Science as a worldview is just like every other dogma

[Truly Enlightened]

The concept of inalienable rights comes from the idea that all of humanity is made in the image of God, aka the dignity of the individual. You had for example, the right of blind justice in the Torah. You had the right of the poor not to go hungry. You had the right of wealth redistribution and debt forgiveness every so many years so that society could start over on an equal basis. You had the right to life. Etc.

As to death, there have always been those situations that are not considered murder: war and capital punishment come to mind. God is the author of life and death--just as we should be thankful to him for our very lives, we cannot condemn him should he choose to take our lives away, whether it be by illness, catastrophe, age, etc.

Our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with the Church of England or its Religious precepts and beliefs. Our founding fathers saw the insidious influence that the church had on the people, and did not want that same influence to corrupt the Government of the New World. It did not want to bring to the New World, religious persecutions, summary executions for trivial offenses, inter-religious wars, elitism, separatism, and government interference. The New World was a nation of colonist free from religious persecution and its influence. It was a nation of religious refugees, capitalists(50 acres of land), convicts, and dreamers seeking freedom FROM religion.

Inalienable rights are the human rights that all church's oppose. That is, freedom of choice, self-determination, self-expression, and individuality. Churches always reminded people that their lives belong to God, that they must serve and obey God, and that true happiness is only acquired though religiosity. Inalienable rights are any rights that can't be taken away from you. Not because you are made(created) in the image of God, but because you are part of the species Homo sapiens. These are simply the basic rights necessary for survival. They are, personal freedom, food, water, air, shelter, and the freedom from fear. All are the basic needs necessary for survival, and enlightenment. Without these rights, social revolution is inevitable. Nothing to due with religious dogma or beliefs. But everything to do with common sense, and learning from prior mistakes. Hence the separation between church affairs and state affairs still remain.

 

[ecco]

Science probably isnt absolute truth but people do make it out to be so.

What people?

Ruling out people's everyday observations of reality as cause and effect sounds dogmatic.

Some people observe a tree and believe it proves the reality of god's creation. Is it really dogmatic to rule that out? Especially since those beliefs often include the belief that the earth was inundated by a Flood about 4000 years ago.

 

[osgart]

What people?



Some people observe a tree and believe it proves the reality of god's creation. Is it really dogmatic to rule that out? Especially since those beliefs often include the belief that the earth was inundated by a Flood about 4000 years ago.

Its very safe to rule out religions like christianity. Those stories are no better then comic books.

But when people say that cause and effect isnt how the universe works i tend to be very skeptical of science explanations of that kind. Just because particles pop in and out of existence doesnt mean that there isnt a cause for their doing so.

A lot of People seem to take everything that science says as absolute definitive truth. Things like a block time universe and how that refutes classical time. Things being said about how there is even no time at all. Prove it.

For all anybody knows time is abstract and cant be measured in physical terms. Imaginary time could actually be real. Time itself may not be linked to anything at all. Or perhaps time gets hung up on space but otherwise exists independently of space and matter.

So how can anyone have motion if not for time. No time and there is no motion or sequence of events. But people regard time as either non existant or everything existing all at once equally because some theory postulates it, its all of a sudden fact.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Our founding fathers wanted nothing to do with the Church of England or its Religious precepts and beliefs. Our founding fathers saw the insidious influence that the church had on the people, and did not want that same influence to corrupt the Government of the New World. It did not want to bring to the New World, religious persecutions, summary executions for trivial offenses, inter-religious wars, elitism, separatism, and government interference. The New World was a nation of colonist free from religious persecution and its influence. It was a nation of religious refugees, capitalists(50 acres of land), convicts, and dreamers seeking freedom FROM religion.

Inalienable rights are the human rights that all church's oppose. That is, freedom of choice, self-determination, self-expression, and individuality. Churches always reminded people that their lives belong to God, that they must serve and obey God, and that true happiness is only acquired though religiosity. Inalienable rights are any rights that can't be taken away from you. Not because you are made(created) in the image of God, but because you are part of the species Homo sapiens. These are simply the basic rights necessary for survival. They are, personal freedom, food, water, air, shelter, and the freedom from fear. All are the basic needs necessary for survival, and enlightenment. Without these rights, social revolution is inevitable. Nothing to due with religious dogma or beliefs. But everything to do with common sense, and learning from prior mistakes. Hence the separation between church affairs and state affairs still remain.

Look, I'm Jewish, so I have no vested interest in promoting the Church of England or any other form of Christianity. I'm in this only for historical truth, period. And what you are promoting is sheer revisionism.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were incredibly, incredibly religious people, so religious that "religious" people of today would seem secular by comparison. For example, the "invocation" to the first continental congress was no mere prayer, but a two hour long Bible study that covered four chapters. While the Bill of Rights prevented the Federal Government from establishing a National Church, the individual States had state churches. There was a common core of religion that absolutely pervaded the colonies, where even the deists attended the same churches and studied the same scriptures. Thomas Jefferson, probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers, spent his time in the White House setting up churches in the Capital and other Federal institutions. He quite obviously had a different idea of the separation of church and state than what people mean today. In those days, it mean that the government should not embrace a particular denomination of Christianity, such as baptist or presbyterian. It did NOT mean that the government should be secular.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If they had listened to Alexander Humboldt it would have read "All life is created equal". We would be better off today if they had since he warned us back then of what could happen to our environment. It is sad that our leaders did not understand what he was saying. Then again he spoke out against slavery and yet Thomas Jefferson did not denounce slavery.

If they had listened to Alexander Humboldt it would have read "All life is created equal". We would be better off today if they had since he warned us back then of what could happen to our environment. It is sad that our leaders did not understand what he was saying. Then again he spoke out against slavery and yet Thomas Jefferson did not denounce slavery.

Why limit it to life?

If your religion is "nature" as your moniker states, then wouldn't a river have equal rights?

I think it is more complicated then this. I think for example, that I have a greater responsiblility to my own children than to my neighbor's children, and a greater responsibility to my neighbor's children than to the children on the other side of the world. And I have a greater responsibility to the children of the world than to the children of chimpanzees. But certainly I have a responsibility to chimpanzees, and trees, and even rocks and rivers. And nature isn't even my religion. I'm just an old Jew.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

It was the Christian west that produced "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" as half of the Nation approved of owning slaves because it was justified by the Bible.

Paul told a slave owner to accept his slave as an equal brother. That sounds pretty radical to me.

 

[ecco]

But when people say that cause and effect isnt how the universe works i tend to be very skeptical of science explanations of that kind. Just because particles pop in and out of existence doesnt mean that there isnt a cause for their doing so.

What kind of cause are you referring to?

A lot of People seem to take everything that science says as absolute definitive truth. Things like a block time universe and how that refutes classical time. Things being said about how there is even no time at all.

Back to my original question: What people?

For all anybody knows time is abstract and cant be measured in physical terms. Imaginary time could actually be real. Time itself may not be linked to anything at all. Or perhaps time gets hung up on space but otherwise exists independently of space and matter.

So how can anyone have motion if not for time. No time and there is no motion or sequence of events.

I didn't understand any of that.

But people regard time as either non existant or everything existing all at once equally because some theory postulates it, its all of a sudden fact.

Again, What people?

 

[ecco]

It was the Christian west that produced "All men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" as half of the Nation approved of owning slaves because it was justified by the Bible.

Paul told a slave owner to accept his slave as an equal brother. That sounds pretty radical to me.

I guess the American Christian slave owners and the KKK found other passages in the Bible more persuasive.

That's what's so great about the Bible. As Zero Mostel famously sang "Something for everyone..."

 

[gnostic]

Paul told a slave owner to accept his slave as an equal brother. That sounds pretty radical to me.

Except a slave is still a slave, regardless of what Paul said. Plus, in the real world, slaves were still subservient and oppressed, throughout Christian world, where slaves were still sold and owned.

Slavery didn’t end in the US until the American civil war. In Saudi Arabia, the slave trade didn’t end until the 1970s, only because of the international diplomatic pressures from the United Nations.

Religions had nothing to do with stopping slave trades.

 

[osgart]

The claim people make on rf that quantum mechanics has no causality and that reality itself does not operate on cause and effect.

I wont name names. People on rf i suffice to say.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Look, I'm Jewish, so I have no vested interest in promoting the Church of England or any other form of Christianity. I'm in this only for historical truth, period. And what you are promoting is sheer revisionism.

The Founding Fathers of the USA were incredibly, incredibly religious people, so religious that "religious" people of today would seem secular by comparison. For example, the "invocation" to the first continental congress was no mere prayer, but a two hour long Bible study that covered four chapters. While the Bill of Rights prevented the Federal Government from establishing a National Church, the individual States had state churches. There was a common core of religion that absolutely pervaded the colonies, where even the deists attended the same churches and studied the same scriptures. Thomas Jefferson, probably the least religious of the Founding Fathers, spent his time in the White House setting up churches in the Capital and other Federal institutions. He quite obviously had a different idea of the separation of church and state than what people mean today. In those days, it mean that the government should not embrace a particular denomination of Christianity, such as baptist or presbyterian. It did NOT mean that the government should be secular.

Thank you for your response. Our founding fathers were Deists and Rationalist. They made it very clear that God and Christianity should play no role in government. And, that Government should play no role in the promotion of God or Christianity. This point is explicitly, and repeatedly expressed in many of our founding documents. You should read Jefferson's opinion of Jesus in his letter to Benjamin Rush.The capital building was used as a church before Congress occupied it. It was interdenominational and available to all religions. It was the only building at the time that could accommodate for the number of people attending. Just because people traditionally attended church services doesn't mean they were religious, or that the entire country was religious.There are many die-hard religious zealots that would love to trash our First Amendment and establish Christianity as the Nation's religion. This is clearly prohibited by the Constitution.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Thomas Jefferson said to John Adam in a letter,

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. … But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding....". Doesn't sound very religious to me. Also, James Madison was strongly opposed to the practice of having a paid Christian chaplains open every congressional sessions with a prayer, or provide any spiritual guidance to its members.

Just looking at the four(4) most important documents of our early history, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Federalist Papers, and the Constitution, is enough to disprove this ridiculous religious bias.

Declaration of Independent: “..to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”. The power of government is derived not from any God, but from the people. No appeal is made in this document to a God for authority of any kind. In no case are any powers given to religion in the affairs of man. Period.
Articles of Confederation: This document is our first glimpse into the separation of church and state, because just as the Articles of Confederation give no authority to religion in civil matters, so too does the document deny any authority of government in matters of faith.
The U. S. Constitution: Only reference to any religion is in the negative sense(Art.VI, and the 1st Amendment).
Federalists Papers: Like the Constitution, at no time is a god ever mentioned. At no time is Christianity every mentioned. Religion is only discussed in the context of keeping matters of faith separate from concerns of governance, and of keeping religion free from government interference.

The National Reform Association believed that the Civil War was evidence that God was punishing the country for its failure to put God into the Constitution(nothing to do with slavery, or an apparent knowledge of God’s mind). Anyway, in their 1864 convention the National Reform Association agreed on a preamble that would replace “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...”. They wanted, “Recognizing Almighty God as the source of all authority and power in civil government, and acknowledging the Lord Jesus Christ as the governor among the nations, his revealed will as the supreme law of the land, in order to constitute a Christian government....”. It was the ultimate in Government pandering to placate religious sentiment of the time, that allowed "In God We Trust" to be added to our coinage in 1861. ​

For much of its existence, the United States has never included God in its motto, on its currency, or in any document creating the Republic. We were born a secular nation and must remain a secular nation to sustain our future. Unless we choose to go the way of ISIS. Religious beliefs can become an insidious dogma, intellectually mind-numbing, and emotionally all-consuming, in the absence of any government protection. Every Supreme Court decision so far, was decided in favour of maintaining a separation between church and state. Only a true die-hard, mindless, religious zealot would want the US to become a Theocratic Government. Obedience to a general ideal or a social principle is one thing, but obedience to a committee of men impersonating a God(s) is insane. We are all intelligent critical thinkers, and endowed with the ability to control our herding instincts. We should actually use this ability to understand that we have the freedom OF religion, as well as the freedom FROM religion. Remember, this was at a time when religion was the only science in town.

 

[dfnj]

I'll clear up some misconceptions...
- Scientists are indeed supposed to have bias. Not that bias is intended,
but it's recognized as a common trait in humans & therefore scientists.
- Science, if it is to be looked upon as "dogma", is different from others.
It makes no claims about untestable beliefs such as gods, afterlife, etc.
Other dogmas are typically faith based, with "not even wrong" beliefs.
- Science is the opposite of delusion, being more grounded in reality
than other "dogmas".

Why would you assume the laws of physics are universal and never changing. If you make that assumption and the laws of physics DO change your dogma would close you mind to the possibility. Consider this video called "the Science Delusion":

Is it possible the laws of physics change over time? Ancient astronaut theorists say "yes, it's possible."

 

[gnostic]

Why would you assume the laws of physics are universal and never changing. If you make that assumption and the laws of physics DO change your dogma would close you mind to the possibility. Consider this video called "the Science Delusion":

Is it possible the laws of physics change over time? Ancient astronaut theorists say "yes, it's possible."

I don’t think you understand the concept of science.

Science is not based on absolute, nor on faith.

Only religions and most philosophies deal with absolute, hence they are dogma.

Science is based on evidences. It is the evidences that determine -

1. what model “is probable”, hence it is science,
2. and what model “isn’t probable”, hence it is not science.

This type of testings show that it isn’t absolute. Plus, any existing scientific theory can be modified, corrected and even replaced, if there are better evidences to support alternative theory. That make scientific theory not absolute, so not dogmatic.

 

[dfnj]

I don’t think you understand the concept of science.

Science is not based on absolute, nor on faith.

Only religions and most philosophies deal with absolute, hence they are dogma.

Science is based on evidences. It is the evidences that determine -

1. what model “is probable”, hence it is science,
2. and what model “isn’t probable”, hence it is not science.

This type of testings show that it isn’t absolute. Plus, any existing scientific theory can be modified, corrected and even replaced, if there are better evidences to support alternative theory. That make scientific theory not absolute, so not dogmatic.

What is "good evidence" and what is not "good evidence" is purely subjective. It's not that I do not understand the concept of science which is pretty simplistic. I think it's more the case that you are ignoring the limitations of science. "Good" objectivity is very hard to define. And all of nature may not be abstracted into a "model" even though that is assumption you accept as being an absolute truth based on your science religion.

Science is great. It gives us great devices and weapons to kill each other. But I think you missed the point of my post completely. The idea that the laws of science are Universal and eternal is something that cannot be proven with scientific method and must be an axiom or assumption based on faith. I wasn't saying it was right, wrong, good, or bad. What I was saying is you have to admit there are certain assumptions you must make if you believe the practice of science is capable of fully understanding nature.

Accuracy and completeness is always a problem with every model. Since the Universe is just as much wave-like as it is particle-like everything is connected to everything else. You could argue time and all objects in our objective Universe are just arbitrary abstractions created by man.

Here's a good article you will most likely hate because it is counter to your faith: "There Is No Such Thing As Time"

Or just google "end of materialism" and watch any of those videos showing interpretations of the latest experimental results in quantum mechanics. Most people prefer a clockwork Matrix type Universe and just get angry or will not accept any other possibility. Good luck with your ability to comprehend your own limitations.

 

[Polymath257]

The claim people make on rf that quantum mechanics has no causality and that reality itself does not operate on cause and effect.

I wont name names. People on rf i suffice to say.

Quantum mechanics is not a causal description of the universe. Instead, it is a probabilistic model. QM predicts *probabilities* of how measurements will turn out, but not the specific results obtained for each measurement.

The lack of classical causality has been demonstrated in the quantum realm. That is the content of Bell's inequalities and their violation in the real world.

Now, without a more detailed definition of 'causality', I cannot say that there is *no* causality. The equations of QM do make very specific predictions of the probabilities and in that sense the *probabilities* are 'caused'.

Above the quantum level, the sheer number of molecules and statistics brings about classical causality. It is just too unlikely that anything other than the classical prediction will actually occur, so causality can be said to exist.

 

[Polymath257]

Why would you assume the laws of physics are universal and never changing. If you make that assumption and the laws of physics DO change your dogma would close you mind to the possibility. Consider this video called "the Science Delusion":

Is it possible the laws of physics change over time? Ancient astronaut theorists say "yes, it's possible."

if the laws change over time in some predictable manner, then the law governing that change is the more fundamental law.

Sheldrake is a hack that doesn't understand what he is talking about. If you want details, I can provide them.

 

[ecco]

Is it possible the laws of physics change over time? Ancient astronaut theorists say "yes, it's possible."

Well, there ya go. People who believe that aliens who could travel the cosmos needed lines scratched in the dirt in order to land, also believe it's possible that the laws of physics have changed over time. I guess that leaves no room for argument.


ETA: I watched the video up to the time he said the universe has a collective memory. If it quacks like a quack, it must be a quack.

 

[gnostic]

What is "good evidence" and what is not "good evidence" is purely subjective. It's not that I do not understand the concept of science which is pretty simplistic. I think it's more the case that you are ignoring the limitations of science. "Good" objectivity is very hard to define. And all of nature may not be abstracted into a "model" even though that is assumption you accept as being an absolute truth based on your science religion.

Science is great. It gives us great devices and weapons to kill each other. But I think you missed the point of my post completely. The idea that the laws of science are Universal and eternal is something that cannot be proven with scientific method and must be an axiom or assumption based on faith. I wasn't saying it was right, wrong, good, or bad. What I was saying is you have to admit there are certain assumptions you must make if you believe the practice of science is capable of fully understanding nature.

Accuracy and completeness is always a problem with every model. Since the Universe is just as much wave-like as it is particle-like everything is connected to everything else. You could argue time and all objects in our objective Universe are just arbitrary abstractions created by man.

Here's a good article you will most likely hate because it is counter to your faith: "There Is No Such Thing As Time"

Or just google "end of materialism" and watch any of those videos showing interpretations of the latest experimental results in quantum mechanics. Most people prefer a clockwork Matrix type Universe and just get angry or will not accept any other possibility. Good luck with your ability to comprehend your own limitations.

Sorry, but no where in my reply did I say “good” evidences.

I said “better” evidences.

You do understand that if it is possible to get better evidences, evidences that are more accurate, then it is possible to change a concept, or even replace that concept.

Let give you a historical lesson, dfnj.

As we all know, Galileo invented a working telescope, and since that time, the technology have incrementally improved over the years and centuries.

Before the telescopes, star-gazers and astronomers could only rely on their eyes to see and nothing more. One of the things they could see was Andromeda, and everyone during the ancient and medieval periods thought Andromeda was a star, not a galaxy.

And then after Galileo, they revised their view on Andromeda, changing it from a star to a nebula, because of the fuzziness of the image from their telescope.

Charles Messier, the first of the modern astronomers to classified all the stars, planets and nebulae in the sky, had a better telescope than Galileo, and yet Messier labelled Andromeda as the “Great Andromeda Nebula”, and assume this nebula was part of the Milky Way, like everything else was.

It wasn’t until the most powerful to built so far, the Hooker Telescope. In 1919, Edwin Hubble discovered that Andromeda wasn’t a nebula, but a larger galaxy than the Milky Way.

Before Hubble, everyone thought there was only one galaxy, and the Milky Way was “the universe”. Since Hubble’s discovery, more galaxies were found, that no one have seen before. And throughout the rest of 20th century, more better and powerful observatories were constructed, giving astronomers increasingly better, clearer images of the sky.

And during the 1990s, the Hubble Space Telescope gave us even clearer images than ever before.

So as technology advances, astronomers were be able to observe something we were never able to see before. So Galileo had better evidences than all past astronomers before him. Hubble had even better images than Galileo of images in space. Not only that, Hubble changed the way in what we know about Andromeda Galaxy.

And the Hubble Space Telescope gave better evidences than Edwin Hubble did with the Hooker Telescope in 1919, as to what out there in the universe.

And each time we had better evidences, our knowledge in astronomy have improved greatly.

Do you now understand what I mean by better evidences?

Hubble corrected all past astronomers about Andromeda Galaxy. Even more than that, he was able to discovered more galaxies more distant than Andromeda and the Triangulum Galaxy. He started the changes in how we see the universe.

This historical example, demonstrated that science is not a dogma. It can change theory, if there are better evidences to support a better theory.

And I gave you lesson about astronomy without mentioning the geocentric vs heliocentric models in Galileo’s time. And in this case, it was the Church that supported geocentric model, so it was the church using dogma, not Galileo.

Ed: made some corrections on my typos

 

[Polymath257]

What is "good evidence" and what is not "good evidence" is purely subjective. It's not that I do not understand the concept of science which is pretty simplistic. I think it's more the case that you are ignoring the limitations of science. "Good" objectivity is very hard to define. And all of nature may not be abstracted into a "model" even though that is assumption you accept as being an absolute truth based on your science religion.

Science is great. It gives us great devices and weapons to kill each other. But I think you missed the point of my post completely. The idea that the laws of science are Universal and eternal is something that cannot be proven with scientific method and must be an axiom or assumption based on faith. I wasn't saying it was right, wrong, good, or bad. What I was saying is you have to admit there are certain assumptions you must make if you believe the practice of science is capable of fully understanding nature.

The *goal* is to find a universal description. So, when partial descriptions are available, we attempt to unify them into a single, more overarching description. But, at each stage, that new conception has to be tested to see if it works outside of those areas where it was previously established.

The point is that if what we have *currently* is not universal, then we simply have not yet found the universal description. if the 'laws' change over time, then we just need to understand *how* they change and what the law is governing that change. That then becomes the more overarching, new law.

Accuracy and completeness is always a problem with every model. Since the Universe is just as much wave-like as it is particle-like everything is connected to everything else. You could argue time and all objects in our objective Universe are just arbitrary abstractions created by man.

You could argue that, but probably not very coherently.

Here's a good article you will most likely hate because it is counter to your faith: "There Is No Such Thing As Time"

https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

Let me give you an analogy: do latitude and longitude exist on a sphere? In some sense, the answer is no. They are ways that we use to understand the geometry of the sphere, but there is nothing inherent in the sphere that dictates the latitude and longitude of a point.

In the same way, both space and time are 'relative'. The spacetime geometry of the universe does not dictate either space nor time. It doesn't dictate which events are simultaneous and in many circumstances doesn't determine even 'before and after'. So, in that sense, your article is not only correct, but is even standard cosmology.

BUT, it is very helpful to have latitude and longitude to navigate on a globe. In the same way, it is very helpful to have space and time to navigate in the universe. And there *are* certain aspects of 'before and after' that *are* determined by the geometry of spacetime.

Or just google "end of materialism" and watch any of those videos showing interpretations of the latest experimental results in quantum mechanics. Most people prefer a clockwork Matrix type Universe and just get angry or will not accept any other possibility. Good luck with your ability to comprehend your own limitations.

The clockwork universe of classical mechanics is dead. But that doens't negate materialism. it simply changes our understanding of what it means to be 'material'.

 

[gnostic]

ETA: I watched the video up to the time he said the universe has a collective memory. If it quacks like a quack, it must be a quack.

LOL