If science were like religion

[Noir]

Interesting, funny and sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY&feature=youtube_gdata

[PostmodernProphet]

if?........

[Noir]

if?........

Yes, watch the video for details, science is not decided by vouch safe inner convicions, or information that is privatly reveled to a chose few, or because it makes people feel warm, fuzzy and whatnot.
If you cannot see the difference it's because you don't want to let yourself see it.

[HogTrash]

Poor Mr Dawkins?...What would motivate a supposedly intelligent man to compare religion to science?...Abstract to absolute? :confused:

Hmmm?...I can think of no rational reason?...Surely it wouldn't be just for the opportunity to attack an enemy of marxism would it? :dunno:

[Missileman]

Poor Mr Dawkins?...What would motivate a supposedly intelligent man to compare religion to science?...Abstract to absolute? :confused:

Hmmm?...I can think of no rational reason?...Surely it wouldn't be just for the opportunity to attack an enemy of marxism would it? :dunno:

It's the evangelicals who made the comparison in the first place thinking that if they could actually get science classified as a religion, it would open the public school doors to the teaching of Christianity.

[Noir]

Poor Mr Dawkins?...What would motivate a supposedly intelligent man to compare religion to science?...Abstract to absolute? :confused:

Hmmm?...I can think of no rational reason?...Surely it wouldn't be just for the opportunity to attack an enemy of marxism would it? :dunno:


Because relgions like to make scientific claims. Especially in Dawkins' scientific field of evolutionary biology. If religion tries to stand in the way of science then it is to be jugded criticaly as science is.
You can not both have your cake, and eat it. (i.e 'relgions can make claims about science, but may not be judged on those claims as science is to be')

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes, watch the video for details
no, I've told you before, I don't debate videos....state your own arguments.....

[Noir]

no, I've told you before, I don't debate videos....state your own arguments.....

Okay, it's made more awkward if you do not atleast watch the video for reference though,

My arguement is simple. Science is not decided by vouch safe inner convicions, or information that is privatly reveled to a chose few, or because it makes people feel warm, fuzzy and whatnot. Religion is.
The video shows just how foolish relgion apears when you substitute it with scientific theory, and yet we think nothing of it.

[PostmodernProphet]

Okay, it's made more awkward if you do not atleast watch the video for reference though,

My arguement is simple. Science is not decided by vouch safe inner convicions, or information that is privatly reveled to a chose few, or because it makes people feel warm, fuzzy and whatnot. Religion is.
The video shows just how foolish relgion apears when you substitute it with scientific theory, and yet we think nothing of it.

Is that your running definition of "religion"....."vouch safe inner convictions or information privately revealed to a chosen few or because it makes people feel warm and fuzzy"..... ?

I was thinking more along the lines of

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

at least three of those could encompass the way many view science.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Science is not decided by vouch safe inner convicions

but for the fun of it, let's run with your definition.....have you ever seen anyone on this board argue that given time science will find the explanations for all the mysteries that remain?......

[Noir]

Is that your running definition of "religion"....."vouch safe inner convictions or information privately revealed to a chosen few or because it makes people feel warm and fuzzy"..... ?

I was thinking more along the lines of

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

at least three of those could encompass the way many view science.....


Religion is a word that means many things to many people.
But allot them tend to boil down to the same ideas, tell me, as I know you are a Christian, how do you think the books of the bible came into being if not by privately revealed truths to those that your god chose?

[Noir]

but for the fun of it, let's run with your definition.....have you ever seen anyone on this board argue that given time science will find the explanations for all the mysteries that remain?......

I can not point to a topic, no.
Though I do believe it will be so, even though we likly can't even think of the mysteries that we will one day encounter.
However, what I am certain of is that we will not get anywhere relaying on religion to answer questions for us. For religions claim to already know the answers, even though time and time and again science has given the real answer.

[SassyLady]

Are you kidding - science is a religion.

It is a dicipline that is dogmatic in it's approach, as is religion.

[HogTrash]

Because relgions like to make scientific claims. Especially in Dawkins' scientific field of evolutionary biology. If religion tries to stand in the way of science then it is to be jugded criticaly as science is.
You can not both have your cake, and eat it. (i.e 'relgions can make claims about science, but may not be judged on those claims as science is to be')And why not?...What is the harm in allowing everyone's discipline to be presented and debated in every forum, including institutions of learning?

The big bang theory is taught in schools and is no more a proven fact than is religion and God, so why not keep our minds open to all possibilities?

[DragonStryk72]

You know, the first i saw the little religion stuff you posted, it was interesting, but it has become boring and sad. You continue with flawed premise after flawed premise, presenting evidence that is not evidence, or putting impossible statutes, and when we ask for clarification, you give none, then we give the "wrong" answer (meaning we're not answering like you) and you rip into us. It's not pithy, it's not astute, not even a debate, it's just a huge waste brain cells and time.

I allow you to have your faith, so let me have mine, as I am not in any way beating you over the head with it, and I keep hoping you stop beating me and others with yours, it is really extremely tiresome.

[SassyLady]

You know, the first i saw the little religion stuff you posted, it was interesting, but it has become boring and sad. You continue with flawed premise after flawed premise, presenting evidence that is not evidence, or putting impossible statutes, and when we ask for clarification, you give none, then we give the "wrong" answer (meaning we're not answering like you) and you rip into us. It's not pithy, it's not astute, not even a debate, it's just a huge waste brain cells and time.

I allow you to have your faith, so let me have mine, as I am not in any way beating you over the head with it, and I keep hoping you stop beating me and others with yours, it is really extremely tiresome.

Actually, I'm having fun debating with Noir, especially when the debate is conducted without resorting to personal attacks.

[PostmodernProphet]

Religion is a word that means many things to many people.
But allot them tend to boil down to the same ideas, tell me, as I know you are a Christian, how do you think the books of the bible came into being if not by privately revealed truths to those that your god chose?

perhaps religion means many things to many people, but one of the reasons we have dictionaries is to limit the "free wheeling"......I dare bet you won't find a dictionary anywhere that includes the definition you started with.....

as for the bible, I expect it is axiomatic that unless a significant number of people recognized the writings as "truth" they wouldn't have survived long enough to be considered by the Canon.....thus it isn't so much the "privately revealed" as the "broadly recognized"......

[PostmodernProphet]

I can not point to a topic, no.
Though I do believe it will be so, even though we likly can't even think of the mysteries that we will one day encounter.
However, what I am certain of is that we will not get anywhere relaying on religion to answer questions for us. For religions claim to already know the answers, even though time and time and again science has given the real answer.

I had suspected you were one of those who had made the comment....I was just too lazy to run through all the threads trying to find it......thanks for your profession of faith in science.......

[bullypulpit]

Interesting, funny and sad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2VjdpVonY&feature=youtube_gdata

I'd rep you, but I gotta spread some more joy. Kudos on finding that piece. And yes, it is both funny and tragic.

[OldMercsRule]

Because relgions like to make scientific claims. Especially in Dawkins' scientific field of evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biology is very similar to "a religion" as the "true believers" take bits and pieces of bone to make unsupported claims in attemts to "prove" their "religion", (the failed theory of Darwin's evolution). :rolleyes:

Scienctific aspects of the observations of palentology, (the Cambrian explosion, known at Darwin's time), and complex stuctures of organs, (such as the eye), that were also known at the time of Darwin to be irreducably cornplex have been fatal flaws in the one mutation at a time over time mechanism since the onset of Darwin's theory yet the theory lives on due to religion of the believers pushing the theory. :rolleyes:

Antropological global warming is another such "religion", (Algore the ol' buffoon bein' their messiah), where data has been skewed to fit pre existing bias of a failed theory. :rolleyes:


If religion tries to stand in the way of science then it is to be jugded criticaly as science is.

10-4, as Mormon scriptures' claims of Semintic roots of, (new world), American populations have been proven unsound. Turn about is fair play with the religious theories of Darwin's evolution and man made global warmin' which routinely dodge "critical judgements" due to the furvor of the believers and their influence of the kool aid spigot of acedemia and the main stream media. :rolleyes:


You can not both have your cake, and eat it. (i.e 'relgions can make claims about science, but may not be judged on those claims as science is to be')

Yessir...... If observations don't fit existing theories, they must be allowed to fail regardless of the flow of that tasty kool aid. :eek:

[sgtdmski]

Because relgions like to make scientific claims. Especially in Dawkins' scientific field of evolutionary biology. If religion tries to stand in the way of science then it is to be jugded criticaly as science is.
You can not both have your cake, and eat it. (i.e 'relgions can make claims about science, but may not be judged on those claims as science is to be')

But just make sure that u remember to judge science just as critically as you do religion.

Let's see in order to be science it must use the scientific method. Direct observation, experimentation, and the ability to be reproduced. Without these three key elements all you have is faith, your belief that something is true without fact, in other words religion.

Hmmm direct observation. The Theory of Evolution and Darwin's Origin of the Species. Wow, that is missing. Okay, one out of three missing no big deal, so there must be experiments proving it. Hmm, nope, the only experiment to ever come close was the Miller-Urey which made amino acids from a primordial soup. But wait a minute, the atmosphere used in the experiment, did not match that of early earth. Also, in the experiment once the amino acid was formed it was segregated from the liquid. Hmmm that did not happen in nature. Again, no experimentation. Wow two out three are gone already, ready for strike three, without experimentation there is no way to reproduce results. Your out. WOW, science based upon faith, sounds a lot like a religion to me.

dmk