Science: Keep out? [Archive]

Tsuyoiko

Dec 11, 2007, 20:59

scorpion da black

Dec 11, 2007, 22:27

i believe that science can be a mean to strengthen one's faith...
science that is proved , and is known as absulute fact would some time proove what has been said in the religeous texts.
for example when scientists proved that iron coud have never been created on earth...it needs a climate other that the core of the earth to create it....i as a muslim was amazed since our textes say " we created man from the elements of earth, except for iron we dropped it from the skys "
another example is when professor dawood musa kroske ( a convert to islam ) heard scientists from NASA and from britian debating about the moon, and said that it has a deep fault cutting the moon in half and circuling it as a diameter....musa then converted to islam out of amazment ..because he knows that we muslims believe that the mmon was shatered in have when prophet Muhammed was born.

and there is many many examples i could provide on how science actually proves some points in religion....

if you are interrested search for " Quran/Koran 's scientific approach "

Revenant

Dec 11, 2007, 23:06

I think the wisdom of the old saints and religious leaders is positively astounding at times, and quite inhumane and brutal at others.

When it comes to morality, I see more hope in science than religion.

Science, albeit through a lot of trial and error, is coming closer to the factors that influence a person's sense of morality, and how those factors can be manipulated.

So far, and before I say this, I am not Buddhist, but some of the Buddhist meditations have been studied by neuroscience and psychology, and some of the factors that make a person like The Dalai Lama the likable, ethical, and happy person that he is have been sorted out from other factors.

'Flow' could improve a person's happiness. Happier people are more likely to be kinder people, since selfish people are usually simply so focused on finding the happiness that is missing from their lives that they have little attention left to think on other people's wellbing and happiness.

Empathy might due to the neurosplasticity of the brain be trainable so to more strongly empathize with people, and to empathize with not just those one feels some affiliation with. That would be helpful since ethics is based on empathy.

Those factors that don't objectively contribute to happiness, and certain factors have been factored out, like being rich, intelligent, good-looking, then don't need to take up so much of people's attention.

Religion has for the most part laid out some good traits one should take on, but it is science that is indicating which points are valid and some effective techniques for taking these traits on.

I'd like to add that most relgious people are religious cause they see some links between reality (what science studies) and their religion. Religious people are however resistant to any contradicting science. One could say that religion can be logically explained, but then that is what science is, the application of logic to reality.

Goldiegirl

Dec 11, 2007, 23:30

Religion and science are completely different. One is based on "faith" and the other is based on facts. I don't think the two can be mixed. I don't believe in creation, we evolved just as any other plant and animal did. I am not saying that people shouldn't believe in a higher power, I just don't think that any of the holy books are actual, truthful accounts of the history of the universe. They are stories with a moral point to them, meant to teach people in large groups to behave to maintain social order.

Derfel

Dec 12, 2007, 00:16

Science should concentrate on things it can prove, not on things it can't deny, but tries just for the hell of it.
In its own field both faith and science is absolute and unquestionable, there are things you must answer with only one of them.
For example, some religions not only find blood transfusion gross, and heresy, but they forcefully stop their children from being saved by it. Such stupidity should be purged, same for brutal, cold animal experiments. Both kinda people should be shot and left in a dark alley.

Kinsao

Dec 12, 2007, 01:01

I think that science and religion are both essentially part of the same thing - searching for truths about how the world works, and perhaps more importantly, asking the question 'why?' as well as the question 'how?'

I don't think religion and science are incompatible, as it's still possible to believe in the existence of a deity/deities (or some similar concept) while confronted face to face with scientific facts... I don't see how these things disprove each other. I think that people often think science and religion are incompatible because of religious people who try and claim as 'fact' things which have been proven otherwise by science. But I think both stem from the drive to investigate phenomena which are as yet unexplained.

Tsuyoiko

Dec 12, 2007, 18:07

and there is many many examples i could provide on how science actually proves some points in religion....I bet I could provide at least as many examples of where science disproves some points in religion ;-)
But that would be getting a bit offtopic!
I don't think religion and science are incompatible, as it's still possible to believe in the existence of a deity/deities (or some similar concept) while confronted face to face with scientific facts... I don't see how these things disprove each other.But is it OK for science to try to disprove the existence of God? Richard Dawkins seems to think it's part of science's duty to do so, and I tend to agree.

Mars Man

Dec 12, 2007, 23:14

It would probably take a little time for me to develop my argument in any quick fashion, yet for starters (if, in fact, the discussion lends itself towards that direction) I would suggest that background be laid out more. Also, as usual, I'd strongly urge a greater clarity on terms--for example, I'd stick the definition 'religiosity' on the word as used in the OP, and 'belief-system' on what people usually loosely call religion. (the reason for that will probably come up soon enough if the discussion were to go that far)

Along the lines of what Kinsao had put forth, we must admit that the roots are the same. To that extent, science and most of the various belief-systems came from the same emotional, overbearing awe the homo sapien had had for the visible, knowable (at that time historically, and now even) universe around them. This is related to the 'god spot' in the brain, or the 'god gene,' as they say, and is the source of 'religiosity.

In a very general sense, we could postulate that the line of 'science' that led to what it is today broke off from the religious belief-systems when the question 'why is that so?' was refused further audience by those systems' leaders. The knowledge of the several belief-systems stopped, while science moved on.

Thus I agree with the stance that every thing that is testable, should be and has the full and natural right to be tested. In this case, it would primarily be the data bases of the religious belief-systems which are open to testing. The results of which would be (ought to be) provided in a full education program earthwide...regardless of culture or belief-system influence.

In short, for now, therefore, I argue that it is most prudent and beneficial in the longer term, to assure that pure science (as opposed to Scientism) reprimand the religious belief-systems on their places, assertions, and tenets that have been, are being, and will be tested and shown to be incorrect, inaccurate, or simply plain ole false.

Mycernius

Dec 13, 2007, 01:11

But is it OK for science to try to disprove the existence of God? Richard Dawkins seems to think it's part of science's duty to do so, and I tend to agree.
It is not science part to disprove God. The people who state God exists have to prove its existance. All science does is anaylise the data presented and puts it under scrutiny. So far the "proofs" of god do not stand up to any form of scientific examination, that is why the theists always fall back on faith. You don't have to prove faith.
All theories undergo to see if they can be dis-proved. The theory of gravity is tested to see if it can be disproved. So far all evidence shows that it is true, although there are still people who disbelieve in it. The same goes for Evolution. The theory is there to be disproved. So far the evidence is in its favour.
There is a phrase that crops up on the AN forum whenever we have to odd theist shop up "You cannot prove a negative". In other words I'm not the one to disprove, you are the one to prove.
As for sceince keeping out of religion, young earth creationists and those that follow intelligent design use very dodgy science to show that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that humans where intelligently designed by a higher being. Look up Kent Hovind and some of his theories on the flood. If science didn't keep out of religion we would have even more half-wits like Kent running around the world trying to keep the masses ignorant.

Tsuyoiko

Dec 13, 2007, 01:33

All theories undergo to see if they can be dis-proved. The theory of gravity is tested to see if it can be disproved. So far all evidence shows that it is true, although there are still people who disbelieve in it. The same goes for Evolution. The theory is there to be disproved. So far the evidence is in its favour. I think that's Dawkins' point. Think of the 'God Hypothesis' in the same way as the 'Gravity Hypothesis' or the 'Evolution Hypothesis'. Science has to say that gravity and evolution have overwhelming evidence in their favour so we promote those hypotheses to the status of 'theory', i.e. considered satisfactorily proven by science. Since there's no reliable evidence in favour of the God Hypothesis it remains a hypothesis - at best it gets the Scottish verdict ;-).

Doc

Dec 13, 2007, 06:25

But is it OK for science to try to disprove the existence of God? Richard Dawkins seems to think it's part of science's duty to do so, and I tend to agree.

Is it okay? I think so. Will science ever disprove the existence of God? Probably not. For me I tend the believe on the lines of the philosophical aspects of HUP on the issue.

-Doc:wave:

Chi65

Dec 13, 2007, 12:42

In the original "cult" some found out, that by concentrating, tuning into a goal, it was more often to be reached than without (hunting for example, the cave paintings, thus the first role of arts also etc.). They needed no science to find this out, just observings, but any good psychologist can easily confirm this too now. The subconsciousness worked and still works via selective consciousness, once you know, what you want, and much faster than any calculations, although those would also lead to good tricks and results. In the best case, both together(!) was/is best after all. Which does not exclude that both sides critisize each other at times, and sometimes one side is a better path than the other one. None has the only key and will never have.
It is a constant dance of both sides, also of the brain, and we got two sides for a reason, to use them both, not for constant shizophrenia.
Thats my answer.
Yes, I also have a lot to do with psychology and neurology around me and at present with special new developments and tests. Within the science fractions are also those who very well and happily sign this point and say it openly, right beside the critics, even highly honoured by them. . .something is turning around at the moment, in favour of the intuition, imagination, because it has been left out for too long.
And there are remarkable many asians amongst them, ready to show this also (!)scientifically and by experiments, and it works. Amongst them Ramachandran, more powerfull than ever. Go figure, listen till the end of this talk:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rl2LwnaUA-k
Have fun and ask yourself where and why you laugh! :wave:
Which he recently repeated in London, we (our synnie-group) got an extra invitation, but a bit too late to actually make it over (it was in november). (But our "chief" already cooperates with him, and Cytovic, and lots of artists all over etc.)

Mars Man

Dec 13, 2007, 14:36

Chi65

Dec 13, 2007, 20:33

I enjoyed that film there, Chi65 san ! Thanks for the link ! Of course, for those of us who have been, and are keeping up with studies and progress made in that field, it presented nothing really new, other than one case study of the agmadela not getting signals for the other processing points in a certain map.
It does appear that your usage of the word 'science' should be identified a little better.
Sure I hope, some keep up, yet the connections have to be made again and again (this also goes to me), but for many its new. Even Rama has to make it clear (it was not the first time, that he stated the role of the syn-senses and artists, but maybe in an open lecture, in his books he is pretty clear in his direction), as you could hear.
In that context, there are two very things that pure science is all about, 1) observing, and 2) by trial and error, knowledge is formulated then concretized. (it might also be pointed out, just in case, that psychology is a science too)
Yes, but at the beginning, it was not necessarily separated, but then it was not so complex or rather too complex to know, where to start to divide it.
All they found out, was, that something worked better this way, and so they did it over and over again, best way they could. Its simply a kind of manipulation of their own inside(!), while they thought, its about an outside force they could not understand yet. A good example is the Zen-archery, for advanced understandings, by the way. Which is, why so much eastern wisdom caught the interest of western psychologists.
Sure psychology is a science, although there are many diversions in the discussions now, even, IF it is one, because it so often touches untouchables like "spirits, ghosts"-matters ;-)
I'd like to make sure I understand the point you are trying to make here. Using the dual-sidedness of the human body in metaphor, you are arguing that science and religious belief-systems both work towards the same results?
Originally yes, it definitely has the same roots, which does not mean, that their ways, weapons are uptodate. There is a lot of work to be done for sure.
Which is, why it might be good to go to the roots again, to be able to see and accept this.
Even the separation of worldly power and church showed the growing shizophrenia about their divided paths, for which especially our german history has many examples. In the end its all about powers and ruling over people's minds in the name of a stronger overfather (yes, mostly males).
For example, you are arguing that as Christianity worked toward the conclusion that any person who does not accept Jesus as their personal savior, and declare that privately and publically is fully condemned and without hope, science is, or can, collaborate to reach that same conclusion? Would this be a good description of the argument?
Hm, yes, in a way, it does show similarities in my observation, I was often laughing at even similar behaviours in the RD- and particularly the Randi-forum, but of course they hardly liked that argument, even if I was not alone with it. Any projection, that, without their (whichever side) views and experiences you are lost in a way, is to be found on both sides, also not new.
I personally think, its rubbish and much more a matter of translations, for which a solution could be found with a bit of good will.
You are doing a fine job for this, by the way.
Digging and educating about former names, words, descriptions can be very enlightening, I do this myself a lot and keep on finding it interesting.
But reading between the lines often is as important, and in this, asians are more trained, since their appearing images are still rooted in the visuals (!), when reading their own signs, that can have so many adaptable meanings.
Best example, the multiple meanings of Chi or Ki, but around western science often seen as just one out of date formulation and as such very likely (and openly!)to be condemned. It is laughable, because even Chinese and Japanese know very well, that it is as multiple and changable as can be.
A japanese friend once sent me several pages (!) simply Ki-connected translations, and I warned the RD forum, that all they would get is roaring laughter or polite silence at best from the east, but for sure no giving up of it, any which way.
Nor would they give up their according kanjis or so. The gap between this different understanding and way of handling it is very high and lies in a far more associative and complex way of dealing with it in the east in contrary to the small boxes offered by the west.
As such it also could give an idea, how western religion tried to keep doors open, but was pinned down into boxes. Fundies are a good example, and there are fundies in religion as well as in science. And thats the major problem and dangerous. While fundies say, those with open windows are dangerous, like witches, artists etc., clearly because they just jump over the walls in minds and better be silenced, hehe. But its too late now.
Einstein himself had many good laughs about this narrowmindedness, being friends with his dreams. . .
Thats why we artists like people like Rama and his curiosity and humour and open door for artists and syn, and ongoing, not hitting around. There are these and those, on all sides, yes.
As far as I can see at least. :-)

scorpion da black

Dec 14, 2007, 02:10

[QUOTE=Tsuyoiko;537208]I bet I could provide at least as many examples of where science disproves some points in religion ;-)
But that would be getting a bit offtopic!
[QUOTE]

sure you can....but not all science is true...some are theories, and some are ideas, and some are proved and taken as fact and after a moment of time it is disproved and it seems wrong..........

some times the people who link religeous texts and science make mistakes in interpretations.......

you can tell for sure...
but nothing of what you can provide can prove you right over me..or prove me right over you...

guess if there is a God , then we will get to know on judgment day...if there is such a day...
i choose to beleieve in religion and in science as well...i even make my faith stronger when reading both together...
well if i happen to meet God at least i believe in him...
but if you meet hi then sux to be you :blush: (just kidding)

Tokis-Phoenix

Dec 14, 2007, 02:43

Religions problem with science is that what sciences proves often conflicts with what is said in religion, and sciences problem with religion is that religions blind faith concept often fustrates it and puts barriers in the way of its ultimate causes.

You can never keep the two apart though. I think religion is an important aspect of our societies and can do many positive things, but on the other hand i think it can often make itself into an obsticle in the face of progress.

People say the Bible is the word of god and all of that, but the way i see it, it is basically a book of morals and the beliefs of people that tried to explain the world around them. I truley think if people were aware of the actual age of teh earth, or the concept of evolution, or of gravity, or the existance of viruses and bacteria etc etc, that a lot of the bible would have problem been written a lot differently back then if people had been aware of stuff like this.
People back then in the days of Jesus thought that if you got sick you must have done something wrong or some sort of demon had posessed you, people thought that children who weren't baptised could not enter heaven or hell and just spent the rest of eternity in pugatory or whatever they call it etc- even in the medievil times christians were burning and drowning innocent women alive on suspicion of being witches, and all sorts of wicked cruel forms of torture were devised for those convicted of being gay etc.

I don't think religions like Christianity are the whole and final truth, if there was a God, i don't think he'd agree with everything said in the Bible- you have to take into consideration that the Bible is one of the most edited books in the history of man, and so much of the original writings have been lost and so much new material has been added, so much stuff has been lost in translation etc.
Christians were even completely oblivious to the existance of a book of Mary, or a book of Judus or of Joseph etc until the dead sea scrolls were discovered!

So basically, i cannot completely believe in the bible when you take these things into consideration- don't get me wrong, i really do think that the bible has a lot of good things to teach, but at the end of the day i am more willing to lend my ear to the words of science than to that of the Bible (although at the end of the day i listen to both sometimes, since religion does sometimes raise important moral and ethical questions sometimes over what we are doing in science etc).
IMHO, you could say that science has done and given us so many more positive things than what religion has done in recent times- without science, we wouldn't have electricty, vacines and cure's for diseases, anesthetic/pain killers, an understanding of our world like gravity, the atmosphere, the age of the earther etc etc etc....

What do you do though with problems like the teaching of creationism and evolution in schools though? Teachers are supposed to have an unbaised views on such things, but should we really be teaching a concept of creationism that is proven to be wrong?

"The teaching of evolution is becoming increasingly difficult in UK schools because of the rise of creationism, a leading scientist is warning.

Head of science at London's Institute of Education Professor Michael Reiss says some teachers, fearful of entering the debate, avoid the subject totally.

This could leave pupils with gaps in their scientific knowledge, he says";

Full story;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7028639.stm

Hmmm....

Mars Man

Dec 14, 2007, 15:22

In order to help keep this thread, then, on topic (and I may start one to deal more specifically with the issues themselves ①) I will simply state my opinion--again.

The general realm of science--what I will call pure science, and which is in opposition to Scientism (a bit more fundamentalisic in outlook)--should test the tenets of each and every human endeavor related to the universe we live in. This will of course include the religious belief-systems that are out there.

The element of religiosity which the homo sapien mind has built in, apparently, has been the 'emotional' element which has driven science (see definition above) and the old religious belief-systems. Therefore, it is not 'science against religion,' but rather 'science against religious belief-systems' that I am arguing for and trying to promote.

①The OP here is asking basically for members' opinions without actually opening the door for discussion of the issues.

Elizabeth van Kampen

Dec 14, 2007, 18:08

Hi Mars Man,

During my youth in Indonesia, there was a lot of superstition besides that being a good Muslim was also very important. I am talking about the years before WWII.

But when I stayed one month in Indonesia ( Sumatra and Java), in 1996, I noticed that outside the big towns people are still superstitious.
The wayang, shadow play with puppets, is still important.

I have often asked myself if superstion is also a sort of in-born religion?
In Holland my parents generation didn't want to pass under a ladder, because that could bring on lots of bad luck. Black cats too bring on bad luck, a.s.o. I still see people avoiding walking under a ladder.

In the beginning of the Japanese occupation in Indonesia ( 1942) we all of a sudden had quite some snakes getting in the house. My mothers cook, Rasmina, told me that this meant that we ( my whole family) had to leave the house by force. Snakes in the house are a very bad sign.
I don't like snakes, I believed her. And she was right.

Is superstion a primitive religion? Is it also, what you, Mars Man, call a belief-system?
Or is it simply an instinct to protect ourselves and those we love, against bad luck and worse?

Mars Man

Dec 14, 2007, 23:23

Just a quicky here, to keep it on topic. I would say that the source of that emotion is religiosity, while the statements, once wielded into a format (as rules of thumb) become the a belief system. Nice to see you joining in Elizabeth van Kampen san !!

karlyboo

Dec 14, 2007, 23:35

Should Science keep interfering and should religion keep philosophising?

I'd argue for both. Although both camps are coming from different angles they are attacking the same problem. Humans are innately curious (George?) creatures and we want explanations.

What I feel Science has over religion is that one observes, forms a hypothesis that fits the explanation and then attempts to either disprove or prove the hypothesis.

Religion seems to have attacked the problem from the other direction and form the hypothesis first and then find a reason to explain away anything pointing to the contrary.

Both need the capacity to update themselves to reflect new findings, and whilst imperfect the scientific disciplines seem to achieve this reasonably well for the most part (although a certain religious fervour does seem to prevent some scientists from accepting new ideas). Science's capacity for self-correction is very powerful IMO.

Ideally both would meet in the middle somewhere and counterbalance one another. Heart forming compromise with head.

Although I can understand a certain hostility to Science from the religious camp... it's not easy having established and (in theory) ultimate truths, handed down by an Ultimate Being, disproven (the Earth not being the centre of the Universe, the Earth being slightly older than 6000 years etc.) and having to ret-con these findings into your belief system.

Tsuyoiko

Dec 17, 2007, 04:25

but not all science is true...some are theories, and some are ideas, and some are proved and taken as fact and after a moment of time it is disproved and it seems wrongDepends what you mean by 'true' and by 'fact'. Science develops explanations for observed phenomena. I guess when we talk about scientific fact we mean an observation. For example, that we share 90-odd% of our genes in common with chimps is a fact. The explanation of why this is so is a hypothesis or a theory, depending on how much evidence there is to support it.

The philosopher Karl Popper requires of a scientific statement that it is falsifiable. In other words, that it can be disproved is what makes it scientific. When the weight of evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of a hypothesis, such that predictions can be made on the basis of the hypothesis that are subsequently shown to be correct, the hypothesis is 'promoted' to the status of 'Theory'. Note that in scientific language, a theory is considered as proven. In layman's terms the word 'theory' seems to imply some doubt - but not in the scientific sense.

Don't you think that it's getting less likely that current scientific knowledge will be completely overthrown?

What I feel Science has over religion is that one observes, forms a hypothesis that fits the explanation and then attempts to either disprove or prove the hypothesis.
Religion seems to have attacked the problem from the other direction and form the hypothesis first and then find a reason to explain away anything pointing to the contrary.Yes: generally speaking, Science is bottom-up whereas Religion is top-down. Science observes everything and formulates an explanation taking account of all those observations. If anything is observed that contradicts that explanation the hypothesis must be reformulated. For example: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case.

Since Religion starts with the conclusion, only evidence that supports that conclusion is accepted - as you say, anything to the contrary is explained away - perhaps even simply ignored. For example: Here’s what the Bible says. Now let’s go to the rocks and see if we find the evidence for it.

centrajapan

Dec 17, 2007, 05:10

Is superston a primitive religion? Is it also, what you, Mars Man, call a belief-system?

Superstition does not have to be primitive and religion complex.I think religion and superstition are both phycological defense mechanisms for uncertanties.

Revenant

Dec 17, 2007, 13:22

Religion is as I see it a defense against psychic entropy. Religion provides meaning to life, a purpose, some goals, and prescribes ethical behavior all in one package that is supposed to fit all the general needs for life. The religions are probably some of the most ambitious attempts to create order in consciousness. For their time, they often did a pretty incredible job of creating that order in consciousness. I mean, for example, a Christian man a hundred years ago would do all he could, and then simply say 'It's in God's hands now', and worry no more about a particular concern, completely confident that God would do what was best. That kind of faith is harder to find these days.

But after studying the history of religions, the similarities between Zoroastrianism and Judaisnm and Christianity, after reading about the pretty radical changes that a religion like Christianity has gone through since it's inception, and the fact that Christianity just doesn't agree with all points of science (and science has probably done the most to bring us to where we are now. I mean, for example, a person with some kind of phobia wouldn't be able to overcome that phobia were it not for a soft science like psychology).

In short, I think that minus the hope that believing in a fundamental set of beliefs brings, science offers so much more these days for those that look to deal with pychic entropy, find meaning to life, and an ethical philosophy to go through life with.

Chi65

Dec 17, 2007, 21:18

...but not to forget, science did similar "witchhunts" and serious silencings as religion, where it did not (yet) understand, but does more and more now.
Many bad things were projected with the written amens from "scientists", as much as it was with amens of the church, even in similar cases. I am always wondering, why nevertheless science is hardly ever criticised for that.
People like me(synaesthetes, artists) were having a real bad time, were it not for the official papers from our artschools, that gave us some fool's freedom, which for example even a van Gogh did not have.
Some lucky ones were called genius about the very same things, that brought others into closed hospitalisations.
And in religion this was not much different, who served the interests and goals of the church (I am not saying, god), ran free, who refused to believe everything, did burn.
Its powergames in the end, and free and clear thinkers were chased on both sides.

I always like the way, the buddhists kind of included shinto in Japan for example (not always peacefully, but with a certain acceptance) and how for example during certain festivities there still seems to be a kind of respect amongst them.
Unthinkable in our regions for long.

And referring to the openness of Buddhism to some science (Dalai Lama states, that when something is proven to be wrong, it has to be changed, like a pair of worn out trousers, so his example), there should be some hope for cooperations.

We need wider views and more discussions amongst religion and science for sure, be it to find out, where and what can be changed. To me, both sides have some valid points and only need some "other" explanations.

Tsuyoiko

Dec 17, 2007, 21:59

...but not to forget, science did similar "witchhunts" and serious silencings as religion, where it did not (yet) understand, but does more and more now.Not sure I would go so far as to say 'witchhunts' - could you give an example? But sure, Science isn't perfect. There are times when Scientists refuse to accept new discoveries, clinging dogmatically to old theories. But that's scientists, not Science ;-)

Elizabeth van Kampen

Dec 17, 2007, 22:40

Too many Gods, too many creeds.
So many hopes that twist and wind,
When all it is this old world needs,
Is just the art of being kind.

Chi65

Dec 17, 2007, 23:20

Not sure I would go so far as to say 'witchhunts' - could you give an example? But sure, Science isn't perfect. There are times when Scientists refuse to accept new discoveries, clinging dogmatically to old theories. But that's scientists, not Science ;-)

Exorcism these days killed some women lately, one was a nun on balcany, another one a german women.
It was in the press and confirmed. And the german ones had to face court for murder and were fount guilty. The woman could have been helped via medicine. I have kept the article from a very respected magazin somewhere, it was during the last 4 or 3 years.
The points for excorsim are very old and still (!)valid and passed around in the catholic church, I have the list somewhere and will search.
Very similar points are on the index of several scientists (!), it makes me shudder often enough, because it fits several basic experiences of us synnies!
(but thanks to Rama etc. . . even the most sceptical ones now provide me with positive research-informations on a very sceptical forum. I won't give up at all, you see :-))
Just as some examples.

And yes, Elisabeth Van Kampen san, you are soo right!
Thank you very much, although sometimes its not easy to enter without a defence in mind, from experience. ;-)

Mars Man

Dec 17, 2007, 23:38

Religion provides meaning to life, a purpose, some goals, and prescribes ethical behavior all in one package that is supposed to fit all the general needs for life.

This, I would again--and please bear with my redundency, but--argue is the very core of the matter. This, however, is not a particular belief-system (which I still notice needs to be taken into more careful consideration) that's being talked about, but religion that is an emotional function of the human (at least) brain. This is what I would re-term as 'religiosity' to avoid misusage.

From this very aspect of the human brain, it most reasonably appears, has come the drive of the various religious belief-systems that humankind have come up--from those of the humanoids who walked the plains in Africa 3 million years ago, to Scientology. It is from this very source that scientific method was born, that science as a thought form came to be. It is from this very exact emotion that art form also came to be.

I would yet wish to encourage all to consider the more precise definition--Judaism is a belief-system, Christianity and Isalm are belief systems, Jainism and Hinduism are belief-systems, Buddhism and Confucianism have become (largely) belief-systems, and so on. In that these are focused on a deity entity, they are 'religious' (as opposed to secular) in nature, thus, religious belief-systems.

To the degree that the data bases (tenets) of the several systems do not intersect nor union, they are different. To the degree that they are different, they cancel each other out as being fully truthful to empirical knowledge and the test of time. In that that has been shown to be the case, a third party should inspect them. At one time that was philosophy, today, the general field of pure science carries most of that burden.

Tsuyoiko

Dec 18, 2007, 02:03

To the degree that the data bases (tenets) of the several systems do not intersect nor union, they are different. To the degree that they are different, they cancel each other out as being fully truthful to empirical knowledge and the test of time. In that that has been shown to be the case, a third party should inspect them. At one time that was philosophy, today, the general field of pure science carries most of that burden.Exactly! So it's entirely appropriate for Science to investigate belief systems, religious or otherwise.

yumeitsumo

Dec 19, 2007, 01:35

Well, personally I believe that God made everything, so god made science. Science may be a pitiful attempt for humans to figure out everything god made. I am a christian I guess... But Whatever I say I'm not sure if I'm so sure of. GOsh i don't make sense. Anyway! GOD MADE SCIENCE. GOD MADE US. GOD ROCKS.

Amen. I love Science. It's fascinating. GO science!

>.< especially astronomy. <3

Chi65

Dec 19, 2007, 02:44

As long as science does not think, it knows all and everything (like some religious systems) and all others don't and stays open to unexpected turns and corrections, I do not mind.
It can surely help to overcome some worn out clothes, but has to consider itself to be in constant change. And there are some problems in the weaving, and we have to be carefull not to take it for the ultimate and only view, which it isn't, however much it wishes to.

Mycernius

Dec 19, 2007, 06:17

Well, personally I believe that God made everything, so god made science. Science may be a pitiful attempt for humans to figure out everything god made. I am a christian I guess... But Whatever I say I'm not sure if I'm so sure of. GOsh i don't make sense. Anyway! GOD MADE SCIENCE. GOD MADE US. GOD ROCKS.
Amen. I love Science. It's fascinating. GO science!
>.< especially astronomy. <3
Which God? Plenty to choose from.

Doc

Dec 19, 2007, 06:36

Which God? Plenty to choose from.
The one that knows how to party! :cool:

Chi65

Dec 19, 2007, 09:36

At least to laugh, also about it-self

;-)

Dimitree

Dec 20, 2007, 06:46

Stephen Jay Gould claimed to believe that the realms of science and religion should be kept separate, and that neither should encroach on the other's territory. Exploration of and exposition on the physical universe is the realm of science, and religion shouldn't speculate on matters of fact and theory. Likewise, questions of morality and ultimate meaning are religion's business, and science should keep its nose out.

Although I'm a great fan of the late Professor Gould, I have to disagree with him on this point. I think it's science's business to question everything and shove its nose into everyone's business. Think creatively enough, and you can phrase any question as a scientific hypothesis. Consider Richard Dawkins' claim in The God Delusion:

Quoted from Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#Non-Overlapping_Magisteria_.28NOMA.29)

As for questions of morality, while science might not be able to offer absolute answers to ethical questions, I think it's entirely appropriate for scientists to investigate those questions, in the hope of providing some insight. For example, we (in the UK at least) allow abortion up to a certain stage of pregnancy because of a scientific understanding of foetal development. Without that insight, how would we make a decision?

What's your opinion? Should science stick its nose in where it might not be welcome? Conversely, should religious leaders speculate about scientific facts?

Sciance has become a religion for lots of people.
I just want to remind you that Sciance is nothing more then Observing what's alredy there ( and not in a satisfying way and precision ) Manipulating matter that also was already there (forget about the "we created" statements we simply Manipulated what was already there) and last but not the least Asuming in order to make something work ( for example Sciance Asumes that all the missing links in the bone archives of human "Evolution" asumably existed or do exist and are yet to be found asumingly ... ).

I have nothing against people who try to explain things in one way or another.
But making sciance something to be a stone to build your hous on to is as foolish as one can get.
Why ?
Because today scinace says that apples are purple.Some crazy person goes out looks at the apple and says it's green ! The whole world mock him and tell him how stupid he is.Two days later sciance says the apple is green ...

If you want to build your understandings of the world and everything on something completely unrealible and false and dayly changing then go with Sciance.

Doc

Dec 20, 2007, 07:15

At least to laugh, also about it-self
;-)

Oh I think God has a sense of humor.

Ever seen a duck billed platypus?

Better yet, ever wonder why there are so many idiots in the world today?

I think things like that help keep God from being bored.:D

-Doc :wave:

Revenant

Dec 20, 2007, 09:56

If you want to build your understandings of the world and everything on something completely unrealible and false and dayly changing then go with Sciance.What do we then build an understanding of the world on then? The Bible? The Koran? The Lotus Sutra?

1. People of a lot of different faiths hold convictions that theirs is the one true faith, and some Buddhists believe that if a non-believer experienced the Dharma, the non-believer would without doubt become Buddhist, or some Christian believe that if a non-believer experienced the Holy Spirit, the non-believer would without doubt convert to Christianity.

So we can't assume that, for example, the Buddhist has the knowledge because of his convictions, or that he's a superb guy. Were I to do that though, I'd go with the Dalai Lama. He's a living example of a guy who's found serenity.

2. So if we can't or shouldn't follow the lead of those who hold strong convictions that theirs is the true faith, then how do we determine which is the correct set of beliefs? On feeling alone? My friend tells me that Dreams Come True is positively the best band out there. Dunno, I didn't notice anything about them that was even memorable. Somehow I think some religious paradigms work a lot like that. Some people are deeply moved by a religious paradigm, while others are not moved at all. And considering it's not just one idea involved with a religion, but complicated sets of them? I mean, the paradigm of original sin works very well for a person like my mother, but it's positively destructive for others. They feel an overwhelming sense of 'I am not a good person' and for a lot, just a whole lot of what I would consider unnecessary guilt.

So...... as I see it, we can't determine which of the religious texts is correct on someone's convictions, or that a particular person holding certain beliefs is a superb guy (I imagine there are superb people within almost all belief systems). Nor can we decide which is correct based on which paradigms move me the most.

So how do we decide which belief system is correct?

Dimitree

Dec 20, 2007, 14:31

Mikawa Ossan

Dec 20, 2007, 16:30

Why not build it with observation ?That's exactly what science is, my friend!
Why not build your own truth about it ?Yes, each of us has our own experiences and our own "truths". Science is not the be all end all of things, but humanity has been able to do remarkable things using science that never would have been possible otherwise.
Why do you have to rely on some guy somewhere, or bunch of people to tell you what's what and what's not what ???That's largely how I feel about religion, especially the monotheistic ones.
Why join the pop culture ?
Why be lazy :-)
Because it's fun and interesting, and that's what most people seem to want. The "pop" in pop culture does come from the word "popular", after all!

Tsuyoiko

Dec 20, 2007, 22:21

But from my personale experiance relying on sciance is the last thing to do.Do you believe the Earth is a sphere that goes around the sun? Do you know that it's the force of gravity that prevents us all flying off into space? Do you eat? Do you use clean water from a tap? Do you drive a car or ride a bike or even walk along tarmac-ed roads? Do you use a computer? Did you ever get your picture taken? Watch TV? Visit the doctor? Wear clothes? If you do any of those things, or almost anything that any of us do in a normal day, then you are relying on science.

(btw: is 'tarmac' even a verb?)

karlyboo

Dec 20, 2007, 22:29

I'm not saying to build your world on a religius belives :okashii:
I was not religius 23 years of my life.
But from my personale experiance relying on sciance is the last thing to do.
Why not build it with observation ?
Why not build your own truth about it ?
Why do you have to rely on some guy somewhere, or bunch of people to tell you what's what and what's not what ???
Why join the pop culture ?
Why be lazy :-)

And what about those of us who subscribe to a Scientific explanation because we actually grasp the reasoning behind it and agree?

Who precisely are this vague group of people who believe everything Science tells them because its trendy?

You're developing a very strong knack for telling people why they think certain things rather than finding out from the people themselves. Do you read tea-leaves or something?

centrajapan

Dec 20, 2007, 22:38

Do you believe the Earth is a sphere that goes around the sun? Do you know that it's the force of gravity that prevents us all flying

Do you believe due to gravitiy from each planet that it affects human beings due to magnetic fields? I think humans do get affected by magnetic fields but not sure if they are from a planet. Maybe. There are magnetic fields on mobile phones, and around us on this planet therefore if we are affected by magnetic fields out in the universe it would be weak or in a way which we are not aware of yet. Do you believe some cultures claculated how long the world would take to go around their axis? The equinox . Not just around the sun but how many years it would take to see the stars at same place. again.

karlyboo

Dec 20, 2007, 22:42

Do you believe due to gravitiy from each planet that it affects human beings due to magnetic fields? I think humans do get affected by magnetic fields but not sure if they are from a planet. Maybe. There are magnetic fields on mobile phones, and around us on this planet therefore if we are affected by magnetic fields out in the universe it would be weak or in a way which we are not aware of yet. Do you believe some cultures claculated how long the world would take to go around their axis? The equinox .

Not all planets have a magnetic field and it's nothing to do with gravity, it's generally to do with the iron composition of the planet (the Earth for example has an iron core).

And yes, the ancient Greek's worked out that the Earth was round and its circumference many years before the birth of Christ. Very clever bunch.

Chi65

Dec 20, 2007, 23:20

And yes, the ancient Greek's worked out that the Earth was round and its circumference many years before the birth of Christ. Very clever bunch.
And there we go, the christians "flattened" it again, and other beliefs too, spilling the child with the bath, so to say.
While it is still clear, that there is a surface, there also is much more behind and already known for long and relatively easy to dig out again. And science can do a good part in the work, even if not the whole, that would be as narrow and the same spillings, only on the other side of the coin.
To my humble knowledge.

karlyboo

Dec 20, 2007, 23:35

And there we go, the christians "flattened" it again, and other beliefs too, spilling the child with the bath, so to say.

But God said it was flat!! Why would he lie to us? ;)

Mycernius

Dec 21, 2007, 01:04

And there we go, the christians "flattened" it again, and other beliefs too, spilling the child with the bath, so to say.

Jumping to conclusion a bit quick. It was the Victorians that put about the myth that mediaeval people thought the Earth was flat. Read Dantes divine comedy. He knew the Earth was a sphere. Even when he and Virgil climbed down Satans legs, at the very centre of Hell (which was the centre of the Earth) he knew that when they reached the midway point they would have to turn to climb up, and that was at the turn of the 13th century.

yumeitsumo

Dec 21, 2007, 02:52

Which God? Plenty to choose from.
The Christian God. Whatever. Religion is silly to tell you the truth. It's just another thing us pitiful humans try to follow and understand. :souka:

Dimitree

Dec 21, 2007, 03:03

That's exactly what science is, my friend!
Yes, each of us has our own experiences and our own "truths". Science is not the be all end all of things, but humanity has been able to do remarkable things using science that never would have been possible otherwise.
That's largely how I feel about religion, especially the monotheistic ones.
Because it's fun and interesting, and that's what most people seem to want. The "pop" in pop culture does come from the word "popular", after all!
Well sciance is not exactly that ;)
Sciance is an institution.The provider of knowledge for this world.
They teach you all the things sciance came up with from the beggining in kindergardens to the end of univs and so on.
You look at your cat and your cat mews, your cat understands you, your cat responds to your commands, your cat aperantly speaks with other cats, your cat finds answers of difficult questions and situations with no problem.Yet sciance tells me that my cat is simply operating on instincts, and cats can't speak -_-.But oh no tell that to your cat that mews nex to the food cup or when it's cold or when it needs attention.Yes cats dont need words like My Bi Em Double V needs maintenance but they sure speak.Not to mention dogs and other animals.
I can go on forever :) not with the animals stuff ... There are Billions of trillions of examples of what people are being teached and made to belive in and how different the reality is.
I also consider any atheist the most lazy person on earth.I was atheist 23 years of my life but i worked hard and now i know how wrong i was.
And i can't even start typing the Physics proffesionals and so on proffesionals which i met in my life who found out how big and full with empty space is the balloon of sciance world.
Also Sciance is exceptions intollerant.
Exceptions go in a dark black corner never to be seen.
Also anything that contradicts sciance is to be placed also in that dark corner never giving the chance of true knowledge to live.
I guess if you read how some "revolutionary" discoverys in the sciance world came to be you will find that it was a battle on life and death betwean the homogen sciance sociaty and the unlucky person that found out somethign is wrong.
I am against sciance because it applys the principle of Comunists.
Everything that doesn't compute to our belives is against us and should be scilanced, forgoten, destroyd and so on.
And just for the Christian haters here :)
Try your best to find which sciantist were Christians and then i Dare you to type a single word agains Christianity. Thank you vewy much :souka:

Anyway i just want to propose to everyone to question everything they know and everything they hear and do the reality check.
Sooner or later if you have the curage to be honest with your findings and accept them as they are you will no doubt about it find out some very very interesting things :p

Mycernius

Dec 21, 2007, 03:33

Well sciance is not exactly that ;)
Sciance is an institution.The provider of knowledge for this world.
They teach you all the things sciance came up with from the beggining in kindergardens to the end of univs and so on.
You look at your cat and your cat mews, your cat understands you, your cat responds to your commands, your cat aperantly speaks with other cats, your cat finds answers of difficult questions and situations with no problem.Yet sciance tells me that my cat is simply operating on instincts, and cats can't speak -_-.But oh no tell that to your cat that mews nex to the food cup or when it's cold or when it needs attention.Yes cats dont need words like My Bi Em Double V needs maintenance but they sure speak.Not to mention dogs and other animals.
I can go on forever :) not with the animals stuff ... There are Billions of trillions of examples of what people are being teached and made to belive in and how different the reality is.
Oh the innanity of it. A cat responds to the dominant animal around it. You are the dominant animal that it interacts with. It is not understand your language, you are just anthropomorphiclising the relationship that you have with the cat. The cat also has a fairly complex brain that allows it to solve cetrain problems that it encounters. Ours is even more complex which allows us to grasp abstract ideas, something a cat, dog or rabbit could never do. Yet a crocodiles brain is so primitive that you can predict what a croc is going to do.
I also consider any atheist the most lazy person on earth.I was atheist 23 years of my life but i worked hard and now i know how wrong i was.
Oh how wrong you are now. You are still an atheist when it comes to Allah, Ra, Vishnu. As for being lazy. I prefer to learn about life and research, read and learn. You appear to have given that up. Your curiosity has been killed by theism. If anything you are the lazy one. You have decided to let your intellect waste away into a bunch of superstitious nonsense.

Also Sciance is exceptions intollerant.
Exceptions go in a dark black corner never to be seen.
This coming from a theist! If life has taught me anything the theists are the most intolerant people on the planet. Not many atheists go around strapping bombs on themselves to die for an ideal. Or oppress a people because of the colour of their skin or sexual preference because a big book of fables says so.
Also anything that contradicts sciance is to be placed also in that dark corner never giving the chance of true knowledge to live.
I guess if you read how some "revolutionary" discoverys in the sciance world came to be you will find that it was a battle on life and death betwean the homogen sciance sociaty and the unlucky person that found out somethign is wrong.
I agree that in the past science has been against various discoveries, but science does move on and these discoveries are examined and bought to light. Unlike religion that will stubbornly stick to a point until they look completely foolish. The Catholic church refused to accept Galileos heliocentric universe until the 20th century. Talk about remaining in the dark. Even now there are theists that truely believe that this world and the universe is only 6000 years old
I am against sciance because it applys the principle of Comunists.
That is one of the most stupidist comments I have ever seen.
Everything that doesn't compute to our belives is against us and should be scilanced, forgoten, destroyd and so on.
No, human ignorance is to be beaten. Science improves our lives, increases our knowledge and has dragged the human race out of the dark ages of superstition. Yet we still retain the works and art of those times. Even build big expensive museums to put them in, publish books and papers on our history. hardly keeping people in the dark is it?
And just for the Christian haters here :)
Why do assume that all atheists are christian haters?
Try your best to find which sciantist were Christians and then i Dare you to type a single word agains Christianity. Thank you vewy much :souka:
Issac Newton was a christian, yet he formulated the theory of gravity, and then spent sometime trying to fit God into it.
List (http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science) of other Scientific Christians
Anyway i just want to propose to everyone to question everything they know and everything they hear and do the reality check.
I suggest you do that yourself, because somewhere along the line superstition has crept in.
Sooner or later if you have the curage to be honest with your findings and accept them as they are you will no doubt about it find out some very very interesting things :p
I have and I do

Dimitree

Dec 21, 2007, 03:46

Oh the innanity of it. A cat responds to the dominant animal around it.
For my last post in this section of the forums :)

"A cat responds to the dominant animal around it"
Get a cat :)
Cats don't give a nicle about who you are.

The rest of your post is simply assuming fake wrong incorrect fantasy style things about me and what i think and how i came up with it so i will not comment.But i wonder how is it possible for me to write "Potatoe" and you to read "Potatoe" and then blame me for "Why do assume that all atheists are christian haters?"
Please quote me the line where i sayd " All atheists are Christian haters"
I dare you ! :wave:

But please get a cat.You will find out how much i loughted over your bold and loud statment :p
Just as i enjoy the bold and loud statments of people who never realy saw a "cat" (for example)

Edit: Ou i forgot to tell a joke ^_______^

Do you know what will happen on the day when God will write his name with the stars on the sky for all non belivers ?
The sciantists will go out on CNN and say " Well because of some besare and strange astro phenomena, a couple of stars recently changed their position.For some people the new possitions of the stars write the name God Allmighty, but others say that it looks more like a pig.We are researching this phenomenon and rest asured that you will know it first on CNN when we come up with explenation"

:D:D:D

Mycernius

Dec 21, 2007, 04:32

For my last post in this section of the forums :)
"A cat responds to the dominant animal around it"
Get a cat :)

I have two (three at the beginning of the year), plus a dog. I have always had cats and dogs in my life.
Do you know what will happen on the day when God will write his name with the stars on the sky for all non belivers ?
The sciantists will go out on CNN and say " Well because of some besare and strange astro phenomena, a couple of stars recently changed their position.For some people the new possitions of the stars write the name God Allmighty, but others say that it looks more like a pig.We are researching this phenomenon and rest asured that you will know it first on CNN when we come up with explenation"
Cute Joke, but to over analysis; what will that name be, Allah, Yahweh, Vishnu, The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Why do assume that all atheists are christian haters?"
Please quote me the line where i sayd " All atheists are Christian haters"
I admit I did assume, as I have had this thrown at me before. If a mistake was made then I apologise.

Chi65

Dec 21, 2007, 04:51

But God said it was flat!! Why would he lie to us? ;)
Which God? Surely a manmade one, because that one clearly is not allknowing thus(!;-))

Doc

Dec 21, 2007, 04:53

I admit I did assume, as I have had this thrown at me before. If a mistake was made then I apologise.

Just remember that most people on both sides don't feel that way about 'atheists vs religious' and vice versa. The problem lies with a few key idiots on both sides who like to make a big deal out of things just to do it.

-Doc :wave:

bakaKanadajin

Dec 21, 2007, 04:55

Science and religion are of course, irreconcilable. Trying to fuse the two or somehow reach a perfect agreement is impossible, it's like mixing oil and water.

A better question is whether scientific pursuit and spirituality are mutually exclusive or not, because there is a lot of religiosity out there that's devout yet void of true spirituality. I would say they're not exclusive. Spirituality does not require any specific paradigm of thought, therefore there is no violence done to science. Likewise, science does not have to disagree with a spiritual existence, in fact further understanding the world around you through science can increase your level of spirituality and awareness.

Chi65

Dec 21, 2007, 05:07

Jumping to conclusion a bit quick. It was the Victorians that put about the myth that mediaeval people thought the Earth was flat. Read Dantes divine comedy. He knew the Earth was a sphere. Even when he and Virgil climbed down Satans legs, at the very centre of Hell (which was the centre of the Earth) he knew that when they reached the midway point they would have to turn to climb up, and that was at the turn of the 13th century.

Never mind, it was also metaphorical, since several images in the older east go much further in many points, surprisingly enough. Some meet pretty modern science images nowadays. I say images, because they (science) can "play" it via "measurings and countings" as abstracts etc., but not prove the existence for example of a multiverse, but in the images of old China it appears already, and I suppose, also for Hindus etc. it is nothing really new, once you know what to search for.

By the way, the journey to the center of the earth from Verne later is one of my favourites, and can as well be explained in psychological sense. But there you are kind of thrown out like in a volcano, if I remember right. Well, as good.

The east had far less problems with inside outs or outsides as inside images simultaneously. Later on, "flattenings". . .somewhat lack of imagination and experiences, I suppose.

A fine part of the Karma-game is also, that you may not be able to go further without going backwards first. . .which often means your memory. . .

Do you know the ravens of Odin/Thor, by the way?

centrajapan

Dec 21, 2007, 05:12

And yes, the ancient Greek's worked out that the Earth was round and its circumference many years before the birth of Christ. Very clever bunch.

Greeks probably used Greek numbers to calculate the equinox. Seems complicated. I don't think there was a number zero 0 then. Egyptians used to calculate equinox too.

I say images,

The human brain aparently store all info converting to images. In religion you often hear in the beginning god wa wa wa. Actually in the beginning humans created an image of god then god wa wa wa.

Tsuyoiko

Dec 21, 2007, 23:07

You look at your cat and your cat mews, your cat understands you, your cat responds to your commands, your cat aperantly speaks with other cats, your cat finds answers of difficult questions and situations with no problem.Yet sciance tells me that my cat is simply operating on instincts, and cats can't speak
Which scientist said that animals don't communicate? And how is the fact that they communicate contradictory to their acting on instinct? My rabbit scratches my leg when he's hungry. That's communicating. That's instinct.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_communication)

There are Billions of trillions of examples of what people are being teached and made to belive in and how different the reality is.
If there are billions of trillions of examples why not list a few right here?

I also consider any atheist the most lazy person on earth.I was atheist 23 years of my life but i worked hard and now i know how wrong i was.
Generalisations are banned here ;-)

Apart from the logical irregularity of that statement, the evidence just isn't there. The atheists posting here are knowledgeable, thoughtful people, who work hard to back up their claims with carefully reasoned arguments and links to further information.

You, on the other hand, make sweeping judgments and provide no evidence to back up what you say. Another thing that's been bugging me, and seems to suggest some laziness on your part: the word 'science' is spelled with two 'e's. Your first misspelling was forgivable, but despite almost everyone on this thread using the word countless times you still insist on spelling it incorrectly.

And i can't even start typing the Physics proffesionals and so on proffesionals which i met in my life who found out how big and full with empty space is the balloon of sciance world.
Please start typing them. Give us a few names we can Google to verify what you say.

Also Sciance is exceptions intollerant.
Actually, science is exceptions hungry. Falsifiable hypothesis is the first course of bricks in the edifice of Science, the foundation being observation.

Exceptions go in a dark black corner never to be seen.
No. Exceptions are sometimes hard to accept at first because people are understandably reluctant to admit that all their hard work was in vain. But exceptions eventually lead to new hypotheses.

I guess if you read how some "revolutionary" discoverys in the sciance world came to be you will find that it was a battle on life and death betwean the homogen sciance sociaty and the unlucky person that found out somethign is wrong.
Since you don't back up this claim with any evidence I'll help you out. A couple of examples spring immediately to mind:

1) We all know that Copernicus discovered scientifically that the solar system is heliocentric. There's a lot of hype concerning the rejection of his theory. Actually, at first there was just some muted interest - from both scientists and churchmen - and he was encouraged to do further study. His work was published as Copernicus lay on his deathbed. He died of a stroke in 1543.

Censorship came only well into the next century, long after Copernicus' death. It's my understanding that this criticism came entirely from the church, since heliocentrism contradicted scripture.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernicus)

2) What about Darwin's On the origin of Species?

The biologist Richard Owen is almost as famous for his opposition to Darwin as for his coining of the word 'dinosaur', but even his criticisms were more theological than scientific. He was concerned that descent from apes would 'bestialise man', and he believed that comparative anatomy showed 'archetypes in the mind of God' rather than evidence for natural selection.

True, Darwin was pained by the criticism he did receive, but I just don't see that that opposition came from the scientific establishment. Even the famous debate at the British Association in 1860 was seen at the time as a debate between science and religion - with both sides claiming victory.

See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_to_Darwin%27s_theory)

If those examples don't illustrate the so-called 'life-and-death battle' you had in mind, please feel free to provide your own :okashii:

Sooner or later if you have the curage to be honest with your findings and accept them as they are you will no doubt about it find out some very very interesting things :p
Why not try a taste of your own medicine? ;-)

Tsuyoiko

Dec 21, 2007, 23:16

I am against sciance because it applys the principle of Comunists.
LOL! OK, just for fun I looked up the Communist Manifesto (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_manifesto), just to see if those principles are applied by science. :emblaugh:

Planks of the Communist Manifesto:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes
Just think how far science could have gotten if that were the case! Unfortunately, precious little public money goes into scientific research, which is why so much of it funded by charities or private companies.

A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
LOL! Scientists don't earn enough to pay high taxes :D

Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Hmm, one of the most criticised areas of science right now is its growing ability to control what we inherit ;-)

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
We might have a brain drain, but as far as I know if a scientist leaves their native country they can still take all their stuff with them :D

Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Actually, I think it's scientists who were the first to speak out for the preservation of rural areas, at least in the 20th century.
See here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aldo_Leopold)

Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form.
OK, maybe scientists would go for that one, but really, who could argue with that? :p