Sciences vs. Religion

[glennr25]

I'll leave you with Einstein's own view on religion and science and then I'm off to bed. As you're reading, note how he hints at the possibility of religion and science working together for the betterment of humankind. This is a quote taken directly from the text:

"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm

[MorpheusSandman]

Isn't that what any true believer of religion would say to back their beliefs?

Probably, but there's a difference: what the guy says in that article is demonstrably false, not just "I don't believe it because I don't want to" false. I mean, it's false like saying the sun is made out of cheese is false. Your anti-science stance is cute, but unlikely to convince anyone with half a brain in their head.

[YesNo]

Here's a good article showing science isn't really that different from religion. Again, decide for yourself what you want to believe. I'm not trying to bash anyone's beliefs.

http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/

I liked this line from the cite you mentioned about the High Priests of science:

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts.

That should be a good reminder to question authority more.

[glennr25]

Probably, but there's a difference: what the guy says in that article is demonstrably false, not just "I don't believe it because I don't want to" false. I mean, it's false like saying the sun is made out of cheese is false. Your anti-science stance is cute, but unlikely to convince anyone with half a brain in their head.

I never said I was anti-science. I'm a social sciences graduate myself, I think the scientific method is an awesome tool for mankind. But just like any tool it can be misused. Do you really think science, because of its way of doing things, is incorruptible? Is any creation of man in this world incorruptible? Is science at the end of the day not a creation of man? When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned, is that not man acting the part of God? That, because science is a perfect thing, there can be no mistakes. Everything must be taken as fact. That sounds more like a god complex to me, someone's--or more than one person's--fetish of having control over weaker minds. And what better way is there to carry out your fetish then by using quite possibly the greatest discovery of humankind.

[glennr25]

I liked this line from the cite you mentioned about the High Priests of science:

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts.

That should be a good reminder to question authority more.

Agreed.

[MorpheusSandman]

I liked this line from the cite you mentioned about the High Priests of science:

Their opinions are received as sermons, and their statements are quoted like sacred texts.

Why am I not surprised that you like a quote that's a flat-out lie? Peer-review and the scientific method itself guarantee against the opinions of scientists being "received as sermons" or "quoted like sacred texts." That some scientists say some quotable things is no different than quotable things being written by novelists or poets or philosophers or anyone; nobody, however, considers them "sacred texts." That's just ridiculous.

[MorpheusSandman]

I never said I was anti-science.

Sure, and Bill O'Reilly never said he was anti Obama.

Of course, science can be misused; nobody would question that. I don't know what about the scientific method is "corruptible." Even when there have been "corrupt" goings-on in science it was usually rooted out by other scientists doing what they were supposed to do. You never see the religious rooting out the corruptions in their organizations; on the contrary, they go to great lengths to cover it up and suppress (see the Catholic "guide" on how to deal with/hide/cover-up child molestation by Priests). Anyway, scientists don't "tell the public that their method of research should not be questioned," that's just another lie you made up. Scientists submit to the peer-review process that requires their research be picked apart by exacting critics that only exist to point out flaws in what they've done. Only after they've passed this process and, usually, after their results have been repeated, THEN their research may get published and brought to public attention. Obviously, any member of the public is free to look at the research themselves. There are dozens of online archives and journals where such stuff is published. None of it is hidden. There's no scientist Shaman shouting to the public the truth he's been divinely given after meeting God in a dream or by going up on a mountain. It's also hard to have a "god complex" in a field where your peers' only purpose is to bring you down, and every scientist has pursued dead ends or had flawed research or met with some resistence. This isn't to say they often don't have inflated egos, but you also find that in every single field known to man. I also fail to see how science is "controlling weaker minds," when they can't even get the majority of the US population to believe in evolution, probably the most strongly supported scientific theory there's ever been.

[glennr25]

Sure, and Bill O'Reilly never said he was anti Obama.

Of course, science can be misused; nobody would question that. I don't know what about the scientific method is "corruptible." Even when there have been "corrupt" goings-on in science it was usually rooted out by other scientists doing what they were supposed to do. You never see the religious rooting out the corruptions in their organizations; on the contrary, they go to great lengths to cover it up and suppress (see the Catholic "guide" on how to deal with/hide/cover-up child molestation by Priests). Anyway, scientists don't "tell the public that their method of research should not be questioned," that's just another lie you made up. Scientists submit to the peer-review process that requires their research be picked apart by exacting critics that only exist to point out flaws in what they've done. Only after they've passed this process and, usually, after their results have been repeated, THEN their research may get published and brought to public attention. Obviously, any member of the public is free to look at the research themselves. There are dozens of online archives and journals where such stuff is published. None of it is hidden. There's no scientist Shaman shouting to the public the truth he's been divinely given after meeting God in a dream or by going up on a mountain. It's also hard to have a "god complex" in a field where your peers' only purpose is to bring you down, and every scientist has pursued dead ends or had flawed research or met with some resistence. This isn't to say they often don't have inflated egos, but you also find that in every single field known to man. I also fail to see how science is "controlling weaker minds," when they can't even get the majority of the US population to believe in evolution, probably the most strongly supported scientific theory there's ever been.

Here we go again with the peer review and journals argument. For someone that has so much hate toward textual information, you tend to use it quite a lot as evidence in your arguments.

[glennr25]

Fact is people (yes, scientists included) write crap sometimes. Take a gander at this peer review study that reveals the flaws of the peer review system.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/bo...laws-1.2054004

[The Atheist]

Your anti-science stance is cute, but unlikely to convince anyone with half a brain in their head.

The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.

[glennr25]

The juxtaposition of your sentence and the next post is pure gold.

The fact that you believe Morpheus' assumption about my stance as it pertains to science proves my point.

[The Atheist]

I never said I was anti-science. I'm a social sciences graduate myself,...

Priceless! That is the best of the day and I've already seen some hysterically funny ones this morning.

When a scientist tells the public that their method of scientific research should not be questioned, is that not man acting the part of God?

Cite where that actually ever happened, please, and who said it.

That, because science is a perfect thing, there can be no mistakes. Everything must be taken as fact.

Utter fabrication.

You yourself have posted several examples of how science has changed upon presentation of new evidence, so your comment is both self-contradictory and incorrect.

That sounds more like a god complex to me, someone's--or more than one person's--fetish of having control over weaker minds. And what better way is there to carry out your fetish then by using quite possibly the greatest discovery of humankind.

More word salad.

[The Atheist]

The fact that you believe Morpheus' assumption about my stance as it pertains to science proves my point.

Try reading the thread in order - the next post wasn't by you.

Your anti-science stance isn't an assumption, but a self-proven fact from your posts and links.

[glennr25]

Try reading the thread in order - the next post wasn't by you.

Your anti-science stance isn't an assumption, but a self-proven fact from your posts and links.

Because I question the practitioners of science, I'm automatically anti-science? Wow, and here I thought religion was the one that crucified people for their beliefs. Guess I was wrong.

[glennr25]

Here let me refresh your memory. This is one of my earlier posts.


I'll leave you with Einstein's own view on religion and science and then I'm off to bed. As you're reading, note how he hints at the possibility of religion and science working together for the betterment of humankind. This is a quote taken directly from the text:

"During the last century, and part of the one before, it was widely held that there was an unreconcilable conflict between knowledge and belief. The opinion prevailed among advanced minds that it was time that belief should be replaced increasingly by knowledge; belief that did not itself rest on knowledge was superstition, and as such had to be opposed. According to this conception, the sole function of education was to open the way to thinking and knowing, and the school, as the outstanding organ for the people's education, must serve that end exclusively.

One will probably find but rarely, if at all, the rationalistic standpoint expressed in such crass form; for any sensible man would see at once how one-sided is such a statement of the position. But it is just as well to state a thesis starkly and nakedly, if one wants to clear up one's mind as to its nature."

http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/einstein/einsci.htm