Anti-Science views?

[Unholyground]

For sake of argument I can accept this, it does after all still prove you wrong earlier:

"No, true Science is ever evolving and changing. Religion is stagnant with no room for change."

Which in turn means your objection to @Torto saying "science has become a religion" is blown out of the water.

Now, I'll agree that science is not & has not become a religion, even in the most magical-thinking parts like the soft sciences and climate change, but that's because I have a rather stricter definition of religion . A lot of science has become corrupted* and/or dogmatic**, but that alone is not enough to make it into a religion.

*The Climategate gang redefining peer review, or the reproducibility crisis in many (many) fields.

**97% of tolerant climate scientists like me agree, YOU FILTHY DENIER SCUM WHO SHOULD BE SHOT FOR THE GOOD OF GAIA!

I don't even know how someone could deny climate change when we have almost all experienced the changes in our lifetimes such as seasonal shifting.

[slime]

I believe element 119 can be used to distort/control gravitational fields.

[Teleros]

I don't even know how someone could deny climate change when we have almost all experienced the changes in our lifetimes such as seasonal shifting.

I agree, but that's never the thing people are sceptical of. If you are sceptical of man-made catastrophic climate change you get labelled a denier of climate change, or a denier of science itself, and it should be obvious that the "denier" label is used specifically because of its associations with Holocaust deniers.

= + =

I believe element 119 can be used to distort/control gravitational fields.

ALL of the elements can be, if you get enough of them in the same volume of space .

[Chrysia]

*nods* We have science today because of religion, not despite it. Many in Islam and the Catholic Church held to "natural philosophy" (as it was called).

No, we have science because of people of religion, not because of religion. Religion did not and does not encourage you to investigate the "why" of the natural world, it asserts it already knows that.

[Shadowferal]

No, we have science because of people of religion, not because of religion. Religion did not and does not encourage you to investigate the "why" of the natural world, it asserts it already knows that.

Correction duly noted.

[Farrarie]

science gave us medicine and many other helpful inventions
I respect science that is helpful to our world

[fudgeit]

No, we have science because of people of religion, not because of religion. Religion did not and does not encourage you to investigate the "why" of the natural world, it asserts it already knows that.

That is false. You can't roll all religions into a ball and claim they all beieve "x". What about the Romans and the Greeks, Sumarians, Egyptians and Celtics? All used religion with science. It was'nt until the Roman adapted Catholism that documented history shows a seperance of science and religion. Religion is not all bad, it is all how those in change influence it on its people. There are wotld renoun scientist that believe in religion and science. Again, it is how the "leaders" choose to see it used.

[uxzuigal]

Shinra. There is so much evidence for human evolution...

Just playing the "devil's advocate" here - What evidence that you can claim to understand, and check yourself, that you have not heard "from others" - can you point to?

This is a general problem I feel in these discussion - Side A says but "oh look, he said, she said" or "But that's fact... because.. it's fact!" - Then side B goes on saying the exact same thing, and ofcourse: Side A is wrong!

The truth is that non of us, save a very very few - have the intelligence, or atleast wisdom, knowledge to actualy understand the topics that's being discussed.

This post does not intend to support either science or religion, or a mixture of both and is intended to be neutral, wether you like it or not.

[Wikiy]

*shrugs* When the polio vaccine came out it was front page news everywhere.

And so will it be when cancer gets cured. Wanna know why things of that magnitude don't happen every other week? Because if they did, they wouldn't be breakthroughs.

[Chrysia]

That is false. You can't roll all religions into a ball and claim they all beieve "x". What about the Romans and the Greeks, Sumarians, Egyptians and Celtics? All used religion with science. It was'nt until the Roman adapted Catholism that documented history shows a seperance of science and religion. Religion is not all bad, it is all how those in change influence it on its people. There are wotld renoun scientist that believe in religion and science. Again, it is how the "leaders" choose to see it used.

No. Each and every religious system asserts absolutes about why the natural world behaves the way it does. Every person that has investigated to learn about the natural world has done so in spite of religious convictions, not because of them.

[Shadowferal]

And so will it be when cancer gets cured. Wanna know why things of that magnitude don't happen every other week? Because if they did, they wouldn't be breakthroughs.

Things of that magnitude won't happen anymore because Pharms won't let it. Give away permanent cures? That's not what gets the money rolling in. Expensive half-assed treatments that people (and insurance companies) that need to be administered every week/month or so? Now were talking big profits!

- - - Updated - - -

No. Each and every religious system asserts absolutes about why the natural world behaves the way it does. Every person that has investigated to learn about the natural world has done so in spite of religious convictions, not because of them.

Religious convictions were to find the hand of God/will of Allah in all things.
That's not done in spite.

[Chrysia]

Religious convictions were to find the hand of God/will of Allah in all things.
That's not done in spite.

"In spite" in this context means "despite." They assumed they already had the answer: a god or gods did it, but they investigated and found naturalistic explanations. Now, many of them then shifted their beliefs to be that instead of the god/gods doing these things directly, they did so through this mechanism, but the belief that a god/gods did it didn't lead them to investigate. They investigated because they were curious about finding answers. You don't look for answers if you assume you already have the answer.

[Wikiy]

Just playing the "devil's advocate" here - What evidence that you can claim to understand, and check yourself, that you have not heard "from others" - can you point to?

Well, first of all, I gotta say that excluding "others" as a source of information here is unreasonable. Someone is always a source of some information. All one can do to make sure their sources on a scientific topic are valid is to actually listen to sources who're experts in the field. I trust evolutionary biologists when they say there's fossils of what's now called Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Australopithecus, each of which is progressively similar to what we now call non-human apes (who didn't evolve as drastically as humans because they remained in their jungle environments). Furthermore, there's genetic evidence. I can't prove that it shows evolution to be true because I'm not a geneticist, I can only trust them.

With that in mind, we have to be clear about something - evolution through natural selection is probably the simplest, but also the most fascinating scientific theory, exactly because of its simplicity. It claims that lifeforms are going to change through the process of ever more efficient elimination (through factors in the environment) of those members that are ever worse suited to that environment, preventing them from breeding and carrying on their "bad" adaptations. This is so simple and, in a way, so obvious that a good-thinking philosopher could've come up with it. I find it absurd that people actually have issues with evolution. The principle is so encompassing and simple that you could even apply it to areas outside biology to explain various phenomena.

- - - Updated - - -

Things of that magnitude won't happen anymore because Pharms won't let it. Give away permanent cures? That's not what gets the money rolling in. Expensive half-assed treatments that people (and insurance companies) that need to be administered every week/month or so? Now were talking big profits!

I'm not debating with conspiracy theorists.

[Shadowferal]

"In spite" in this context means "despite." They assumed they already had the answer: a god or gods did it, but they investigated and found naturalistic explanations. Now, many of them then shifted their beliefs to be that instead of the god/gods doing these things directly, they did so through this mechanism, but the belief that a god/gods did it didn't lead them to investigate. They investigated because they were curious about finding answers. You don't look for answers if you assume you already have the answer.

If they believed that the "laws of nature" are empowered/fueled by God and wanted to know more of God, then...bless their hearts for that conviction that encouraged that curiosity.

[Verzen]

Just playing the "devil's advocate" here - What evidence that you can claim to understand, and check yourself, that you have not heard "from others" - can you point to?

This is a general problem I feel in these discussion - Side A says but "oh look, he said, she said" or "But that's fact... because.. it's fact!" - Then side B goes on saying the exact same thing, and ofcourse: Side A is wrong!

The truth is that non of us, save a very very few - have the intelligence, or atleast wisdom, knowledge to actualy understand the topics that's being discussed.

This post does not intend to support either science or religion, or a mixture of both and is intended to be neutral, wether you like it or not.

I have a degree in molecular biology. Looking in forensic labs, we can compare DNA found and match it up even go so far as figuring out someone's race. For example. Africans wojld not have a gene that makes them resistant to HIV. Or if someone has the gene for sickle cell, chances are pretty great they are African or came from African descent. We can then use this same concept when analyzing other species in relation to us. We can even analyze endogenous retroviral insertions and compare them to extant species. All of which I've done in a lab.

[The Stormbringer]

lol sorry i just really wanted the Jetsons flying car!

Fair enough. It did collapse into a handy briefcase. Imagine how much you'd save on parking fees alone!

[Eazy]

I love how everyone thinks most science is done about things that are likely to be important for our everyday lives and reported on in the news, like this^ example.

First of all - I didn't say anything like this.

Second - if you think I did, then you didn't get my post and need lessons in the reading comprehension. I recommend - http://www.k5learning.com/reading-co...ion-worksheets Which is free.

[Vankrys]

When people babble about science today, it's more often than not scientism. Big difference. Big stupidity.

Scientism is a term generally used to describe the cosmetic application of science in unwarranted situations not covered by the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism


the most common example of such behavior is when you have christian or muslim apologetics trying to "scientifically" prove the existence of their god of choice, the accuracy and veracity of their scriptures.

Obviously, it's an oxymoron, since religion is by definition an act of faith i.e. believing without evidence. Proving faith using some part of (poorly understood) scientific concepts seems to be the new goal of those devout followers.

It is filled with fallacies and and fall flat on its face under scrutiny, but for the lesser trained minds, it might be influential enough to lead them to religion. That is why we need the like of Dawkins, Harris, Dillahunty and co to reestablish some scientific and logical standards, and call out the the BS.

Once again, it does not take "faith" to trust the scientific discoveries of the 21th century, it only requires rudimentary knowledge of what is the scientific method and basic understanding of the peer review process of examining data and results by the scientific community.

[Deleted]

*nods* We have science today because of religion, not despite it. Many in Islam and the Catholic Church held to "natural philosophy" (as it was called).

Religion has done little else but clamp down on science. When did the Vatican admit the earth was indeed round?


1992

[Spectral]

Religion has done little else but clamp down on science. When did the Vatican admit the earth was indeed round?


1992

The relationship between religion and science is more complicated than some of the New Atheists have made it out to be. Of note, Harvard University (possibly the greatest creator of knowledge and science for the past several centuries) was founded with religious traditions in mind. The history of the Catholic Church and science is even more complicated, with a fantastic history of Catholics as scientists, with a particularly important role for Jesuits and Jesuit education. One of the fathers of genetics, Gregor Mendel, did his work at an abbey and was a friar.