Jump to content

Can Science be my religion?


Recommended Posts

19 hours ago, koti said:

There is everything to know.

This is so true.

That is why my basic believe is in Nature (the real thing) and in science seeking to understand it. I know we do not know everything.

Nature is real and that can not be relative. Or is it a scenario when nature is not real?

I have the believe that with the approach scientists seeking to recognize, understand and describe our common reality is the right path to discover Nature. 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

! Moderator Note We're done with this. If you've read 8 pages of people telling you why science doesn't equal religion and can still make this statement, it's clear you aren't li

Interesting point. My sense is that, if it is possible to calculate in such high dimensions with mathematics, than it is just showing the potential of mathematics and by that at least it should b

I agree, with the exception of "religions have no evidence to support what they claim". It would be more accurate to say they have 'no evidence to support much of or some of what they claim'. It is no

Posted Images

15 hours ago, Lasse said:

True.

I/0. I believe that it has an answer. And thereby i believe that our scientists sooner or later will be able to give an answer. 

I believe scientists will be able to explain infinity or finite.

Relativity and Reality. 

Determin the smallest possible unit of space and time (if they did not do that yet).

I believe we will be able to digitally recognize reality.

My beliefs changing as science progresses and my understanding is developing. 

Until I do not understand everything, the unknown part of that knowledge is handled as the believed to be good part of my individual recognition.

I think religion is very individual. 

3

You're missing the point, belief is the problem, not the answer. 

20 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Science can't be a religion.

 

You're obviously correct, as of now, because it's well understood; but surely as a scientist, you can't really entertain that statement as a fact/true. As Swansont said

15 hours ago, swansont said:

So you can have a religious belief in science, but that doesn't make science a religion 

Yet.

 

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, swansont said:

It won't be science anymore, if that happens.

Indeed, but it would be based on science. 

Or at least what we think science is.

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lasse said:

This is so true.

That is why my basic believe is in Nature (the real thing) and in science seeking to understand it. I know we do not know everything.

Nature is real and that can not be relative. Or is it a scenario when nature is not real?

I have the believe that with the approach scientists seeking to recognize, understand and describe our common reality is the right path to discover Nature. 

Belief - "The feeling of being certain that something exists or is true"

You can believe that the scientific approach is correct all you want but it makes no sense. Science makes airplanes fly, science landed us on the moon,science is what treats diseases, etc. There is no belief in all this, science doesn't care about whether you believe in it or not, its the scientific method that does that. If you're on an airplane would you rather your Captain to believe how to land or know and understand how to do it confirmed by thousands of hours of training and flight? It look like you're confusing the belief in someone else's skills with religious beliefs - they are completely two different things. 


 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are examples of persons making (part of) science into (part of) their religion. Scientologists and new agers come to mind. Since they usually end up adding completely unscientific beliefs to their mix and then rape and abuse science to support those beliefs, I think making science into a religion is generally a bad idea. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Bender said:

I think making science into a religion is generally a bad idea. 

Agreed, but science makes books and books over time minus understanding equals a bad idea...

Edited by dimreepr
Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Indeed, but it would be based on science. 

Or at least what we think science is.

There's a bit of sci-fi out there where people end up worshipping technology after they've lost the ability to understand it. It becomes like magic to them. And there are people even today who advocate for or against science without understanding it. So the elements are there, even though these people have removed themselves from what science really is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bender said:

There are examples of persons making (part of) science into (part of) their religion. Scientologists and new agers come to mind. Since they usually end up adding completely unscientific beliefs to their mix and then rape and abuse science to support those beliefs, I think making science into a religion is generally a bad idea. 

Despite the fact they got their IRS tax exempt (through extortion btw) I find it disputable wheter Scientology is a religion or just a company/corporation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, swansont said:

There's a bit of sci-fi out there where people end up worshipping technology after they've lost the ability to understand it. It becomes like magic to them. And there are people even today who advocate for or against science without understanding it. So the elements are there, even though these people have removed themselves from what science really is.

So the answer to the OP is yes, it is possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Agreed, but science makes books and books over time minus understanding equals a bad idea...

Interesting thought. All religious texts contain knowledge/science from the time they were written, freezing that knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2018. 04. 05. at 8:55 PM, Phi for All said:

Science uses evidence to ensure that our explanations for natural phenomena are the best currently available, and always subject to change when new evidence is uncoved. Scientific explanations can be trusted, and I think that's a stronger form of belief than faith or wishful thinking.

True. 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Lasse said:

True. 

Emphasizing the underlying point Phi made, the key distinction here is between trust and faith. Trust is generally earned and only provisionally held, wherein faith is generally demanded and impervious to reason or validation. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018. 04. 05. at 8:18 PM, Phi for All said:

Which is the reason science deals in theory instead of proof. Best current explanations are more trustworthy than answers.

If a theory has proof originating from Nature than does the theory has an answer?

Which is more trustworthy:

A theory or the observable and measurable  evidence based theory i.e answer?

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Lasse said:

If a theory has proof originating from Nature than does the theory has an answer?

Science doesn’t really do “proof”. 

A theory can be an answer but not the answer. 

For example, we have two good, but completely different, theories of gravity. You use the best one for the job. Neither is “true”.  

Similarly, you can describe light as a wave or as a particle. Some things are easier with the first (refraction) some are better with the other (photoelectric effect).

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, iNow said:

Emphasizing the underlying point Phi made, the key distinction here is between trust and faith. Trust is generally earned and only provisionally held, wherein faith is generally demanded and impervious to reason or validation. 

I have fate because I trust Science and its philosophy upon it is seeking to understand Nature.

Again you do not have all the answers.

I trust that the scientific philosophies pointed above as well, will lead to better, science provided fact based, better understanding.

It is a strong believe, one could call it faith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lasse said:

If a theory has proof originating from Nature than does the theory has an answer?

A theory doesn't have "proof". It has lots of supportive evidence that keeps being added to as scientists try to find evidence that falsifies the original hypothesis. Eventually, when all the evidence supports and none shows it's false, scientists start to call it a theory. 

If we called it an "answer", we might stop looking, and that's not science. A theory is continually being challenged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

A theory doesn't have "proof". It has lots of supportive evidence that keeps being added to as scientists try to find evidence that falsifies the original hypothesis. Eventually, when all the evidence supports and none shows it's false, scientists start to call it a theory. 

If we called it an "answer", we might stop looking, and that's not science. A theory is continually being challenged.

Could the recognition (theory?) that Nature is real be challenged?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lasse said:

I have fate because I trust Science and its philosophy upon it is seeking to understand Nature.

The BIG difference is that with science you could actually learn the information yourself. That's the opposite of faith.

2 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Again you do not have all the answers.

Again, we're not searching for answers, we're searching for the best supported explanations, the ones we can trust to be correct.

3 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I trust that the scientific philosophies pointed above as well, will lead to better, science provided fact based, better understanding.

Historically, that trust has not been misplaced.

4 minutes ago, Lasse said:

It is a strong believe, one could call it faith.

And if you did, you would be erasing the strength of its meaning. Science is NOT a faith, and it should absolutely be considered differently. To call it a faith weakens science. Is that what you want?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

The BIG difference is that with science you could actually learn the information yourself. 

This i know and I do so

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

That's the opposite of faith.

Why would that be? 

If I want to learn something, do I have to trust(believe, have faith in), that the information I will learn is our best theory?

Do you think if I can not trust something I can accept it as true fact? (e.q 90% of religious writings)

I have to add that I do believe that those recognitions made back than were the best answers on questions those times had. One could say the source of knowledge at the time.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Why would that be? 

If I want to learn something, do I have to trust(believe, have faith in), that the information I will learn is our best theory?

Do you think if I can not trust something I can accept it as true fact? (e.q 90% of religious writings)

Faith is supposed to be a strong belief in the supernatural that needs no evidence. Taking something on faith literally means you don't bother to check on it, you just believe it wholeheartedly. 

You can choose to take science on faith, but it's real strength lies in your ability to learn the way a theory developed, what methodologies were used, and you can drill down as deep as you want, all the way to individual bits of data, in order to satisfy yourself that an explanation is trustworthy. 

Trust in science is the opposite of faith in religion. Asking if science can be your religion is like asking if you can call your chess club buddies "gang members". 

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing is sure, I believe more in Science and in any of its potential discoveries and explonations than in any of the current religions collateral recognitions (90+%).

I am happy that science can not absolutely exclude the existence of absolutely Intelligent immortal conscious entities. The Universe is Big and Old :)

I think this believe can not be taken away from me because I have the freedom of mind to handle information as clear as I am able to. Question everything...

I think scientific evidence  (we reach the age of technological singularity ca 5 bilion years after the sun burst to exist.) Our own rapid technological evolution suggest that we will reach advanced AI in 1000 years latest.

Knowing the size and age of the Universe I see a 99.999% chance that advanced artificial intelligence already exist since a billion years minimum. 

God. Is it supernatural?

I believe there can be artificial intelligence supported immortal entities originate from Nature.

You can not take the believe away from me that there is an evolutionary path in Nature to reach that state.

Life is a possibility...

 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Lasse said:

Could the recognition (theory?) that Nature is real be challenged?

It is frequently challenged. But that is philosophy not science. Science doesn’t tell us about what is real, just what we can measure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lasse said:

One thing is sure, I believe more in Science and in any of its potential discoveries and explonations than in any of the current religions collateral recognitions (90+%).

I am happy that science can not absolutely exclude the existence of absolutely Intelligent immortal conscious entities. The Universe is Big and Old :)

I think this believe can not be taken away from me because I have the freedom of mind to handle information as clear as I am able to. Question everything...

I think scientific evidence  (we reach the age of technological singularity ca 5 bilion years after the sun burst to exist.) Our own rapid technological evolution suggest that we will reach advanced AI in 1000 years latest.

Knowing the size and age of the Universe I see a 99.999% chance that advanced artificial intelligence already exist since a billion years minimum. 

God. Is it supernatural?

I believe there can be artificial intelligence supported immortal entities originate from Nature.

You can not take the believe away from me that there is an evolutionary path in Nature to reach that state.

Life is a possibility...

 

Hi Lasse: No one is trying to take away any belief but one needs to accept that any supernatural/paranormal answer as a "final solution" is simply unscientific. I see you as a reasonably reasonable bloke/sheila, unlike many others that come to science forums, with a "chip on their shoulders" or to see the need to conduct some evangelistic crusade against the supposed evils of science, that has deposed any need for any deity of any description into near oblivion. I'm not sure that science can ever be able to answer the question/s of how we, Earth, the planets, stars, spacetime etc, all evolved from essentially nothing or if you prefer quantum foam. But the investigations and research always continues with no short cuts as beautifully summed up by the greatest educator of our time [in my opinion]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag6fH8cU-MU

 

While the Catholic church has wisely accepted the validity of the theory of evolution of life, along with the BB, they then, not unexpectedly  fill in the missing part/s with their "god of the gaps". In summing up my thoughts, science, particularly cosmology and Astrophysics are  powerful domains, and its rather refreshing seeing some one such as yourself, who it appears still has religious beliefs of sorts, at least recognise that fact. 

Edited by beecee
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.