would be no faith, no going out on a limb.
Unfortunately most experiments are not this simple, just look at quantum mechanics - you have the 'many worlds' interpretation and the copenhagen interpretation. Modern physics isnt really as simple as boiling a jar of water.



You are attempting to place religious attributes to science (and interchanging 'dogma' with 'red tape' :p ).
Hmm im really not sure i am to be honest, there have been many instances where the data/evidence has pointed in one direction and the scientific consensus has pointed in another. This is clearly dogma.
The over all system of science does seem to be good at turning over dogmatic systems of belief reletively quickly though, or so it appears..


Try challenging a Scientology or JW authority and see how quickly you'll be slapped down, brainwashed or ignored (or worse).
Yep this is definitely where science is a better way of inspecting reality.


As a simple example, scientific texts undergo periodic revisions to correct any theory that may have been inaccurate, or to add new discoveries. The only revisions religious texts undergo is translation into other languages. The quran, the bible et al are accepted as infallible.

How is science dogmatic again?
Science isnt dogmatic, thats missing the point imo - humanbeings are dogmatic, all youre pointing out is how the scientific paradigm has become efficient at expelling dogma. That doesnt stop people being dogmatic though :p
As i said in my first post to be genunitely nihilistic about everything so that you dont believe in 'xyandz' - you simply percieve it to have the highest probablity of being correct, is incredilby difficult for most people, even scientists.
Our minds seem to be much happier in 'belief mode'.

but its still a leap of faith which ever way you spin it (dark matter anyone?),

Dark matter is not a "leap of faith", it is a theory based upon observation. It will certainly take a lot more work, but a "leap of faith"? Not at all.

Well fire being 'hot' or 'hottness' are subjective quantities of experience, thats not really science, also think 2+2 is a bad example since thats an enclosed system of logic (not a judgement or proposition made about the outside world).
Newton's concept of gravity is alittle nearer the mark though, certainly he did go out on a limb, his ideas would have been completely heretic initially.

We weren't talking about science in this instance of the conversation, we were talking about knowledge. And therefore, the subjective quantity of experience led to the knowledge that fire is hot, not an out on a limb claim.

Since you said: All substantiated knowledge starts out with someone going out on a limb without clear evidence either way ...I pointed out that experience and observation are key to acquiring knowledge, not necessarily a fanciful claim with 'no clear evidence either way'.



Thats not really what im claiming, guesses in science are offen well reasoned, but its still a leap of faith which ever way you spin it (dark matter anyone?), and by following your little leap of faith theres always the distinct possiblity of being completely and utterally wrong and becomming a scientific pariah.

There's no leap of faith. Even the proponents of dark matter won't tell you they're 100% absolutely sure that dark matter exists. As humans they'd want to be vindicated that their theory is right sure, that's only human. But the specific question "Are you 100% sure that dark matter exists?" will get you an answer of 'no'.


Well they must be proven at 'some point' yes, this is clearly where science differs from religion - remember i specifically said that science and religion have clear defined differences. If youre arguing against the idea of religion and science being the same thing then youre arguing against noone because thats not my position : p
My position is that most humanbeings are belief/dogma driven no matter what the paradigm, all you can do is put checks and balances in place to make sure the dogma doesnt start to become a substitute for truth itself.

You seemed to be supporting Vizzie's ridiculous comparison. So I came at both of you guns a-blazing. The comparison that science is dogmatic (far less claiming it is a religion) is quite unfounded.

You may or may not be right that humans are belief driven. More than likely since there only 16% of the world calls itself "athiest" or "agnostic" or "non religious". Ascribing this ratio to the modern scientific community however is unfair unless you have some sort of non-dogmatic evidence to back it up. ;)



Youre dealing with an incredibly simple observation, if all observations were this simple then youre absolutely right there would be no faith, no going out on a limb.
Unfortunately most experiments are not this simple, just look at quantum mechanics - you have the 'many worlds' interpretation and the copenhagen interpretation. Modern physics isnt really as simple as boiling a jar of water.

Very true, that's what I get for trying to answer at that hour of the night :)

While yes there are varying interpretations in quantum mechanics, you'll get none of these people claiming absolute infallibility. This is not dogmatic.



Hmm im really not sure i am to be honest, there have been many instances where the data/evidence has pointed in one direction and the scientific consensus has pointed in another. This is clearly dogma.

Name a few, point out the empirical evidence and (key here) then tell me that these incorrect scientific consensuses still exist...If they do not exist, or if evidences of opposite are circumstantial or questionable, this is clearly not dogma, it is simply red tape.


Science isnt dogmatic, thats missing the point imo - humanbeings are dogmatic, all youre pointing out is how the scientific paradigm has become efficient at expelling dogma. That doesnt stop people being dogmatic though :p
As i said in my first post to be genunitely nihilistic about everything so that you dont believe in 'xyandz' - you simply percieve it to have the highest probablity of being correct, is incredilby difficult for most people, even scientists.
Our minds seem to be much happier in 'belief mode'.

Perhaps (again considering the overwhelming theist population)...however many scientists are not in the majority of dogmatic humans. Dogmatic scientists (an oxymoron if i ever heard one) would more than likely be in the minority.

We weren't talking about science in this instance of the conversation, we were talking about knowledge. And therefore, the subjective quantity of experience led to the knowledge that fire is hot, not an out on a limb claim.

Fair enough, i'll conceed that.




There's no leap of faith. Even the proponents of dark matter won't tell you they're 100% absolutely sure that dark matter exists.
As humans they'd want to be vindicated that their theory is right sure, that's only human. But the specific question "Are you 100% sure that dark matter exists?" will get you an answer of 'no'.
A small leap of faith doesnt have to denote absolute certainity, simply that you have faith in the possiblity of your line of enquiry.
Do people chasing ghosts believe with 100% certainty that ghosts exist as an external phenomena? i doubt very much they do, theyre just seeing where their enquiry takes them and what comes of their investigation.
At both ends of the spectrum, regardless of methodology its human beings going after an idea/going out on a limb.
This isnt how 'all" knowledge is aquired, you were right to correct me on that, but a large porportion of it is. Would you disagree with this?




You seemed to be supporting Vizzie's ridiculous comparison. So I came at both of you guns a-blazing. The comparison that science is dogmatic (far less claiming it is a religion) is quite unfounded.
Far from it, its a huuuuge problem in science that most scientist are more than aware of. Infact theres a huge debate amonsts scientists right now over global warming, the - 'global warming is a redherring' lobby are basically arguing that those 'for' the idea of global warming as simply allowing social dogma and popular attitudes within the media to dictate whether or not it exists, rather than relying purely on the data itself.
I think to be honest youre pretty much out in the cold if you dont think dogma is a problem in science, its far too easy for scientists to become comfortable with the 'scientific facts' they learnt at university and to balk at anyone claiming they may be erroneous.
Its simply the way humanbeings work, its why new ideas only become fully accepted once the older generation at the helm eventially die of old age. This is widely recognised within the scientific community and far from just an opinion of mine.


You may or may not be right that humans are belief driven. More than likely since there only 16% of the world calls itself "athiest" or "agnostic" or "non religious". Ascribing this ratio to the modern scientific community however is unfair unless you have some sort of non-dogmatic evidence to back it up. ;)
Maybe it would be simpler to just say its a real problem, rather than ascribing a specific ratio?




While yes there are varying interpretations in quantum mechanics, you'll get none of these people claiming absolute infallibility. This is not dogmatic.
True but on the flipside look at some of the essays Bohm wrote, i think its pretty loud and clear that he had already made up his mind already how the universe works! Infact when i think back to essays by other scientists ive found this attitude to be pretty universal, you cant state your opinions as fact within a science journal of course, but if youre writing an essay or book its hard not to let slip with any beliefs you might hold.



Name a few, point out the empirical evidence and (key here) then tell me that these incorrect scientific consensuses still exist...

Well i pointed one out earlier - global warming, still a hotbed of controversy in science.

Thinking of another - Group selection in evolution is contraversial however the data is absolutely sound, but the idea doesnt seem to have really taken hold yet.
People cant really get beyond the main tenants of gene/kin selection. I suspect the problem here is essentially asking people to stop thinking in terms of dna and genes as being the central currency in evolution. Its kind of like trying to re-write one of the 10 commandments in terms of evolutionary theory.

Thinking of recent one in archeology, archeological groups had been arguing over the existance of small tribes of miniture humanoids for half a century, all the evidence was there. Consensus just wouldnt swing in their favour though, i suspect part of the problem was that many people had a false association going on whereby communities of dwarfs/elfs were the stuff of fairy-tale and myth and therefore couldnt be true by default.




If they do not exist, or if evidences of opposite are circumstantial or questionable, this is clearly not dogma, it is simply red tape.
Not so, aging scientists are well known to reach a point whereby they become far too fond of their pet theories and what they were taught originally at college and stop assimilating or accepting current data, (or the weight of consensus). Not suprising - it must feel like someone trying to tear down a belief system youve held all your life!



Perhaps (again considering the overwhelming theist population)...however many scientists are not in the majority of dogmatic humans. Dogmatic scientists (an oxymoron if i ever heard one) would more than likely be in the minority.
Possibly, although i personally think the system of science itself is less prone to dogma rather than the individuals that compose the system being less prone.

I was wrong when I said that neutronium was the densest possible form of matter. You all know who you are.

You claim science IS a religion, yet haven't made an argument to defend your position, other than repeating the claim over and over.

And since religion is loosely defined as the belief in supernatural powers that control human destiny, how does this definition fit in with your claim?

Does your computer and internet connection work due to supernatural powers?
He's an [Deleted], Q.

Sorry about the "insult", but in my opinion this is a valid and reasonable description.

You keep telling yourself that......
Science isn't a religion, science isn't a religion, ect....

Do it enough times and you may just start believing it, like all those elderly people they target with their adds watching non-stop, back to back "Lipitor" commericals on the "Hallmark channel".

Repetition does have a certain effect.
But that won't make it true.

Try to become an Archaeologist, or a Doctor, or a Nuclear Physicist....
You'll find out quick how alive and well the ""no allowance for top-down religious sentiment" theory still is today.

You don't get your shingle....unless you do it their way.

Stand against them and that makes you a single "quack" against all of their "certified" experts.
Sounds like Elijah against the 400 schooled prophets of Ahab to me.

Things haven't changed that much.
Science is just the new false religion.

I find it hard to believe that someone who claims to think outside the box, and is so intelligent, can't come up with a very long list of ways that Science and Religion differ.

If these two pursuits seem identical to you, then perhaps it is your head that is in the trough. My wee little brain can think of many ways that Science can be discerned from Religion.

1. Science welcomes change, rather than resisting it. When new theories come along that more elegantly describe observations, scientists flock to them. String Theory, Inflationary Cosmology, Particle Physics, QED, Chaos Theory... they are almost fad-like in the zeal and enthusiasm that they receive. The people that are slow to change are the laymen and the founders of competing theories. How is this not to be expected? The former don't see the improvement as easily, and the latter depend on their formulations for prestige and funding. But science loves to forge ahead. Religion abhors it, killing in the name of stasis.

2. With religion, all knowledge is divinely handed down and it is correct the first time. New discoveries keep conflicting with strongly-held convictions, and must be denied. Science is the thing which is creating these discoveries and these conflicts. If the two were equal, science would be hurting itself through the same process, and yet science gets stronger as religion gets weaker.

3. Science will never say that it has completed its epistemological work. It is always looking to go forward. Religion will always say that its ontological work is failing, and attempt to move back in time, when that ontology included much of what is now in science's domain. How can this shift be taking place if Science=Religion?

4. Part of the scientific process is open disagreement. Every paper is poured over for flaws. Every mistake published, every bad theory hounded out. Religion finds excuses for its flaws, looking for forced consensus. I can't think of a scientist physically torturing another until the latter agreed to the formers findings. Yet religions the world over have always done this. This is a difference that must be accounted for somehow.

All of these are differences. What to do about them? Should we call these mutually exclusive things equal? Of course not. We should be sure to label them differently so that we can talk about them and discuss them.


But of course, your motives are not elucidation, you seek to cause harm, and to buttress yourself. Why? Because you KNOW that Reason is superior to Faith. Almost all theists KNOW this deep down. They WANT Reason, they WANT their faith in God to be logical, so that it will be dependable.

They also want to discredit the Reason of atheists by ironically accusing atheists of being what they feel themselves to be - illogical. So they call Science a Religion, they call Atheism a Faith. It is so transparent what you are doing. You are attaching your own failings to others, and trying to adopt the strength of the Scientific Method for your superstition. It isn't working.

Religion and Science are polar opposites. If you are going to choose Religion, at least be comfortable and happy with your decision. Don't take your inner turmoil and doubts out on everyone else. And please don't take them out on the English Language. On this forum, all we have as tools are generally-accepted definitions. If you can't win an argument with these tools, taking them away should not be the next step.

-swivel

A small leap of faith doesnt have to denote absolute certainity, simply that you have faith in the possiblity of your line of enquiry...

That's the problem with "leap of faith" isn't it? There are so many levels and definitions of it in humanity that you can apply a technically correct definition of it to anything you feel like applying it to.

There are two different kinds of faith and you know it. One is religious zeal and one is basic confidence (for lack of a better word).



Well i pointed one out earlier - global warming, still a hotbed of controversy in science.

Thinking of another - Group selection in evolution is contraversial however the data is absolutely sound, but the idea doesnt seem to have really taken hold yet.
People cant really get beyond the main tenants of gene/kin selection. I suspect the problem here is essentially asking people to stop thinking in terms of dna and genes as being the central currency in evolution. Its kind of like trying to re-write one of the 10 commandments in terms of evolutionary theory.

Thinking of recent one in archeology, archeological groups had been arguing over the existance of small tribes of miniture humanoids for half a century, all the evidence was there. Consensus just wouldnt swing in their favour though, i suspect part of the problem was that many people had a false association going on whereby communities of dwarfs/elfs were the stuff of fairy-tale and myth and therefore couldnt be true by default.


Where is your evidence that will cause science to throw out a proven theory in favour of a superior one? Or evidence that will cause a consensus for a theory that has no competition? Remember this evidence cannot be circumstantial or even prone to varying interpretation or else a scientific theory cannot be formed. As a simplistic example, you can't say "It is proven that miniature humans existed OR they may have been paleolithic children"!! This is not a scientific theory!



Not so, aging scientists are well known to reach a point whereby they become far too fond of their pet theories and what they were taught originally at college and stop assimilating or accepting current data, (or the weight of consensus). Not suprising - it must feel like someone trying to tear down a belief system youve held all your life!

That is your perspective. My old math professor and my late physics professor (both are/were over 50 when I was teenaged) were both very enthusiastic about their students learning and challenging. In conversation, my math professor can be quoted as saying he'd be so proud to be proven wrong in a math theorem by one of his students...that it would indicate he's teaching correctly.

I don't know how many folks in the science field you know or their achievements/qualifications/specializations...but the ones I know and know of are hardly dogmatic and not even clingy.



Possibly, although i personally think the system of science itself is less prone to dogma rather than the individuals that compose the system being less prone.

Science and the scientific process themselves are more likely "immune" rather than simply "less prone". As to the individuals, I cannot speak for the absolute, but I think I can take a "leap of faith" and say that dogma is at least not the forerunner in priorities of a typical scientist's career. :cool: :p

That's the problem with "leap of faith" isn't it? There are so many levels and definitions of it in humanity that you can apply a technically correct definition of it to anything you feel like applying it to.
True, i know what youre saying - my own personal definition would be- 'belief in something or the possiblity of something without adequate proof'
Although as i said i dont think theres anything wrong with working off that basis, sometimes to fish out the evidence you have to run the risk of looking foolish/being wrong.



Where is your evidence that will cause science to throw out a proven theory in favour of a superior one? Or evidence that will cause a consensus for a theory that has no competition? Remember this evidence cannot be circumstantial or even prone to varying interpretation or else a scientific theory cannot be formed.

Well going with group selection as an example, if you google it/wiki it im sure it wont take you long to find the evidence. Ive got the experiemental evidence in the bibliography of a book somewhere, but i just cant be bothered to root it out at this hour sorry :P
Its up to you to ultimately whether you personally believe the scientific consensus is right or whether the emerging theory should become the consensus.
You needent even go with this example though, scientific history will be littered with ideas that took a disproportionate amount of time to begrudgingly become accepted. Very offen the problem isnt in the validity of the new idea but in how many lectures/resources/and time have been put into the old ones.

As a simplistic example, you can't say "It is proven that miniature humans existed OR they may have been paleolithic children"!! This is not a scientific theory!
dwarf-like humans are now part of the archeological consensus actually, twas on the front cover of nature a few years back.
That was an example of evidence simply being shunned for no rational reason atall for an absurd length of time, if you look at the findings/evidence they stretch back for half a century (if not further). Yes and im sad to say anyone entertaining such ideas would have probably been labeled at the time a 'quack'.


That is your perspective. My old math professor and my late physics professor (both are/were over 50 when I was teenaged) were both very enthusiastic about their students learning and challenging. In conversation, my math professor can be quoted as saying he'd be so proud to be proven wrong in a math theorem by one of his students...that it would indicate he's teaching correctly.
I don't know how many folks in the science field you know or their achievements/qualifications/specializations...but the ones I know and know of are hardly dogmatic and not even clingy.

Not every old/middle-aged individual is going to be dogmatic, but even the greatest minds can end up swallowing their own dogma instead of accepting the weight of consensus. You must be aware of how strongly opposed einstein was to quantum field theory? the way in which he rejected evidence after evidence is well documented.


Science and the scientific process themselves are more likely "immune" rather than simply "less prone". As to the individuals, I cannot speak for the absolute, but I think I can take a "leap of faith" and say that dogma is at least not the forerunner in priorities of a typical scientist's career. :cool: :p

I think its debatable whether science will ultimately lead us towards objective truths or lead us down conceptual blind allies. Who knows what scientists in a hundered years time will make of notions our quantum mechanics, or string theory.
What im saying is, at this point in time i think its incredibly difficult to guage just how immune science has been.
Id argue that as long as human beings are part of the equation the data will always be fallible. The system of science is our best shot of describing our 'objectively reality' but i believe no system is perfect.

I knew my reference to a scifi show would be used to ridicule my entire statement.
I've been posting here too long not to expect that.

Thats fine though, because it only brings an opening to make this point.

My point in referencing the Hac-Tar....was only relating a concept.
When science achieves it's ultimate goal........who of you will be around to see the knowledge is in the right hands?
None.

So what will become of it?
If what the spiritual have been trying to tell those who will listen all along is true.....that there are spiritual forces unseen to man, controlling his very nature and that is at war with God.....

What have you done in your headlong quest for knowledge apart from the "character" required to contain it?
Turned something loose upon the universe that wasn't meant to be loosed.

God has a better way.
Not religions of the world now, which are under the same spiritual control as it's governments and science, that's how they are alike.......but God.

Every Son that comes to God must first be tried and tested......then placed into a position of authority in the Kingdom.

Science in the hands of sinful men ( sin defined as unbelief here) attempts to bypass this tried and true method and place this power in the hands of mortals that can't even control themselves let alone the creative power of the universe.

If you blindly give your lives and influence to develop knowledge, then leave it in the hands of those who will come after......can any of you see why this can't be allowed?
Mortals are hosts.
The mortar between the bricks.

This is why He said "who's not for Me is against Me"
Those who haven't seen this don't yet realize what it is that controls them.

Mankind has been the host vessels for the enemies of God, all along.
The truth can set you free from this life of spiritual slavery.
That is what His sacrifice was for.
To bring salvation, to redeem that which was lost.....Man.
The journey to enlightenment can not be apart from a spiritual one, that brings a separation that must come first.

Science is a quest for this power apart from God.
And it's no accident.
It is not a sign of man's intelligence, but his ignorance....of who he is, and whats at stake.

Jesus said; " If you called them "gods" whom the Word of God came to, and they were"....
What then does that make you, if you can hear from your Father in Heaven?

The days are soon coming when mortal man will be as rare as the gold of Ophir.

God is no longer "winking" at man's ignorance.
The truth was here if you really wanted it.
It is then a fact that today, men are "willingly ignorant".
They have brought about their own end.

That said......I could call the names of the ones who will come to deny and refute everything I've just said.
But why?
This wasn't said for their benefit.
Why was I inspired to post spiritual comments on a science forum?
Perhaps it is to judge them that slander the truth in the eyes of the innocent, mocking what they don't understand.
They will no longer be able to say they didn't hear it.

You should be a science fiction writer with that imagination of yours.

but crunchy the books would never get sold, too boring, however as childrens stories he may have better luck

Peter Pan was "the man" sinning with with Tinkerbelle.
But he died in September when Tink bit off his member,
And 'God' sent Peter to hell.

You might be right Geeser.

Hey TheVisitor, since science is a sin, dont you feel abit weird about posting on the internet? i mean you do know the computer youre on and the system of data exchange was developed by scientists right :confused:
I dare say, theres about 100 other gifts of modern science youre utilising everyday - doesnt that kind of nullify your entire argument?

Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

Theists have been attempting to deride science in this manner for many years. David Menton even accused Carl Sagan of being a "prophet of Scientism," (and if anyone wants to read my criticism of this I've posted it elsewhere on the internet -you can find it through my profile). Menton was way off-mark.

I think the reason that so many theists and theologians eventually try to argue that "science is a religion, too" is that they keep getting faced with the illogical premises that they've established when arguing why they believe without, and often in spite of, evidence.

Eventually, it occurs to them that if those that argue that science is the best way to explain the world/universe around them find the religious explanations to be pejorative, then why not accuse science of being a religion.

The problem of this argument is that it fails in light of any real definition of religion. Indeed, if we are to accept that science is a religion, then we must adapt the definition of religion to exclude faith and supernatural agency. Once you do this, anything can now be considered a religion -including shopping, getting a haircut, personal hygiene, work, etc.

These things all lend themselves to tropic and analogous references to religion: "shopping for my wife is a religious event;" "his devotion to personal hygiene is ritualistic;" etc. But when applied in a literal manner, "his work is his religion" implies that the employee is a priest or pastor rather than simply devoted.

Back to science. Scientists can likewise be "religious" in their devotion and "ritualistic" in their meticulous methodologies, but these are tropes, analogies and metaphors. There must remain a delineation between literal and analogous versions with genuine religions consisting of supernatural agency and, consequently, an extreme form of faith (blind belief without evidence). Otherwise, the tropes, analogies and metaphors lose their significance.

Science is not a religion. There are no deities or supernatural agents that scientists seek to appease. Blind trust and belief without evidence is faith and the antithesis of scientific methods.

Very eloquent SkinWalker, and well done I must say.
You have laid out a very thorough explanation of the issue at hand.
I almost agree with you because much of what you say is true.
Your just not telling the whole story.

You see, you can miss the mark of truth in two ways....add too it or take away.
Now lets talk about what you didn't say....again.


Charles Fort nailed it when he said this in His "Book of the Damned"......

"Mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe."

Notice He didn't say all scientists..........just "mainstream" ones.
Those that live in and are sold out to the status quo.
The ones whose works are printed in the textbooks taught to our children, even while still only an unproven theory........because it follows an accepted agenda.

He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists.

In this He has a valid point.
And I said the very spirit inspiring both of these groups is one and the same.

I compared the mainstream's reluctance to accept even the idea of certain truths until they have been proven in such a way with so many witnesses, they can no longer deny what is staring them in the face.

At this point the controversial becomes the accepted and they hop on the bandwagon, after it is no longer a danger to stand alone against the pack.

This is exactly like denominations do refusing to accept further revealed light and truth about God when it has been given.....because it contradicts what has formerly been accepted by the majority as the truth.

That leaves them getting warm by a painted fire, preaching a God that lived thousands of years ago, or talking about the God that is to come someday, missing what is going on right now all around them in plain sight.

This kind are the ones who don't see the God of the present, who He is working through now.....and being blinded by the spirit of God's enemy, they are the very ones that killed the prophets, then generations later when their teachings have been accepted by the masses.......after the true life has moved on, they dig up their bones, garnish their tombs, and cannonize them declaring them saints.

I said...."You don't get your shingle....unless you do it their way.
Stand against them and that makes you a single "quack" against all of their "certified" experts.
Sounds like Elijah against the 400 schooled prophets of Ahab to me.
Things haven't changed that much."

In this respect...not in all respects that is true SkinWalker, but at least you must admit in this respect.......Science is just like a false religion.

Therefor He had a valid point, and so did I.
I just took it to the next logical step, and showed you why.

Both these groups, religious fundamentalists, and mainstream science..... have this in common;
They are motivated by a spirit of error.
They are not championing Man's intelligence, but preying upon his ignorance.

And mainstream science whether you can accept it or not...is not on a quest for uncovering the truth and the "mysteries of the universe".
They are carefully skirting around it, like tip-toeing through a minefield....trying to satisfy their master's agenda while keeping their servants in the dark.

You see......this much history can show us, technology is the source of the power of Kings in the days of old.
When it was once wielded in such a way it appeared to be magic to the ignorant peasants, it was called...
"Science hoary with age".

This is caused by the gross dispairity between the knowledge held by a few, and what is known to exist by the masses.

This is what I was aludeing too in my other thread "The Rabbit Hole" which was locked down...by the way, too controversial I guess.
You can find it resting in the deep dark recesses of the Pseudoscience forum.

Science is really not the newest religion......I should make a retraction on that.
It is in fact one of the world's oldest religions.

"Mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe."

I'm always naturally suspect of anyone who begins a critique of science and scientists with the words "mainstream scientists." This usually indicates some rejection by the methods of science for some pet "theory" or speculation. Many pseudoscientists and various woo-woo's like UFO nutters and conspiracy theorists include "mainstream scientists" in their criticisms, usually followed by some grandiose comparison to Galileo.

Notice He didn't say all scientists..........just "mainstream" ones.
Those that live in and are sold out to the status quo.
The ones whose works are printed in the textbooks taught to our children, even while still only an unproven theory........because it follows an accepted agenda.

And there's were you are wrong. If there is something "unproven" to the degree that it cannot be said to be the most likely and plausible explanation, then it simply isn't taught. If it is, then it deserves criticism and will not survive peer review. I'm assuming your leaning on the tired nonsense of creation arguments that claim science hasn't given plausible or reasonable explanations for evolution. Refusing to accept science and the scientific consensus and failing to demonstrate where science is wrong doesn't equate to being right about creationist mythology. But this is a biological topic and I'll not pursue it further here.

He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists.

In this He has a valid point.
And I said the very spirit inspiring both of these groups is one and the same.

If that's included in this point, then it isn't valid at all. Science doesn't rely on faith to provide explanations whereas religion does. They are drastically different entities. Moreover, religion requires a supernatural agent. Science does not. The alleged close-mindedness of science is true only if you allow that science cannot, necessarily, concern itself with that which cannot be at least potentially falsifiable. The supernatural for instance. In this regard, science is very close-minded and appropriately so: supernatural nonsense has no place in scientific explanations. But it is there that the comparisons end.

I compared the mainstream's reluctance to accept even the idea of certain truths until they have been proven in such a way with so many witnesses, they can no longer deny what is staring them in the face.

This is a convoluted and vague statement. Science requires that certain methods of data acquisition be followed along with certain testing. If these "truths" you write about include your imagination or that of anyone else, then, yes, I'm afraid science is guilty of being reluctant to accept them.

In this respect...not in all respects that is true SkinWalker, but at least you must admit in this respect.......Science is just like a false religion.

I must admit nor even entertain the idea of any such thing. All religions are, apparently, "false." Science is, apparently, the only viable method of obtaining information about the universe.

Therefor He had a valid point, and so did I.
I just took it to the next logical step, and showed you why.

Your logic fails just as surely as his. Sorry.

The way Fort sees it, mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe.

He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists, implying that the supposed "battle" between science and religion is just a smokescreen for the fact that, in his view, science is, in essence, simply a de facto religion in of itself.

While sciences may appear to some as spontaneously practicing materialist dialectic, philosophically they (these sciences) oscillate between mechanical materialism and idealist obscurantism.

Athewolf
I stopped reading here. I don't even know what you said, but I'm sure it's stupid.

Next time just stop right here: TheVisitor

And save yourself the effort of reading any further then that! ;)

Haha! Good point.

Oh, and I'm Athelwulf. :)

And there's were you are wrong.
-If there is something "unproven" to the degree that it cannot be said to be the most likely and plausible explanation, then it simply isn't taught. If it is, then it deserves criticism....
-I must admit nor even entertain the idea of any such thing. All religions are, apparently, "false." Science is, apparently, the only viable method of obtaining information about the universe.

Yes, Darwin comes to mind.
I won't really go into it.
It was obviously more of an agenda by the scientific "elite" more than a scientific theory even in Fort's day.

But unlike most you call "theist's" I don't stubbornly deny evolution exists to a certain extent as a "mechanism" God used in creation, nor do I hold to a 6-day or 6 thousand year creation belief.
It was the immediate acceptance of this theory that showed a motive "mainstream" scientists had other than a revealing of truth, and it's being forced into our children's textbooks as fact that is suspect.

You went on to say; "If that's included in this point, then it isn't valid at all."

How convenient that you added this statement, as though it would make it true.
It does not.
I am not a religious "fundamentalist"......or one of your "theists" you can debate on theological principals.

There is a difference between what they believe they know about their God of history, and what I'm saying about the One revealed alive right before me now.

The only truth you have pointed out is "All religions are, apparently, "false."
This statement is true if you are referring to "false" defined as "a lack of the complete truth" as compared to "true" defined as "a complete concept or work".

I have tried to explain the difference between being spiritual walking by the leading of God's Spirit, and being religious walking by the accepted dogma and doctrines held by the majority......

But it seems to have fallen upon deaf ears.

Most religions contain some truth....but are still false because they do not have the whole, complete, revelation of God.
They are a compilation of man's traditions mixed with God's word making It of non-effect.

You also said...."Science is, apparently, the only viable method of obtaining information about the universe.

The thing these have in common is the word "apparently".
That is an opinion, a personal observation vulnerable to being an illusion, which is the very thing you accuse theist's of doing.

Again showing how science is like a religion, you just did it for me.
Thank you.

While sciences may appear to some as spontaneously practicing materialist dialectic, philosophically they (these sciences) oscillate between mechanical materialism and idealist obscurantism.

Really -post #7 Thread 'Transparency' Forum: Philosophy

I think this covers your critique...

Im sort of half with you visitor but when you bring in the antiquated old testament rhetoric (and religion in general) you kind of lose me to be honest.

Athelwulf

Sorry for the misspelling bud, I didn't have your name near, so I spelled it as it sounded to me, when I wrote it ;)...

Originally posted by
Heliocentric:
Im sort of half with you visitor but when you bring in the antiquated old testament rhetoric (and religion in general) you kind of lose me to be honest.

Don't worry this happens often when dealing with fairy tales and delusions! ;)

And since religion is loosely defined as the belief in supernatural powers that control human destiny, how does this definition fit in with your claim?Science is not a religion. There are no deities or supernatural agents that scientists seek to appease. Blind trust and belief without evidence is faith and the antithesis of scientific methods.Yes indeed. In order to be called a "religion," a belief system must include faith in the existence of something or someone supernatural and in that thing or person's ability to assume control of the natural world. Science does not have that. Science by definition cannot deal with the supernatural because all scientific theories must be disprovable and something whose truth hinges on its transcendence of the laws of nature cannot be disproved.

Many scientists may be dogmatic but so are many economists, physicians and management consultants. No one calls economics, medicine, and management "religions," except as metaphor or hyperbole. Scientists may have "faith" in the scientific method, but the scientific method is not a theory, it is a abstraction of pure logic like the rules of arithmetic. To "believe" in the rules of arithmetic or the scientific method is not like "believing" in a supernatural being. The faith of a scientist is a faith based on reason, not hope.

Even economic theories like communism that come from a faith based on hope are still not religions. They have no supernatural component and a good counterexample can disprove them. Communism has in fact (arguably) been disproven at the macro level; it only works for small tribes.

Since a substantive supernatural element is perhaps the essence of religion, we have trouble figuring out whether to call belief systems on the fringe religions. Many Unitarians, Buddhists, Daoists, Confucians, etc. insist that the supernatural components of their faiths are merely ceremonial relics of a less enlightened era. Their "faith" is in the logical abstraction at the core of the belief system, not in the afterlife, reincarnation or flying dragons they trot out on holidays.Science is really not the newest religion......I should make a retraction on that. It is in fact one of the world's oldest religions.Duh? Just exactly what kind of a scholar do you pass yourself off as? Just as the supernatural is the core of religion, the scientific method is the core of science. It is hardly 500 years old. The "sciences" practiced in medieval or ancient days were at best empirical engineering and at worst alchemy. Mathematics goes back a long way, but mathematics is not a science. Its "theories" are provable.

You may call scientists by a lot of nasty names, but you have to include members of any profession that requires dedicated study and tends to result in contempt for laymen who argue against its core principles. But you can't call science a religion because its theories are disprovable without relying on the supernatural.

When I read your first post it was obvious that you're not familiar with a standard definition of the word "religion." Now it appears that you have the same problem with "science." If you use words to mean only what you want them to mean, you can prove anything.

If you use words to mean only what you want them to mean, you can prove anything.

A good ending. Do you mind if I use this phrase in any discussions I have?

When Visitor showed his colors as a religious type, he exposed his agenda. He wants to make religious belief seem as credible as belief in science. He cannot make religion look like science, so he claims that science looks like religion.

Somebody posted an analysis pointing out such an agenda. I am too lazy to go through all the posts to give him credit. I hope he recognizes himself: He was right on the money.

Agreed, i dont believe he was atempting to expose a 'greater truth' rather he was simply atempting to justify his pre-existing beliefs.

Yes, it can be a religion. I was part of it at one time, for 5-7 years. I listened to their preachers for a long time. But then I grew weary of their leaps of faith. So, like the prodigal son, I came back home to Jesus. He embraced me...

G. Owen: Wow! You discovered that our computers, lasers, CAT scan technology, and all the good stuff we use every day does not work. Modern science has been conning us into thinking it knows what it is doing, but you discovered the truth of religion.

I suppose that you no longer use any of the modern technology based on the the foolish concepts developed by scientists. Now that you know the truth, you are not willing to fly in an airplane or trust your computer. Of course your TV works due to magic or perhaps we are hallucinating when we watch TV.

When you get be by my age, you will not allow the use of any modern medical technology. You will trust in faith to heal your ills.

Science in itself is the most deceptive of all religions.

Consider the work of author Charles Fort.

The Book of the Damned was the first published nonfiction work of the author Charles Fort (first edition 1919).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Book_of_the_Damned

Dealing with various types of anomalous phenomena including UFOs, strange falls of both organic and inorganic materials from the sky, odd weather patterns, the possible existence of creatures generally held to be mythological, disappearances of people under strange circumstances, and many other phenomena, the book is historically considered to be the first written in the specific field of anomalistics.

The title of the book referred to what he termed the "damned" data - data which had been damned, or excluded, by modern science because of its not conforming to accepted guidelines.

The way Fort sees it, mainstream scientists are trend followers who believe in what is accepted and popular, and never really look for a truth that may be contrary to what they believe.

He also compares the close-mindedness of many scientists to that of religious fundamentalists, implying that the supposed "battle" between science and religion is just a smokescreen for the fact that, in his view, science is, in essence, simply a de facto religion in of itself.

Dinosaur, this is for you to read...again(?).

People who claim that scientists are not willing to give up their beliefs have little (probably no) knowledge of the history of modern physics.

Classical physics reigned supreme for over 200 years, when relativity & quantum theory appeared between 1905 & 1920. Classical physics was and still is extremely consistent with our intuitive notions about the world of our senses.

Yet those so called close minded mainstream physicists accepted both relativity and quantum theory in spite of their strange counter-intuitive concepts. They fought briefly with Einstein over quantized energy, but readily gave in when he presented cogent arguments.

Do you folks have any idea of how revolutionary modern physics was when first introduced?

BTW: Einstein, Bohr, and other great minds presented their ideas without knocking the existing theories. They presented their views supported by mathematics, cogent arguments, and observational evidence. The hallmark of the crackpot (like Fort) is the amount of verbiage expended putting down opposing ideas.

Dinosaur, this is for you to read...again(?).

Theists in this thread seem to be following Vizzie in supporting and sensationalizing someone who is best accredited for supernatural exploration. How is this validating your points in any way???

Charles Fort at Answers.com (http://www.answers.com/topic/charles-fort)

Fortean Institute's Basements of the X Files (http://www.forteana.org/html/MD-museum.html)

Can we create a new fallacy? It even sounds great; "the Fortean Fallacy", also known as "the X-Files Blunder".