The foundation of science is devotion to god

Cyracuz

Cyracuz wrote:

It's very simple. In order to study the atom you first need an atom. This holds true for everything we can think of. In order to study something you need a subject to study.

Science didn't create atoms. Some unknown force did, and it is this force all science is deeply devoted to, regardless of what we call it.

First to study an atom, you must study what makes up the atom. That's what science does. ID does not test the existence of them.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:wVW3RSrui84J:www.bnl.gov/rhic/primer.htm+things+smaller+than+atoms&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

BBB

0 Replies

Quote:

First to study an atom, you must study what makes up the atom. That's what science does. ID does not test the existence of them.

Hmmm... First to study an atom you need to have an atom to study. Science may not test the existence of them, but if so they take it for granted.

Atoms exist, and that is not thanks to science. Whatever is the cause that atoms do exist is the thing science is devoted to. Some may call it god.

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Who says "atoms exist" ? Nobody has ever seen one ! This is merely a useful convention/invention of scientists which serves to co-ordinate their search for principles of control and prediction (aka "laws" and its a leap of faith to say these are "God's Laws").

Have a look say at the language of electronics for a few bizarre "existence factors". What do you make of statements like "holes travel from positive to negative in a circuit" where "holes"=absence of electrons.

What "exists" is "what works"!

0 Replies

Cyracuz

Quote:

Hmmm... First to study an atom you need to have an atom to study. Science may not test the existence of them, but if so they take it for granted.

I disagree. Atoms are concepts. In fact, the word means "that cannot be divided", and was created by Leukipus and Democritus.
Science looks to something that reacts - or not - the way a scientific theory predicts.

Quote:

Atoms exist, and that is not thanks to science. Whatever is the cause that atoms do exist is the thing science is devoted to. Some may call it god.

Atoms exist? Atoms are constructs of a general theory. That theory predicts that in given conditions this or that will happen. If it happens atoms become the event constructed, and the atomic theory is accepted until ulterior experiences that may contradict it.

Things fall in the floor. Because gravity is true? Or because Aristotle theory of natural position is true? Or because any other theory?
In fact things don't fall in the floor. Falling supposes an human perception, with three dimensional perspectives and concepts.

0 Replies

I was just talking about this with a friend. Descartes is supposedly the father of reason, hence the father of science. But his reasoning was based on the fact that G- existed and that he himself existed. If we do not really exist outside of our own minds, what would become of science? It would still go back to G-. We would exist in the mind of G-. I think this goes back to Carl Jung's universal conciousness. Every being ultimately senses the divine power.

0 Replies

The question "is this all real" seems to be outside the scope of science. Consistency matters most. Whether or not it's all an illusion doesn't matter. If we all test it, we all get the same result, and the experiments works over and over again it's likely to be part of the body of scientific knowledge.

Descartes being self aware doesn't contribute all that much in my opinion.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

Quote:

What "exists" is "what works"!

Ok, I can relate to that. But it changes nothing but my phrasing. "What works" is what science is devoted to. If there was nothing there'd be nothing for science to study. But there is something, and devotion to that something is what science is all about, unlike religion, for instance, wich deals with "what we'd wish worked".

val wrote:

Quote:

Atoms exist? Atoms are constructs of a general theory. That theory predicts that in given conditions this or that will happen. If it happens atoms become the event constructed, and the atomic theory is accepted until ulterior experiences that may contradict it.

Beside the point. A stonemason neeeds stone to work. Science needs a subject. That subject is always something that science did not produce. You might say that god produced it, (god being the unknown force behind creation) and so the foundation of science is devotion to god.

I know I'm repeating myself, but no one has yet understood the point I'm trying to make.

0 Replies

cyracuz,

My point was that the "things" that science studies are often produced by science itself. What science is devoted to is usually *" prediction and control of "publically observable events". The language for describing such events contains semantic nodes such as "electron" or "energy" which form a meaningful network of potential interactions but which on analysis lose status as stand alone/independent/objective realities.

Since there are always limits to man's control, religionists evoke "God" as an ultimate controller. God is not the a priori....the a priori is our addiction to control!

* (There are signs of movement away from a "control paradigm" within the life sciences. Control is seen as an anthropocentric exception/aberration to autopoietic (self sustaining) systems ---> global warming etc)

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

Correct me if i am wrong, but this is what i think you are saying:

By studding not only what exists (matter and energy and whatever else), but also their interaction science somehow studies a subject mirroring the Hindu concept of god? and

Because scientist have methods more related to an honest unbiased search for truth as compared to priests, there study is more similar to real devotion then in a religion? Devotion because if priest are said to devote and the scientist is acctually doing a better job, study is not a strong enough word?

Where am i way off? I'm just trying to understand.

Here are my reasons:

Quote:

"honoring god by being what they are for all they are worth."

Quote:

"So, god is a term that includes all parts of everything and their interaction. I believe that this is also the original message of christianity. It is certainly the message in hinduism and krishna conciousness"

Quote:

Where does the priest's true devotion lie? with god, or with his idea of god?

0 Replies

Adeist wrote:

Quote:

By studding not only what exists (matter and energy and whatever else), but also their interaction science somehow studies a subject mirroring the Hindu concept of god? and

Because scientist have methods more related to an honest unbiased search for truth as compared to priests, there study is more similar to real devotion then in a religion? Devotion because if priest are said to devote and the scientist is acctually doing a better job, study is not a strong enough word?

Not off at all. Dead on is what you are. Oh what a reward Smile

Thanks. You also phrase it beautifully (apart from the spelling errors..) :wink:

Fresco, I have trouble understanding that. If science studies "things" that science itself has produced, then how can there be progress? I thought a scientific theory was considered good as long as it was compatible with actual events.

As for this addiction to control. A while back I realized that I can never ever, under any circumstances achieve total control, so I gave it up. I wouldn't know what to do with it anyway Smile

But I agree with that paragraph of you post.

0 Replies

Cyracuz,

The problem lies in what constitutes "actual events".
To take a simple example, to decide between "sun going round earth" versus "earth going round sun" depends on the "elegance" of the mathematics and its extension as a universal model.
Most earthbound observers are content with the former for all practical everyday purposes implying that "events" are always relative to the observer. Modern physics has embraced this relativity of events and the essential tentative nature of all of its concepts.

0 Replies

I see what you mean fresco. But science doesn't suppress this problem and attempt to move around it. It acknowledges it and works with it regardless of the impact it has on a theory or the theory's fathers.

Science is selfless devotion, as I see it, in sharp contrast to western religion, wich often is devotion to self. Often, but not always..

0 Replies

The foundation of science is devotion to god

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know