Religion of Science: A Brief History

[FZ+]

Maybe we don't have faith in statistical reasoning, but simply conclude that one theory has a larger consistency with the data than the alternative? Hence we don't believe our current system of knowledge to be true, we simply state that it fits the data best out of all the known possibilities?
Does that make sense?

 

[wuliheron]

Originally posted by FZ+
Maybe we don't have faith in statistical reasoning, but simply conclude that one theory has a larger consistency with the data than the alternative? Hence we don't believe our current system of knowledge to be true, we simply state that it fits the data best out of all the known possibilities?
Does that make sense?

Does it ever, there are lies, damn lies, and then statistics!

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't it the case that most of the experimental evidence for scientific concepts relies on believing other scientific concepts? For instance, how can we take the missing electron neutrinos as evidence that neutrinos have mass without believing the theoretical derivation of the laws of neutrino mixing? How can we take the redshifted light from distant galaxies as evidence of universal expansion if we don't first believe General Relativity is right? And how can we take any scientific experiment evidence for anything if we don't first have faith in statistical reasoning?

Yes, you are wrong. You've mentioned this before (as have others). The experiments, observations, calculations - all of the evidence - of all scientific theories are available to you if you choose to look at them. So no, you do NOT need to rely on belief in order to get up to speed on science. It may be a lot to learn, but you can learn it if you choose to (and are smart enough).

Contrast that with religion, for which there IS no evidence for you to investigate on your own.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Yes, you are wrong. You've mentioned this before (as have others). The experiments, observations, calculations - all of the evidence - of all scientific theories are available to you if you choose to look at them. So no, you do NOT need to rely on belief in order to get up to speed on science. It may be a lot to learn, but you can learn it if you choose to (and are smart enough).
________________________

Where ,pray tell, are we going to learn it? From books, other people,
in classrooms? That will still be taking someone elses word for the truth. Faith that they are telling the truth and giving us fact that they themselves got from some other source. Unless we individually perform every experiment that has ever been done and perform all the valid and invalid math maniplulations that has been done ourselves we are still relying on the word and integrity and accuracy of others. That is we believe them without visible proof the we our selves have collected. That is an act of faith. Nothing wrong with it. Its unavoidable but it is not the almighty logical physical undeniable absolute truth that all of you make it out to be.

_____________________

Contrast that with religion, for which there IS no evidence for you to investigate on your own.

____________________________

You are doing just exactly what I'm complaining about 3 thousnand years of study, debate and writings don't exist? Go to any library in the country and look at the religious and the philosophy section. Then tell me that we have no evidence or are you really that blind and biased that you cannot see anything but what you want to see.
Which is exactly what you accuse us religous people of being. Read the post in just this one thread and see how many time it is claimed that science has all the hard physical evidence and relion has none.
Possibly you will detect a biased unfounded attitude. It is not just you its all of the scientific community.

 

[Royce]

Zero, I hate to admit it but your right. Humor does get lost here as well as a number of other things.

I am going to say this one time and then I'm through beating my head against this brick wall and am going to move on.

The scientific, community has no PROOF either, not personally nor collectively about most of the modern theories. There is no PROOF that SR, GR, or QM are complete or wholly correct. That is why they are theories. We have evidence that supports some of what the theories imply but no complete proof. we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate. That is not PROOF.

 

[Alexander]

Royce, it sounds like you don't understand how science works. At all.

Do you have any education/ experience in science? (particularly in physics - GR, SR and QM - because you sound like an expert in these fields)?

Russ and FZ seem to know much more about physics than you do. Why don't you listen to those who knows the object of discussion better?

So, what is your area of knowledge/expertise and how much expertise in physics do you have?

 

[FZ+]

Alex: Royce is partially right. It is not possible really to have evidence that GR etc is wholly correct. We can say that it matches all our evidence to date, but we can't speculate on whether we have taken all possible evidence. Because we can't say the GR etc is complete or wholly correct, we continue to test it any way we can. But scientific proof is not the same as a complete proof - scientific proof is about the balance of available data, as we know in science that nothing is proved beyond doubt.
But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+

But we can gain understanding or explanation through science.

But we can gain understanding and explanation through religion also.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
But we can gain understanding and explanation through religion also.

No, you really can't. Not understanding of physical processes.

 

[Royce]

I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Royce
I'm not sure I agree, Zero, but I won't go into that. FZ+ did not limit "understanding or explanation" to physical processes.

Of course you don't agree. Anything real contained in religion is coincidental, or irrelevant to the point of religion.

 

[FZ+]

Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.

we can not even understand much less explain what we have learned about QM. It is still bound up in the Great Mystery, we can only speculate.

This is very wrong.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by FZ+
Royce: I didn't say "only science". I simply refute your iimplication that science does not bring knowledge or understanding, which is frankly nonsense.


This is very wrong.

Of course it is wrong and I did not mean to imply that. I'm as much a science buff as anyone here. I was refuting the science KNOWS anything as absolute truth, is completely fact based and has a monopoly of fact, truth, understanding and explanation.
Many seem to think that religion or spiritually is pure myth, belief in absolutes and is purely faith based and has no evidence or reason to support anything it says. Any evidence that a religionist may give is immediately dismissed as delusion, lies or can be explained by science.
Just as Zero tried to explain healings as lies and spontaineous remission. Spontaneous remission is not an explanation. What caused it? Could it possibly be faith or prayer? I don't know.
I am willing to say I don't know and realize that ther are more things going on than can be explained by science only. "They" are not willing to admit that that there is anything that is not science.
That to me is being closed minded and just the opposite what any real scientific thinking person should be.
I am not really as devout or dedicated or zealous as my writing and responses may make me appear. I am that devoted to trying to keeping and open mind and judge each new bit of knowledge or information on its own merits. I am not always successful. I too have prejudices and blind spots.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Sorry for this late response, I was absent for
a few days.

Originally posted by Royce
No, science is not religion, despite the fanatics and zealots, but it is to us laymen and the public including students of science a system of belief. Belief in science and scientist that is, at least to us, without visable proof. We are taking someone elses word for it. Yet we call the scientific proof. That my friend is FAITH, faith in science and scientist.

Science does not (at least we probably can't prove it)
uncover absolutes. Science makes LIKELY conclusions.

Likewise, scientists and scientific texts are NOT
absolute sources of credible scientific data, they
are LIKELY sources of credible scientific data.
The simple difference is that faith regards unlikely
things.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Royce]

Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most. Read around in the Physics Forum as well as here. We all are saying "I believe" when talking about physical sciences. This indicates to me that both science and religion are belief systems. Since you nor I can perform experiment on particle accelerators we have to take others words for what they find. This is have faith in them and science.

 

[drag]

Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

Peace and long life.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by drag
Actualy, when I speak of science I say "think"
rather than "believe" because of the simple
difference I indicated above(unless I'm not
certain about my info).

That's a pretty fine distinction. They can mean the same thing or nearly so depending on how they're used. I see and concede your point and it's a good one. I could, however say the same thing about religion but I don't think that it would be quite as valid.

 

[Royce]

First, let me say that I was raised in a not particularly religious or devout family of protestants. As an adult I was babtized by and a member of a free will babtist church. As a young adult I was an atheist or agnostic depending on the day. I have been facinated by science since I was seven or eight and someone explained that the stars were other suns but far away. I have been a student of science ever since. I believe in science and the scientific method but I believe also that; "There is more under the stars, Horatio, than is dreampt of by your philoaophers."

We seem to be going around in circles here, repeating our positions over and over again. I am amazed at the reponse to the original post and that it has gone on so long. Thankyou.
Mentor, I think it's time to close this thread and move on.

 

[wuliheron]

Obviously beliefs are thoughts and thoughts can be beliefs. The real distinction, imo, is an attitudinal one. As Lao Tzu said, "Belief is a colorful hope or fear." The Pale Buddha said something similar, "The past is only a memory, the future is only a dream."

 

[Royce]

Obviously! I can not hope to change your thoughts or your believes, nor my own for that matter, I can only hope to change your or my atitudes about our thoughts or beleives. Well put, wuli, Thank you.
(It of course was obvious to me only after you said it.)

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Yeah, Drag I agree and some religious sects absolutely believe in absolutes but not all or even most.

What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by russ_watters
What?? Thats practically the definition of religion. A religion *IS* the belief in (unprovable) absolutes.

"There is one God and his prophet is Mohomed (sp)"

"I believe in God the Father almighty..."

You don't get any more absolute than that.

Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Royce
Yes, that's true but that is the only absolute with the exception of Jesus Christ. Some believe that he too is absolute or is included in the one absolute.

Shall I post the entire Apostles Creed? Pretty much EVERY belief in EVERY religion is based on faith. Again, that's part of the definition of religion.

A few:

God
Garden of Eden
Noah's ark
Noah's age
Moses
10 Comandments
Prophet Isaiah
Virgin birth
Resurrection
Heaven
Hell
Satan
Burning bush
Speaking in tongues
Soddom and Gamorrah (badly spelled)
Transmutation (Catholic communion)
Jonah

Clearly the list is endless.

 

[Royce]

Faith is not an absolute. Islam and Judeo-Christian are only two religions amoung how many(?) that have one absolute, that God is. Off hand I personally don't know of any others. I am not an expert however.

 

[Alexander]

So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false.

 

[Royce]

Quoted from Alexander
"So, bsicly a religion = belief in no facts and no logic (or contrary to facts and logic: say, in angels, Gods, ghosts, souls, etc).

Science = belief in facts and logic, so to speak.

Then by definition of truth, science is true and religion is false."

_______________________________

Only according to your personal truth, logic and facts. Since I don't and can't accept your personal beliefs as my own, we disagree.
Our disagreement is fundamental and can not be reconciled. There is therefore no point is discussing this further. We simply agree to disagree and move on.

 

[Alexander]

Of course, you can disagree with anything and everrything. Say, you may disagree that 2x2=4. And we all respect that. Opinion is something which is private and we don't have right to change it.

I was talking about accepted definition of truth as according to dictionary (truth = what complies with observed facts). By THIS definition science is true and religion is false.

ONLY by THIS commonly accepted definition of truth. In no way I try to say that by your own, proprietary definition of truth it shall be the same.

In fact, by selecting very different definition of truth (let's then call it "truth" to distinguish from commonly accepted definition) it can be vice versa - religion can be "true" and science can be "false".

 

[Royce]

Okay, Alexander, Suppose I say that a number of religion events, phenomena or miracles have been seen, documented, verified and colaborated. Would you then accept it as fact=truth?