Science... it's just a religion

Passed down, indeed; however, there is a difference between blindly following and learning to interpret things for yourself. That is what I meant -- notice my choice of the word "creativity" and not "originality."

Above creativity, however, lies confidence: new ideas are often rejected, but it does not make them wrong. It is the only reason I remain here. This topic was a sham and I admit that, but I do have more than nonsense to contribute -- I merely lack the discipline and experience to do so.

I'm just trying not to be discouraged by my early mistakes here and to not give up.



I've invalidated most of my opinions since I came to Able2Know, this I know; however, that wasn't meant to be an attack of religious nature. It was actually scientific -- if there is any science at all to religion and God, it must stem from communication with Him. At least, of course, if you're to believe he is the creator of all things and wishes not to be found.

Proving that, of course, is nigh impossible -- and I know this. My only TRUE goal is to use verifiable science to prove that His existence is POSSIBLE. That's a personal goal.

Beyond that, any contribution I can make to scientific understanding or society in general is icing on the cake.

I've got a long road ahead of me.



It was about developing an idea. That's my problem; I'll get an idea, start a topic, and try and explain it all in a Stream of Thought-style rant.

Do I still think there is some validity to the statement? Yes. But as these other posters have pointed out, I approached it the wrong way and in the end, it doesn't matter -- religion and science are siblings.

As Cycloptichorn pointed out, they have the same origins and the same ultimate goals. However, religion -- at least some religion -- has adopted a very scientific method to their goal.

That's where I come in, or so I hope. I'm not religious -- at all. I hate religion. In fact, religion pisses me off MORE than science.

One key term should stick out: irreconcilable attitudes, and they appear on both sides of the playing field. I'm trying not to become one.

Oh bullshit . . . errant bullshit. Do you even think about the meaning of the words you string together?

Oh, I dunno. ICan and Okie accuse environmentalists of having a scientific religion

Cycloptichorn

An accusation is not proof. If it were taken to be, there would be so many incarcerated convicts that there would not be enough men and women walking around free to provide the warders.

Language... it's just a bunch of funny sounds

No, it's not a theory. You wrote: "Thus, 'fact' is merely a universal interpretation of a given observation." That doesn't bear any of the attributes of a theory (e.g., it's not testable). If it's not a fact, then it's merely an assertion. And if it's an assertion, why should we think you're correct?

This debate is centred around the conjecture that science is just a religion and has its "zealots" who are equivalent to "religious zealots". But the use of the overtly religious word "zealot" immediately sets up a biased word game in which you as proposer find yourself defending the game rules. Had you you taken a more neutral approach to the comparison of science and religion (psychological or social functionality for example), you might have had less dissent.

You might be right in this case, but you'd be splitting hairs; I was going to argue that I am an exception and therefore you'd be wrong to call it bullshit -- but indeed, I'm not religious. I am so-called "spiritual", or whatever new and inventive title people would like to call me.

My dedication to scientific method could be legitimately called into question given this topic and a few of my responses, but that's a matter I'll leave to your personal deliberation.



Pictures... they're just a bunch of colors and shades.
Music... it's just a bunch of vibrations.
Life... it's just a bunch of relationships.
Porn... it's just a bunch of moving colors and shades.





Who is "we"? Why should I care about your opinion?

That's not meant to be argumentative, it's only meant to demonstrate the point: we can argue semantics all day.

For the record, I disagree; a fact is a generally accepted interpretation of a repeated observation. But a fact must be stated, and to be stated, it must be done so using language; language is a construct of representation and communication and therefore, "fact" is a simply a string of letters to represent and catalog the idea that an event is repeatable, predictable, and devoid of variability.

To simplify... you could say that a fact is a convenient, evidential truth. To say that it is wholly correct is entirely a matter of personal opinion.

I'm not trying to say that a fact can't be right, I only mean to say that the very nature of a fact does not make it so.

It had nothing to do with the topic of science as a religion; it was a consequence of a poorly executed, spur-of-the-moment tangent.



Interpretation is key.

The scientific method is not a matter for personal interpretation. You're quibbling over whether or not your approach entails the scientific method, but you don't make any effort to demonstrate that you are employing the scientific method in your "spiritual" inquiry. Do a quick search for "scientific method," you'll find it's very specifically defined.

The rest of your post consists of responses to what others have posted. Have the courtesy, and the honesty, not to introduce what others have said in a resonse to what i have said. I'm not responsible for anyone else's arguments, whether or not i agree with them.

Only religious simpletons confuse "blind faith" with "justified belief". Nor do such simpletons realize that they are merely playing with the human preoccupation with "control" which they would wish to ascribe to the "gift" of some deity.

Why not take your "spirituality" concept a little further ? For example Harris departs from Dawkins on that point despite both being atheists. Dawkins might attract the term "scientific zealot" from theists perhaps because he would ascribe "spiritual" tendencies to an "altruism gene". Harris however would seem wish to categorize spirituality as an aspect of "consciousness". In that direction lies a potential reconciliation with "science" within a holistic paradigm (suggested by David Bohm for example).

You're kind of hard on people who accept religion symbols and myths literally; that's gone on for the history of mankind. Although I agree that in this period of history science has busted all religious myths, and the new ones haven't been formed yet. This makes it difficult for young people who are confronted with the choice of forsaking their religion or their science education: usually the religion is dropped and the person becomes atheistic, which is nothing more than the other side of fundamentalism. As Joseph Campbell said, everybody's on their own now, they have to find their own spiritual path.

There is no conflict between religion and science, and it's hard to think of one as above the other; they refer to different aspects of our consciousness. Science refers to the knowable, and religion refers to the unknowable: when the two cross into the other's field there is trouble.

I don't believe that we ever evolve past the need for religion or spirituality--whichever you wish to call it. Humans live in a state of time, which makes us feel aliented; religion's experience resolves that with transcendency. Eternity seeks time and time seeks transcendence (eternity).

Lieunacy: You're kind of hard on people who accept religion symbols and myths literally; that's gone on for the history of mankind. Although I agree that in this period of history science has busted all religious myths, and the new ones haven't been formed yet. This makes it difficult for young people who are confronted with the choice of forsaking their religion or their science education: usually the religion is dropped and the person becomes atheistic, which is nothing more than the other side of fundamentalism. As Joseph Campbell said, everybody's on their own now, they have to find their own spiritual path.

There is no conflict between religion and science, and it's hard to think of one as above the other; they refer to different aspects of our consciousness. Science refers to the knowable, and religion refers to the unknowable: when the two cross into the other's field there is trouble.

I don't believe that we ever evolve past the need for religion or spirituality--whichever you wish to call it. Humans live in a state of time, which makes us feel aliented; religion's experience resolves that with transcendency. Eternity seeks time and time seeks transcendence (eternity).

Ultimately, the simple answer is that I'm not the type to constrain myself to "box." Therefore, my methodology is not constrained strictly to empirical, measurable evidence; it delves into the abstract and relies heavily on my own world-view and perception to flesh out a foundation to describe not only the actual means to any given end, but the functional means as well.

For example, a computer processor being studied from the inside out by a branch of humans unfamiliar with its function would first learn and test its key traits and behaviors. To truly understand the system, however, you must not only understand its workings, but its functions; knowing how it works is just one step along the way to understanding its purpose.

In the end, my position is this: I agree with the scientific method and observe it when possible -- decisively not applicable to the topic at hand -- but use my creativity and world-view to bridge gaps in knowledge where necessary until further understanding can be reached. That is my method; sound scientific theory between a thick cloud of abstraction to fill gaps in the known and unknown. As my general knowledge of scientific theory grows (concrete), so too does the accuracy and clarity of my proposed hypotheses (abstract).

As for employing the scientific method in my "spiritual inquiry" -- that is a matter of preference and taste. Despite its specific definition, the very nature of religion and God -- whether truly spiritual or merely psychological -- makes empirical evidence and measurement nigh impossible. The simplest way of explaining "exactness" in the spiritual sense is to identify several key elements: the prayer (what was asked), the answer (what occurred, if anything), and a personal assessment of the situation's causality.

Yes, in other words I'm admitting to you that true scientific methodology and spiritual/religious are not inherently compatible -- therefore, interpretation is personal. If this were not the case, this very topic would not exist and the two communities would not be at such great odds.

Anyway, um... I talk too much.

"At the intersection of Certainty and Doubt, you will find Faith." - yours truly

Sums it up quite nicely, I think.

This is where you get to talk too much--and people who find it annoying will ignore you.

I don't know where to even begin here. So many false premises.

Tell me this, where are you getting your information? Where did you get these ideas?

A
R
T

Indeed.

Note-to-self: less is more.

I used to make pronouncements like that when I was your age. You may eventually outgrow this habit. Are you a college undergraduate?

The responses are more engaging than the topic itself.

Unfortunately, I can't edit or delete it.

No, just young enough to be blindly hopeful and old enough to have a little sense, I suppose; that isn't a pronouncement.