Let us develop a scientific Religion

[doctormitrau]

I invite you all to give the best, benefitial to humanity/ mankind/ society/ guide for future sciences/ prosperity etc., from your religion/ dharma along with quotations in support of your suggestions..... but logical and scientific.

[Avatar]

All religions were scientific* in their own time, they just haven't been updated. ;)

*according to that time knowledge of the universe.

So, whatever you might develop here, in 2000 years will probably be as out of date as the bible cosmologically is now.

There actually is no conflict between mysticism and science, just the conflict between the science of 2000ad and 2000bc.

Any way, hindusim is pretty close to our nowaday knowledge and buddhism is timeless, i.e., it can work in any time because it's not tied to any cosmology at all, just psychology.

[Harro]

Here is a start :) more to come

1. In the beginning when Inquisitive Minds created the hypotheses and the theory, the theory was an idea and the unknown covered the face of the unexplored, while a wind from the scientific method swept over the face of the evidence. And scientists said, “Let there be observation”; and there was observation. And Inquisitive Minds saw that the evidence supported the theory; and Inquisitive Minds separated the theory from the unknown. Scientists called the theory Science, and the unknown they called undiscovered. And there was further study and there was consensus, the first science.

[Avatar]

Why have you modeled in on the Bible? You need it international then.

[Harro]

and more, I will add further passages soon :) It has biblical structure borrowed from genisis and ill include Some ethics and the way I think technology might leed too a greater life and also possible destruction, stuff like that.


2.The Inquisitive Minds said, “Let us make Scientists” in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion in over the study of mathematics and empirical systems, and in the study of atoms and molecules, and over life forms and over all planetary bodies, over all the matter and energy that is manifest in the universe.

[TruthSeeker]

Here is a start :) more to come

1. In the beginning when Inquisitive Minds created the hypotheses and the theory, the theory was an idea and the unknown covered the face of the unexplored, while a wind from the scientific method swept over the face of the evidence. And scientists said, “Let there be observation”; and there was observation. And Inquisitive Minds saw that the evidence supported the theory; and Inquisitive Minds separated the theory from the unknown. Scientists called the theory Science, and the unknown they called undiscovered. And there was further study and there was consensus, the first science.

That's trippy....

[TruthSeeker]

and more, I will add further passages soon :) It has biblical structure borrowed from genisis and ill include Some ethics and the way I think technology might leed too a greater life and also possible destruction, stuff like that.


2.The Inquisitive Minds said, “Let us make Scientists” in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion in over the study of mathematics and empirical systems, and in the study of atoms and molecules, and over life forms and over all planetary bodies, over all the matter and energy that is manifest in the universe.
We don't have that kind of power.

[nietzschefan]

I find some fields are very dogmatic in science. Hardly any room to "explore" because the olde guard will not allow it. So ya, it is already a religion.

[Pete]

I think that these are the unquestionable dogmas of science:

- Deductive logic is valid
- There exists some external reality external to our minds (ie solipsism is false)
- Our senses/perceptions inform us reasonably reliably of at least some properties of these real things.
- The principle of induction holds

To build this into a religion, some sort of moral foundation might also be required. Perhaps something like along the lines of minimizing entropy, or valuing unique patterns.

Ideas might be gleaned from the philosophy of information ethics (http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/ie.htm) - consider all things as information objects, the universe as the "infosphere" then consider Floridi's four moral laws (http://www.philosophyofinformation.net/ie.htm#7.%20The%20Normative%20Aspect%20of%20Inform ation%20Ethics:%20Four%20Moral%20Laws):

0. entropy ought not to be caused in the infosphere (null law)
1. entropy ought to be prevented in the infosphere
2. entropy ought to be removed from the infosphere
3. information welfare ought to be promoted by extending (information quantity), improving (information quality) and enriching (information variety) the infosphere.

Just thoughts.

[TruthSeeker]

Actually:

The only fact that we can be sure of is that we do not know

[Avatar]

What we still don't know? <- This is an important question.

[Pete]

Actually:

The only fact that we can be sure of is that we do not know

That's correct. That's why I labeled the things I listed as dogma. They can't be logically proven, they must be taken on faith... and they are foundations of science.

[TruthSeeker]

What we still don't know? <- This is an important question.
Are you sure about what you DO know?

[TruthSeeker]

That's correct. That's why I labeled the things I listed as dogma. They can't be logically proven, they must be taken on faith... and they are foundations of science.
So science is a religion. :scratchin:

[Avatar]

Science usually is a part of a religion. Until science of a particular age turns into a unchangable dogma.
Then we have the case of some christians believing homo sapiens was a counterpart of dinosaurs.

http://sciencenotes.files.wordpress.com/2008/06/adam-eve-dinosaurs_sm.jpg

p.s. From that image - I wonder if Eve and Adam were eaten by a T-Rex...
Or another point - if, as many believe, Jesus factually ascended into heavens, by now he wouldn't even be out of our galaxy.

[Pete]

So science is a religion. :scratchin:
If you define "religion" as anything that involves believing something unprovable, then yes. But, "religion" generally means more than that, as I implied.

But, you'll notice that it is impossible in practice to not accept the dogma I listed. The only things outside the bounds of those axioms is madness and a little philosophy.

[mynameisDan]

there can be no such thing as a "scientific religion". Science is the study of the natural world. It has nothing to do with religion per se. That said, it is not at war with faith either. Science is limited to observed, in the present, phenomena. It is an inductive process which can never arrive at "Truth", spiritual or otherwise.

[(Q)]

there can be no such thing as a "scientific religion". Science is the study of the natural world. It has nothing to do with religion per se. That said, it is not at war with faith either. Science is limited to observed, in the present, phenomena. It is an inductive process which can never arrive at "Truth", spiritual or otherwise.

If gods have any effect whatsoever on the natural world, we should be able to detect it. Of course, there can be no claims to god existence that are credible unless a clear effect demonstrating the existence of gods has been observed. If not, the claims are worthless.

[S.A.M.]

There is no way to disprove the dogmas of science.

[TruthSeeker]

if, as many believe, Jesus factually ascended into heavens, by now he wouldn't even be out of our galaxy.
The ascension to heavens is not within the 4 dimensions we know about...

[mynameisDan]

If gods have any effect whatsoever on the natural world, we should be able to detect it. Of course, there can be no claims to god existence that are credible unless a clear effect demonstrating the existence of gods has been observed. If not, the claims are worthless.

I didn't say the God has had no effect upon the natural world, but the only way you could "detect it" would be if it occured in your observation and it was repeatable. Science is not the right method for this. God chooses to let the natural world opperate naturally most of the time. But this in no way deny's the existance of God or the supernatural world.

The existance of the natural world is itself evidence for God, as is the existance of living things. Science has taught us that living things do not spontaneously generate from "lifeless" matter. It just doesn't happen. No explanation has ever been advanced to explain it other than divine creation. Life comes from life, this is scientific fact, not just so stories and fairy dust. Perhaps this is why former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle once remarked, There must be a God! Perhaps this is also why Dr. Dean Kenyon who wrote the book on abiogensis, reversed himself and admitted that it is impossible. He is now a Christian in the ID movement.

Other ways of arriving at God are through evidences offered by Christian faith, which include fulfilled prohecy and the resurrection miracle, the internal consistancy of the bible etc.. One former athiest, Dr. Antony Flew, stated that for a christian to believe in their faith because of the evidence for the resurrection miracle alone is completely "rational". And of course. Dr. Flew, the foremost atheist of the last Century who has debated more theists and written more books on the subject, should know. He is now a deist because like Aristotle, he "must follow where the evidence leads". Now I ask you. If believing in God is equivalent to faith in a flying spagetti monster in the center of the universe", how do you explain Dr. Flew???? Answer, you can't, but no matter, we really didn't expect a rational answer from an atheist anyway:)

[spidergoat]

I guess you never heard of abiogenesis?

[Avatar]

evidences offered by Christian faith
I'm tempted to frame this somewhere.
If I would have done this in Sciforums, I'd have a gallery by now.

Any way, this is degrading fast into a religious discourse. So a warning - all further faith talk will be dealt with. Painfully.

[Avatar]

The ascension to heavens is not within the 4 dimensions we know about...
11 dimensions according to M-theory. Any way, that's exactly my point - a metaphor has been interpreted (abused) by stating that it's a fact.

[S.A.M.]

I wonder when people will realise that doubt hesitates, when faith moves?

[(Q)]

I didn't say the God has had no effect upon the natural world, but the only way you could "detect it" would be if it occured in your observation and it was repeatable. Science is not the right method for this.

On the contrary, science, by definition, has the unequivocal attributes to analyze repeatability of observational results.

The existance of the natural world is itself evidence for God, as is the existance of living things.

Your jumping to a conclusion that makes no sense, the only evidence that the natural world exhibits is it's own existence, and from that science helps to learn how nature works.

No "Made in Heaven" stickers or labels have yet to be found.

Science has taught us that living things do not spontaneously generate from "lifeless" matter.

That is a lie.

It just doesn't happen.

That is your faith based opinion.

No explanation has ever been advanced to explain it other than divine creation.

The fact that you haven't bothered to understand those explanations does not preclude the fact explanations contained within the bible must advocate the use of supernatural magic while those put forth beyond biblical scriptures observe nature itself.

Other ways of arriving at God are through evidences offered by Christian faith, which include fulfilled prohecy and the resurrection miracle, the internal consistancy of the bible etc..

The bible is self consistent in that no other sources other than to "itself" can be compared.

One former athiest, Dr. Antony Flew, stated that for a christian to believe in their faith because of the evidence for the resurrection miracle alone is completely "rational".

And of course. Dr. Flew, the foremost atheist of the last Century who has debated more theists and written more books on the subject, should know. He is now a deist because like Aristotle, he "must follow where the evidence leads". Now I ask you. If believing in God is equivalent to faith in a flying spagetti monster in the center of the universe", how do you explain Dr. Flew???? Answer, you can't, but no matter, we really didn't expect a rational answer from an atheist anyway

He's in his mid 80's and has Alzheimer's?

The good doctor does not hold YOUR beliefs, he is NOT a Christian. He is simply advocating a form of Intelligent Design, creationism.

Let's also not forget the good doctor was a philosopher, not a scientist.

[Avatar]

Thread closed and some posts deleted due to religious interference.
Sorry for the inconvenience.

This thread will be unlocked in a few days, maybe.