Sciences as a religion.

[PolyHedral]

Like I said...


To doubt those findings based on galaxies not yet observed is to doubt the very Laws of the Universe. Laws which are necessary for the Universe to exist.
A very unreasonable position to hold. And a position that requires more faith than a belief in magical unicorns.

Especially since the thing you are trying to doubt has been used to great, obvious effect.

 

[bobhikes]

Especially since the thing you are trying to doubt has been used to great, obvious effect.

Incorrect actions will also produce obvious effect. Incorrect beliefs can also define quite well obvious effects for a long period of time.

 

[Autodidact]

Religions are based on beliefs. Science is based on beliefs

Do you know why we say known universe. No its not because we know its the universe. Its because its all that we can currently see.

Some scientists believe the Universe is 100 times bigger than what we can see but there is no limit and past experiences shows scientists are usually conservative because they don't want to be embarassed.

Remember we believed the world was flat. Its the same thing we believe we know the universe.

You know of the different classes of galaxies. The Milkyway is a spiral galaxy.

We have Spiral, Elliptical, and Irregular yet all of them operate with the same constants that the Milkyway has. Why because we have scientific evidence that says so. No the truth is that we know no other way so we apply our known standards to all the other gallaxies. Its not a problem we aren't going there any time soon. A 100 years from now and scientific beliefs may change.

Did you know not one vacine will cure 100 percent of the people. The top numbers are at about 90%. 10% of 6 billion people is a lot a people it doesn't work for. Scientists will give you a lot of reason's it doesn't work and tell you 90% is a reasonably good number. Well a lot of vacines are barely over 50%. More than 70% of Americans believe in God. I wonder why thats not a good percentage.

How about DNA. The best number I ever got is 99.9994%. Now mind you it can't separate identical twins at all but most of us aren't twins. The lowest number I got was 97% I will use the best. Using 6 billion there's possibly 36000 people that could be similar to you. In the US alone 305 million there's 1830 people that could have similar results to you. How long would it take someone to rob a bank in NJ and drive to CA. Its a small percentage don't worry about it.

What part of science is fact none, it all relies on belief. Even simple math. We all know you can't divide by zero (my favorite comment). If I asked you to divide an apple zero times you know you would have an apple. Science gives you formula's to explain that it is impossible and ridicules anyone who reasonably shows you the apple and zero divisions.

In conclusion(I am keeping it short) science basically works off of beliefs and in my mind is a religion.

Well let me ask you something, bob. How do you think scientists figured out how to make a computer? Do you think they read a 2000 year old book and then prayed really hard?

 

[science_is_my_god]

Indeed. Just like how religion requires an assumption of god/higher existence, so too does science require the assumption that reality is real.

 

[bobhikes]

Well let me ask you something, bob. How do you think scientists figured out how to make a computer? Do you think they read a 2000 year old book and then prayed really hard?

Its a long history it all started with the abacus. Its not really on topic. If you want we could discuss it in another thread.

There are some sides I find interesting Like our current base 10 counting system and possibly improving it. A base 15 would have some interesting improvements and a base 16 would definately help us understand and work with computers better.

 

[Autodidact]

Its a long history it all started with the abacus. Its not really on topic. If you want we could discuss it in another thread.

There are some sides I find interesting Like our current base 10 counting system and possibly improving it. A base 15 would have some interesting improvements and a base 16 would definately help us understand and work with computers better.

Yes, it's on topic. Science gave you your computer. It works. Religion doesn't.

Science is a method, not a subject. The method works, don't you agree?

 

[PolyHedral]

And if you don't agree, how are you talking to us?

 

[bobhikes]

Yes, it's on topic. Science gave you your computer. It works. Religion doesn't.

Science is a method, not a subject. The method works, don't you agree?

I agree that science works as well as religion. The computer does very little for me but provide entertainment.

Religion is also a method of viewing life and how to properly proceed through it.

 

[bobhikes]

And if you don't agree, how are you talking to us?

I'm not talking to you. I am pressing keys on the keyboard of my computer. You do know the difference.

 

[bobhikes]

The thread is my view that science is a religion.

Religion is based on belief = I believe I am proving science is based on beliefs

Religion is worshiped = You are proving that science is worshiped.

Religions have change through time = Science has changed through time.

Religions have rules and requirements = Science has rules and requirements

Only specialists set the rules = Only specialists can approve the rules

Religion is for the benefit of humans = Science is for the benefit of humans.

I wish the thread to specifically focus on the belief aspect of science.

 

[Jose Fly]

Bob,

Then post a specific published paper that relies on what you believe is "belief" and show how it's flawed.

Up to this point, all you've done is erect one straw man of science after another and argue against those.

Get specific.

 

[bobhikes]

Bob,

Then post a specific published paper that relies on what you believe is "belief" and show how it's flawed.

Up to this point, all you've done is erect one straw man of science after another and argue against those.

Get specific.

I believe the original post leaves enough to defend. So far the only challenge is to Speed of Light.

You can of course offer anything you believe to be solid scientific fact and give me time so I can research it if I don't know specifics and I will show you how its is based on belief or not valid facts.

Belief and worship are my main reason's why science is a religion. Worship is easy to see. I believe I can show belief in everything scientific.

 

[outhouse]

In conclusion(I am keeping it short) science basically works off of beliefs and in my mind is a religion.[/

its not a religion because no one worships it and faith is not involved.


your approach is simply due to a severe lack of education in the field, your blind to the facts combined with your mind being closed due to religious beliefs put you,

blind and in the dark

 

[bobhikes]

its not a religion because no one worships it and faith is not involved.


your approach is simply due to a severe lack of education in the field, your blind to the facts combined with your mind being closed due to religious beliefs put you,

blind and in the dark

Actually I attribute it to, to much information in my fields of study and I'm atheist.

 

[Jose Fly]

I believe the original post leaves enough to defend. So far the only challenge is to Speed of Light.

No. You're claiming that "science is based on beliefs". Show me a specific published paper that you feel is based on nothing more than "belief". If you cannot, then you are merely creating your own straw man of science and arguing against it.

You can of course offer anything you believe to be solid scientific fact and give me time so I can research it if I don't know specifics and I will show you how its is based on belief or not valid facts.

You've already made the claim. Time to back it up.

Belief and worship are my main reason's why science is a religion. Worship is easy to see. I believe I can show belief in everything scientific.

You've yet to show it in a single specific example.

Again, post a link to specific published scientific paper, show exactly where in the paper the authors rely on "belief", and we'll go from there.

 

[bobhikes]

If you actually ever take the time to analyse something completely. You actually take the time to figure out the why not excepting the accepted standard but proving the actual thing.

Its like building a bird house from the very atoms that assemble it. And not just the atoms the tree that create the wood. The nutrients that feed the tree. The life that died to create the nutrients. It all ends the same you have to finally settle on a belief.

It doesn't matter what it is. Everything comes down to belief.

The religion of science is a method that try's(fairly well) to logically define that belief. Like all religions is only as good as the people using it and only valuable if questioned.

 

[bobhikes]

Again, post a link to specific published scientific paper, show exactly where in the paper the authors rely on "belief", and we'll go from there.

I guess you don't agree with my theory on speed of light. Understand that scientist do not directly come out and say belief because they will be laugh at but you can read into it. I will do my best to come up with belief in an article.

 

[bobhikes]

PBS Science
"This horizon describes the visible universe—a region some 28 billion light years in diameter. But what are the horizons of a civilization that inhabits the most distant galaxies we see? And what about galaxies at the limits of their vision? There is every reason to think that the universe extends a long way beyond the part of the universe we can see. In fact, a variety of observations suggest that our visible patch may be a small fraction—maybe an infinitely small fraction—of the whole universe.

This view of the universe fits with the currently popular idea that the universe began with a vast expansion of size. The idea describes a kind of undirected energy present in the vacuum of space, called scalar fields, that somehow got channeled into a process called "inflation." By conservative estimates, the universe expanded so much during this period that something the size of an atom inflated to the size of a galaxy.

If this grand idea is correct, then the universe is larger than we ever could have imagined. But the question remains: Is there a boundary, and if so, what lies in the voids beyond? The answer, according to some cosmologists, is truly mind-boggling. If the universe sprung forth in this manner, then probably inflation has occurred in other places, perhaps an infinite number of places, beyond our horizon and outside of our time. The implication is that there are other universes, perhaps similar to ours or vastly different, each in its own space and begun in its own time."

I consider this a scientific belief not only that but very God like. How much do we really know if we only know our tiny area.

 

[bobhikes]

All about science (web site)

"Abiogenesis – Conclusion
Clearly to get from the Miller-Urey experiment to a living cell by unguided materialistic processes requires that improbabilities be stacked upon improbabilities. For this reason, Dean Kenyon rightly concludes: “It is an enormous problem, how you could get together in one tiny, sub-microscopic volume of the primitive ocean all of the hundreds of different molecular components you would need in order for a self-replicating cycle to be established"

Sounds like if you support the theory of evolution you might be relying on at least one belief that has yet to be proven.

 

[PolyHedral]

Popular science in mainstream news is hardly scientific.

To answer the question posed: there is no boundary to the universe, but it has finite volume.

EDIT: That argument.

OK, here's a (thoght) experiment. Imagine you've got a lottery with 5000 balls, (giving 21 quintillion unique tickets) and you play it 200 quintillion times. But here's the catch: you only write down the times you win the jackpot, and keep no record if you get anything other than that.

Ten wins in a row is impossible, isn't it?