Science... it's just a religion

So what's my qualm with it?

Simply put: scientists are my problem with scientist. Specifically, those whom claim to be correct beyond doubt.



Huh?
I've known a lot of scientists and worked with some of that myself. Our best day was when something came out the opposite of our hypothesis. Get out of your chair and get into playing with science.

I edited it.

Yeah. I think you are probably dead wrong on this one. Just a few points:

Your very first sentence is perfectly incorrect -



Science founds itself on theory, not fact. I don't know where you got your idea from.



Well, your points are all wrong. But even more so, Religion can NEVER be challenged. It can never be tested. To say that science relies upon faith to the same level as Religion is foolish.

Cycloptichorn

Yes, you're right; science does found itself upon theory. Thank you for the distinction. However, it doesn't act to counter my entire argument: true science founds itself on theory.

Perhaps it's just the internet, but somewhere along the line a bastard child of science appeared largely due to the greater availability of knowledge. People know things, but they don't understand them; unfortunately, this extends into the college environment, where students simply learn "monkey-style."

By now, people are accepting theories as fact -- and even many hypotheses. The degradation of knowledge through saturation.



Have you ever talked to God? Have you ever requested something of Him? Oh? No? You haven't? Then I guess you wouldn't know nor understand the amazing/crazy/scary **** that seems to happen when you do.

Of course, in your arrogance you would never think to try something like that. How is it, grazing in the field all day?



Yet you've given me no counter to my claim. Great scientific minds stand out, and it isn't because they know more. If you believe otherwise, then you will be otherwise.

I was talking about your whole post, which started with a pretty glaring error and ran from there.





That's worth complaining about - but it isn't science. It is Appealing to Authority - a logical error.



There's nothing here for me to respond to. I have no knowledge regarding your experiences of spiritual communication. But I suspect that you don't, either, and instead are simply committing another logical fallacy - mistaking Correlation for Causation. It is, after all, the prime error that those who promote Religion seem to make.

Your attempts at insult are weak and worthless; they add nothing to the discussion. I assure you that you should leave such things to those who are better versed in them. Instead, I would recommend spending time re-writing my original thesis to not include major errors.

Cycloptichorn

I suppose it depends on how you define science:

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

2. systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If we consider the first, my arguments have basis; if the latter, they are niche and unrelated to the field as a whole.

PS: Much of science Appeals to Authority. If it didn't, we wouldn't still toss names like Newton and Einstein around. You're still furthering my point, quite honestly: believing yourself right beyond doubt, as you've done.

Meanwhile, I've reviewed and refined my viewpoints.

Hmm... curious. Have a good one.

I am on the fence concerning God. You merely assume I'm arguing in favor of Him -- ultimately, I am arguing in favor of possibilities. Call it "mysticism", but I wouldn't entertain the idea if science itself did not produce any correlation with God. Interestingly, it does and in more ways than we know.

As for "spiritual communications" -- that doesn't happen. The spiritual world is the physical world, my friend; God operates AS the universe, not WITHIN it. He IS the universe. He IS, literally, all things. He IS, literally, the way and the light -- he provides energy and direction to the inordinate and formless void beyond known space.

I admit, that isn't scientific... but neither is gravity.

Therefore, my "spiritual communications" come in the form of nigh impossible coincidences. I don't think you'll appreciate nor consider this, but I'll share one with you regardless:

A while back, I was having a particularly rough night. As tends to happen, I eventually turned my frustration towards God. I cursed him, mocked him, and continued to do so until I ended up outside, under my deck, smoking a cigarette.

I walk out from underneath and look into the sky, still cursing and mocking, until at last I said it: as I reached up into the sky and waved my hand across it, I taunted him, "show me a shooting star! HA!"

As I began withdrawing my hand and just before lowering my eyes, lo and behold a shooting star beams across the sky at roughly the same spot my hand had just been.

It humbled me, and I was unsure what to make of it -- but the story doesn't end there. Several weeks later, I was sitting under the deck with two of my friends -- one whom was atheist at the time, and one whom was a devout Christian/Lutheran -- and my experience came up as a topic. As we were discussing it, we made our way to the same spot I'd previously thrown my hand up in the air, and I explained what happened to Phil (the Lutheran).

Afterward, he began to explain his own view... but what began as just a conversation became something epic. "You can't just be like, show me a magic trick!" he states, arcing his hand across the sky -- and at that moment a shooting star not only FOLLOWED his hand, but BEGAN where his hand started and DISAPPEARED where he brought it down. Sure, it -could- be coincidence... but even YOU must see the potential.

If that isn't enough, I have one last story.

A few months ago, a couple won $1,000,000 through the Gopher 5 at my friend's work. They told him they would come back and give him money, but after six or seven months without word, he figured there's no way he'd ever see that money.

Then, right around New Years, he finds out he must pay over $1,000 towards student loans by the end of January or it will be put into collections and his paychecks would be garnished. There was no reasonable way of making that money; not in his current predicament.

Around that same time, he says he felt an ominous presence watching him as he left my house to start his car; while he was in the car, he said he could feel it staring at him. Then, he hurried inside and that was it. Later that night, he said he was lying in bed and felt he was going to die; now, he'd smoked and all, but that's beyond the point.

That night, he says he -- a former atheist -- accepted Jesus Christ to be his Savior... and the next day? Literally, the next day? The couple that had won the lottery came back into the store and said they wanted to meet up with him for coffee a few days later.

He ended up receiving $1,500 -- more than enough, essentially bailing him out of an otherwise terrible situation.

You can chock every last event here up to coincidence, but once you understand and appreciate the level on which God works... you see that He plans it that way. To say he "works in mysterious ways" is somewhat of an understatement; he works in ways eliminate suspicion of His existence.

After all, if we knew He existed... what consequences would there be?

I acknowledge the possibility that I'm wrong, though, too... and I feel that's where science falls flat on its face.

Proof is in the interpretation.

PS: Sorry for coming of as an ass; I have a habit of doing that when I don't immediately find a counter for something I find incorrect. I need to work on Socratic method.

Stuff and nonsense.

You are ill equipped to argue, liunancy (though I like your screen name).

Good, I don't wish to argue.

I prefer progress.

For the record, I voted my own post down. It was poorly worded and executed, and stemmed from an off-hand comment in another topic.

PS: I am not ill equipped to argue, you are merely ill equipped to listen.

Totally wrong. Throwing around the name 'Einstein' isn't an Appeal to Authority and modern science doesn't rely upon it or do it on any regular basis.

People bring up Einstein, or Newton, not because he was a genius; but because his theories are elegant and they have not been disproven since.

Not only am I not furthering your point, I feel it's necessary to point out that you are digging yourself in a deeper hole here. You've mis-represented what science is a few different times now and continually assert things which aren't true. I'm forced to reiterate that I do believe that, as you put it, great scientific minds do in fact know more than you do.



The theory of gravity is, indeed, scientific. Regarding the rest of your religious beliefs, I have no quarrel with them - you can believe whatever you like, it makes me no difference.

Cycloptichorn

While you're busy being "right," I'll be busy learning.

Lol, I recommend that you do exactly that. Start with a course on the foundation of the Philosophy of Science and go from there.

Welcome to A2K, by the way - a fun place to discuss various topics and issues. But one where you'd better be ready to be challenged on everything that's at all fuzzy.

Cycloptichorn

Nah, I get science. Trust me, I'm smarter than you'd think; I'm just argumentative to the point where I'll argue something I don't really care about -- such as science being a religion. That was my problem here.

That said, I need to step things up a notch. I've got an amazingly detailed and vivid model of the universe; now I need to back it up. I believe most of the evidence is there -- in which case, perhaps you'll be seeing more from me.

I don't intend or want to be the laughing stock around here; I'll use that as motivation to sit down and seriously get to know the material I'm debating with.

And thanks for the welcome.

The problem with playing "devil's advocate" on a forum such as this is that you tend to set up "strawmen" each of which is perceived differently by responders who have not read what you have read and vice versa. (Trust me, I've been here a long time ). In this respect, I have recently come across Derrida's deconstruction of "text" as a useful overview applicable to written debate.

I'm probably going to regret getting involved with this thread after reading the original posters later responses, but here it goes...

My first thoughts when reading the title of this thread is that there could be some argumentative authenticity behind it. Sadly, i see it now as an overly aggressive introductory from a greenhorn. So lets get started shall we!?
Ill just go down the list and grab the comments that really stand out to me.

Not sure how many "scientist" would argue that science > religion, like comparing apples to oranges in my opinion. Sure you can debate them on some level or another, one topic versus another, but on a whole, good luck.

Kind of like someone claiming God as well as his "miracles" exist who refuse new and varied viewpoints, discounting them as "absurd", without first considering them.
~the first part of this comment i would have to disagree, i think there are more gaps in scientific knowledge and understanding...but as Cycloptichorn pointed out "..., Religion can NEVER be challenged. It can never be tested. To say that science relies upon faith to the same level as Religion is foolish." I love how you ignored giving this an actually response, but instead resorted to religious "zealotry" yourself attacking Cycloptichorn instead of trying to understand the clear point he was trying to make.

And finally so this post doesn't get too much longer (i dislike long post myself) ill end with this quote.

Religion IS the passed down opinions and views formed/created thousands of years ago to explain what could not be, to guide the wondering ethics of the public, and to give hope to the emotionally mangled (to name a few).
That, i think, is getting a little off topic. Which brings me to my point, what is this thread suppose to be about, way too many things thrown out there at the same time in my honest opinion...

Yaknow, the more I think about it, the more I think that the original premise is entirely backward.

Religion is science. It sprang from attempts of early man to understand and explain the world around them, which was full of danger and unfair things - as well as wondrous occurrences. Early gods were theories.

Our modern, monotheistic religions are comparable to later, unifying theories.

Cycloptichorn

Is that a fact?

one mans science is another mans religion is another mans magic.

No; it's a theory based on my interpretation of observations regarding the nature of "facts" as they are recognized today.