Science is a religion (or at least it should be)?

[monitoradiation]

I don't think he's willing to change for the sake of making sense. As it stands, he's only concerned with looking like he's winning an imaginary pissing contest as to who understands the most philosophical-sounding jargon; as such, he takes pride in using them in ways that confuse people. The more people he confuses, the better he feels, and the more we tell him he's not making sense, the bigger his misunderstood-genius/victimization complex gets.

Science examines the order, discredits the disorder, and claims it's by-product is the absolute truth... [Sounds like the christian trinity]

How, exactly, was this analogy not clear when I pointed it out? And if you don't know what the connection is then at least you can ask first..

The trinity concept [Male - Female - Son] is seen in most if not all cultures mythologies, and depending on what values the culture likes and dislikes the trinity (through their perspective) will resemble their tastes. For example, if all three items have the same value we can assume this is a reflection of equality; If, however, the Male concept is over-hyped, the Female is discredited, and the Son is seen as the only 'path of salvation'... then what does this reflect?

I've never stated that I don't understand the analogy. You seem to not understand this point. My point was that the description of science in your so-called analogy is flawed at best, and even if it were a good description of science, it fails as an analogy. I'm just going to respond in single sentences, since that seems to be the only way you communicate.

1. I'd pointed out that there was research for chaotic systems - you seem to utterly ignore what I wrote. Science doesn't discredit disorder, it studies it. Can you respond to this in a coherent manner?

2. The christian trinity is not male - female - son. Your original post mentions nothing of that. The christian trinity is Father - son - holy spirit.

3. If your original "analogy" is indeed of the christian trinity, then it fails also as an analogy. How is crediting the order, discrediting the disorder, and claims its byproduct as absolute truth a good analogy for father - son - holy spirit? Which part is which?

4. Even going with your male - female - son analogies, it fails. If you're talking about order and disorder in eastern philosophies, I'm only aware of dualities such as the ying and yang. Where does the son, or the child part of your "trinity" come in?

5. You wrote christian trinity. Don't run away from your own post. Defend if you can, but don't change the subject from the christian trinity to some other philosophical idea.

Honestly, whenever the entire paragraph or context is taken out then it's very safe to say this quote mine was intentional.

1. Honestly, whenever you suck at communicating, stop blaming other people for not understanding you.

2. If you read the rest of the posts here, it's not hard to see that nobody understood your first sentence in the way you think it should've been represented. It's very safe to say that it was not intentional that we took your sentence differently than from what you thought you'd said.

How's that for practical applications?

Tesla's quote and my mention of ego effecting both sides should tell you that's a pathetic application. How about that MPG rating for the original model T? Hm? (It was 25MPG by the way )

1. Appeal to authority.

2. You expect us to produce a super-efficient car the first time one was ever produced? Were you always great at communicating with other people? Oh wait, lemme take that back.

3. You don't understand why science is an iterative process.

4. Is there a point to posting the MPG of the model T? Seems like a red herring to me.

5. If you object to my example, tell me where. Otherwise, a mere assertion will be dismissed.

5. That my example is a pathetic application is your opinion. Too bad you continue to benefit from the "pathetic application" of science.

I had mentioned that both are corrupted by their own egos, and what you point out is exactly that. I'm not attacking one side over the other, and you should know by now that I'm a Spiritualist <3. I give 'pure' science all the credit it deserves and more, as it's no easy task to understand the physical world and don't assume I forget about the self-correcting nature built within it.

1. You seem to forget the self-correcting nature built within science when you mentioned that the MPG rating for the original model T was low. I still don't know why you mentioned it, but the fact that you brought it up shows that you forget about it all the time. Self-correcting includes continuous improvement.

2. What is "pure" science, and how will it be practical in real life?

3. There is no "pure" science being practiced. Everyone has a motivation aside from understanding the physical world. I'm sorry to break your lalaland bubble.

4. I had mentioned that we live in a real world. Real world science is hence limited by funding. Do you have a point to make other than your utopian "pure science" which isn't practical?

Congrats on continuing to think that your mined fact is Truth while ignoring the clear context of my statement.

1. Congrats on continuing to think that the context of your statement is actually clear.

It was indeed my point to show that there's a difference between how science works in theory and how it's being implemented today; Just as I'm sure there are religious people who think they're standing for Just causes while ignoring the misapplication and corruption that they truly stand for.. I don't meant to discredit either, I'm just here trying to add some structure (ironically enough) to this arrangement by separating the theory from the general application of each method.

1. There is always a difference between how any method works in theory and how it's implemented. The difference is how closely the end result is to its original intention.

2. Science on paper is for the understanding of the physical world. The end result is that we continue to learn more about the physical world.

3. Religion (in your opinion) is for the connectivity, whatever that means, and could be debatable whether or not religion is for this purpose. The end result is that we don't know whether or not this connectivity is being refined because it's a nebulous term that you've chosen to utilize; however, it is clear from theocracies around the world and the leadership of the RCC that it is not, by far, what we need.

 

[Aught3]

I would be interested to know in what ways it would be good for science to become more like a religion. Perhaps along the lines of promoting scientific ideas to the masses?

 

[Groswirth]

If science was a religion we would've been gods and earth would've been heaven. :geek:

I would be interested to know in what ways it would be good for science to become more like a religion. Perhaps along the lines of promoting scientific ideas to the masses?

It would be great, the problem is that science is elitistic by nature. And also, from what I understand, populism isn't respected in scientific circles.

 

[monitoradiation]

I would be interested to know in what ways it would be good for science to become more like a religion. Perhaps along the lines of promoting scientific ideas to the masses?

Well I think some rigors in thinking for the general population would be beneficial; instead of "this book is right" or whatever, the authority, if could be argued as such, would be demonstrable reality...

 

[MaliceJones]

Scientism.

Wicked. That'd make me a scientist

 

[Raan]

Sorry to butt in here, but I happened upon this thread and found it so ludicrous that I had to register just to respond to it.


Now, comparing science to religion is like comparing reality to a dream. You'll find similarities, maybe you dream about someone you know or someplace you've been, but the dream is only loosely based on reality and is warped and distorted and you might suddenly be swallowed by a giant fish because you ate pizza too late last night.

Moving on, let's say you have a box. You don't know what's in the box. The scientific approach would be to open the box and check to see what's inside. The religious approach would be to make something up, or have someone else make it up for you, and then convince yourself that you actually know what's inside. The first method gives you an answer and the second gives you the illusion of an answer (that might be more, or less, comfortable than the truth). Religion is not an alternative way to find answers, just like a dream is not an alternative to reality. It just so happens that, unlike the reality vs dream analogy, science makes religion obsolete.

Science is the ONLY way to get any information that is applicable anywhere outside your own head. It's not a group, or a movement, it doesn't have an agenda or an "ego". Science is a consequence of intelligence. Any being that can learn anything at all, practices science. Religion is just a way to cope with having limited information or to deny or avoid information that you are, or expect you will be, uncomfortable with, as well as a tool for manipulation (just like all misinformation).

 

[Niocan]

I've never stated that I don't understand the analogy. You seem to not understand this point. My point was that the description of science in your so-called analogy is flawed at best, and even if it were a good description of science, it fails as an analogy. I'm just going to respond in single sentences, since that seems to be the only way you communicate.
1. I'd pointed out that there was research for chaotic systems - you seem to utterly ignore what I wrote. Science doesn't discredit disorder, it studies it. Can you respond to this in a coherent manner?
2. The christian trinity is not male - female - son. Your original post mentions nothing of that. The christian trinity is Father - son - holy spirit.
3. If your original "analogy" is indeed of the christian trinity, then it fails also as an analogy. How is crediting the order, discrediting the disorder, and claims its byproduct as absolute truth a good analogy for father - son - holy spirit? Which part is which?
4. Even going with your male - female - son analogies, it fails. If you're talking about order and disorder in eastern philosophies, I'm only aware of dualities such as the ying and yang. Where does the son, or the child part of your "trinity" come in?
5. You wrote christian trinity. Don't run away from your own post. Defend if you can, but don't change the subject from the christian trinity to some other philosophical idea.

1) The disorder [Female] in this analogy points to anything "non-physical" as you'd say, and this can be demonstrated by how one would 'rate' the sciences in terms of how 'pure' they are; For example, you would rate particle physics higher then psychology, no?
2)The christian trinity is Male [God], Female [Holy spirit], Son [jesus]; The reason why the female aspect was renamed to 'holy spirit' is to corrupt that side. Mary doesn't play a large part in the bible, so to speak, but we can see in other trinities such as Ra - Isis - Horus that the female aspect is given the respect she deserves.
3) The over-emphasize of material, with the dismissal of spiritual, whilst claiming the corrupted byproduct of these two to be the Truth as can best be described; This is a direct comparison to the christian trinity, with the authoritative male leader [God], the discredited Mary [Female], and the "Only path to salvation" Son [Jesus].
4) They aren't mine, they're seen in many many different cultures; Yin and Yang are the two forces that can describe the Male and Female aspects, with the son as the representation of the conjunction between the two. The son is the byproduct of the Alchemical marriage

1. Honestly, whenever you suck at communicating, stop blaming other people for not understanding you.
2. If you read the rest of the posts here, it's not hard to see that nobody understood your first sentence in the way you think it should've been represented. It's very safe to say that it was not intentional that we took your sentence differently than from what you thought you'd said.

1) It's not my fault simple symbolism isn't taught in dog training... I mean, school I even pointed it out in square brackets..
2) I'm also taking the role of being the antagonist in this discussion so this thread isn't some useless projection fest.

1. Appeal to authority.
2. You expect us to produce a super-efficient car the first time one was ever produced? Were you always great at communicating with other people? Oh wait, lemme take that back.
3. You don't understand why science is an iterative process.
4. Is there a point to posting the MPG of the model T? Seems like a red herring to me.
5. If you object to my example, tell me where. Otherwise, a mere assertion will be dismissed.
5. That my example is a pathetic application is your opinion. Too bad you continue to benefit from the "pathetic application" of science.

I expect science not to be corrupted by it's own ego; The drive for materialistic gain by corporations who whore out research dollars to whatever group that begs enough... I point out the MPG of the original model T to illustrate that inefficiency is what drives all of our current institutions because it's far more profitable.

1. You seem to forget the self-correcting nature built within science when you mentioned that the MPG rating for the original model T was low. I still don't know why you mentioned it, but the fact that you brought it up shows that you forget about it all the time. Self-correcting includes continuous improvement.
2. What is "pure" science, and how will it be practical in real life?
3. There is no "pure" science being practiced. Everyone has a motivation aside from understanding the physical world. I'm sorry to break your lalaland bubble.
4. I had mentioned that we live in a real world. Real world science is hence limited by funding. Do you have a point to make other than your utopian "pure science" which isn't practical?

1) Low? It was 25MPG, which is higher then most cars on the road today...
2)Pure science is research; Pure science is Astronomy <3
3) Yup, you're right, and it's because we base ourselves in this faulty monetary system.
4) Practicality doesn't rely on materialism.

1. There is always a difference between how any method works in theory and how it's implemented. The difference is how closely the end result is to its original intention.
2. Science on paper is for the understanding of the physical world. The end result is that we continue to learn more about the physical world.
3. Religion (in your opinion) is for the connectivity, whatever that means, and could be debatable whether or not religion is for this purpose. The end result is that we don't know whether or not this connectivity is being refined because it's a nebulous term that you've chosen to utilize; however, it is clear from theocracies around the world and the leadership of the RCC that it is not, by far, what we need.

1) So, with that being said, can you see how science and religion have both been corrupted the same way? A desire for truth that brings you to better windshield wipers isn't any different then a desire for connectivity [Love] that leads to segregation of groups and terrible internal tools for maintaining and evolving yourself.
2) All systems of thought are self-perpetuating; Metaphysics feeds on thought just as physics feeds on matter.
3)I mean that for the reason that any tool that applies itself Within should be very good at getting you to connect to others, and assisting personal evolution.

 

[Mojzu]

Science and religion have very opposite values in how claims are evaluated and reviewed. I think it would be unfair to call science a religion, as religion has that 'faith' attachment. And faith is something that should absolutely not be used to describe science, as it suggests that scientists make stuff up instead of rigorously testing, and retesting hypotheses and theories. The way I see it is:

Science organises itself to fit the facts
Religion organises the facts to fit presupposed information

The two should not be confused.

 

[monitoradiation]

1) The disorder [Female] in this analogy points to anything "non-physical" as you'd say, and this can be demonstrated by how one would 'rate' the sciences in terms of how 'pure' they are; For example, you would rate particle physics higher then psychology, no?
2)The christian trinity is Male [God], Female [Holy spirit], Son [jesus]; The reason why the female aspect was renamed to 'holy spirit' is to corrupt that side. Mary doesn't play a large part in the bible, so to speak, but we can see in other trinities such as Ra - Isis - Horus that the female aspect is given the respect she deserves.
3) The over-emphasize of material, with the dismissal of spiritual, whilst claiming the corrupted byproduct of these two to be the Truth as can best be described; This is a direct comparison to the christian trinity, with the authoritative male leader [God], the discredited Mary [Female], and the "Only path to salvation" Son [Jesus].
4) They aren't mine, they're seen in many many different cultures; Yin and Yang are the two forces that can describe the Male and Female aspects, with the son as the representation of the conjunction between the two. The son is the byproduct of the Alchemical marriage

1a. No. I don't associate disorder with non-physical. We have a good phrase for non-physical, it is called "non-physical". It's not disorder. So your analogy still fails, no matter how far you're willing to wiggle out of your original sentence.

1b. You seem to use the word "pure" as it pertains to sciences in two different manners. From what I can infer, you're using it interchangeably with "hard science" like particle physics whose discoveries are waiting for the rest of technology to catch up, and also science that hasn't have had corporate funding.

2a. I've loosely heard of the Holy Spirit mentioned, but rarely associated with gender at all. For the most part, the Holy Spirit is referred to as gender neutral. I don't particularly see an overwhelming majority of christians claiming that it is female; or it being mentioned at all. If you're talking about highly theological ideas specific to one or a few sects, maybe you shouldn't generalize it as "christian trinity".

2b. From what is commonly referred to as the holy spirit, it's usually the soul, or essence, of god - it performs certain functions in the theology, and as far as I can tell gender doesn't play an important role other than you wanting to prescribe it one. Its function is not anti-thesis or complementary to that of god, it's a part of god.

2c. It's corrupting... How? Because you say so? And you comparing to OTHER trinities of your choice doesn't make your analogy fit any better. It still doesn't quite work.

2d. There may be good reason to assume that the judeochristian doctrines borrowed some aspects of the egyptians theology, but then it'd be justifying your original claim with another analogy altogether, and I still haven't accepted the analogy that order - disorder - truth is akin to the christian trinity is apt. So whatever comparisons you make after you original analogy is simply moot. Henceforth, further assertions without a good justification of your analogy will simply be dismissed.

3a. "The over-emphasize of material, with the dismissal of spiritual, whilst claiming the corrupted byproduct of these two to be the Truth as can best be described; "
Is this a full sentence?

3b. You keep spouting this as if you don't know that it's not even close to the topic of whether or not the "order - disorder - truth in science" analogy is apt to the christian trinity. Until you have demonstrated that it is apt, there is no point discussing any of this further.

4. I'm fully aware of the yin and yang in the traditional sense. There's no such thing as "the son as the representation of the conjunction between the two". The dualistic characteristics of yin and yang give rise to each other; they wax and wane like the moon. At most they represent the balance of the natural forces. Don't try to co-opt other philosophical ideas to what you want to say.

1) It's not my fault simple symbolism isn't taught in dog training... I mean, school I even pointed it out in square brackets..
2) I'm also taking the role of being the antagonist in this discussion so this thread isn't some useless projection fest.

1a. It's not my fault that your simple symbolism fails in the way that you're trying to apply it.

1b. Homeschool your kids.

2. Victimization complex. If we're to have an argument there has to be two sides with opinions. If we agreed there'd be no argument.

I expect science not to be corrupted by it's own ego; The drive for materialistic gain by corporations who whore out research dollars to whatever group that begs enough... I point out the MPG of the original model T to illustrate that inefficiency is what drives all of our current institutions because it's far more profitable.

1a. Corruption of science by ego has nothing to do with the efficiency of the automobiles we're producing.

1b. You seem to be fixated on the idea that because science takes funding from for-profit corporations, that they stop doing any beneficial research. That is not so. Plenty of research is done with corporate funding. Many graduate students complete their research projects working with corporations.

2. Are you an engineer? There are other restrictions on design other than MPG, by the way; exhaust standards have to be met; MPG in certain speed regimes have to be met. etc.

3. I'll comment on the MPG in the following section.

1) Low? It was 25MPG, which is higher then most cars on the road today...
2)Pure science is research; Pure science is Astronomy <3
3) Yup, you're right, and it's because we base ourselves in this faulty monetary system.
4) Practicality doesn't rely on materialism.

1a. You should look up MPG's of modern cars. If by "most cars" you mean by a select few gas-guzzlers, I might be inclined to agree. Most cars today have at least 28-33 MPG in city roads/on highways, and some go up to 40 MPG or so.

1b. You don't seem to realize that cars these days also run far more components. Heating and ventilation, electronics, safety features, etc., are mostly systems that weren't required in a model T. Not to mention that the average MPG have gone UP, not DOWN, we've added functionality in our cars.

1c. Where are you getting your sources from, anyway? I'm starting to think you simply make crap up as you go along just to support your original assertion. A cursory browsing of an MPG website would have done the trick.

2a. And corporate-funded research is research, isn't it? Oh wait I forgot you're one of those corporate-funded-research-is-totally-biased people.

2b. One may have suspicions about the inherent bias in the research produced by this method, but if you're so uptight about it, do your own freaking research and prove them wrong in a scientific arena. People don't just publish garbage because the peer-review process partly prevents this.

2c. If you're inclined to think that somehow even the peer-review process is bought, then you might as well just shut off your computer and go live in the stone-age. Nothing in science gets done without the peer-review process. The peer review process will prevent the biased corporate-funded research to contain falsities. That was my point of the self-correcting system. Too bad you missed it entirely.

3a. Thanks for proving me right.

3b. I don't disagree that our monetary system needs an overhaul. But it has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Stop changing the subject. We're not going back to the bartering system, and scientists won't suddenly start exchanging fish for erlenmeyer flasks. Unless you live in some utopia where people are free to do whatever the hell they want, some form of funding is still required.

4a. I'd agree, because one is strictly methodological materialism, and the materialism you're talking about is philosophical materialism. The two don't necessarily go together.

4b. But it has nothing to do with science being practiced. You don't practice science in a philosophical materialistic way because it's an ideological stance. Stop trying to mix things that don't mix.

1) So, with that being said, can you see how science and religion have both been corrupted the same way? A desire for truth that brings you to better windshield wipers isn't any different then a desire for connectivity [Love] that leads to segregation of groups and terrible internal tools for maintaining and evolving yourself.
2) All systems of thought are self-perpetuating; Metaphysics feeds on thought just as physics feeds on matter.
3)I mean that for the reason that any tool that applies itself Within should be very good at getting you to connect to others, and assisting personal evolution.

1a. Nope. Not even close. You don't just repeat it and hope I take your point. You have to actually make a cogent argument.

1b. I'm guessing you're saying:
Science has "A desire for truth that brings you to better windshield wipers", and
Religion has "a desire for connectivity [Love] that leads to segregation of groups and terrible internal tools for maintaining and evolving yourself"

You've just stated that science works in the field that it's supposed to, religion doesn't. Which goes to prove what I was trying to say all along. I'm glad we agree.

1c. You seem to somehow imply that better working windshields (and practical items in general) is a bad way of practicing science. It isn't. It's actually how science works. They produce demonstrable, useful results that may be tangential and incidental to the original discoveries. If the studying of relativity and cosmology does not produce tangible results, did you think people would be excited?

1d. The best scientific minds of our time and times past, made their discoveries because of studying and improving steam engines, cathode ray tubes, spectrum interferometry. There are a plethora of ways that science benefits our lives in a way that's practical, and you seem to think that "pure science" is the subset of research where both of these things take place at the same time: no corporate-funding, no practical application that you deem lowly. That's not how it works, and that's never going to be how it works.

2. And what? You have a point to make here?

3a. I agree tentatively. Your point?

3b. I wouldn't use the term personal evolution. Maybe personal development.

 

[Gnomesmusher]

So after railing against science for so long, the collective religious decided it's now a religion. Even though the religious criticism against science has always been that it has no divine purpose and no divine morality. So how can it be a religion now? And does religion really want to compete with science as a religion? Afterall, prayer does jack shit but applying scientific know how will get you to the moon.

 

[Niocan]

I'm sorry, monitoradiation, but if symbolism can't be understood then I'm wasting my time here; If you want to talk more about this then open a different thread, otherwise I'm needlessly hijacking this one. For which I apologize, but I can assure anyone here that the corruptions of science and religion are one in the same.

 

[monitoradiation]

I'm sorry, monitoradiation, but if symbolism can't be understood then I'm wasting my time here; If you want to talk more about this then open a different thread, otherwise I'm needlessly hijacking this one. For which I apologize, but I can assure anyone here that the corruptions of science and religion are one in the same.

That's all you've got? Accusing me of not understanding symbolism? After I painstaking did a point-by-point rebuttal of everything you've said and why, you come back with a weaksauce dismissal? Oooh, look at that guy, he doesn't understand symbolism, hawhawhaw! Laughable.

Open a new thread if you want. No matter how much you "assure anyone here", you're still only making assertions that you didn't sufficiently back up. I'm fine with symbolism as long as they're apt. In this case they're simply not.