The religion of science, which is also known as the cult of atheism.
joking
joking
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which religion is most the most scientifically accurate?
- Thread starter idav
- Start date
The philosophies should be able to stand up to rigourous testing but a lot of supernatural type stuff will fail for obvious reasons. When we get into the realm of metaphysics there is a bit more hope for the more radical views but it seems to me that metaphysics is just the stuff that we haven't been able to nail down yet and the philosophies as to how and why may not fit with the knowledge we gain. Depending on the religion knowledge and testing will either widen the gap or close it some.
Thank you. I learned something about P and J. Interesting in this connection is the following quote: "Illustrating the unreasonableness of the advocates of the "documentary theory" is this statement by Egyptologist K.A. Kitchen:"In Pentateuchal criticism is has long been customary to divide the whole into separate documents or 'hands'...but the practice of [OT] criticism in attributing these characteristics to different 'hands' or documents becomes a manifest absurdity when applied to other ancient Oriental writings that display precisely similar phenomena." He then cites an example from an Egyptian biography that might, using the theoretical methods employed by the critics of Genesis, be attributed to different "hands" but which work the evidence shows "was conceived, composed, written, and carved within months, weeks, or even less. There can be no 'hands' behind its style, which merely varies with the subjects in view and the question of fitting treatment."(The New Bible Dictionary, edited by J. Douglas 1980 p. 349)
(Quote from Insight on the Scriptures pp.920-922)
The theories attempting to discredit the Bible or prove it other than the Word of God are seemingly unending. You would not go to the Pharisees to find the truth about Christ, or if you did, you would certainly not find it. One cannot go to opposers of the Bible to find the truth about it, or if you do, you will certainly not find it.
(Quote from Insight on the Scriptures pp.920-922)
The theories attempting to discredit the Bible or prove it other than the Word of God are seemingly unending. You would not go to the Pharisees to find the truth about Christ, or if you did, you would certainly not find it. One cannot go to opposers of the Bible to find the truth about it, or if you do, you will certainly not find it.
What I found is P and J represents a theory that one writer termed a "manifest absurdity." Why are atheists so quick to believe every new theory that fits into their fantasy that there is no God?
God as the Creator and Earth's LandLord has every right to decide what to do with his creation. It was man's wickedness and violence that moved God to purpose destroying the world of Noah's day, but he took steps to preserve people and animals alive. (Genesis 6:5,11) There are many today that find fault with God,but say little or nothing about the tens of millions of innocents slaughtered in wars and countless animals also. We can be glad God has stated his purpose to end such wickedness in the near future. (2 Peter 3:5-7) As in Noah's day, it is the wicked who will perish (and their offspring), while the righteous (and their offspring) will be spared alive.(2 Peter 3:11-14)
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"Why are atheists so quick to believe every new theory that fits into their fantasy that there is no God?"
why are you saying atheists?
Its not a new theory.
The Professor who
"Richard Elliott Friedman earned his doctorate from Harvard in Hebrew Bible. He is Davis Professor of Jewish Studies at the University of Georgia and Katzin Professor of Jewish Civilization Emeritus of the University of California, San Diego. One of the premier biblical scholars in the country,"
You should watch the entire video on the site.
Actually, that very idea assumes a certain stance on the philosophy of science. On of the areas of debate concerns the concepts of evidence, confirmation, inference, and explanation (among other related concepts). In other words, there is considerable debate as to what constitutes "rigorous" testing, what conclusions (if any) one is justified in making given results, whether theories can ever be confirmed and/or whether testing can ever confirm anything (and what it can), along with a plethora of other debates which render the notion of "rigourous testing" as a method to support a particular conception of "science" extremely problematic.
The question of some philosophers of science, however, is whether these "obvious reasons" are the result of biases or fallacies in the way scientific research is conducted and/or the way in which scientific hypotheses (and theories) are formulated? Or, to follow a different line of reason sometimes espoused, is the basis for science any more secure than that of religion because of its method of determining what is true?
shawn001
Well-Known Member
"is the basis for science any more secure than that of religion because of its method of determining what is true?"
Say what?
The scientifc method which weeds out " biases or fallacies" works quite well.
Of course a scientific hypotheses is quite different then a scientifc theory.
As the "Celebrated neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga explains"
"Philosophers are the best at articulating the nature of a problem before anybody knows anything empirical. The modern philosophers of mind now seize on neuroscience and cognitive science to help illuminate age old questions and to this day are frequently ahead of the pack. Among other skills, they have time to think! The laboratory scientist is consumed with experimental details, analyzing data, and frequently does not have the time to place a scientific finding into a larger landscape. It is a constant tension.
Having said that, philosophers cant have all the fun. Faced with the nature of biologic mechanisms morning, noon, and night, neuroscientists cant help but think about such questions as the nature of freedom of action in a mechanistic universe as one great neuroscientist put it years ago. At a minimum, neuroscience directs ones attention to the question of how does action come about."
Neuroscience Challenges Old Ideas about Free Will: Scientific American
"Or, to follow a different line of reason sometimes espoused, is the basis for science any more secure than that of religion because of its method of determining what is true?"
Are you mixing up science and religion?
Is Science a Religion?
Given the dangers of faith and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?" Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence...
Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?
"In other words, there is considerable debate"
There is, please show some examples?
Not according to all philosophers of science (and I'm not talking about a bunch of religious philosophers).
It's hard to point to a specific person or era in anything so complicated, but Kant is as good as any here. All scientific knowledge relies on the sense, and Kant (followed by others, like Hume), began noting problems grounding knowledge in perception. Then there is the issue of logical deduction and validity. So much of science rests on one proposition following from, or being a necessary result of some other proposition, but in Lewis Carroll's brilliant and amusing "What the tortoise said to Achilles" he calls attention to the problem of x following necessarily from y. Then there are the various social critiques, most of which are evolutions or variants of Kuhn's paradigm shift explanation for scientific progress.
I'm not saying I buy any of these. I'm simply saying that the OPs question is made more difficult because science isn't some "unified" philosophy with different branches.
Of course a scientific hypotheses is quite different then a scientifc theory.
As the "Celebrated neuroscientist Michael S. Gazzaniga explains"
"Philosophers are the best at articulating the nature of a problem before anybody knows anything empirical. The modern philosophers of mind now seize on neuroscience and cognitive science to help illuminate age old questions and to this day are frequently ahead of the pack. Among other skills, they have time to think! The laboratory scientist is consumed with experimental details, analyzing data, and frequently does not have the time to place a scientific finding into a larger landscape. It is a constant tension.
Having said that, philosophers cant have all the fun. Faced with the nature of biologic mechanisms morning, noon, and night, neuroscientists cant help but think about such questions as the nature of freedom of action in a mechanistic universe as one great neuroscientist put it years ago. At a minimum, neuroscience directs ones attention to the question of how does action come about."
Neuroscience Challenges Old Ideas about Free Will: Scientific American
"Or, to follow a different line of reason sometimes espoused, is the basis for science any more secure than that of religion because of its method of determining what is true?"
Are you mixing up science and religion?
Is Science a Religion?
Given the dangers of faith and considering the accomplishments of reason and observation in the activity called science I find it ironic that, whenever I lecture publicly, there always seems to be someone who comes forward and says, "Of course, your science is just a religion like ours. Fundamentally, science just comes down to faith, doesn't it?" Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence...
Richard Dawkins: Is Science A Religion?
"In other words, there is considerable debate"
There is, please show some examples?[/quote]
One field may have that issue when compared to themselves but when other fields are getting results that back each other up it paints a picture that reality isn't as subjective as philosophers like to make it sound. Science provides evidence that reality is subjective which is why consensus from various fields is necessary. We are always digging deeper to be sure that things are how they seem to be, sometimes science shatters it but it allows us to peek behind the curtain.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
[/quote]
" The scientifc method which weeds out " biases or fallacies" works quite well.
Are these
"Not according to all philosophers of science (and I'm not talking about a bunch of religious philosophers)."
Using the scieitific method. Of course philosophers of science would philosophize that is what they do.
I don't know of a movement in science to change the scientific principle or how they come to, scientific theories. I know of problems in QM and observations themselves and the history of science.
"is the basis for science any more secure than that of religion"
You have to be kidding above, did you really mean this? With all our scientific discoveries over the last 200 years?
Did religion fly us to the moon and outer solar system and figure out evolution and the big bang?
What is the scientific method? It isn't a static, well-defined methodology agreed on by all. Moreover, it is a philosophy of science, or a part of a philosophy of science. Generally, the term as used today grew out of logical positivism. However, the 20th century brought with it serious philosophical critiques to the philosophy you refer to as "the scientific method." Some sought to reform it, others abolish it, other tweak it. But you act as if there is one scientific method. Only even applied scientists disagree as to how much weight to give a theoretical framework versus results. What happens when a body of research in one field has led to a generally accepted result, but then a series of experiments contradict it? This comes up all the time in discussions (formal and informal) in cognitive science, behavioral neurobiology, neuroscience, etc. What happens when fMRI scans don't reveal what a whole lot of other evidence which has led to a theoretical framework says they should? Is the problem that the experimental paradigm is wrong, or that the instruments are inadequate, or that the theory (or some part of it) is wrong?
Whose definition of "scientific method" are you using? Poppers? Certainly not Feyeraband. Or perhaps your "scientific method relies on probabilistic evidence for confirmation?
The scientific method is a part of the philosophy of science. You seem to act like they are two seperate things.
"
See Paul Feyerabend on this.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
Yes I know the history of science and the scientific methods used and no where did I say there were not issues, over the years. You said there was some big debate and yet couldn't point to anyone or anything going on right now.
Again it all works out quite well. Yes I know philosophy has been a part of and is very important in science. philosophy can only take us so far though, without doing real experiments.
I also wasn't taking about the scientific method as much as how far it has gotten us.
How far have computers come in the last 50 years?
How far has our understanding of the universe come?
The brain?
Space flight and flight in general.
In astronomy we use to get a terabit of information a year, now we get that everyday.
We learning how to 3-D print human organs.
""is the basis for science any more secure than that of religion"
To me this is an obsurd comment. What religion's basis is more secure then that of science. If only religion used the scientific methods.
If science created a motor religion as you had suggested I'm sure it would be very scientifically accurate.
Buddhism is one that uses that method and scientists stole the idea and claimed it their own.
Well let's look at the ol' bookshelf. Paul Dicken published Constructive Empericism: Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science in 2010. Sandra Harding published Is Science Multicultural in 1998, but we can see from Karen Haely's Objectivity in the Feminist Philosophy of Science (2008) that social critiques of the scientific method are going strong. Kukla's book Social Constructivism and the Philosophy of Science is also recent (2000), as is the edited volume (composed of a series of papers written by various specialists) World Views, Science, and Us: Philosophy and Complexity.
Then there are the works which deal not with social critiques or epistemology but with problems in the scientific method itself, such as Roland's Quantum Philosophy: Understanding and Interpreting Contemporary Science, or the published proceedings from the 2000 meeting of the International Acedemy of the Philosophy of Science which focused on the problem of the unity of science or Yong and Yi-Min's Beyond Nonstructual Quantitative Analysis: Blow-ups, Spinning Currents, and Modern Science (2002) which deals primarily with the inadequacy of our current mathematical techniques for real-world application. Same goes for Coles' From Cosmos to Chaos: The Science of Unpredictability (2006) which focuses less on the inadequacies of calculus and more on the the inadequate understanding and treatment of probability, randomness, and prediction in complex systems. I could keep going, but the point is that yes, the debates and problems are still very much alive, and with advent of research into fuzzy sets and dynamical systems a similar shift in thought, approach, and understanding to that which was brought about by the advent of quantum mechanics and relativity may be well on its way.
Actually, you touch on some of the very issues I refer to by bringing these up. Take the brain. I was at a meeting/lecture where the director (whose a big wig in the field of cognitive science and neuropsychology) talked about problems with a whole slew of recent papers, and brought up the issue of whether fMRI research and a lot of recent "advances" to our understanding of the brain have any merit. He also touched on at what point do we change our theory of the brain based on scanning techniques like fMRIs, or determine that the techniques don't show us what we thought? At the advent of the computer age, it was believed that Artificial Intelligence was a few years away. Then we started to realize how what we thought were such simple problems (like recognizing a chair is a shadow falls on it or it is turned) can present enormous problems for computers. Right now, there is a bit of a battle going on over whether classical approaches to AI should be completely abandoned in favor of things like ANNs. Same linguistics, as the dominance of the Chomskyan paradigm is increasingly challenged by linguistic models which use construction grammars and deny the existence of a language module.
As the goals we set become increasingly more complex, the philosophy we use to determine methodological validity, interpret results, etc., becomes more and more important. Never before has there been such a diversity within academica, and it has caused serious problems. Sociologists and psychologists can now rely on machines and complex software to run statistical analyses, but too many have no idea what these mean. So many papers are published which are accepted because they fit the reigning orthodoxy or the reviewers lack the knowledge to adequately review the work or the field itself is just too small and everyone knows everyone and they all review one another's work. That's big problem in climate science. The climate is such an enormously complex system that it requires a vast variety of specialists, but when paleoclimatologists don't consult with statisticians, we get a huge controversy leading to two seperate review panels. Moreover, as I pointed at above, our tools for investigating complex phenomena like climate or the brain still rely on treating curves like lines. Are capacity to accurately model or treat dynamic systems is questionable, and so we have a massive amount of data and articles being published and a lot of it is problematic.
I would quite agree. However, the issue of reality and truth isn't settled by scientific advancement. One still has to accept as given a great many things. Most of them I don't find problematic myself, and I think science is far more secure and that it is advancing. But my main point was you can't simply compare science and religion without recognizing the non-unity within science, from different approaches and theoretical frameworks between fields and within.
shawn001
Well-Known Member
First off
"If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?" - Albert Einstein
I have not read those books. To comment on what they say, your just throwing them out there, which means little to me to comment since I have not read them.
The deeper into the universe and ourselves the harder something's are to scientifically study. Like QM. The problems with the observers has always been an issue, hence peer review. But a bigger problem also in QM and the observer and an experiment.
FMRI is a relatively new and anything new requires some time to figure out what it is telling us and also coming up with better technologies, which we continue to do through science. That fact we even came up with FMRI and PET, and thay have already helped.
"At the advent of the computer age, it was believed that Artificial Intelligence was a few years away. "
All things don't always move as fast as we had hope or depending on the new technolgies. All you have to do is look at how fast the computer age has come to begin with, I used to have a commodore 64 and thn the first mac, they were nothing compared to todays home comnputers, let alone ones like IBS watson, or perhaps in the future quantum computers. AI, is trying to mmatch the most complex thing we know of in the universe, the human brain.
There is also Ray Kurzweil the law of Accelerating Returns.
An analysis of the history of technology shows that technological change is exponential, contrary to the common-sense intuitive linear view. So we wont experience 100 years of progress in the 21st century it will be more like 20,000 years of progress (at todays rate). The returns, such as chip speed and cost-effectiveness, also increase exponentially. Theres even exponential growth in the rate of exponential growth. Within a few decades, machine intelligence will surpass human intelligence, leading to The Singularity technological change so rapid and profound it represents a rupture in the fabric of human history. The implications include the merger of biological and nonbiological intelligence, immortal software-based humans, and ultra-high levels of intelligence that expand outward in the universe at the speed of light.
The Law of Accelerating Returns | KurzweilAI
I agree with need more scientists to sift through the data and be able to interpret it the best they can, until others look at it and at some point we get a concenses.
We already know global warming is happening though, because things are complex and hard to figure out, means we need to work on them longer. But that is just why there is research. I don't think the world would be great if everyone knew everything really.
"The climate is such an enormously complex system that it requires a vast variety of specialists, but when paleoclimatologists don't consult with statisticians, we get a huge controversy leading to two seperate review panels."
What paleoclimatologists haven't consulted with statisticians?
"huge controversy leading to two seperate review panels"
Besides this is how science works in the first place.
"However, the issue of reality and truth isn't settled by scientific advancement"
Although religion can teach somethings, most of our modern advancements on reality and truth come from scientific advancement. Science doesn't use the word "truth" really. There is basic science and research science.
New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory or evolution to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.
But my main point was you can't simply compare science and religion without recognizing the non-unity within science, from different approaches and theoretical frameworks between fields and within.
"you can't simply compare science and religion"
I wasn't you were with your statement. I don't mix them personally. I know that was part of the OP as well.
"non-unity within science, from different approaches and theoretical frameworks between fields and within."
To me this could be a plus to science. Because we can learn more, not everyone should be on the same page or use the exact same means of discovery depending on the specific field of the science they are working with.
psychologists and Philosopers, don't use microscopes and telescopes in the same way as neurobiologists and astronomers.