Jump to content

Can Science be my religion?


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

We can measure the elements on Nature: space-time, energy, matter. 

Nature seems to be Real. So far I can recognize Science seek to understand this Natural Reality...

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

43 minutes ago, beecee said:

one needs to accept that any supernatural/paranormal answer as a "final solution" is simply unscientific.

Hello beecee,

The Spanish conquerors were perceived once as supernatural entities. (relative primitivity....)

There is no final solution...there is always an upcoming moment of time...

This potential of time seems to be infinite.

Time seems to be an Universally measurable information.

An advanced intelligence (if there could be any) would develop/evolve by time as well. 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could anyone confidently deny the existence of past, Present, and future?

Can I believe that there is future, even it can not be scientifically proved until it happened?

Can I believe that there is scientific evidence out there what we not yet discovered but could more profoundly describe the Nature of Reality?

14 hours ago, Strange said:

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).

At least they has to be partially true. Any theory.

Every theory will be recognized in Nature.

Than since we have an answer, but not yet the answer, I can fill the gap of uncertainity with faith.

 

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018. 04. 07. at 6:38 PM, Phi for All said:

Trust in science is the opposite of faith in religion.

Once religious recognitions were the best Science humanity had.

See the reasons why pyramids were built and the scientific knowledge of the time needed to create those. (or the Greeks, Rome...)

I think is is difficult to separate Science from Religion at some fundamental level.

Both is seeking to understand reality. 

I think religion is evolving although the classic religions fail to recognize it.

Can Science recognize its fundamental cognitive responsibility in humanities value recognition and be clear enough to be perceivable to the uneducated masses too? I.e no glitches at the fundamentals 1/0...

 

Such clarifications could reduce the religious aspects of science :)

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

I think is is difficult to separate Science from Religion at some fundamental level.

I think you're wrong for the reasons I've already (re)stated. I'll stop short of using allcaps.

41 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Such clarifications could reduce the religious aspects of science :)

Why reduce what isn't there? My fear is that you're trying to reduce the scientific aspects of science with your "clarifications".

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

 

I think is is difficult to separate Science from Religion at some fundamental level.

You’re conducting a monologue without any will to learn or understand what is being layed out in front of you. Phi for All and others gave you sincere, well phrased and exhaustive answers and comments to which you are blind. This comes as no surprise to me, in fact it is very typical of people of faith. Go on, have some more. 

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

You’re conducting a monologue without any will to learn or understand what is being layed out in front of you. Phi for All and others gave you sincere, well phrased and exhaustive answers and comments to which you are blind. This comes as no surprise to me, in fact it is very typical of people of faith. Go on, have some more. 

Do not be so impatient koti.

Learning is a process as does science.

I need the time to process the information. 

I showed an example why science eventually requires certain level of faith. 

My recognitions try not to double approve the clear expessions and straightforward explanations of the members in the tread but try to pick points which does require further clarification. 

Please do not acuse when you reply.

Do not fill the lack of knowledge about me with your belief how I am...

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/7/2018 at 5:45 PM, Lasse said:

Time seems to be an Universally measurable information.

Besides being meaningless word salad, even under the most charitable interpretation, this is just wrong. Time is relative. There is no universal, and at some point you need to address the valid criticisms and counter arguments presented to you and update your assertions accordingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

My fear is that you're trying to reduce the scientific aspects of science with your "clarifications".

If that would be possible than our science is not science.

I wonder how many scientists believes in what they are doing...

The professor's of the past week's classes does that at least and I believe the knowledge they shared is the best available. 

Note science is not just physics. There are mathematics, chemistry, biology, medical sciences, engineering, social sciences, etc...

One can not know everything in every sciences. 

I tend to believe that the unknown part of those sciences are as true and right as they can be.

How this believe/trust could jeopardise the goals and methodologies of science?

I feel it is rather motivating.

I am just an insignificant user of most of the scientific results while I have the area of expertise where I know more than most of the population.

It still does not mean that I know every single thing in my scientific area or that I could not further evolve my knowledge...

22 minutes ago, iNow said:

Besides being meaningless word salad, even under the most charitable interpretation, this is just wrong. Time is relative. There is no universal, and at some point you need to address the valid criticisms and counter arguments presented to you and update your assertions accordingly. 

Does times relativity meaning that is not universally applied?

Can there be space without time? (I.e nonexisten or absolute infinite in nature?How?

24 minutes ago, iNow said:

Besides being meaningless word salad, even under the most charitable interpretation, this is just wrong. Time is relative. There is no universal, and at some point you need to address the valid criticisms and counter arguments presented to you and update your assertions accordingly. 

Does times relativity meaning that is not universally applied?

Can there be space without time? (I.e nonexisten or absolute infinite in nature)? How?

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

Does times relativity meaning that is not universally applied?

Do you understand the differing definitions of the terms universal and relative?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

39 minutes ago, iNow said:

Do you understand the differing definitions of the terms universal and relative?

Looks like No. Not the differing definition.

I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2018. 04. 06. at 12:15 AM, Phi for All said:

People of faith find it almost impossible to change their beliefs no matter how much the evidence shows they should

On this we have different experience.

What I found that, belief alter for the better with knowledge and raises questions on dogma.

The only one seems to be a firm believe, is the faith/trust/acceptance, that higher intelligence can be found in Nature. 

I think the fact that science can not entirely deny this probability is helping to maintain the belief.

Note, we do not have a proper conclusion what/who God could be if there can be any.

For me an immortal conscious advanced intelligence would be perceived supernatural and I would dare to name it with the title: God. If I meet It. Until this can happen their is my faith that there can be such entities in Nature.

I did not meet a Christian who would agree with every words of the bible and would fully apply it in his/her everyday life.

Edited by Lasse
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/8/2018 at 2:36 AM, Lasse said:

At least they has to be partially true. Any theory.

Phlogiston?

A theory which gives the correct answer only part of the time, and not in any systematic way, is not correct. Not even partially.

On 4/8/2018 at 2:36 AM, Lasse said:

Every theory will be recognized in Nature.

Than since we have an answer, but not yet the answer, I can fill the gap of uncertainity with faith.

You can, but you don't have to.

Science is content to say "We don't know" so the faith you use to fill the gap is not based in science.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, swansont said:

Science is content to say "We don't know" so the faith you use to fill the gap is not based in science.

My faith is based on science and my knowledge and understanding evolve with in science.

My faith starts where You say you do not know. I know that my faith and belief are not scientific evidences but that does not mean they are absolutely disconnected from science. They are good to spot unexplainable dogma. Because the ultimate goal is to understand Nature and not to find proof for unclear or invalid theories.

So my faith in Science (instead any of the main religions) as the best approach to knowledge still can be valid. 

 

1 hour ago, swansont said:

A theory which gives the correct answer only part of the time, and not in any systematic way, is not correct. Not even partially.

Maybe Newton's law on Gravity?

If I understood it right it is not absolutely true but was the best explanation of its time and a fundamental idea/recognition of physics in general.

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

My faith starts where You say you do not know. I know that my faith and belief are not scientific evidences but that does not mean they are absolutely disconnected from science.

 

You're welcome to your faith (enjoy it), but you can't use science to justify it because it absolutely is disconnected from science. 

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

My faith is based on science and my knowledge and understanding evolve with in science.

My faith starts where You say you do not know. I know that my faith and belief are not scientific evidences but that does not mean they are absolutely disconnected from science. They are good to spot unexplainable dogma. Because the ultimate goal is to understand Nature and not to find proof for unclear or invalid theories.

So my faith in Science (instead any of the main religions) as the best approach to knowledge still can be valid. 

That's your faith. Science has no say in how you conduct your belief systems. As I've said previously, you can choose to believe in science in a religious fashion, but that doesn't make science a religion.

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

Maybe Newton's law on Gravity?

If I understood it right it is not absolutely true but was the best explanation of its time and a fundamental idea/recognition of physics in general.

Newton's law gives correct answers, and deviations from that are systematic — it "fails" in a predictable way, under known conditions.

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

I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe.

I'm struggling to parse this. Will you please state it again in another way? When I mentioned word salad previously, I promise it was not a request for you to offer more.

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

I can not know what you do not get

He told you exactly what he didn't get when he quoted that part of your post (it was the part about "I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe"). So yes, you CAN know what he doesn't get. 

25 minutes ago, Lasse said:

and why.

You don't need to know why. Nobody asked about why. The important question, the part you didn't respond to, was

8 hours ago, iNow said:

Will you please state it again in another way?

So...

Could you re-phrase "I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe"? Say it a different way? Don't just repeat it, because we're having trouble understanding it the way you've said it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

True. So:

"I can not comprehend how could not time be relative in any point of space in the Universe"?

I am not able to even imagine, that there would be a space in the Universe where time would not relate to the physical circumstances it is measured in.

Or 

I can not imagine that there would be space in the universe where we would not be able to measure time. i.e. In every point of space in the universe time is passing even it is related to the physical circumstances it is measured in.

What I tried to nudge:

There can not be space in the Universe where Time could absolutely stop, and we would not be able to measure it somehow (regardless from its nature being relative everywhere).

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

There can not be space in the Universe where Time could absolutely stop, and we would not be able to measure it somehow

Wherever you are, you will measure time to be the same  

What makes time relative is when you compare the times (and lengths) measured by different people. 

There are some places where we cannot compare these (for examples le, inside a black hole). 

7 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I.e. Now is now everywhere regardless of the physical circumstances.

No. Different people will not agree on “now”. More importantly, they may not agree on whether two events happen at the same time. Or even, the order they occurred. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, koti said:

No its not.

This should mean there is some space where time does not pass.

32 minutes ago, Strange said:

No. Different people will not agree on “now”. More importantly, they may not agree on whether two events happen at the same time. Or even, the order they occurred. 

I agree. But the perception of time not supposed to impact the nature of time. It will pass regardless the observation or the circumstances of the event. The rate of passing is a different issue. Or is it a physical condition where time do not pass?

Could the occurrence of an event in nature be impacted by the observation?

Edited by Lasse
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.