Is Science A Religion?

[akiva]

I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.

Have you checked the evidence yourself? If not, then it's following/relying on others.

(and trusting that the "others" are reliable/honest)

I'm an admirer of Carl Sagan, for example -- but the fact that he lied through his teeth and falsified data (for the "greater good") regarding "Nuclear Winter" - and it was peer reviewed and published --is an example of how even the most admired and trusted scientists are not always reliable.

And blind faith is blind faith -- in scientists or in religious leaders.

Akiva

 

[Harvir007]

Relying on Dawkins? As usual a misquote (actually not a misquote -- he admits to never having read the Quran.)

and the "I Think" in your statement is problematic -- check your quotes against the originals -- don't rely on Dawkins or others to think for you.

The actual quote: [25.53] And He it is Who has made two seas to flow freely, the one sweet that subdues thirst by its sweetness, and the other salt that burns by its saltness; and between the two He has made a barrier and inviolable obstruction.

There are many places (river deltas, for example, like the amazon delta) where fresh water flows into the ocean and don't mix.

Thermoclines in the ocean have the same effect.

Historically there were many fresh water springs emerging just off the arabian coast -- it could be a reference to those places.

Akiva

The fact that you're saying 'could be' means that it is open to interpretation. So say if Dawkins is correct that those Muslim pupils asserted that they don't mix, it's still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think the quotation says that. If a Muslim reads that and, according to their own interpretation, thinks that salt water and fresh water don't mix, that's a scientific claim by a religious person, based on scripture.

 

[akiva]

Just a quick question:

Why is it that all atheists/anti-theists/anti-religion followers sound exactly the same? They all quote the exact same objections (down to the exact phrasing). They all quote the same verses from texts with the same objections. (All of which have been answered by philosophers over the last 2000 years)

It reminds me of the Hari Krishna followers in the 70s -- but without the flowers and smiles and saffron robes.

Go to the actual source material and study it. Study medieval/current philosophers. See what has actually been discussed/debated/answered by theologians.

Develop your own opinion based on your own study.

Don't trust Dawkins etc -- because they haven't done that.

Akiva

 

[akiva]

The fact that you're saying 'could be' means that it is open to interpretation. So say if Dawkins is correct that those Muslim pupils asserted that they don't mix, it's still wrong, regardless of whether or not they think the quotation says that. If a Muslim reads that and, according to their own interpretation, thinks that salt water and fresh water don't mix, that's a scientific claim by a religious person, based on scripture.

Of course -- but that's a problem with the person and his understanding, not the text.

Once you know the context the text was given in/to -- the reference makes sense (since there were places that they knew about at the time the text was given where fresh/salt water didn't mix. The audience knew that -- and understood the poetic message being given)

That doesn't make the verse "unscientific" -- it makes the person's understanding faulty/ignorant/unscientific.

There's a difference between a claim made by a "religious person" and a claim made by "a religion".

Akiva

 

[Harvir007]

Just a quick question:

Why is it that all atheists/anti-theists/anti-religion followers sound exactly the same? They all quote the exact same objections (down to the exact phrasing). They all quote the same verses from texts with the same objections. (All of which have been answered by philosophers over the last 2000 years)

It reminds me of the Hari Krishna followers in the 70s -- but without the flowers and smiles and saffron robes.

Go to the actual source material and study it. Study medieval/current philosophers. See what has actually been discussed/debated/answered by theologians.

Develop your own opinion based on your own study.

Don't trust Dawkins etc -- because they haven't done that.

Akiva

Because they think the idea that a cosmic intelligence started the big bang 13.77 billion years ago, then waited 9 or so billion years to create the earth, then waited till about 200-400 thousand years ago for homo sapiens to evolve from earlier hominids and then waited till the past 2000 years to provide the answers of life to specific individuals, totally stupid.

There's a difference between a claim made by a "religious person" and a claim made by "a religion".

Sure there is, but in the bible, god created the world in 6 days. Open to interpretation obviously, but the text has made a scientific claim about the origins of the universe and the earth.

 

[akiva]

Have you read Antony Flew? You might find him interesting.

Akiva

 

[Harvir007]

Have you read Antony Flew? You might find him interesting.

I haven't read him, but he's the bloke that was an atheist turned deist am I correct? I mean I have no quarrel with the deist position so much, it's still a belief based on no evidence but not as harmful as a theistic god (an intervening god). If there is a god, they've created a very terrible universe and very terrible galaxy in the Milky Way.

 

[akiva]

That's him. Worth reading the original (and not second-hand)

Akiva

 

[prakash.s.bagga]

Could you please explain to me how one can tell if one is devoted to science and how that devotion makes it a religion? For you, religion may be a manifestation of devotion, I personally do not because that's changing the definition of religion to back up a point that is a play with words.


That's incorrect. Religions are failed sciences in that their scriptures have made scientific claims. Scientific claims are statements of a 'fact' that's believed to be true, but has not yet been 'proven' to be true. ic claim that is false.[/QUTake the Koran for instance. I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientifOTE]

Well it is the devotion to any particular activity that becomes Religion as
If I am devoted to sports then this sport can be my religion only.If I am devoted to science then it is Science as my only religion.
Similarly if I am devoted to Politics then Politics is my religion..llike that
Religion can be any thing.
It is the context of devotion towards any activity that can be refered as religion.
For your second stanza I have already mentioned that religion can not be a science.
For your thinking asto
I think it is written somewhere that salt water and fresh water don't mix. Now obviously that isn't true, but it's a scientifOTE]
You should appreciate the context of Koran before saying this to be in correct.It is true that salt water of certain critical concentration and fresh water would not mix due to difference of surface tension effects of the two layers of water.
Prakash.S.Bagga

 

[akiva]

Because they think the idea that a cosmic intelligence started the big bang 13.77 billion years ago, then waited 9 or so billion years to create the earth, then waited till about 200-400 thousand years ago for homo sapiens to evolve from earlier hominids and then waited till the past 2000 years to provide the answers of life to specific individuals, totally stupid.

That's their opinion - not a scientific theory/fact backed by evidence.

In other words, you are trading one opinion for another -- when neither has a scientific basis.

Which you are free to do -- but you can't claim it's "scientific".

Akiva

 

[Tejwant Singh]

I didn't say that. Individuals may be the ones that discover these facts and I may have nothing to do with their discovery, that doesn't make me a follower. It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence, then I cannot argue that.

Harvir007 ji,

Guru Fateh.

First of all Science is just an observational tool which makes us find things in an objective manner, hence very fluid with every new technique that helps us discover or see the same thing in a different manner provided the scientists are objectively honest about it.

But,I am sorry to say that your investigation into science as Harvir Bond does not pan out with the facts and I know you love facts. There are scientists on all sides of the equation. Many have subjective agendas depending on who is paying them. Hence they make their own facts to justify the means. Pharma Industry is full of them. Lobbyists of certain agendas like 'No to Climate change', Tar sand oil and other fields are filled with these kinds of "snake oil scientists". And yes, many become their followers blindly.

The objective scientists can be found in some universities and in the Govt research departments like CDC and FDA in the US which help us untangle the mysteries of life to certain point.

However, let's not just talk about the scientists in white long coats holding test tubes or dead gerbils in their hands. There are also Economic Scientists.

The two eminent Harvard professors, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have created economic havoc in Europe with their austerity theory presented in 2010, a dangerously flawed one in which they claimed that 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio means a collapse in growth. They gallantly claimed that even in times of recession, debt is more dangerous than high unemployment.

Their conclusions led to the austerity policies all over Europe, and "we know the rest of the story", as the late Steve Harvey, a radio commentator in the US would say.

They claim that without austerity, the economy of the industrialised countries would be negative .05%. This theory of theirs was debunked by a U Mass student named Thomas Herndon who used the same data of the two famous scientists with their permission and showed how flawed their data was. In fact, he noted that with the help of Government intervention by injecting money in the market rather than austerity, the economy would grow 2.2% and that in fact is happening in the US despite multiple roadblocks erected by the GOP because we have a Kenyan born, socialist, communist, Muslim President and if he fails, then America fails, which they do not care about because they are only patriotic to White America. If GOP cared about the US economy which would also help the economies in other parts of the world, then they would pass many bills for that purpose but they refuse to do so.

Their theory was embraced by the GOP party of the US and also by many conservative nations like the UK and others including the IMF and we know how the economies of Europe have tanked. I do not want to bore you with more of this nitty gritty.You can Google it yourself to get a better picture.

So does the above make you a rationale being as you yourself mentioned in your post above?

" It simply makes me a rational being that accepts evidence that comes out of science. There is no 'following' involved. But if you perceive that as me being a believer of evidence."

This is science for you. But that is not the point I am trying to make rather I am struggling in understanding what your point in this thread is.

Can you please put it in lay man's terms?

Regards

Tejwant Singh

 

[spnadmin]

I want to ask a very simple question, which might even seem simple-minded, simplistic, maybe even off-the-wall to some. But it could be a kind of thought experiment that sheds light on what scientists do not spend their time thinking about. Some investigating might be needed.

Question and sub-question
Why are religious forums obsessed with the connection between science and religion? Do science forums share this concern? I limit the second question to ordinary science forums that espouse the scientific method: e.g., chemistry, astronomy, physics, biology, physical anthropology, etc.

If there is a stark contrast between religious forums and science forums that might tell us something.

Rationale
Not relevant to my questions are arm-chair-scientist forums that hold court on consciousness, noetics, quantum leaps, etc.. Also not relevant to the questions are occasional magazine articles in Nature or Scientific American that tantalize with thoughts of a "God" behind the "Big Bang" or YouTube videos or articles where scientists try to reconcile science and religion, and like that. We already have tons of that at SPN. Science forums where scientists share their thoughts about science seem to be ignored.

Or is that boring?

 

[Harvir007]

The two eminent Harvard professors, economists Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff have created economic havoc in Europe with their austerity theory presented in 2010, a dangerously flawed one in which they claimed that 90 percent debt-to-GDP ratio means a collapse in growth. Their conclusions led to policies like austerity, which they claim even in times of recession, debt is more dangerous than high unemployment.

They claim that without austerity, the economy of the industrialised countries would be negative .05%. This theory of theirs was debunked by a U Mass student named Thomas Herndon who used the same data of the two famous scientists with their permission and showed how flawed their data was. In fact, he noted that with the help of Government intervention by injecting money in the market rather than austerity, the economy would grow 2.2% and that in fact is happening in the US despite multiple roadblocks erected by the GOP because we have a Kenyan born, socialist, communist, Muslim President and if he fails, then America fails, which they do not care about because they are only patriotic to White America. If GOP cared about the US economy which would also help the economies in other parts of the world, then they would pass many bills for that purpose but they refuse to do so.

Their theory was embraced by the GOP party of the US and many conservative nations like the UK and others including the IMF and we know how the economies of Europe have tanked. I do not want to bore you with more of this nitty gritty.You can Google it yourself to get a better picture.

So does the above make you a rationale being as you yourself mentioned in your post above?

Yeah, I am familiar with Reinhart-Rogoff saga. Being an economics student myself, there have been many things that led me to not take their data seriously. Thus, I was vindicated when Thomas Herndon, who you have mentioned, rebuked their claims. It was an excel error, was it not? We had the UK and US running national debts of 100%+ GDP during the 1950s, growth wasn't curtailed then which led me to being sceptical. At the start of macroeconomics at A-level, we're told about fiscal policy and that government is meant to run deficits during a bust. 'Expansionary austerity', or so dubbed by Alesina-Ardagna's paper, is proven to not grow the economy if you just look at the EU. Austerity leads to higher national debts also. I'm always banging my head when I hear George Osborne (chancellor of the exchequer) talking about how his plans will lead to sustainable growth. In econ, we're told that the components of aggregate demand are consumption, investment, government spending, and exports minus imports. If the first two are low already, and you then cut government spending, how on earth are you going to grow the economy when aggregate demand also equals the total amount of expenditure within the economy? Science like the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether or not we evolved... that is solid science. Economics on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say, is struggling to be a science. Reinhart-Rogoff's paper wasn't peer reviewed by the way, which also made me sceptical.

This is science for you. But that is not the point I am trying to make rather I am struggling in understanding what your point in this thread is.

Can you please put it in lay man's terms?

In layman's terms, my point, to begin with, is that science is not a religion.

 

[Harvir007]

That's their opinion - not a scientific theory/fact backed by evidence.

In other words, you are trading one opinion for another -- when neither has a scientific basis.

Which you are free to do -- but you can't claim it's "scientific".

I can't claim it's scientific? Oh come on. Evolution, fact. Earth is around 4.54 billion years old, fact. Age of the universe is around 13.77 billion years, fact. CMB radiation measurements do a good job of pinning down just how long it has been since the big bang with general consensus being that there's an uncertainty of 40 million years. Radiometric dating with regards to the age of the Earth clearly shows how long ago the Earth was formed with the oldest rock found being zircon in Australia.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Yeah, I am familiar with Reinhart-Rogoff saga. Being an economics student myself, there have been many things that led me to not take their data seriously. Thus, I was vindicated when Thomas Herndon, who you have mentioned, rebuked their claims. It was an excel error, was it not? We had the UK and US running national debts of 100%+ GDP during the 1950s, growth wasn't curtailed then which led me to being sceptical. At the start of macroeconomics at A-level, we're told about fiscal policy and that government is meant to run deficits during a bust. 'Expansionary austerity', or so dubbed by Alesina-Ardagna's paper, is proven to not grow the economy if you just look at the EU. Austerity leads to higher national debts also. I'm always banging my head when I hear George Osborne (chancellor of the exchequer) talking about how his plans will lead to sustainable growth. In econ, we're told that the components of aggregate demand are consumption, investment, government spending, and exports minus imports. If the first two are low already, and you then cut government spending, how on earth are you going to grow the economy when aggregate demand also equals the total amount of expenditure within the economy? Science like the age of the universe, the age of the earth, whether or not we evolved... that is solid science. Economics on the other hand, as much as it pains me to say, is struggling to be a science. Reinhart-Rogoff's paper wasn't peer reviewed by the way, which also made me sceptical.

Now you are not being honest and I am surprised at you. I thought you believed in facts based on data and investigation. Economics IS science no matter how much you deny it. Check out the meaning of science for your own understanding.

Many fail to understand that no one except the US can have loan at 1% at will which is a great shot in the arm of economy. Science proves that.

In layman's terms, my point, to begin with, is that science is not a religion.

OK. Then again I come to my initial question, so what is your point?

Firstly, define religion in your own terms please.

Secondly, what does Sikhi have to do with any religion?

I have no idea how much you know about Sikhi. Reading through different threads in here may help you in understanding it.

Lastly, what religion is Antitheism as defined by Prakash Singh ji?

Tejwant Singh

 

[akiva]

I can't claim it's scientific? Oh come on. Evolution, fact. Earth is around 4.54 billion years old, fact. Age of the universe is around 13.77 billion years, fact. CMB radiation measurements do a good job of pinning down just how long it has been since the big bang with general consensus being that there's an uncertainty of 40 million years. Radiometric dating with regards to the age of the Earth clearly shows how long ago the Earth was formed with the oldest rock found being zircon in Australia.

I'm obviously talking about the last part of your statement:

and then waited till the past 2000 years to provide the answers of life to specific individuals, totally stupid.

There's no question about the science part.

Akiva

 

[Harvir007]

Firstly, define religion in your own terms please.

If we're going by my understanding of religion, I'd say that religion is the postulation of their being something immaterial and beyond the material world. In other words, if the idea of a 'god' or supernatural entity or cosmic law maker is postulated within an ideology, then it would be correct to label it a religion.

Secondly, what does Sikhi have to do with any religion?

From my understanding of Sikhism, the idea of a 'god' is postulated. Correct me if I am wrong, is Sikhism not a revealed religion? Is it not the case that Nanak Dev had gone missing for three days circa 1499 and he came back afterwards and said that he had been to god's court and was offered holy water? This I shall concede is where I require your wisdom. If it is the case that Nanak had been to god's court, could you just shed a bit of light on this?

Lastly, what religion is Antitheism as defined by Prakash Singh ji?

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understood the question, are you asking if antitheism is a religion? If that's the case, it isn't. It's just a viewpoint with regards to god and religion.

Now you are not being honest and I am surprised at you. I thought you believed in facts based on data and investigation.

I do believe in facts based on data and investigation. I also believe in the peer-review process. Okay, so economics is a science insofar as economics theories are based on data and evidence. When I say 'struggling to be a science', I mean to say that it's struggling to be a science like Physics, Biology or Chemistry is. That's all I was trying to say.

 

[Tejwant Singh]

Harvir ji,

Guru fateh.

First, thanks for agreeing with me that Economics is science which it is. Now time to move on to other things.

If we're going by my understanding of religion, I'd say that religion is the postulation of their being something immaterial and beyond the material world. In other words, if the idea of a 'god' or supernatural entity or cosmic law maker is postulated within an ideology, then it would be correct to label it a religion.

OK. So what? What is your point, once again.

From my understanding of Sikhism, the idea of a 'god' is postulated. Correct me if I am wrong, is Sikhism not a revealed religion?

No, it is not. Sikhi is not a religion to start with. You need to study about it using your scientific talents. Dig deeper.

Is it not the case that Nanak Dev had gone missing for three days circa 1499 and he came back afterwards and said that he had been to god's court and was offered holy water?

Please quote from SGGS, our only Guru about your above claim. You seem to jump to too many conclusions without studying the subject. Is that the reason you like science?

This I shall concede is where I require your wisdom. If it is the case that Nanak had been to god's court, could you just shed a bit of light on this?

Sikhi has no god, hence I have no idea what kind of god's court you are talking about. Please elaborate and state your sources as they do in science.

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understood the question, are you asking if antitheism is a religion? If that's the case, it isn't. It's just a viewpoint with regards to god and religion.

It is according to Prakash Singh Bagga's explanation about the religion that was addressed to you.

You have to understand the meaning of gods and religions of the different peoples in order to have any viewpoint regarding them.

Viewpoint is based on knowledge which you have not shown about Sikhi up to now, rather to the contrary.

Make knowledge your best friend rather than your worst enemy in order to have any viewpoint, in any field.

Tejwant Singh

 

[akiva]

Why are religious forums obsessed with the connection between science and religion?

With the "Age of Reason" religion and religious belief has come under attack.

Religious believers can be broken down into several categories:

a) those who feel "embarrassed" by the seeming conflict and are trying to reconcile the two;

b) those who attempt (poorly and invalidly) to use scientific discoveries to "prove" their religion

c) those who are not bothered by it -- because they consider the two complementary, not contradictory.

Types a and b are the ones usually discussing it.

Akiva

 

[Inderjeet Kaur]

You are mistaken about the atheist's proposition. I don't say there definitely is no god, I can't prove that. However, I can say that there is no evidence or convincing argument that makes me think that there is a god. The agnostic's (with regards to 'god') position isn't logically honest. I don't say to you, "oh, the tooth-fairy cannot be disproved therefore, I won't commit to saying that the likelihood of such a thing existing is very improbable." Of course I can't say that santa or a tooth-fairy definitely does not exist so I'm agnostic with regards to them. But for all practical cases, I am an atheist in the same sense that I'm an atoothfairyist. I'm sure that most people are atoothfairyists, is that logically dishonest? You can't just say I'm not comparing like with like. Both are fictional entities, both have no evidence to support them. The difference I suppose is, is that most children tend to grow out of believing in the tooth-fairy. And that's what god is to me: a childish belief.

.

The tooth fairy is real. We usually call her "Mommy." :motherlove: