Science as Religion and Vice Versa *debate*

[Edge]

No wonder we come up with all manner of outlandish and irrational mythology to make up our religion. When it reaches enough complexity it takes on the status of being mysterious and larger than the members. Soon it engulfs our lives and we just know its the truth. How could it not be? We've devoted such time and effort and thought to something, it just has to be true, doesn't it? Never mind that it controls the way its members think and act. It takes their money and influences their vote. It tells them what to eat! It tells them what to drink! No need to consider the real life consequences on today when you can think about heaven...

That's very true and deeply insightful, given that 'science' is one of the most popular religions today.

[Warmark Jay]

Oh wait, nevermind.
It seems this is:

tinyurl.com/acv38

Thanks, HLT. You now owe my a can of Sprite, as the contents of the one I was working on have passed through my nose and onto my keyboard.

[Kinslaughterer]

That's very true and deeply insightful, given that 'science' is one of the most popular religions today

A suppose science could be confused as a type of religion but...

No wonder we come up with all manner of outlandish and irrational mythology to make up our religion. When it reaches enough complexity it takes on the status of being mysterious and larger than the members. Soon it engulfs our lives and we just know its the truth. How could it not be? We've devoted such time and effort and thought to something, it just has to be true, doesn't it? Never mind that it controls the way its members think and act. It takes their money and influences their vote. It tells them what to eat! It tells them what to drink! No need to consider the real life consequences on today when you can think about heaven...

It doesn't "tell" anyone what to do, science allows someone to find out how things really happen on their own without someone else. Science does none of those things.

[lurch]

...IT appears that there is a miscomprehension that is the basis for some differing opinions.

The Old Testatment is originally written in parable form. Therefore, the change in perceiving God , exists in the Person over his or her life time. The rice krispes is an extreme on the far edges of the bell curve. I am not one to say that the rice krispie worshipper doesn't exist, I am saying that such a worshipper is insignificant in the total mix.

Back to the Parable form: The burning bush , head of lettuce analogy therefore doesn't work, because, yes, it really doesn't matter if the ancient Rabi's had used a talking head of lettuce. Some where i read, there is an ancient metaphor in burning bushes, and burning bushes having a God speak thru them is not particular to just Judaism. But I digress, If God is speakin to ya, does it matter how he gets your attention?
i mean,,the Bible in mass circulation didn't come about until Gottenberg made it a pressing issue. Before then,,God spoke to the folks how?,,Burning bushes!...anyway..

I don't think One should use literal reads of the Bible to make a point about what we have faith in. The Old Testament, written by Rabis over at least 500 years time, is a reflection of the Judaic roots..eastern, circular, its understandings comes with knowledge and experience. I mean, i've listened to gray headed academia discussing parts of the Old Testament, and saw a few of them become, " enlightened" in discussion. Its a book of Life. And as far as I know,,life is experienced as a solo event. ( i can hear the tsunami already)

There has been some comment on not having Faith in Organized Religion. That doesn't mean one is with out faith. Its my perception that like the early Greek definition of " religion",,it being a personal way of dailey life, Faith is a very much practiced on the day to day level as well. So, I have noticed that one of the first things I see every morning after my vision clears, is me in the mirror. We all have faith in ourselves. In that, is included that we know when to seek help, seek betterment, seek guidence, etc. Like I heard a priest once say, if you want a helping hand, be sure to look at the end of your arm first.

All the great works are there, if inspiration is sought. But it still comes all back to the individual taking the first step toward. Believing in oneself is a great start...MEL

[Edge]

It doesn't "tell" anyone what to do, science allows someone to find out how things really happen on their own without someone else. Science does none of those things.

On the other hand, it does 'tell' people what to believe.

And those beliefs have changed more dramatically and radically than that of any other religion, with newly discovered 'facts' continually contradicting and superceding previous ones.

[lurch]

..edge..Yep!..thats true. Whats the point?

Science is all about change. The computors keep gettin better. new vaccines against the viruses of the day, on and on,,change , change change. Heck, even you don't stay the same for very long. Its called aging. Oh my !change!..The only thing that is constant is change. Its real. Its all around us. Its our Universe. Accepting it part of my Faith.

Is there something about it that you don't like?...MEL

[Kinslaughterer]

On the other hand, it does 'tell' people what to believe.

And those beliefs have changed more dramatically and radically than that of any other religion, with newly discovered 'facts' continually contradicting and superceding previous ones.

No it doesn't tell people what to believe. Experiments are attempted and their results are published...make of it what you will. Sometimes it may say "this is the way things are, if you don't like it test it for yourself and see what happens". I would disagree that new "facts" have contradicted old ones in any form of science. But new and better testing can certainly supercede old info. That's the beauty of science is that it is self critical. No one is going to get away with deceiving the public here based on bad info because someone else will quickly point out the problem or falsehood.
Are you suggesting that science should stay the same or not experiment with the world? Science is simply a way of studying the universe...it doesn't live and breath or have an agenda... Much like fact, one doesn't have to "believe" in it but that doesn't mean it will stop working.

[Fist and Faith]

I would disagree that new "facts" have contradicted old ones in any form of science.

Didn't science once say, based on observation, that maggots spontaneously arise from rotting meat? And mice from wool, or something? And hasn't science drastically changed the date the first people crossed the Bering Strait? And I swear the science books I had in elementary school said Neanderthal was an evolutionary step or two before Cro-magnon. And hasn't our understanding of time changed immensely?

Of course, the "facts" did not change, merely what people believed were the facts. But Edge's point is that many people would once have argued those beliefs, and called them facts, just as strongly as you now argue these other facts. Yet there is the possibility that they are also not facts, but merely what people believe to be facts. At least a few of which, I have faith, will be proven incorrect at some point.

[dlbpharmd]

Great post, Fist, and well said.

At least from my standpoint, medical science changes almost daily. What is true today is rarely ever true tomorrow.

[Dragonlily]

At least from my standpoint, medical science changes almost daily. What is true today is rarely ever true tomorrow.

Case in point, the food police. What was once essential nourishment becomes a cancer-causing agent, or clogs the arteries, or what-not. Since when did beef become a danger to my health? And look at the history of poly-unsaturates.

Tomatoes used to be universally known to be poison.

[Lord Mhoram]

Kins,

No it doesn't tell people what to believe. Experiments are attempted and their results are published...make of it what you will. Sometimes it may say "this is the way things are, if you don't like it test it for yourself and see what happens". I would disagree that new "facts" have contradicted old ones in any form of science. But new and better testing can certainly supercede old info. That's the beauty of science is that it is self critical. No one is going to get away with deceiving the public here based on bad info because someone else will quickly point out the problem or falsehood.
Are you suggesting that science should stay the same or not experiment with the world? Science is simply a way of studying the universe...it doesn't live and breath or have an agenda... Much like fact, one doesn't have to "believe" in it but that doesn't mean it will stop working.

I hope you appreciate the irony in this post.

Much like religion, of course science tells people what to believe. By their very definition, facts must be true, right? (actually no, as Fist has eloquently pointed out, but they should be and sometimes we want them to be)

Like it or not, science and religion have a great many similarities.

People put their faith in science. They want to believe in it, because science can be a great constant. But ofttimes, it just keeps changing.

[Kinslaughterer]

Didn't science once say, based on observation, that maggots spontaneously arise from rotting meat? And mice from wool, or something? And hasn't science drastically changed the date the first people crossed the Bering Strait? And I swear the science books I had in elementary school said Neanderthal was an evolutionary step or two before Cro-magnon. And hasn't our understanding of time changed immensely?

Fist come on, you're killing me...Science hasn't done any of those things. It most certainly changes but in every instance none of these things are written in stone none of those things were ever declared fact. The most important thing about this is none of those things had been tested just observed. The door is left open for better explainations that can be tested. When I refer to science I'm talking about modern science not the quasiscience of the 19th century either. Physical science like geology, chemistry, physics are absolute like mathematics but medical science and biology aren't perfect yet despite offering the very best explaination they can at the time.

I hope you appreciate the irony in this post.

Much like religion, of course science tells people what to believe. By their very definition, facts must be true, right? (actually no, as Fist has eloquently pointed out, but they should be and sometimes we want them to be)

Like it or not, science and religion have a great many similarities.

People put their faith in science. They want to believe in it, because science can be a great constant. But ofttimes, it just keeps changing.

Again as above none of those things were presented as fact but observation. But the real irony is in your post, Mhoram. Science does change but religion doesn't, it continues to adhere to the past despite how indefensible it may become. Perhaps the they are the same thing and unlike the conservative nature of religion, science has answered the questions religion fails to...

[Dragonlily]

Everything evolves, Kins. Don't you feel different than you felt 20 years ago?

[Fist and Faith]

Kins, I don't know what made you so bitter toward religion. Maybe you posted something at some point that I didn't read. But whatever the reason, you are becoming more willing to skirt around issues, and split hairs in these recent conversations. You know darned well those things were declared fact at some point in the past. Todays scientific community may well laugh at those things, but the fact is that scientific communities of days gone by were absolutely positive that they knew various things which we now know are wrong, if not completely backwards. And anyone who says such things cannot happen in the case of anything we now think is fact is just as willing to believe something against all reason and history as those you are so frustrated with. As though "modern science" is infallible.

And yes, I know you've repeatedly said modern science knows it doesn't have all the answers, and can - indeed, has no choice but to - admit to such. But I also get the impression you would agree with the following:
1) The answers science now thinks it has can't be wrong, merely incomplete.
2) None of the current or future "facts" could be the result of falsified evidence. (Which I think is just as bad as the lies some people claiming to be religious tell.)

Also, a broader view of humanity is, imo, a good thing:

Perhaps the they are the same thing and unlike the conservative nature of religion, science has answered the questions religion fails to...

And vice versa. The thing is, the best parts of each answer different questions. Science can help us understand how our universe works. Religion can help some people people live with peace and happiness in ways that science can't. The scientifically-geared mind is not superior to the mind that looks for contentment and joy in religious avenues, it is just different.

[Lord Mhoram]

Kins,

But the real irony is in your post, Mhoram. Science does change but religion doesn't, it continues to adhere to the past despite how indefensible it may become.

Religion and science both change. As religions die and others are born, so too do scientific facts and theories. Yet, as religious constants remain, so do the scientific ones. It goes both ways.

Dragonlily,

Everything evolves, Kins.

Exactly. Christianity has evolved in its 2000 year history. That is undeniable.

Fist,

That is an excellent post. Anything else I'd like to say has been articulately stated by you right there.[/quote]

[Kinslaughterer]

I'm don't think I'm making myself clear...
Change is what makes science great but somethings don't change,ie the fundamentals of sciences such as the laws and theories (remember a theory is something that has not been falsified despite numerous experimentations)


Quote:
You know darned well those things were declared fact at some point in the past. Todays scientific community may well laugh at those things, but the fact is that scientific communities of days gone by were absolutely positive that they knew various things which we now know are wrong, if not completely backwards. And anyone who says such things cannot happen in the case of anything we now think is fact is just as willing to believe something against all reason and history as those you are so frustrated with. As though "modern science" is infallible.



Neanderthal is an evolutionary step away from Cro-magnon and that was never stated as fact nor have the dates for human entrance to North America been written in stone. (by the way Cro-magnon is just a French term for modern humans). I realize that's not your point but I think I need to make current status of the scientific community clear.
If you're suggesting that I'm willing to surrender reason or not acknowledge history please bring up an example. One can prove things all by thereselves and replicate those things.
Note my previous post where I separate physical science from biology and anthropology. I'd say if anything has turned me off to religion more than previously has been my move to Clovis, NM. People here are so conservative and religious its nearly intolerable. But I'm not as devoted or blinded by science at all. I'm a very outspoken critic of things in anthropology but science is the only way we can answer questions about our world. Let's look at history...how many times has a god, gods, or whatever supernatural force saved your life? How many times has science? Considering modern medicine, food production, and electronics/electricity has done far more than any religion.

As for my general disdain for religion, let me set you up with some cultural anthropology and you'll quickly see religion's purpose is to control people.

Quote:
you are becoming more willing to skirt around issues, and split hairs in these recent conversations

I disagree but give me an example and I'll elaborate.

Quote:
But I also get the impression you would agree with the following:
1) The answers science now thinks it has can't be wrong, merely incomplete.
2) None of the current or future "facts" could be the result of falsified evidence. (Which I think is just as bad as the lies some people claiming to be religious tell.)


There are many absolutes in science but not all, don't think of science as a monolithic field and beauty of science is its ability to test and retest so falsified "facts" won't hold up to scrutiny

Quote:
Religion can help some people people live with peace and happiness in ways that science can't. The scientifically-geared mind is not superior to the mind that looks for contentment and joy in religious avenues, it is just different.

I didn't suggest that science is going to make anybody happy that's not what its here for. My beef is with a religion that declares its past and truth as fact.

Quote:
Religion and science both change. As religions die and others are born, so too do scientific facts and theories. Yet, as religious constants remain, so do the scientific ones. It goes both ways.


Why does religion change? Does it change for the needs of man? Much like Tolkien stated before how can one still be a member of a religion when it or he has to change for that religion to still be relevant?
I do feel differently than I did 20 years ago; everything does evolve and we can thank science for explaining why that change occurs. Don't forget that science makes no judgements upon people nor does it espouse moral codes or anything of that nature. It certainly doesn't deal with the same realm as science...That is why I am so strongly against it being confused or used for religious purposes like trying to prove creationism.

*turns music on*

"we are living in an empirical world and I am an empirical girl"....

[I'm Murrin]

Kins, I don't know what made you so bitter toward religion. Maybe you posted something at some point that I didn't read. But whatever the reason, you are becoming more willing to skirt around issues, and split hairs in these recent conversations. You know darned well those things were declared fact at some point in the past. Todays scientific community may well laugh at those things, but the fact is that scientific communities of days gone by were absolutely positive that they knew various things which we now know are wrong, if not completely backwards. And anyone who says such things cannot happen in the case of anything we now think is fact is just as willing to believe something against all reason and history as those you are so frustrated with. As though "modern science" is infallible.

The point is not that people who said things in the past were wrong, it's that they came to the best conclusions from the information available to them.

As for science as a religion? Well, maybe there are some people who treat it so. Myself, I think an important distinction is that scientists do not believe their theories to be absolute - science is constantly looking for ways to prove itself wrong, and if it is proven wrong, scientists accept that and look for other ways to explain things.
Religion tends on the other hand to oppose change - they look for ways to prove their ideas right, because in religion they are following an established system of ideas and beliefs, while in science they are constantly searching for better ideas, better approximations of how the universe works. Science is about looking at the world around us and finding ways to understand it. Religion is an entirely different beast; perhaps so much so that comparison is meaningless.


[I've convinced myself while typing this post. It's not something that had occurred to me before, but it's true: Religion and science have such a different basis that they cannot possibly be reconciled, and cannot be compared. I'm going to stop participating in these discussions, because debate on the difference between two incomparable systems is futile.]

[Edge]

As for science as a religion? Well, maybe there are some people who treat it so. Myself, I think an important distinction is that scientists do not believe their theories to be absolute.

cf "answers to creationist nonsense"

[I'm Murrin]

ab·so·lute
adj.

1. Perfect in quality or nature; complete.

I reiterate: Scientists do not believe their theories to be absolute.

[Kinslaughterer]

I'm leaning toward Murrin on this one.As I've stated in previous posts science answers questions about our world. This is just a continuation of the evolution post anyway at this point.

Edge, the "answers" post doesn't deal with the origin of life or its meaning but evolution isn't going to change as it has been confirmed via numerous studies and foci (whether you believe it or not).

All I ask of anyone doubting anything considered scientific fact to look at studies and try and understand the basic field from which it originates. Don't dismiss them because you don't like them, think they don't make particular sense to you, or because it can't be reconciled with religious beliefs.