My first Science v religion thread.

Maybe it should be QM vs. astrology, i don't know. But I do know science is the single most important thing of human existance.

:-)

history indeed, starting IMHO with the I-Ching, the Book of Changes (world's first enyclopedia).

Religion, on theother hand, is a way of looking at non-material aspects of existence.

Boy, that is really almost a ridiculous oversimplification, isn't it. Oh, well, Friday afternoon, waddya want?

religion is a politicization of a mythology, which in turn is a anthropomorphication of the 'non-material aspects of reality (i.e. spirituality) which in turn is a socio-political interpretation of the non-material. got it?

That science IS your religion....

that you shouldn't make such radical judgments without knowing more. Infact I abhor people that defile science into somekind of religion. But non the less what I said still stands, and by the way, it is a quote from System of a Down.

just like an earnest philosophy can become tainted into religion (look at how strains of taoism have become ancestor-worship cults in china)... but to stick to the IDEAL of science, that being that human knowledge is forever insufficient, forever open to revision based on observation and reinterpretation... as long as you hold onto this ideal over being a disciple of any one Theory or World-view, then science will forever be the antithesis of religion.

but then it is no longer science, or rather no longer serves the purpose that sceince serves.

and they also remove all humanity from those that go to far with it. Stop pretending science only leads to better things. Science unchecked devalue human life and life in general.

but i am saying that science always leads to progression, and with out that we are nothing. Science has been unchecked, and I do not see devalue of human life, in fact we have be progressed infinately, by science

when? where?

Throughout all history, and still today their are few restrictions on the science arena.

also ask about human research of any kind.

but what you speak of is not one. Just because the gov. doesn't fund it, doesn't mean the restrict it.

Do you base the books you write on your observations or do you base your observations on the mythology of a god-forsaken paranoid pre-agrarian desert nomadic tribe?

if you want to look at it like that.

Many wars have been fought over religion. And many wars are fought with the technology that science had brought about.

What's worse, the Crusades or the invention of the atom bomb?

is if the people killed by science would even be here without science, and whether or not sticks and stones, and sharp objects would have sufficed in place of the gun.
Crusades happened because of religion, but wars do not happen because of technology.
Science definately has it's problems, but it has saved infinately more lives than it could ever take.

Ever heard of Bioethics? Ever seen how far those that believe in it too much want to take it?

Read some Peter Singer.

It is not science that has the dark side, but the people using science.

Science is like a hunting rifle, it's has a purpose that many people rely on, but if the wrong person uses it, it can lead to suffering, and death. Ofcourse the benefits and detriments are far greater, but it's illogical to restrict a hunting rifle because some misuse it, so it's illogical to restrict science because some misuse it.

without them we would have exterminated eachother by now.

Some people take religion too seriously imbuing themselves with abosulutes to which they have no rights.

Some people take science too seriously imbuing results with absolute certainty to which science has no hold.

Go figure.

they had to create a new room just for them. The meeting room down below still has the astrology crowd and the occaisional skeptic thread going on.

As to science I agree. It is the single greatest philosophical development we have managed to come up with. Unfortunately we are still tied to our biology which means that our brains are emotionally driven devices and it can take more than reason and facts to overcome a well established emotionally based belief.

The word is used so often to mean something that is more a belief system than an objective pursuit of knowledge. So what do you mean by "science?"

and understanding through observations, and experience.

Every theory ever corroborated through experiment is an example.

Highlight that 'experience' part of your post.

The car is a great invention, but if we want to, we can turn it into a killing machine. Nuclear technology is important to the future of our race, but we can turn it into a bomb if we want.

Weak, even with the A-bomb, science should not be controlled, how else will we progress? It is a necessary evil

Like the torture of kittens by blinding them to show the affects to their brain, results we already know and have documented. These things are done all the time with no care for the evil they are doing.

Like experiments conducted by nazis?

Like the concept that one human life is nothing in the grand sceme of things?

Thanks science! Sorry but science unchecked removes emotion from the equation. Anything in the name of scienc, is a frame of mind that will allow our discoveries to progress at a faster pace. However it's price is our humanity. We become uncaring monsters that care nothing for others and worship only progress. No thanks.

Ha, if it's already documented then it is not science, and you can hardly whine about Nazi experiments, when it was obviously done by sick people in a sick way.

Why do you assume Science unchecked is science gone bad? Humans are only willing to take it so far, nothing stopped them from destroying countless lives in the past, and they didn't.

The Nazi's are a isolated example, but non the less science is necessary, sick doctors, that are sadists, and going to torture people with or without science, is hardly an argument against it.

You know, your arguments would be logical if we were a bunch of barbarians, but we are not. WE are an enlightened society because of science, and the argument could be made that science will turn us into barbarians, but science does not will us to do things, we do them on our own. Science does not force us to perform experiments on kittens, or create a A-bomb, science just lets us. Don't mistake the two.

where did you get such an idea?

with dogmatic religion since the beginning of each.

Wait a minute....didn't I already ask that?

I don't think that they have to compete. We don't know everything there is to know through science yet and it is good to continue that pursuit. Many people experience God and various forms of spirituality which add to their lives and perhaps explain things that science does not yet know. It could be that God usually plays by rules which are what we call science. I do not think that they are incompatible.

First, regarding "science as a religion":

I feel science and religion have different purposes, generally, and cannot readily be compared.

However, for some, there is a certain "spirituality" to science. I feel, when I study physics, mose closely connected to the Universe; I have a sense of where I came from, and how I relate to the Cosmos. Physics also can give a sense of purpose: I feel, as Carl Sagan did, that the natural evolution of the Universe is to produce intelligent life; that we are the means by which the Universe became sentient, and it is our duty to learn as much about it, and ourselves, as possible. In this way, physics can provide, to some people, some of what draws many to religion.

Second, regarding the inherent good/evil of religion vs science:

Neither seem, to me, to be inherently right or wrong. There may some aberrant theologies out there that advocate harming others, but aside from those, I think it is the individual who makes the choices. The same goes for the uses of science.

Religion, judiciously and moderately applied, can help provide the ethical framework to help us guide the applications of scientific development into socially useful areas.

Finally, I am reminded of some former DUers who went by "Higgs_Boson", and "Cointelpro_papers" who were fond of starting flamewars on science vs. astrology/religion. They were banned, probably for that.

What do you mean by "physics can provide, to some people, some of what draws many to religion."

Thanks for the response, I also agree that we are the "fruit" of this universe, and that we have almost a responsibility to figure out as much as we can, and use the "gifts" evolution has given.
But what we must keep in mind, is that these are just limited oberservations made on limited experience through a limited vehicle. We should not get stuck in one set of beliefs, for that is what will ravage science. WE should believe things only because oberservation tells us to, and we should not hold the beliefs as inalieable.


What kind of Physicists are you, what to you specialize in?