Discussing Science

Status
Not open for further replies.
Palmpilot

Palmpilot

Touchdown! Greaser!
PoA Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
22,755
Location
PUDBY
Display Name
Display name:
Richard Palm
It seems like we can't discuss science here, because when we do, people chime in with claims that religion is science, or science is religion, and religious discussions are not allowed. :(
 
I started reading Angels and Demons. The beginning has a somewhat interesting discussion of those issues.
 
@Palmpilot makes a very good point. And another point to be made is that those who do choose to interject religion into such discussions will be in violation of the RoC and subject to warnings with points, which can lead to temporary or permanent bans.
 
Palmpilot said:
It seems like we can't discuss science here, because when we do, people chime in with claims that religion is science, or science is religion, and religious discussions are not allowed. :(
Click to expand...
circular references should not be allowed. :D
 
Because they are forever snd inexorably linked by the concept of faith. If you accept that faith is the belief something exists or is true without direct evidence, both religion and science have elements. No one has ever seen a Boson-Higgs particle, but there is evidence. No one can see a gravitational wave, but there is evidence.. Lot's of medicines work, but with no clear explanation of why.
 
Science does not ever prove what is true, it can only prove what is false and we are then left to assume what is true based on what we know to be false. In that sense, some can claim this means science therefore requires faith. I disagree with that but people certainly do claim it. The difference as I see it is that science by its nature, always leaves the door open to change beliefs based on new evidence of what is false whereas faith generally does not seem to do nearly as well when it comes to a willingness to change a belief based of new evidence of what is false.
 
Here we go again...

ryan.gif
 
Last edited:
I find it funny how triggered some people get if you say they are treating science like a religion.
 
I love exposing the hypocrisy of atheists that treat science like religion as much as the next guy. But we only need one thread for that, and we all know it would bleed into every other thread if we had that, which would suck. So, I support the decision to not allow the discussion at all.

Disclaimer: I do not think all athiests treat science like a religion, nor do I have anything against atheists in general. It’s only the hypocrites that I like to annoy.
 
eman1200 said:
while I was able to find 'the science of boobs', I was unable to locate 'the religion of boobs' therefore we can all make our conclusions from there...…..
Click to expand...
I think that religion has been driven underground, but I’m sure it’s alive and well.
 
hope this is within the ROC. Apologies upfront if it is not. Delete at will if not!

Chip Sylverne said:
Because they are forever snd inexorably linked by the concept of faith. If you accept that faith is the belief something exists or is true without direct evidence, both religion and science have elements. No one has ever seen a Boson-Higgs particle, but there is evidence. No one can see a gravitational wave, but there is evidence.. Lot's of medicines work, but with no clear explanation of why.
Click to expand...
Depending on how deep into the realm of theoretical physics, theology, and philosophy we want to get then some will contend that you can never really have "direct evidence" of anything.. all the "direct evidence" that one perceives is just that, a perception that you experience through your senses.. whether seen, understand, etc. Bishop Berkeley did some work on this, arguing that everything was just perception anyway. Yes I see that 2+2=4, yes I can count, but ultimately that's just how my brain perceives the world through my eyes, senses, etc., and understands these perceptions.. but does that make them true?

^I'm not sure I necessarily buy that personally.. but at least to me the scientific "leaps of faith" are at least based on some more directly "known" premises.. with regards to the Higgs Boson mentioned, that's based on other "known" elements: "Well if 2+X=4 and 3+X=5 then we can deduce that X=2.. even if we can never really observe X directly"

*I guess you could say there is some faith in "trusting" that X is in fact 2 without seeing it, but it's a different kind of faith, to me it's like the faith I have that the runway will be there when I follow the ILS down.. I can't directly see it but I have faith that my instruments work. Having faith in gravity or the Higgs Boson (or my ILS) is different than wondering about what my purpose in the world is and where my soul (if there is such a thing) goes when I perish. Religion and science need not be mutually exclusive, they can be very intimately connected. And if there is a God, surely he (or she, or it) knew that it is in our nature to explore and learn about our world, and seek order and understanding

James331 said:
Sadly some folks are just too damn sensitive
Click to expand...
Give me my coloring book and safe space please. Where's my blanky. Someone thinks differently than me and my frail sense of reality can't accept that!

Salty said:
Disclaimer: I do not think all athiests treat science like a religion, nor do I have anything against atheists in general. It’s only the hypocrites that I like to annoy.
Click to expand...
Totally agree. There's maybe a range of agnosticism out there upon which most people fall. Claiming something that you cannot prove definitively one way or the other is scary.. hard core atheists freak me out just as much as hard core fundamentalists..
 
We just shut down a thread that got into talking about science vs. religion, and the OP of this thread said that we couldn't somehow start a thread discussing science without it talking about religion. So now we're tiptoeing around it. Unfortunately, it seems the OP is correct.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top