Science is not God

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Buddha1, Oct 27, 2005.

  1. Buddha1 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,219
    Science is a human institution, and like all human institutions has drawbacks and loopholes. Science is worshipped in today’s world with the kind of blind faith that religion commanded in the medieval times. It is given the status of God. This tendency unreasonably and dangerously empowers those who control science, just as it emboldened those who controlled relgion and have brought upon this world immense missery and pain. Science can easily be misused and it has a long history of misuse eversince it came about.

    Definition of science:
    People tend to think Science is nature, but it is not. It is just a human attempt to understand nature and its laws based on what can be seen or validated by human eyes or has a material existence.

    Although it gives immense power to the humans to manipulate nature, it is a double edged sword, as when man manipulates and tampers with nature he eventually harms the environment in which we live --- and all that for short term gains.

    The emergence of science --- i.e.a stream to study the physical part of life in isolation from its other parts --- is a direct result of the abuse of spirituality and power by Christianity. Religion, invented by Christianity fooled and oppressed people so much in the name of spirituality and the unknown that the western society developed a deep distrust of things which cannot be seen or touched or has other material existence. Thus they developed a new concept known as science which has the motto of only seeing is believing.

    The ancient human attempts to understand nature or to use its laws for human kinds benefits were unlike science took a wholesome view of things --- and not just its physical aspects. Thus when they built Pyramids, they were not just constructing tall buildings as a show their wealth, or performing physical feats just for the sake of it. Whatever they constructed had deep spiritual and other relevance. And they always worked with nature, never against it. It’s the mentality of seeking only the physical aspect of nature that is responsible for the utter disregard that modern humanbeings have shown to nature.
    Even the medical practises of the pre-scientific era did not look at human body as just a sum of its parts. They considered each organ together not only with the complete physical body but with its spiritual, emotional and social aspects.

    Science, does have some great benefits, but we should be extremely careful when dealing with science. Especially since science has been abused a lot in the past.

    WE SHOULD NEVER BELIEVE IN WHATEVER SCIENCE SAYS WITH CLOSED EYES
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Science isn't worshipped. We treat scientists like shit.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Unlike God, the miracles of science are numerous and repeatable, so a faith in scientific methods is justified.

    You are under another misconception about science, that it only deals with the physical. It also deals with behavior, thinking, and emotions. Scientists study consciousness, and the effects of meditation.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    if there was a scientific motto, this would be it. you're way behind the times, buddy. scientists are always questioning everything. and if they arent questioning aspects of the universe, then they are questioning their peer's theories.
     
  8. gukarma Beijo do Gordo! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    But we DON'T believe in whatever science says. As a matter of fact, before anything is even plausible in the scientific community it needs a lot of evidence, observational, experimental, or otherwise.

    What ussually happens is people believe in the spiritual with closed eyes. Where should we look for answers? The spiritual rather than the scientific? It'd be worst.
     
  9. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    If science was god there wouldn't be any bitching about the theory of evolution. As an example.
     
  10. Light Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,258
    Almost pure garbage, Buddah1, just like most everything you say. No true scientist "believes with closed eyes." That's also false!

    Unlike you and the worthless ideas you support, true science demands proof before anything is accepted.

    However, you've truly accomplished one thing with all your babbling - you've clearly shown yourself to be one of the biggest liars and fools on the forums. You are precisely in a dead-heat race for the number one spot of foolishness with Rabon.
     
  11. Blackrain Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    210
    Once we perfect nanotech and bio egnineering (Which will happen in the next Century) We'll be God. Having the ability to duplicate our brains neuron per neuron, and upload them into a computer is GODLY.
     
  12. spidergoat Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    51,740
    Right, science is not God...yet.
     
  13. Avatar smoking revolver Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,083
    so.. what's a god anyways?
     
  14. duendy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,585
    GREAT overview Buddha1....only thing i dont agree wit is your view of pyramids.....i am not an Egyptologist, ad have neverheld te fascination for anceint Egypt like many do....but, from te bits i have picked up from various sources, the pyramids were built for the idea of pharao
    being 'god'..so for exampoe a main onewas built with te Dog star shining its light onto the corpse of the Pharoe so his 'astral boy' forgot te Egyptian term would o to heaven
    as for materilistic science. its lost its soul. tis isdue to it still being caught in a dualistic philosophy which has been maintained throughou theparadgm changes--from religion, mystery schools, philosphy.....where science radically dffers from its predecessor is that it suddenly dismisses 'spirit'--denigrates it, then explains it away, an focuses entirely on the supremacy of 'matter'...hence 'materialism' and positivist science.....thus science has the 'mind/body problem', and the 'hard problem'...same thing

    Francis acon te promoter of te scientific metod shows in his choice of words his fear and disrespect of Nature--equivilizing it with the Feminine, which must be raped etc to get her secret outta her

    Everythingthen becomes matter-commodity. even people and teir feelings. they are beliefed to be productions of matter tat can be drugged senseless
     
  15. Huwy Secular Humanist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    Good replies guys.

    Even the Dalai Lama has a huge respect for science.

    He goes to scientific conventions, and talks to scientists who do proper research on meditation. Research that is supporting that meditation is very powerful and benefitial.

    Who was it here that said:
    For science, to question is necessary.
    For religion, to question is herecy.

    Buddha, your opinion is bullshit, you basically need to google "the scientific method".
    This is coming from a guy who thinks "there is no evidence for heterosexually in nature"
     
  16. Baron Max Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,053
    Whatever you want it to be! Or are you suggesting that you have no imagination at all? ...LOL!

    Baron Max
     
  17. gukarma Beijo do Gordo! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    52
    Wait... How does nanotechnology allow us to upload our consciousness to a computer? It allows us to build very small things, but that's just about it.
     
  18. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    Have you actually read anything by the Dalai Lama?
    I doubt it, because if this little rant was written better, it could have been written by the Lama himself.
    His views are quite parallel with Buddha1's views on science and it's role, significance and power in society.

    As for all the knee-jerk reactions of 'Scientists are NOT closed minded, we require proof and constantly question, dumbass!!' (paraphrased)...
    Please get over yourself and try and look at actual practice rather than simply ideal.
    Try to look at it like a scientist is supposed to, objectively.
    The first thing you learn about scientific philosophy is that nothing is absolute fact, we just accept things on levels of certainty beased on scientific knowledge at that time.
    Level of certainty/depth and breath of current knowledge is a hell of a flexible equation, don't you think?
    We build entire fields of science based on extraordinarily scant evidence, and "reasonable" hypotheses.
    "Reasonable" hypotheses get overturned routinely, and it is a rare event that the entire scientific community agrees on any one thing.
    Why? Because WE DON'T KNOW.
    About being open-minded? Bullshit. Many of the so-called scientists I have known are the most closed-minded people I have ever met and will not even consider anything put before them unless it was put before them by a PhD.
    They do not give anything a lick of creedence without so-called "proof", conveniently ignoring the fact that if no one studies it, there CAN BE no "proof".
    We also must take the words and works of the many that came before us as truth (relatively, of course) because it would take lifetimes to perform all the experiments again to verify for ourselves.
    What, for example, would change in modern physics if someone were to come up with "proof" that Rutherford's experiments were flawed and someone else were to come up with proof that an Aether DOES, in fact, exist?
    How many of you "open-minded scientists" rolled their eyes at the notion of that ever happening because the aether was already disproven, and thefore a waste of time to question?
    How many scoff at questioning Rutherford's findings?

    That said, I think that science is exciting and we knoe a hell of a lot more than we did before.
    I also acknowledge that religion, for the most part, would not only have not helped advance knowledge in the same way, it works to actually retard materialistic knowledge.

    The reactions to this opening post, however, helps to prove his hypothesis.
    Scientists are just as idealistic, irrationally protective and closed-minded about the benevolence, worth and social value of science and metarial knowledge as theists are about their religion and spiritual experience.
    I agree with the Dalai Lama. The wise recognize the value and validity of both, without putting too much blind faith in either.
     
  19. RoyLennigan Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,011
    humans are naturally close-minded, what makes scientists any different? the fact is, the scientific method, if used properly, causes one to think with a more open mind. one tends to take less for granted and base theories on consistant observation. you're being ignorant to the large group of everyday people who use the scientific method on a regular basis and don't even bother with debates like this. don't attack the method, attack the people who don't use the method properly.
     
  20. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    That's exactly what I did.
     
  21. mistermistoffolees Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    84
    With a name like "Buddha1" can we really listen to what you have to say about faith without assuming it will not be biased??

    Give me a break.
     
  22. one_raven God is a Chinese Whisper Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,406
    He is sharing his opinion. of COURSE he is biased. That's what opinion IS.
    Do you know anyone in the world who is not biased to some degree?
    Do you think it is possible to not be biased to some degree?
    Do you think it is even healthy to not be biased to some degree?
     
  23. CharonZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    786
    actually this is about different things. Buddha1 is arguing against the scientific method. You are are arguing against the scientists.
    As in any profession scientists are more likely to accept theories put forth by peers simply because they spent more time dealing with a certain problem. And even then only if it is backed with data.
     

Share This Page