Jump to content

Is Science A Quasi Religion?


Recommended Posts

What has always fascinated me during a quarter of a century of discussing science and religion with science minded atheists is their dogmatic adherence to a simplistic ideological perspective of science as a belief system while seemingly not practicing scientific reasoning in more mundane observations. 

 

Using scientific reasoning the science minded atheist should seriously question events like the holocaust, 9/11, vaccinations, masks and manufactured and grossly exaggerated pandemics. But they never do. It seems to me that it would have to be group think at work which may explain why the most ardent and visceral atheists are always Ex-Christians having turned heavily to science as a crutch to replace the religious one they lost.  

 

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept was around for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible. It hasn't improved much over the centuries and maybe it never will. Maybe it shouldn't. 

 

Well, at least until Jehovah God's kingdom has been set up and with money and ideological possession out of the way we can get around to doing some real science. Who knows?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

Using scientific reasoning the science minded atheist should seriously question events like the holocaust, 9/11, vaccinations, masks and manufactured and grossly exaggerated pandemics.

     There it is.  I was waiting for this shoe to drop.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, mwc said:

     There it is.  I was waiting for this shoe to drop.

 

You saw that coming, huh? How is that? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, SemmelweisReflex said:

 

You saw that coming, huh? How is that? 

     I read your posts.

 

          mwc

 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Super Moderator

@SemmelweisReflex, you have been warned to keep your proselytizing confined to the Lion's Den.  Do Not take that warning lightly. 

 

This thread will remain in the current forum unless (until) it either devolves into a debate, or devolves into a platform for your attempted preaching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2021 at 8:13 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

What has always fascinated me during a quarter of a century of discussing science and religion with science minded atheists is their dogmatic adherence to a simplistic ideological perspective of science as a belief system while seemingly not practicing scientific reasoning in more mundane observations. 

 

Using scientific reasoning the science minded atheist should seriously question events like the holocaust, 9/11, vaccinations, masks and manufactured and grossly exaggerated pandemics. But they never do. It seems to me that it would have to be group think at work which may explain why the most ardent and visceral atheists are always Ex-Christians having turned heavily to science as a crutch to replace the religious one they lost.  

 

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept was around for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible. It hasn't improved much over the centuries and maybe it never will. Maybe it shouldn't. 

 

Well, at least until Jehovah God's kingdom has been set up and with money and ideological possession out of the way we can get around to doing some real science. Who knows?

 

Maybe I'm not a typical atheist since I'm not against religion if good things like charity are taking place in its name.

 

To each his own, I say. Believe whatever you want but don't cause grief for anyone else by doing so.

 

Science is not a religion, or even like one, but it is a kind of a belief in that none of us can prove there is no god of some kind -- even if the idea of God sounds ridiculous and archaic to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/10/2021 at 11:13 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Using scientific reasoning the science minded atheist should seriously question events like the holocaust, 9/11, vaccinations, masks and manufactured and grossly exaggerated pandemics. But they never do.

 

Speak for yourself man. I question all that shit. Well except the holocaust. Thats history. It happened. 9/11 happened but there is some fishy shit that still doesn't add up. 

 

On 6/10/2021 at 11:13 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

Well, at least until Jehovah God's kingdom has been set up and with money and ideological possession out of the way we can get around to doing some real science. Who knows

 

We would be able to get more science done if the religious would mind their own damn business and just focus on believing their personal fairy tales and let the rest of the world move forward instead of trying to make everyone believe a book that depicts flat earth creation is literally true. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 6/10/2021 at 10:13 AM, SemmelweisReflex said:

What has always fascinated me during a quarter of a century of discussing science and religion with science minded atheists is their dogmatic adherence to a simplistic ideological perspective of science as a belief system while seemingly not practicing scientific reasoning in more mundane observations. 

 

Using scientific reasoning the science minded atheist should seriously question events like the holocaust, 9/11, vaccinations, masks and manufactured and grossly exaggerated pandemics. But they never do. It seems to me that it would have to be group think at work which may explain why the most ardent and visceral atheists are always Ex-Christians having turned heavily to science as a crutch to replace the religious one they lost.  

 

The clash between science and religion began in the sixth century B.C.E. with the Greek mathematician and philosopher Pythagoras, whose geocentric view of the universe influenced ancient Greeks like Aristotle and Ptolemy. Aristotle's geocentric concept was around for 2,000 years, primarily as a philosophy and would have an influence in turn on the powerful Church of Rome. It was adopted by the church due to the scientist Thomas Aquinas (1225-74) who had great respect for Aristotle. In the book Galileo's Mistake, Wade Rowland wrote: "the hybridized Aristotle in the theology of Aquinas had become bedrock dogma of the Church of Rome."

Galileo's heliocentric concept challenged Aquinas' geocentric philosophy, and Galileo had the nerve to suggest that his heliocentric concept was in harmony with Scripture, a direct challenge to the Church itself, and so bringing about the Inquisition in 1633. It was Galileo's figurative, and accurate, interpretation of Scripture against Aquinas' and the Catholic Church's literal and inaccurate interpretation. For being right Galileo stood condemned until 1992 when the Catholic Church officially admitted to their error in their judgment of Galileo.

So the static between religion and science was caused by philosophy and religion wrongly opposed to science and the Bible. It hasn't improved much over the centuries and maybe it never will. Maybe it shouldn't. 

 

Well, at least until Jehovah God's kingdom has been set up and with money and ideological possession out of the way we can get around to doing some real science. Who knows?

Name one thing that religion figured out that we could know was true before science verified it to be true.  We cannot verify anything to be true through religion and faith.  Every time science was wrong more science found that it was wrong and corrected it, every time religion was wrong science found what was wrongs and corrected the error.  Never has science been shown to be false using religion or faith.  This is why I and many others trust science over religion, because of the track record not because we have a dogmatic adherence to a simplistic ideological perspective.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Name one thing that religion figured out that we could know was true before science verified it to be true."

 

That people are gullible? 😛

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, midniterider said:

"Name one thing that religion figured out that we could know was true before science verified it to be true."

 

That people are gullible? 😛

I stand corrected!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderator

Very good point

 

On 7/14/2021 at 5:29 PM, Clizby_Wampuscat said:

This is why I and many others trust science over religion, because of the track record not because we have a dogmatic adherence to a simplistic ideological perspective.  

 

Even when you understand the fundamental level of uncertainty and lack of knowledge, that still doesn't mean that science shouldn't be trusted over religion. Sure, we may not even understand exactly what matter or the material universe actually is, but we're observing something or another and we call it matter. It behaves in certain ways and follows certain universal laws. If someone takes the position that science is still way off and doesn't understand everything, that says nothing to the credibility of religion. In fact, the only place that they can go is to set up a situation where science doesn't know everything, and religion knows even less than science! 

 

And that's where I would have taken this particular apologist if he continued posting. 

 

Religion is always back there behind where ever we decide to place science on a knowledge scale. For the reasons you've mentioned and more. Trying to cut down science or push it back, only serves to set the stage for placing religion even further back than that......

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

Very good point

 

 

Even when you understand the fundamental level of uncertainty and lack of knowledge, that still doesn't mean that science shouldn't be trusted over religion. Sure, we may not even understand exactly what matter or the material universe actually is, but we're observing something or another and we call it matter. It behaves in certain ways and follows certain universal laws. If someone takes the position that science is still way off and doesn't understand everything, that says nothing to the credibility of religion. In fact, the only place that they can go is to set up a situation where science doesn't know everything, and religion knows even less than science! 

 

And that's where I would have taken this particular apologist if he continued posting. 

 

Religion is always back there behind where ever we decide to place science on a knowledge scale. For the reasons you've mentioned and more. Trying to cut down science or push it back, only serves to set the stage for placing religion even further back than that......

 

Although science involves a kind of knowledge, the real science is in the understanding and interpretation of the so-called knowledge. For instance, to know of hydrogen is a gaseous substance at Earth temperatures, that can be used for fuel is one thing, but to know that it primarily consists of one proton and one electron in its atomic form is another. To know that it commonly also exists as a molecule containing two hydrogen atoms is additional knowledge. Science theory is not knowledge. A theory can be supported by a great many interpretations of observations, even so these interpretations can totally be wrong as well as the entire theory.

 

An example of a theory that is supported by a mountain of evidence that cannot be contradicted because of the weight of the evidence, is the theory of natural selection, the primary backbone of biological evolution theory, Another theory that many scientists claim as fact is the Big Bang theory. Much observational evidence is asserted to support the theory, yet the theory is neither knowledge or fact, and IMO the entire theory, and every aspect of it, will be replaced within a decade or two IMO. Another example of goofed-up theory is Quantum Mechanics (QM). QM is a great statistical system for predicting probabilities in the quantum realm, but nearly everything one could ever read about it is entirely wrong IMO. So in truth it involves little science, instead it is just a mathematical system of making correct predictions. 

 

When and if such theories are replaced, will science change? Of course not, the scientific method controls science, not beliefs and theory. Scientific understandings if somewhat close to being correct, can produce great technologies, but if not, wrong theories will be replaced. Science can be trusted to eventually replace bad theories with better ones.

 

As for all religions, they belong in the same box as Greek Mythology, something to privately laugh at, or enjoy as a fictional read if you like that kind of stuff. :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.