Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Anyone claiming that the way religion works and the way science operates is the same is an idiot. That's the point, not whether some rogue or paid off scientist made some dubious claims once somewhere in the annals of science.
This is why I don't take you seriously.
That's not the argument. The argument is "religion" vs. 'science". What you are talking about is breaking down people into subgroups. Policemen do not operate in the same manner as accountants. That doesn't mean its "law enforcement" against "accounting". In fact, anybody that claims that is silly. I can't take anybody seriously that thinks it is professions fighting it out and not people.
This Arach Angle --- Matadora snarkfest is one of the better this board has had.
Really great! Thanx for your time and efforts!
Yeah, I know. I would just let go but there is too many people reading need to see "understanding" goes past "textbook definition". Science is a process of data collection and interpretation. For people that do not work in the field they can just think of it has using what you know to describe what you don't know. If you don't know "it" we go "watch it" for a awhile and record it.
The example of "natural world" is a good one. There is no "unnatural world". Some of us are not just allowed to make stuff up to suit a personal need or agenda. We are forced by our nature to form opinions by using what we know about how the world around us operates.
she seems very young because anybody that understands science understands what it means by "experiments" can "stifle" imagination. It doesn't mean 'remove imagination" or that we can't be imaginative. it only means we don't form conclusion without using what we do know. But she is on an anti religion crusade so nothing about religion can be "valid" or that little world view of hers crumbles.
Many times, the word missing with the young is "balance". Does "engineering" stifle "art". it sure does sometimes. Just because we can drawl it doesn't mean we can build it. Of course engineering doesn't remove art. In the end, art enhances engineering And engineering brings art to 'life". The same goes for all the professions working together.
Have you heard the expression "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? It's true, and it means arguments always extend to both.
Let me say the following.
I'm a religious person who has the word of a hallucination that some angel spoke to me. You can trust everything I say.
I'm a scientific person with a corrupt political agenda. I faked the results of my science experiments, and paid other people to make the same findings. Everything I discovered is a fact.
I think it's safe to say under this circumstance, both are equally (un)trustworthy. And yet, somehow we ignore that fact that scientists can and will skew findings, and act like one and not the other is above issue.
Strictly speaking, the religious person is honest about being crackpot, the scientists are likely to sell it as rational.
Also, here's the deal. Peer review itself is composed of people. Some people have found stuff older than 6000 BC. Guess what, peer review in the archaeological community said nahhh, because most archaeologists are Muslim. And Muslims are convinced that the world was made at a certain date. So, you found 1 million year old fossils? No peer review. You want to verify the carbon date? No peer review, no fancy tools. You want to talk to the media about it? No peer review you're a quack, we won't talk to you.
Double You. Tee. Eph.
Since you based the entire second premise on most archaeologists being Muslim, I'd like to see proof of that.
Here's the deal:
Many religious believers -- Christians in this case -- try to do everything in their power to bring science down to religion's level. In fact, the tactics Christians use to accomplish this rather illogical goal is the same tactic an insecure bully uses on his victims.
The only thing religion has is a 3,000 year-old book and some anecdotal experiences that no one can prove or demonstrate even happened. Science has plenty of evidence. Science has actually been PROVEN to be right many, many times. Scientists are better prophets of our world than religious leaders -- just as scientists predicted the existence of the God Particle, lo and behold, it was discovered years later.
But religion can't stand that. Religion is still waiting for its two thousand year-old messiah to show up while science continues making more discoveries, increasing our knowledge, and bettering our lives. So, religion belittles science and tries to bully it to bolster religion's own ego. If science gets too far ahead of religion (which it has been for decades), religion tries to bring it back down to the bottom wrung. AND, one of the ways this is done is with the ages old "science can be skewed by corrupt scientists so it can't be trusted" argument.
Then the equally ages old existentialist conversations start up. "How can we know anything our senses perceive is real? If we can't trust science, we can't trust that the universe is at all like it seems to be"
And it ends in one of those late night pseudo-intellectual mental masturbation sessions that usually happen with a keg nearby. Yeah, I've been there, done that.
In point of fact, science has brought us a long way out of the darkness, and those who know their history ought to understand just how brutal, violent, and hopeless many eras of history were for the vast majority of people. Poverty. Disease. Warfare. Starvation. Living every year just one late spring frost away from spending the summer with no food.
Have there been hoaxers? You better believe it. Some do it for profit. Some do it because they're trying to bolster their reputations. Some do it to fill in gaps in their dissertations so that their premise works. Some just like to foment confusion.
So what? There are hoaxers and corrupt religious scientists -- such as the guy who climbed Mt. Ararat with an old board then filmed himself picking up the board out of the snow. He brought it down and claimed he had found Noah's Ark. For awhile, people believed him.
None of that is here nor there, in my opinion. Certain Christians seem to fight science tooth and nail. Yet it's not ALL of science. It's not like we're still arguing over whether the earth orbits the sun. Christians aren't challenging scientists about how stars are formed or how antibiotics work or the way electricity travels through a circuit board.
Nope.
In fact, those Christians fight science within very narrow parameters: Evolution, the origin of life, and the Big Bang.
That's it! Christians aren't really getting involved in any other field, subject, or division of science. It's just those three things.
Why?
It's because those three things are really and truly the last remaining holdouts within our reality where proof of God could be hidden. If science actually demonstrates how life began, that humans evolved rather than being poofed here fully formed by an insignificant desert tribe's god, that something really CAN come from nothing and cause rapid expansion of space-time ... well, that's it. God will forever be just an idea, a concept, a myth.
Because of that, NO scientific evidence will EVER be good enough. None. Ever. Period.
Oh someday it will be when everyone alive right now is dead and newer, younger, more open minds take the reins of our species. Then, people will look back at creationists with the same patronizing "tsk-tsk" attitude that we now hold for those who once thought the world was flat. It WILL happen.
In other words, those certain Christians aren't pooh-poohing science because the science is wrong. The apologists and the propagandists telling you that Hawking, Tyson, Kaku, and thousands of others are wrong aren't doing the math or performing experiments. They're just blowing sunshine up your ass by telling you what you want to hear -- to keep butts in the pews and money in the collection plates.
It contradicts scripture. Yeah, how many times has THAT been said throughout history. It just can't BE that way because it contradicts scripture!! So what?
The universe doesn't care about your gods, your holy books, your rituals and ceremonies. Your prayers never make it past your ceiling. There still could be an afterlife. Atheism isn't a hopeless, cold, and dispassionate system. We just don't believe that it is YOUR afterlife, the one with a divine bouncer guarding the door to an exclusive club: "If you're not a member, get out!"
Science will have our answers eventually. Religion has had 200k years to get something right. It has yet to do so.
That's not the argument. The argument is "religion" vs. 'science". What you are talking about is breaking down people into subgroups. Policemen do not operate in the same manner as accountants. That doesn't mean its "law enforcement" against "accounting". In fact, anybody that claims that is silly. I can't take anybody seriously that thinks it is professions fighting it out and not people.
I am addressing GR trying to equate the way religions operate vs the way science operates , implying that both are equally deceitful and untrustworthy, so yes, as far as that part of his post that is the argument. I have no clear idea ( maybe an inkling ) of what you are talking about with policemen vs accountants, so wont bother to attempt a response until you clarify.
Have you heard the expression "what's good for the goose is good for the gander"? It's true, and it means arguments always extend to both.
Let me say the following.
I'm a religious person who has the word of a hallucination that some angel spoke to me. You can trust everything I say.
I'm a scientific person with a corrupt political agenda. I faked the results of my science experiments, and paid other people to make the same findings. Everything I discovered is a fact.
The bolded shows that you know very little about how science actually works. Are you of the opinion that other scientists with no connection to the original one are not allowed to investigate the claims of your fraudulent scientist on their own and prove him wrong? Learn how science works please before attempting to make such statements as this. Fraudulent scientific claims will always be exposed , because they are supposedly based on facts gained through repeatable experimentation that can be independently attempted and duplicated or shown to be wrong.
On the other hand, how is any religious person going to disprove the claims of the one suffering a hallucination, other than to say it doesn't fit with their equally unprovable ideas about religion?
To expand a little, think on the following two scenarios.
In the first, I decide , with some friends, to start a cult claiming to be the younger brother of Jesus from God Himself, not merely from Mary and Joseph, come to Earth to prepare the way for the Second Coming of Christ and the Rapture. My friends support me with statements of having witnessed miracles verifying my claim. Part of my doctrine is for followers to sell everything you have, give to my church, and come live on my commune as my helpers , working your normal job and turning over your checks to me to pay for the "good work" we are doing in preparing the way for the Second Coming. All who follow me get the express ride to Heaven by my side when we are raptured, and special honor in Heaven as the Apostles of the Rapture.
Now, prove me wrong. What can you do to prove me wrong other than to claim what I am saying doesn't mesh with already established yet equally unprovable religious belief on the Second Coming and the Rapture?
In the second, I decide, with some friends, to claim a scientific discovery that will enable you to disconnect your house from the power company and power your house with a cold fusion power source the size of a cell phone. It costs 10K but has absolutely no maintenance and a lifespan of 200 yrs, so in 5 yrs or so you will be getting free unlimited electricity for the rest of your life. My friends claim to have done experiments that independently verify my claims , and give testimony that this device actually works and will revolutionize energy use around the world. You can also get in on the ground floor of buying stock in my sure to be a billionaire company.
Now, prove me wrong. Do you think I can be shown to be bogus? Can others do experiments to show I am a faker, even though I have "scientists" backing me up on what I claim for my cold fusion device? Or is there simply no way to show that I have faked the evidence and am a scam artist?
If you can understand the difference in these two scenarios , you understand the difference between religion and science , and how ridiculous are the claims of equal "bogusness" between religionists and scientists.
Last edited by wallflash; 10-25-2015 at 10:57 AM..
Yeah, I know. I would just let go but there is too many people reading need to see "understanding" goes past "textbook definition". Science is a process of data collection and interpretation. For people that do not work in the field they can just think of it has using what you know to describe what you don't know. If you don't know "it" we go "watch it" for a awhile and record it.
What you just posted is a typical Misconception that laymen spout all the time.
MISCONCEPTION: Science is a collection of facts.
*CORRECTION: Because science classes sometimes revolve around dense textbooks, it's easy to think that's all there is to science: facts in a textbook. But that's only part of the picture.
Science is a body of knowledge that one can learn about in textbooks, but it is also a process. Science is an exciting and dynamic process for discovering how the world works and building that knowledge into powerful and coherent frameworks.
The linear, step-wise representation of the process of science is simplified, but it does get at least one thing right. It captures the core logic of science: testing ideas with evidence.
However, this version of the scientific method is so simplified and rigid that it fails to accurately portray how real science works. It more accurately describes how science is summarized after the fact — in textbooks and journal articles — than how science is actually done.
The simplified, linear scientific method implies that scientific studies follow an unvarying, linear recipe.
But in reality, in their work, scientists engage in many different activities in many different sequences. Scientific investigations often involve repeating the same steps many times to account for new information and ideas.
The simplified, linear scientific method implies that science is done by individual scientists working through these steps in isolation.
But in reality, science depends on interactions within the scientific community. Different parts of the process of science may be carried out by different people at different times.
The simplified, linear scientific method implies that science has little room for creativity.
But in reality, the process of science is exciting, dynamic, and unpredictable.
Science relies on creative people thinking outside the box!
The bolded shows that you know very little about how science actually works. Are you of the opinion that other scientists with no connection to the original one are not allowed to investigate the claims of your fraudulent scientist on their own and prove him wrong? Learn how science works please before attempting to make such statements as this. Fraudulent scientific claims will always be exposed , because they are supposedly based on facts gained through repeatable experimentation that can be independently attempted and duplicated or shown to be wrong.
Many but not all laymen are clueless about how science works as their posts clearly demonstrate.
The example of "natural world" is a good one. There is no "unnatural world".
You poor thing you just keep coming back sounding like a layman claiming to be otherwise.
Natural world: All the components of the physical universe — atoms, plants, ecosystems, people, societies, galaxies, etc., as well as the natural forces at work on those things. Elements of the natural world (as opposed to the supernatural) can be investigated by science.
Get it now?
You remind me of the people who don't get the difference between Theory and theory.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
