Science IS religion

[siti]

I am a skeptic in the global sense

Does that mean that you doubt that the entire world exists?

 

[dad]

Just so you know: "theory" in science basically means "graduated hypothesis".
It's not some wild guess or unsupported idea.

The claims about origins are belief based entirely. Totally unsupported. You might as well call Mickey Mouse a graduated hypothesis.

 

[dad]

Huh? What the heck are you going on about?

Time on earth and the solar system area here being the same as time in deep space. Let me know if you need it broken down further.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
As explained above.... scientific ideas don't start out as theories. They start out as hypothesis.
They are promoted to "theory" when the hypothesis is well tested and confirmed.



1. science doesn't deal in proving things

2. really good theories, do not become "facts". Theories explain facts. Facts support theories. You really need to brush up a bit on how science works and what these words mean in scientific jargon.

Here's a small summary:

- Fact: a fact is just an observation, a data point. ie: apples fall to earth
- Law: a law is an abstraction of a logical set of facts. ie: objects with mass attract other objects with mass
- Hypothesis: a proposed explanation of a set of facts AND laws. WHY do apples fall? WHY do objects with mass attract other objects with mass? How does it work?
- Theory: a well tested and accepted hypothesis. The graduation stage of any scientific hypothesis.

...

Start with a fact. Is it a fact that we disagree over what you claim?
Yes, how is that?
Because not all observations are about objective facts.
The untested hypothesis in your law of reality is that all facts are about objective facts and what facts are.
As a test: All that you observe are so regardless of humans?
And there is the observation, which provides the falsification of your hypothesis: I answer no.

That is it.
As a human I know that you can't turn everything into observable as so regardless of humans. How? Because we are in the landscape and so are scientists.
The problem is that there is no scientific law for all human behavior and it is very simple to grasp. Turn it into a question of observation. Can you observe a scientific law for all human behavior and link to it? If it is there, it should be published and available on the Internet. But it is not. Why is that so? How does it work, that it is no so that there is a scientific law of all human behavior and how come you haven't turned it into a hypothesis and tested it?

How come you don't test yourself and your claims? And the answer is, that it doesn't fit your belief about reality. I don't care, because I know I can do it differently and I will keep given you the observation that doesn't fit your law of reality.
NO!

 

[dad]

Science IS religion. It is neither true nor false. It is to simple and the statement itself is not science. The statement is religious itself

The statement was about so called science, not science in itself as a statement.

If you want to do this as science: Describe how the everyday world works for us all, then please learn to stop and identify when you yourself are doing science or religion.

The stuff that works and deals with the physical present world is science (whether good or bad is another issue)

Science as everyday process is in effect neutral.

The belief based origin fables falsely called science is not everyday anything. It is totally fables.

But some people on both sides of religious and not overlook that.

Problems with English eh?

Science is a limited human behavior in making sense of the world, but so is religion for how the world works.
Both objectivity in science and subjectivity in religion have limits.

The issue is not making sense of the world, but making up stories about where this world and life came from based on beliefs only and called science falsely.

I am a skeptic in the global sense and I can spot the limitations in both. They both have limited usefulness in practice for the everyday world. Neither works in an unlimited sense.

The idea in this thread is not to spot what is wrong with all religions. Only to admit that origin sciences are belief based and therefore religion also.

So if you are trying to state the facts about how the world works even now, neither science nor religion works unlimited for all of the world even now.

No. Origins by definition is not about what is, rather about where what is came from.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Really? The religious part of science actually had nothing to do with that. That was actual knowledge and used actual laws etc.

But that knowledge was developed WITH science, so if science is a religion, it stands to reason that all of those achievements were acts of science, and therefore testament to its fulfillment as the one true religion.

Clearly, that's the logical conclusion from your argument. Is it not?

Real science did many things...NONE of which involves evolutionary/cosmological fables. Along with the good science also gave us nuclear weapons, cancer causing agents, sex change operations abortions, and etc etc. None of which has to do with the 'evo fable group'!

Except evolutionary biology is used extensively in modern medicine, so you're just plain wrong here. Not to mention how it revolutionized agriculture.

Are you not aware that man consists of more than the chemical his body is made of?? If you understand that, you would know it was not a chemical mishap that created us.

You say that, but you can't actually support it. Do you or do you not acknowledge that a human body can be formed from inert chemicals over a period of 9 months?

This should not be a difficult thing to admit.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Does that mean that you doubt that the entire world exists?

No, it means I know nothing and I don't even know that. Knowledge is when you look closer a belief, which appears to work.
But all claims of knowledge rests on the belief that we can trust our individual senses and reason and that we are all a part of the everyday world.
I used to be an atheist and I stopped when I realized I couldn't turn everything into beliefs with evidence. Because evidence is itself a belief. The belief that we can trust our individual senses and reason and that we are all a part of the everyday world.

Now science is limited, because it deals in objective terms and humans are in part subjective.
Religion deals in subjective belief, yet you can't do everything with subjectivity, because parts of the everyday word are objective.
The demarcation between science and religion is in practice for the everyday world objective and subjective and that can't be done as one.
Folk science: I can observe everything as independent of humans.
Me: No! Because I am now subjective.
Folk religion: You have to do as I tell you or otherwise...
Me: No! Because I believe differently than you.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

[QUOTE="dad, post: 6198549, member: 62841"...
The issue is not making sense of the world, but making up stories about where this world and life came from based on beliefs only and called science falsely.
...[/QUOTE]

As long as you admit that your story about where this world and life came from is based on belief only and you accept that I do it differently and we don't use our individual stories to judge each based on that we treat one of them as true and the other false.
If you want to claim your story is true, I will disagree, just as I disagree with those who use science as in practice a religion and treat it as true.

 

[exchemist]

Do not conflate knowledge with your belief set and fables.

I'll back my knowledge against yours any day, pal.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'll back my knowledge against yours any day, pal.

Yeah, but Dad is still here, despite quite not understanding how reality really works.

Your knowledge has a limit, because there is no scientific law for all human behavior and the everyday world can't be done only using science.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Read it, please and then check the source. It is written by scientists. There is a limit to science and your knowledge doesn't work for all of the everyday world.

BTW I am here, despite being religious and I know this in an everyday sense.
PS Don't start on Knowledge. I am a global skeptic and you can't win nor lose against me.
I just make it a draw and observe that we are both here despite claims of different knowledge.

 

[siti]

Let me know if you need it broken down further.

I think its quite "broken down" enough already - I'll pass - at the speed of light - if its all the same to you.

 

[siti]

Now science is limited, because it deals in objective terms and humans are in part subjective.

Of course we are, that's why science depends on careful observation and experimentation that, as far as practical, eliminate subjective perspectives, values and biases. Science tells us a lot about the world, not so much about humanness.

Religion is all about perspectives, values and biases and it presumes to tell us all about both the world and humanness. But we know from science that most of what it tells us about the world is completely wrong...and we know from our own humanness that what it tells us about humanness is sometimes decidedly iffy.

So I'm going with science on the world bit, and, as best I can, with human reason based on a scientific understanding of the world on the humanness bit. If religions offers a verse or a song or a poem that fits, I'll gladly adopt it - but I am not going to abandon the clarity of a scientific focus in order to embrace a nice-sounding religious outlook that promotes credulity and abandonment of reason in exchange for some promise of "salvation" or "liberation".

"il faut cultiver notre jardin" - Voltaire (I know you'll appreciate that as a 'deist')

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course we are, that's why science depends on careful observation and experimentation that, as far as practical, eliminate subjective perspectives, values and biases.

As long as you understand that you can't live your life only doing science, because you can't eliminate subjective perspectives, values and biases. You can't, I can't, nobody can. There is no scientific law of all human behavior and as long as we remain humans(conditional knowledge), there won't be one.

 

[siti]

As long as you understand that you can't live your life only doing science, because you can't eliminate subjective perspectives, values and biases. You can't, I can't, nobody can. There is no scientific law of all human behavior and as long as we remain humans(conditional knowledge), there won't be one.

Yes - touched on that slightly in a rather long edit of my previous post.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes - touched on that slightly in a rather long edit of my previous post.

Have a good life, my fellow human. May your world-view(beliefs) be with you and work for you and how you interact with other humans.

Peace

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ah. Finally, a claim.

Not a claim. A fact.
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat

=> the evolutionary process that all biological entities are subject to.

This is what makes the flu strain evolve, triggering a need for new flu shot.
This is what makes species evolve, triggering speciation events.

You are saying that the evolution we NOW see and the way it happens in this nature represents the past.

As the evidence demonstrates.
Your ridiculous "last thursdayism" not withstanding.

Not only that but you are claiming that it did not start at creation by God

No, because making negative claims like that is meaningless.
Instead, it's you that's claiming that it WAS created by some god. Upto you to demonstrate that claim.

I personally don't make any claims about the origins of life, because it is unknown to me.

, but merely existed and worked as is to produce life on earth! Correct?

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Do you believe in yourself?

Depends what you are talking about.

Do I "believe in myself" concerning being able to accomplish certain things? Sure.
For example, I'm a drummer. I play in a band. I know the songs. I trust in my abilities to nail those songs if we go on stage.

I do not trust in my abilities to nail those same songs on guitar, because I don't play well enough to do so.

Not sure how your question is relevant to the quote you are responding to, though.....
My statement wasn't about me or my abilities or lack thereof. It was about not having valid reasons to accept theistic claims.

Well you guys are almost indiscernible from Christians

Except for the fact that we aren't christians and don't believe in any of the christian claims.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What kinds of examples?

Huh?

The quote you're responding to doesn't mention anything concerning "examples".

What are you talking about?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The claims about origins are belief based entirely. Totally unsupported. You might as well call Mickey Mouse a graduated hypothesis.

There is currently no theory on origins.

You are the one making the bare claims concerning that subject.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Start with a fact. Is it a fact that we disagree over what you claim?
Yes, how is that?
Because not all observations are about objective facts.
The untested hypothesis in your law of reality is that all facts are about objective facts and what facts are.
As a test: All that you observe are so regardless of humans?
And there is the observation, which provides the falsification of your hypothesis: I answer no.

That is it.
As a human I know that you can't turn everything into observable as so regardless of humans. How? Because we are in the landscape and so are scientists.
The problem is that there is no scientific law for all human behavior and it is very simple to grasp. Turn it into a question of observation. Can you observe a scientific law for all human behavior and link to it? If it is there, it should be published and available on the Internet. But it is not. Why is that so? How does it work, that it is no so that there is a scientific law of all human behavior and how come you haven't turned it into a hypothesis and tested it?

How come you don't test yourself and your claims? And the answer is, that it doesn't fit your belief about reality. I don't care, because I know I can do it differently and I will keep given you the observation that doesn't fit your law of reality.
NO!

So burried in your metaphysical mumbo jumbo that you even feel the need to start arguing against the validity of the scientific process.

Priceless.