IS "SCIENCE" THE "NEW RELIGION"?

[BIGDAN]

I really don't know where to start, so I'll just pull out the part that pissed me off the most and see where it goes.

You would probably be dead right now if not for science. Science has added decades to the average human life through everything from medicine to sanitation to increased crop yields. Without science, you wouldn't have a computer, a cell phone, or a car. At night you would have a fire instead of light bulbs and a heater.

Science has been invaluable to our species because it's the best method we have for learning about the world around us. Science is constantly changing and expanding, and all that matters is the evidence.

The problem is that you seem to have a hard time understanding that sometimes reality is scary. Global warming isn't manufactured to instill fear in the masses, it's real. It's not something that a bunch of scientists came up with in a meeting, it's the best explanation we have for all of the known data. If you can come up with a better explanation for those observations, or if you can prove that the observations have been fabricated, be my guest. You might even win a Nobel Prize for it. Of course that's not going to happen, because science works, and based on your diatribe, you don't even know how.

Hi 'MMAharaja'

I'm talking about how "Science" is being USED and MANIPULATED not about "Science" itself, its doesn't take a degree in Brain Surgery or Rocket Propulsion to see that does it, and by the way the best explanations are not SCIENTIFIC FACT, they are not ever FACT, they are just someones idea of how to explain something that they don't really know enough about, just like Religion and God, until it happens its all supposition really, and lets not forget even the best scientists don't even agree on what is happening with Global Warming.

So jog on with your incessant attacks on me before you say something you will regret, be it by the Mods or by an act of God, i have fiends in high place, and that's not a spelling mistake SONNY.

Regards, Danny

PS, The trouble with Scientists and Science is that they have no Humour, Religion has no Facts and Comedians like me have no Faith, you getting it now BOYO?

[MMAharaja]

Hi 'MMAharaja'

I'm talking about how "Science" is being USED not about "Science" itself, its doesn't take a degree in Brain Surgery or Rocket Propulsion to see that does it, and by the way the best explanations are not SCIENTIFIC FACT, they are not ever FACT, they are just someones idea of how to explain something that they don't really know enough about, just like Religion and God, until it happens its all supposition really, and lets not forget even the best scientists don't even agree on what is happening with Global Warming.

So jog on with your incessant attacks on me before you say something you will regret, be it by the Mods or by an act of God, i have fiends in high place, and that's not a spelling mistake SONNY.

Regards, Danny

PS, The trouble with Scientists and Science is that they have no Humour, Religion has no Facts and Comedians like me have no Faith, you getting it now BOYO?

Regarding global warming, I wouldn't say that the science is being used for any purpose other than to keep its predictions from becoming reality. In a sense, the scientists' goal is to see a day where their predictions do NOT come true. If anything is being "USED" in this scenario, it's the government.

I agree that the best explanations offered by science are not necessarily fact. Until we've collected every shred of data possible, you can't prove any claim. But based on what we do know, global warming is very, very real. To say that the consensus of the world's climate scientists is "just someones [sic] idea" is insulting to the thousands of people who have devoted their lives to the field.

Here's an example that I hope will hit home with you. You notice a strange smell in your house. Eventually, you find out it's an electrical problem, so you call an electrician. He tells you there's a 90-99% chance that your house will catch on fire in the next few weeks due to bad wiring. You're skeptical, so you call another electrician. He tells you the same thing. You call another . . . and another . . . and another, and they all say the same thing. Finally, the 31st electrician has good news! There isn't anything to worry about! But then 30 more electricians tell you exactly what the first one did. They tell you there's a 90-99% change that your house will burn down.

What would you do in this situation? Would you listen to the 97% of experts that say you're in danger, and ask for suggestions? Or, would you say to yourself, "until it happens its all supposition really," and then sleep well knowing that one out of 31 electricians says your house is fine?

[Atlas]

Einstein didn't believe in God, this is what he said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Sorry to burst your bubble!

Note the adjective "personal".

[Tristan]

Hi 'Tristan'

I made no such mistake, i never once mentioned Mammals, the Bible says God created Man in His own image and likeness, Genesis 1:27 , i deduced that if Man is Created in the image of God then Man is as God and God is as Man, that has nothing to do with the universal-affirmative convert so i am not wrong as I'm not using it.

It also explains to me that Humanity comes from another Humanity which We call God, its more likely a Starship Admiral than a Deity in my honest Logical Opinion.

Regards, Danny

Yes, I know you never mentioned them, it was just an example of this conversion.

"God is man" is a universal affirmative proposition, so you had to use the u.a.convert, and you used it wrong.

But it changes only the concept, it does not change your point that much.

Is "science" the "new religion"? Yes, most probably. Science is a mystery to masses, in the same way religion is (or was).

But is science the new religion? In my opinion, no, and it can never be.

I am a scientist to be, I study to be a physicist, and yet (by now) I am religious, in my own way. Science is something I do, and love, and it can never be mixed with something as powerful as religion. They can coexist, actually I see the world as a kind of symbiosis of these two.

One of my college professors, academician V. Paar, warns that global warming is not the planets biggest problem, he has a theory of his own that global warming is just an introduction to a new ice age.

[Magic Fills the Air]

Note the adjective "personal".

Yes, Einstein may not have believed in a 'personal' God in the sense that religious people believe in, i.e. a supernatural conscious God that created the world and is the very being of our existence. Einstein was implying that God exists philosophically as part of nature. As he himself stated:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein saw the universe and God as one. So in reality Einstein was just redefining the word God to mean 'universe', a position Richard Dawkins and other athiests would be very comfortable with.

[Magic Fills the Air]

Regarding global warming, I wouldn't say that the science is being used for any purpose other than to keep its predictions from becoming reality. In a sense, the scientists' goal is to see a day where their predictions do NOT come true. If anything is being "USED" in this scenario, it's the government.

I agree that the best explanations offered by science are not necessarily fact. Until we've collected every shred of data possible, you can't prove any claim. But based on what we do know, global warming is very, very real. To say that the consensus of the world's climate scientists is "just someones [sic] idea" is insulting to the thousands of people who have devoted their lives to the field.

Here's an example that I hope will hit home with you. You notice a strange smell in your house. Eventually, you find out it's an electrical problem, so you call an electrician. He tells you there's a 90-99% chance that your house will catch on fire in the next few weeks due to bad wiring. You're skeptical, so you call another electrician. He tells you the same thing. You call another . . . and another . . . and another, and they all say the same thing. Finally, the 31st electrician has good news! There isn't anything to worry about! But then 30 more electricians tell you exactly what the first one did. They tell you there's a 90-99% change that your house will burn down.

What would you do in this situation? Would you listen to the 97% of experts that say you're in danger, and ask for suggestions? Or, would you say to yourself, "until it happens its all supposition really," and then sleep well knowing that one out of 31 electricians says your house is fine?

I couldn't agree with your last point more. So much emphasis is put on the scientists who are environmental sceptics, yet they form a tiny minority. Science is based on empirical research and theories of falsification, for example trying to prove that something isn't real or happening. If from the evidence scientists are unable to prove falsifaction then it becomes scientific fact. For example, the earth isn't flat or the centre of the universe are now scientific facts. Theories aren't just plucked from thin air. There is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific discipline that climate change is real. It has a firm basis in physics and is supported by a wealth of evidence from real world observations. Scientists may disagree about the rate at which the earth will warm up during this century because they don't know how successful they will be in convincing governments to reduce their carbon emissions.

[MMAharaja]

If from the evidence scientists are unable to prove falsifaction then it becomes scientific fact. For example, the earth isn't flat or the centre of the universe are now scientific facts.

BLASPHEMER!!!!!

The earth is the center of the universe. It also happens to be flat.

Look at all those doctors!!!!

I'm sure Dan will gladly point out that it's all just supposition. Can't you see there are dissenters? The jury is still out.

(on a serious note, everything in your post is spot-on)

[Atlas]

Yes, Einstein may not have believed in a 'personal' God in the sense that religious people believe in, i.e. a supernatural conscious God that created the world and is the very being of our existence. Einstein was implying that God exists philosophically as part of nature. As he himself stated:

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."

Einstein saw the universe and God as one. So in reality Einstein was just redefining the word God to mean 'universe', a position Richard Dawkins and other athiests would be very comfortable with.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

[Magic Fills the Air]

BLASPHEME!!!!!

The earth is the center of the universe. It also happens to be flat.

Look at all those doctors!!!!

I'm sure Dan will gladly point out that it's all just supposition. Can't you see there are dissenters? The jury is still out.

(on a serious note, everything in your post is spot-on)

I should book a place at that conference. I might learn something!

[Magic Fills the Air]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism

Pantheism and atheism are so similar, there is only a very thin wedge between them. I believe Einstein described himself in public as agnostic, although nobody knows what his private views were.

[Atlas]

Pantheism and atheism are so similar, there is only a very thin wedge between them. I believe Einstein described himself in public as agnostic, although nobody knows what his private views were.

He stated that among the major religions Buddhism seemed most consistent with his own views.

http://home.earthlink.net/~johnrpenner/Articles/Einstein1.html

Bear in mind that Einstein was far from morally perfect. He pretty much betrayed his first wife and children.

[redrum]

Consulted Stephen Hawking lately?

He's another nut.

[redrum]

Einstein didn't believe in God, this is what he said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Sorry to burst your bubble!

The streets will flow with the blood of the non-believers!

[jabe]

Einstein didn't believe in God, this is what he said:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Sorry to burst your bubble!

Einstein: "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[SteveAJones]

When Jehovah's Witnesses come knocking on my door and start to trying to convert me to their religion, all I need to do is ask them if God created 'man' in his own image why did he put the dinosaurs on earth for 160 million years?

A priest would merely respond with "it's a mystery".

[redrum]

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

I knew it. Buncha lame-o's!

She blinded me with SCI-ence!

[Atlas]

"What" is not "New"?

Regards, Danny

If you listen very hard the tune will come to you at last.

[MMAharaja]

Einstein: "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God."

Einstein: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Of course Einstein did not believe in the kind of god that the vast majority of religious people today believe in.

But even if I toss that out the window and accept the argument that Einstein believed in God, why is that important? Why have you put Einstein on a pedestal? He died decades ago and he's just one man. Did he have some kind of supernatural insight that no other scientists did? Many of today's physicists know much more about how the universe works than Einstein did. The National Academy of Science (which includes the leading scientists in the USA) is composed of 72.2% atheists, 20.8% agnostics, and only 7% who believe in a personal god.

[SuperDave]

A priest would merely respond with "it's a mystery".

My personal belief, is that everything happens for a reason. And the reason for that....I don't know. A mystery as you said!

[Atlas]

Of course Einstein did not believe in the kind of god that the vast majority of religious people today believe in.

But even if I toss that out the window and accept the argument that Einstein believed in God, why is that important? Why have you put Einstein on a pedestal? He died decades ago and he's just one man. Did he have some kind of supernatural insight that no other scientists did? Many of today's physicists know much more about how the universe works than Einstein did. The National Academy of Science (which includes the leading scientists in the USA) is composed of 72.2% atheists, 20.8% agnostics, and only 7% who believe in a personal god.

If you find this frustrating and boring, not because the subject doesn't interest you, but because the guy doesn't quite know what he's talking about and because he is going painfully slow, then you are in a position to talk about what Einstein did or did not believe about "God". IMO.

[MMAharaja]

If you find this frustrating and boring, not because the subject doesn't interest you, but because the guy doesn't quite know what he's talking about and because he is going painfully slow, then you are in a position to talk about what Einstein did or did not believe about "God". IMO.

Is there anything I said that you quoted that you actually don't agree with? Or is your point that since I don't know as much about general relativity as Einstein, I can't possibly know that others do? I'm not a physicist, but I do recognize that we've learned a whole lot about physics in the last five decades. My field is biology. I actually know more about evolution than Darwin. Do you see my point?

Edit: I'm five minutes in and he is going painfully slow. Who the hell doesn't know F=ma?

[Atlas]

Is there anything I said that you quoted that you actually don't agree with? Or is your point that since I don't know as much about general relativity as Einstein, I can't possibly know that others do? I'm not a physicist, but I do recognize that we've learned a whole lot about physics in the last five decades. My field is biology. I actually know more about evolution than Darwin. Do you see my point?

Sorry, all I did his hit reply. I really meant my reply to go to everybody participating. I wasn't singling you out. My bad.

Edit to add: he has a second order differential equation and he only wants one Law to solve it. That doesn't work.

[jabe]

Of course Einstein did not believe in the kind of god that the vast majority of religious people today believe in.

But even if I toss that out the window and accept the argument that Einstein believed in God, why is that important? Why have you put Einstein on a pedestal? He died decades ago and he's just one man. Did he have some kind of supernatural insight that no other scientists did? Many of today's physicists know much more about how the universe works than Einstein did. The National Academy of Science (which includes the leading scientists in the USA) is composed of 72.2% atheists, 20.8% agnostics, and only 7% who believe in a personal god.

Well, I figure Einstein didn't believe in the Anglo "God" Michelangelo painted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Einstein's ideas and opinions on religion/science gel with me. The miniscule parts I think I have a slight grasp of. The pedestal is present to be sure.

And I love % stats! 72.2 of the leading scientists "beleive" in atheism. I'm sure there are theorums and such we could Google to validify their point.

If "Einstein believed in God, why is tht important? You need to answer that.

[Atlas]

Atheism is the stage prior to realizing that the Life and the Truth is God.

[MMAharaja]

Sorry, all I did his hit reply. I really meant my reply to go to everybody participating. I wasn't singling you out. My bad.

Edit to add: he has a second order differential equation and he only wants one Law to solve it. That doesn't work.

I didn't see anything wrong with what he was saying in the beginning. But I've already admitted that I don't have a complete understanding of physics. I've taken three physics classes in my life, and that's it. But I do know more than Einstein about some things, including how his body worked. I study biology, not physics.

Again, I'll reiterate that I don't have a complete understanding of physics, especially modern physics.

I'll shout it from the rooftops if you want.

Now that that's out of the way, would you please address my points?

I'll summarize them for you.

1. Even if Einstein did believe in God, that's irrelevant. Even if understanding physics is the key to knowing God, there are plenty of people alive today who know more about physics than Einstein who do not believe in God.

2. Einstein's "God" is nothing like the gods that the vast majority of religious people believe in.

3. The majority of the world's best scientists today do not believe in God.

Also, please give me the most specific definition possible of the god that you believe in so I know where you're coming from.