Jump to content

Can Science be my religion?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Lasse said:

It is One poem by someOne.

Look it from the digital point of view and see how many ones and zeros required to make sense about it (e.g on my phone).

You can look it from the realities point of view and recognize it's space and time of creation and length, number of caracters....

Does digitization has anything to do with mathematics? Which poem you could not digitize?

You make your recognition that the poem is good or bad, clear or blur ( you even can scale it).... could you digitize your conclusion?

No you couldn’t. Thats why literature lectures do not include use of calculus or C++. You fail to see a distinction between things which are not correlated and you try to reinvent their meaning to fit your crippled agenda. This was amusing for a while but since you continuosly reject all logic and rationality this thread became a pigeon chess game.

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

2 hours ago, Prometheus said:

Digitise poetry? William Blake must be spinning like a neutron star in his grave.

Maybe excited about the potential digitality is offering to last forever...

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

Nope. 

I had some.

 

20 years ago everyone with a computer had one, today 99% of people with a computer doesn't, so that method of saving digital information didn't last long. 

45 minutes ago, Lasse said:

Maybe excited about the potential digitally is offering to last forever.

That doesn't really mean too much if you can't access it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, koti said:

No you couldn’t. Thats why literature lectures do not include use of calculus or C++. You fail to see a distinction between things which are not correlated and you try to reinvent their meaning to fit your crippled agenda. This was amusing for a while but since you continuosly reject all logic and rationality this thread became a pigeon chess game.

On this we disagree but I respect your opinion.

The thread have been long ago answered by dimreepr:

On 2018. 04. 06. at 5:16 PM, dimreepr said:

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

 

18 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

20 years ago everyone with a computer had one, today 99% of people with a computer doesn't, so that method of saving digital information didn't last long. 

That doesn't really mean too much if you can't access it.

 

True.

The technology used back than was anyway a quite good solution of those times to maintain information. We have learned some from that technology and so we have better ones.

We do not use clay tablets as the Phoenicians once but that does not mean there were and there is non.

The information they contain could not be absolutely lost, even they broke, as the information should be embedded in the culture and science of the society of those times. 

Which gives the ground for further development

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

The information they contain could not be absolutely lost, even they broke, as the information should be embedded in the culture and science of the society of those times. 

 

Society, culture and times change all the time, which is why understanding is lost and religions emerge.

Just to add, keep the knowledge and forget what it means, is no different too, not accessing the information. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2018 at 4:36 AM, Endercreeper01 said:

Science becomes a religion when absolute faith is put into scientific thinking, to the point that other ways of thinking, when they lead to reasoning not complying with the standard scientific paradigim, are simply dismissed because of a reluctance and unwillingness to accept any other ways of thinking, out of a faith in science only.

This sounds about right.

But I have a few refinements to it.

First point was already made by several others: that science is not a religion, but can be seen as such by certain people. 

Second point: what could be meant by 'absolute faith'. When it is about empirical claims, then science really is the only bloke in town. Serious investigation in empirical reality is more or less science per definition. There is no other 'science'. That being said, of course science can be blind, by not investigating certain phenomena, by excluding certain hypothesis because they do not fit the present paradigm. Science is human work, and humans make errors, or can be dogmatic, or suffer from group think. So I would say that you can have justified faith in science, meaning that you believe that in the end correct theories will float at the surface. But that's it. If you take the present scientific results as dogmatic beliefs, you are treating science as a religion.

To give two examples:

  • A long time it was not believed that proteins could be infectious agents. But then prions were discovered.  
  • It was a dogma of evolution that only changes in genes could be inherited ('Lamarckianism' was an insult for everybody who suggested something in another direction). However in epigenetics it was found that under certain circumstance traits can be inherited without changing genes.

Third point: not everything in our lives concerns knowledge. E.g. there are values (morality, aesthetics). Science has nothing to say here. Your values determine in what directions you would like to go in your life; science can tell you how you can eventually reach that. So where 'non-compliance' is no logical problem by the former point (just investigate the claims as honest as you can, and you are doing science), it is here. If your 'faith' is in science only, you impoverish your life. You have to deal with the lesser and greater challenges in life, and most of them have nothing to do with scientific knowledge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Society, culture and times change all the time, which is why understanding is lost and religions emerge.

Just to add, keep the knowledge and forget what it means, is no different too, not accessing the information. 

Natural selection of information (i.e evolution) 

The wheel seems to have the extended and evolved but fundamentally same function as back than when we discovered it.

34 minutes ago, Eise said:

First point was already made by several others: that science is not a religion, but can be seen as such by certain people. 

Yet.

Understood and agreed.

That is how it has to be.

Otherwise it's philosophy could become corrupted and its recognitions dogmatic with inability to change/evolve.

Note please the masses without proper education and their raising awareness about the importance of Science. 

I still think that faith in science should not corrupt the philosophy of science. A bit like an observer can not alter the laws of nature.

So I would say it depends can scientists maintain it's  principles or like priests or polititians get corrupted by power....

And than again experiencing what science is meaning, layed out by the member of this community ensure me that although Science is very powerful it's goals are crystal clear and uncorrupted. 

Just have to accept that it is a process and by that it takes Time.. 

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

Natural selection of information (i.e evolution) 

The wheel seems to have the extended and evolved but fundamentally same function as back than when we discovered it.

We don't need to understand, or have knowledge of evolution, for it to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thread has made me think about the OP again, and might clarify some things.

What of your belief in science is of a theory that has been rejected by the mainstream?

 

What if you believed in phlogiston, or geocentrism (to name a randomly chosen failed model)? Your belief in such things is probably most aptly described as a religious belief, since you have to have excluded scientific reasoning and evidence in order to perpetuate your view.

IOW, you believe despite the evidence, not because of it.

But science is still not a religion, even though your belief is religious. 

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

What of your belief in science is of a theory that has been rejected by the mainstream?

 

The purpose of the theory has to be understood. At it's fundamentals after 10 years of plundering. Trying to be reasonable. Life is a good ground to train :) There mainstream does not matter. Understanding matters and I am working on the theory (with nudging). Testing who, why, what is thinking. I form with what I learn. It feels like I evolve. It is a good feeling to know.

 

So it would be personal :)

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

20 years ago everyone with a computer had one, today 99% of people with a computer doesn't, so that method of saving digital information didn't last long. 

So what?

The point is that a digital copy  (on any "new" medium) of that floppy is a perfect copy.
And a digital copy of that copy will still be a perfect copy- even when it's transferred to yet another medium.
So, the data is immortal- you just need to keep copying onto the latest format. It can also be shared "perfectly" across the world, so the destruction of a single copy doesn't matter.

Who cares about the disk?

Incidentally, asking if science can be your religion makes about as much sense as asking if science can be your favourite colour or if February can be your religion.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Incidentally, asking if science can be your religion makes about as much sense as asking if science can be your favourite colour or if February can be your religion.

Can you confidentially say that scientifically accepted physical, mathematical or medical theories did not contain any form of semi-scientific dogmatic believes in the course of science... 

Check the hygiene recommendations in hospitals in the 1900's

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That's important for science, but not religion.

 

Religion purpose: calm the mind from the fear of death and pain caused anxiety of humans with your best understanding because you have no other help for millennials (God raises)....( imagine the millennials without painkillers)....

Science purpose: provied the best painkiller and explain why you never can be absolutely non-existent physically (0). 

And of course explain what nothing is.

Science is a Religion.

Exactly because it never can have all the answers.

We will always have lack of information.

We will always need Science. In perpetuity...

Edited by Lasse
Set the right reference point.
Link to post
Share on other sites

We will always need Science. In perpetuity...

There is always something in Nature to discover. I.e. the added value by time, space, energy, matter and information in every upcoming moment of the yet unknown future.

Time is linear and space is exponential (i.e evolving space (void)?

Time changes as the space/Path of the observed physical entity changes while impacted by mass(if it could be impacted by mass), but this does not mean that the space of its upcoming moment of existance will not be THERE or would not be there, where our observe* will exist in the next upcoming moment of the Future...

* the existing observed one.

I think space expand before energy and matter

Could we figure out a way to check this? ..Chuckle...

Maybe in 1000 years...

There are a lot of things Science will discover and I believe that as effective we can work together so fast we will be able to develop further. 

There are so many to see!

Intelligence, Freedom, Responsibility, Peace, Love, Unity.

There is One Humanity in the Universe as there is just one Universe in Reality. (I.e there should be space between the different "sub" universes...?

Can this be true?

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

Science is a Religion.

Exactly because it never can have all the answers.

It has been adressed days ago that science which does not deal with belief is as much a religion as boldness is a hair color or not playing golf is a sport. You failed to adrss this argument and instead you are repeating your irrational arguments. You can believe what you want  as swansont noted but that doesn’t make that thing a confirmed and evident fact. You failed to engage in that argument as well, instead you keep on distorting statements and arguments to fit your current view. Thats not how science works and you refuse to accept that. Why?

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

It has been adressed days ago that science which does not deal with belief is as much a religion as boldness is a hair color or not playing golf is a sport. You failed to adrss this argument and instead you are repeating your irrational arguments. You can believe what you want  as swansont noted but that doesn’t make that thing a confirmed and evident fact. You failed to engage in that argument as well, instead you keep on distorting statements and arguments to fit your current view. Thats not how science works and you refuse to accept that. Why?

You are right.

Sorry for the expession.

Science has religious tendencies.

Imagine the human before the mayor surgery. Doesn't it need trust and faith that s/he lets an other human physically manipulating in the brain? If there is any problem during the operation his/her knowledge and experience and the our technical advancements s/he can believe in...

That is science in application 

1 hour ago, koti said:

You failed to engage in that argument as well, instead you keep on distorting statements and arguments to fit your current view. Thats not how science works and you refuse to accept that. Why?

I often find that things I find irritating on others are fundamentally my problems...

I am in constant conversation and I try to speak about things I think is interesting and important. I layed out why.

I work as well so I do not have infinit (chuckle) time....

And you are accusing again...

Why I can not take my time to learn and understand... why are you so stressed?

We can have different opinion, I accept and respect that.

That is why the conversation.

There are few questions and recognitions in the thread which you could argue with reason.

You seems to be lack of that. You rather accusing most of the time...

Are you a scientist?

You rather show the tendencies of a tired priest (chuckle)

I have layed out a thought experiment based theory on space and time.

We discussed the Nature of time and whether it can or can not be infinite.

My conclusion is that it is finite and I reasoned this point in the thread.

Point please if you comprehend where  and why I am mistaken.(e.q expession of Nothing).

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

Science has religious tendencies.

No, it does not.

 

Quote

Imagine the human before the mayor surgery. Doesn't it need trust and faith that s/he lets an other human physically manipulating in the brain? If there is any problem during the operation his/her knowledge and experience and the our technical advancements s/he can believe in...

I recently had a spine operation. The last thing I expected laying ot the operating table before they put me to sleep was belief. I expected the surgeons to be knowledgeable and experienced to do their job properly. I trusted that they are competent, nothing to do with belief. This line of thinking has been stated in this thread multiple times yet you choose not to accept it.

 

Quote

I often find that things I find irritating on others are fundamentally my problems...

Sure, nothing irritates me more than ignorant, irrational people pushing their  religious agendas while chuckling.

Quote

I am in constant conversation and I try to speak about things I think is interesting and important. I layed out why.

I work as well so I do not have infinit (chuckle) time....

And you are accusing again...

 

I'm simply pointing out flaws in your reasoning. It's called science not accusation.

 

Quote

You rather show the tendencies of a tired priest (chuckle)

I have layed out a thought experiment based theory on space and time.

We discussed the Nature of time and whether it can or can not be infinite.

My conclusion is that it is finite and I reasoned this point in the thread.

Point please if you comprehend where  and why I am mistaken.(e.q expession of Nothing).

Answer my questions first. Wait, I take that back. Please try to comprehend first. 

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

Science has religious tendencies.

Imagine the human before the mayor surgery. Doesn't it need trust and faith that s/he lets an other human physically manipulating in the brain? If there is any problem during the operation his/her knowledge and experience and the our technical advancements s/he can believe in...

No, science certainly does not have any religious tendencies, no matter how many times you like to repeat it. Science for the umpteenth time is based on observational and experimental data, and from that evidence, models/scientific theories are constructed. As our observations are extended [we see further] and as our experiments improve with technology, our models/theories may be modified, added to, or scrapped in favour of a new improved model. By the same token, other theories such as SR, GR the BB and the theory of evolution gain in certainty the longer they align with data and the longer the keep making successful predictions.

But let me say that at times some "limited" faith maybe necessary. The same faith that every human has every day...the faith that your car will start, the faith that you will wake up in the morning, the faith that your employment will be in the same place you left it the previous day. I lack access to the HST, to the LHC, to Parkes Radio telescope not far from my place. I read their news releases, their discoveries, and not having the time nor the expertise, nor the access, I believe it is reasonable to take what I am told from such reputable companies and people, with the proper expertise and knowledge on faith. But please note, that is not anything like any religious faith in something with no evidence and based on ignorance and myth. If I did have the time, if I did have the access, if I did have the proper learning, I could verify all that I am told about and read from reputable material every day.

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

Can you confidentially say that scientifically accepted physical, mathematical or medical theories did not contain any form of semi-scientific dogmatic believes in the course of science... 

Medicine isn't science.

3 hours ago, Lasse said:

 Religion purpose: calm the mind from the fear of death and pain caused anxiety of humans with your best understanding because you have no other help for millennials (God raises)....( imagine the millennials without painkillers)....

Science purpose: provied the best painkiller and explain why you never can be absolutely non-existent physically (0). 

What? Science's purpose is to explain how nature behaves. We do this by making and testing models. We reject the ones shown not to work.

You can only make science into a religion by redefining what science is, as you have done here. Some attempted intellectual dishonesty sleight-of-hand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

So what?

The point is that a digital copy  (on any "new" medium) of that floppy is a perfect copy.
And a digital copy of that copy will still be a perfect copy- even when it's transferred to yet another medium.
So, the data is immortal- you just need to keep copying onto the latest format. It can also be shared "perfectly" across the world, so the destruction of a single copy doesn't matter.

Who cares about the disk?

Incidentally, asking if science can be your religion makes about as much sense as asking if science can be your favourite colour or if February can be your religion.

3

And my point is.

On 4/12/2018 at 1:43 PM, dimreepr said:

That doesn't really mean too much if you can't access it.

It's naive to think tomorrow won't be different from today. 

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

What? Science's purpose is to explain how nature behaves. We do this by making and testing models. We reject the ones shown not to work.

True

4 hours ago, swansont said:

You can only make science into a religion by redefining what science is, as you have done here. Some attempted intellectual dishonesty sleight-of-hand.

This we disagree on...

I did not redefine what science is I supported it.

I have showed a perspective from the "users point of view" 

I did this for a reason even you recognize that or not. My goals and faith depends just from Nature. I.e. even Science would take a religious turn and promote dogma(1/0) instead facts, I will believe that Natural Reality based knowledge, experience, questioning and learning is which can move me forward on my cognitive journey.

I still think science is my Religion independent science has that recognized role or not. Believe systems are very personal and everyones should be respected until tgat does not harm anyone. 

A personal believe is not science independent from that is built on science or not. 

Scientifically proven and systemically tested valid theory just true and right can be.

Does Time infinite or finite Swansont(The Time Keeper)? If some you know that best.

What is your recognition after so many years of learning, studying and experiencing what it is? 

Can a moment be infinite?

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

I did not redefine what science is I supported it.

"Science purpose: provied the best painkiller and explain why you never can be absolutely non-existent physically (0). " is NOT the definition of science.

33 minutes ago, Lasse said:

I have showed a perspective from the "users point of view" 

I did this for a reason even you recognize that or not. My goals and faith depends just from Nature. I.e. even Science would take a religious turn and promote dogma(1/0) instead facts, I will believe that Natural Reality based knowledge, experience, questioning and learning is which can move me forward on my cognitive journey.

I still think science is my Religion independent science has that recognized role or not. Believe systems are very personal and everyones should be respected until tgat does not harm anyone. 

That you treat science as a belief system does not make science inherently a belief system. 

 

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.