IS "SCIENCE" THE "NEW RELIGION"?

[Magic Fills the Air]

I personally don't think scientists are manipulating what governments are saying about climate change. I think the problem is that governments aren't paying enough attention to what the real scientists are saying. Governments pick and choose data that fits in with their policy approaches which makes them electable.

In answer to your original question, no I don't think science will ever be the new religion because people don't give a damn about what scientists are telling them about climate change. If they did it would mean making radical lifestyle changes and no one wants to do that. They'd rather lead their lives in ignorance because, in the short term, unlike with religion, there's nothing for them to gain from it.

[BIGDAN]

I don't like doing this, but I can't help myself. I'm chopping this up and keeping it pithy.

So you would acknowledge that there was probably a problem and take action. That's the answer I was looking for.

Of course i acknowledge that there is a problem, but the problem is that there are many things to consider not just MMGW, and much of those problems we have no control over.

The difference is that science has peer review. Others can replicate your experiments call bullshit if your data are fabricated or manipulated. Your reputation will be damaged and your study will not be taken seriously. That's part of the reason science works (and why science should never be compared to religion).

I never ever compared Science to Religion, i keep stating that its the Governments that Manipulate the Facts to suit their agendas that i compare to a Religion, now i would like to know why you still don't get that simple fact, and this is what gets my goat, why you are still trying to say "I do"?

Sometimes you have to defer to the experts. No matter how wise and worldly you are, climate scientists know more about the climate than you do. When you make claims that contradict the consensus of those who have devoted their lives to a field, you better have some earthshaking evidence to support your claims.

What when the "Experts" cannot agree amongst themselves? I cant come up with evidence that Man is responsible for Global Warming, firstly because i do not have equipment or the resources to do so and secondly because i have to rely on other people to do that for me, i can only pick a side to whom i will believe. Climatology is not a True Science because it relies on Data that as yet cannot be Proven, in time it most surely will be but now it remains a debate that is not yet resolved.

Please tell me why the science itself isn't as important to you as how the masses react to its conclusions.

Science is much more important to me than how the masses react to its conclusions, but Manipulated Science has as much use or importance to me as a fly in the air, lead me to your proof and i will take a good look at it as i have done for many years now, you never know your direction might just convince me to have a change of heart.

I'm starting to notice a pattern. This is the fundamental difference between you and me. You think you have a better understanding of a subject than the people who have devoted their lives to it.

I have no such thing, the difference between us is that you take everything you hear and see from people you respect as the "Gospel Truth" and i don't, have you even considered the other Scientists points of view? how they have elongated the hockey stick graph on Global Warming to uncover that CO2 rises AFTER the Worlds Temperature rises and not before it?

I don't claim to have the answer to global warming. Ask a climatologist.

I have, and they didn't have any answers either because they believed that other factors will become more prevalent in the future.

Regards, Danny

[MMAharaja]

Lead me to your proof and i will take a good look at it as i have done for many years now, you never know your direction might just convince me to have a change of heart.

I can't convince you, and I'm not trying to. Arguing often has the effect of cementing your own beliefs, regardless of the strength of your opponent's arguments. But if you're serious, you can start here. The reports on that site should keep you busy for days.

I have no such thing, the difference between us is that you take everything you hear and see from people you respect as the "Gospel Truth" and i don't, have you even considered the other Scientists points of view? how they have elongated the hockey stick graph on Global Warming to uncover that CO2 rises AFTER the Worlds Temperature rises and not before it?

I don't take everything I hear and see from people I respect as gospel. If I did I would still be denying humankind's contribution to climate change. You asked if I'd even considered the other scientists' point of view, and the answer is yes. I used to deny climate change. After a few years studying science (at a university, not in front of a computer screen), my perspective evolved. I learned how and why science works, which is why I'm siding with the scientists who have mountains of evidence, instead of the ones who are trying to find cracks in those mountains. Based on what I've read and heard from climate scientists, their case if far more compelling than anything I've heard from the opposition. There's a reason why "no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."

[Kiwi_Zep_Fan87]

This topic is causing my brain to explode but I just want to share this quote which I found to be pretty interesting (as far as the whole issue of Governments trying to manipulate statistical data for their own gains is concerned).

"There are three kinds of lies : lies, damned lies and statistics."

- Mark Twain's Own Autobiography: The Chapters from the North American Review

Just my two cents. Sorry to interrupt!

[BIGDAN]

I can't convince you, and I'm not trying to. Arguing often has the effect of cementing your own beliefs, regardless of the strength of your opponent's arguments. But if you're serious, you can start here. The reports on that site should keep you busy for days.

I don't take everything I hear and see from people I respect as gospel. If I did I would still be denying humankind's contribution to climate change. You asked if I'd even considered the other scientists' point of view, and the answer is yes. I used to deny climate change. After a few years studying science (at a university, not in front of a computer screen), my perspective evolved. I learned how and why science works, which is why I'm siding with the scientists who have mountains of evidence, instead of the ones who are trying to find cracks in those mountains. Based on what I've read and heard from climate scientists, their case if far more compelling than anything I've heard from the opposition. There's a reason why no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.

Thanks, i will seriously give it some time and thought, lets leave it there for now, except can you give me what "reason" in your last sentence? and even if I'm wrong about which side i support i want you to know that i think it is better that we edge our bets and start putting money and resources in to other forms of how we make and use our energy, i know you know what I'm talking about.

It turned out nice in the end, once we stopped all the posturing, lets see if we can remember that in the future, you and me both.

Regards, Danny

[MMAharaja]

Thanks, i will seriously give it some time and thought, lets leave it there for now, except can you give me what "reason" in your last sentence? and even if I'm wrong about which side i support i want you to know that i think it is better that we edge our bets and start putting money and resources in to other forms of how we make and use our energy, i know you know what I'm talking about.

It turned out nice in the end, once we stopped all the posturing, lets see if we can remember that in the future, you and me both.

Regards, Danny

Sure. The reason is that there are mountains of evidence supporting the claim that humans are influencing climate change.

Yeah, I guess we can get along.

[Magic Fills the Air]

I saw this article on the BBC news website today and thought it was very relevant to this debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11380916

[silvermedalist]

I saw this article on the BBC news website today and thought it was very relevant to this debate.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...gazine-11380916

Very good arcticle. But like with that physics professor, it all boils down to the one argument. How do you get something from nothing? How do you set off the chain of events from gases or theory behind the big bang at all? How do you get the has in a void? The smartest thinkers and scientists cannot answer this. and they never will.

[Electrophile]

I side more with scientists who say that they can't prove something that is beyond the scope of their knowledge and education than with people who believe some omnipotent, omnipresent being just went "poof". Evolution is real, carbon dating is real, fossils are real......I believe that at some point in the history of mankind, science will explain what we call The Big Bang. If they were able to prove those things, I can't see why this one is beyond it.

[silvermedalist]

I side more with scientists who say that they can't prove something that is beyond the scope of their knowledge and education than with people who believe some omnipotent, omnipresent being just went "poof". Evolution is real, carbon dating is real, fossils are real......I believe that at some point in the history of mankind, science will explain what we call The Big Bang. If they were able to prove those things, I can't see why this one is beyond it.

There is much they can proove and much that they can only call theory. They certainly cannot prove that God does or does not exist. They still do not know for sure what did in the dinosaurs. They seem to be leaning more towards the meteor strike now, the lack of oxygen in the aftermath of the hit. But other theories have not been dismissed either. Debating religion, life on other planets and all of this is certainly interesting but it causes arguments to occur when some start to say that one's belief's are way off and such. I think it is probably better to simply debate the science and leave God out of it for the most part. Because we all have different beliefs. Personally, I have no problem saying God and science can live together in harmony.

[MMAharaja]

Very good arcticle. But like with that physics professor, it all boils down to the one argument. How do you get something from nothing? How do you set off the chain of events from gases or theory behind the big bang at all? How do you get the has in a void? The smartest thinkers and scientists cannot answer this. and they never will.

The "and they never will" part bothers me. Science has made tremendous progress since its creation a few hundred years ago. What makes you think the origin of the universe unanswerable, considering that in such a short amount of time, we've explained so much that was once thought unknowable?

[beetleron]

science is a religion....yes......not such a new one though

a branch of it......environmentalism is one of the newer cults though

[MMAharaja]

There is much they can proove and much that they can only call theory. They certainly cannot prove that God does or does not exist. They still do not know for sure what did in the dinosaurs. They seem to be leaning more towards the meteor strike now, the lack of oxygen in the aftermath of the hit. But other theories have not been dismissed either. Debating religion, life on other planets and all of this is certainly interesting but it causes arguments to occur when some start to say that one's belief's are way off and such. I think it is probably better to simply debate the science and leave God out of it for the most part. Because we all have different beliefs. Personally, I have no problem saying God and science can live together in harmony.

First of all, scientists aspire for their work to become theories. That's as good as it gets.

Regarding proof, it simply does not exist. We can't possibly take every single measurement (past, present, and future) so it's possible that we're missing an exception to the theory or law. However, we can explain with near certainty the nature of many aspects of reality. Some things, like some people's concept of god, are unfalsifiable, therefore science isn't interested. If we can't test it, and if it doesn't have a measurable effect in the real world, why should we even worry about it?

As far as the dinosaurs, the consensus is that a meteor killed them. Few reputable scientists still deny this.

[Atlas]

There is an incredible amount that science takes on faith. Among them is the inherent belief that the Universe is orderly and that rational process can be applied to gain an understanding of Universal Laws.

[MMAharaja]

There is an incredible amount that science takes on faith. Among them is the inherent belief that the Universe is orderly and that rational process can be applied to gain an understanding of Universal Laws.

If we assumed that everything was chaotic, there would be no reason to try to gain knowledge, because nothing would be predictable and the observations we made would be irrelevant to the future. Fortunately, science has made many observations that have resulted in accurate predictions, so clearly there is some order to the universe.

By definition science does not address the supernatural, so in a sense you're right, but to call it faith is misleading. It's more of a practicality than a faith, since no progress would be made if we assumed supernatural forces were causing disease, earthquakes, lightning, etc. as most of our ancestors did.

[BIGDAN]

Ain't life a bitch? you do all you can to help the environment then you find out you are doing more harm than good, its back to the drawing board for the Scientists again, and this time get it right or Prof Hawking will get a flat one.

Regards, Danny

http://www.timesonli...icle2507851.ece

PS, Is this another case to suggest that Science is becoming the New Religion? will Prof Hawking be elected Pope? or Rabbi? or even Ayatollah?

[silvermedalist]

Ain't life a bitch? you do all you can to help the environment then you find out you are doing more harm than good, its back to the drawing board for the Scientists again, and this time get it right or Prof Hawking will get a flat one.

Regards, Danny

http://www.timesonli...icle2507851.ece

PS, Is this another case to suggest that Science is becoming the New Religion? will Prof Hawking be elected Pope? or Rabbi? or even Ayatollah?

Who started this thread? Oh. thats right. You!!! Look what you have started now!!!

[redrum]

PS, Is this another case to suggest that Science is becoming the New Religion? will Prof Hawking be elected Pope? or Rabbi? or even Ayatollah? :lol

Hawking does porn.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgTtHI_T7sw

[Anjin-san]

Hi all,

If science explains everything,...what is left?

KB

[BIGDAN]

Hi all,

If science explains everything,...what is left?

KB

GOD

[Atlas]

If we assumed that everything was chaotic, there would be no reason to try to gain knowledge, because nothing would be predictable and the observations we made would be irrelevant to the future. Fortunately, science has made many observations that have resulted in accurate predictions, so clearly there is some order to the universe.

By definition science does not address the supernatural, so in a sense you're right, but to call it faith is misleading. It's more of a practicality than a faith, since no progress would be made if we assumed supernatural forces were causing disease, earthquakes, lightning, etc. as most of our ancestors did.

There is much that a scientist takes on faith. The only Universe we know directly is the one in our minds. All else is taken on faith. Bear in mind that I have never been a Judeo-Christian-Muslim. The only church I ever attended on a somewhat regular basis was Unitarian.

In itself, the insight is not new. The earliest records, to my knowledge, date back some 2500 years or more... the recognition ATMAN = BRAHMAN (the personal self equals the omnipresent, all-comprehending eternal self) was in Indian thought considered, far from being blasphemous, to represent the quintessence of deepest insight into the happenings of the world. The striving of all the scholars of Vedanta was after having learnt to pronounce with their lips, really assimilate in their minds this grandest of all thoughts.

Again, the mystics of many centuries, independently, yet in perfect harmony with each other (somewhat like the particles in an ideal gas) have described, each of them, the unique experience of his or her life in terms that can be condensed in the phrase: DEUS FACTUS SUM (I have become God). ~ Erwin Schroedinger

We are what we think.

All that we are arises with our thoughts.

With our thoughts we make the world.

Speak or act with an impure mind

And trouble will follow you

As the wheel follows the ox that draws the cart.

We are what we think.

All that we are arises with our thoughts.

With our thoughts we make the world.

Speak or act with a pure mind

And happiness will follow you

As your shadow, unshakable. ~ Siddhattha Gotama

[Atlas]

Hi all,

If science explains everything,...what is left?

KB

Can science ever prove that what you see as red looks the same to me? Can science prove the axioms of mathematics?

[Magic Fills the Air]

There is much that a scientist takes on faith. The only Universe we know directly is the one in our minds. All else is taken on faith. Bear in mind that I have never been a Judeo-Christian-Muslim. The only church I ever attended on a somewhat regular basis was Unitarian.

That's right everything around us is based on what our conscious minds perceive to be around us. Everthing we see, hear and feel is channelled through our minds. Scientists can't offer a full explanation for why our conscious minds exist in the first place or whether we're the only beings on earth who are aware of our consciousness. I personally believe that some animals are also aware of this, for example dolphins which, like us, have the ability of commit suicide when they're severely distressed. However, consciousness and intelligence doesn't necessarily mean there being is a supreme being. I'm sure science will one day be able to offer an explanation.

[BIGDAN]

Can science ever prove that what you see as red looks the same to me? Can science prove the axioms of mathematics?

I have Scientific proof/evidence of this Phenomenon, MISSED BIGDANS choice of paint, although She would say the same about my choice as well, especially as to What goes with What, and Whats wrong with Black and White? its better than the Beige and Brown or the 70s or the Lime Green and Orange of some of the immigrants homes I've seen don't you think?

Regards, Danny

[Atlas]

I have Scientific proof/evidence of this Phenomenon, MISSED BIGDANS choice of paint, although She would say the same about my choice as well, especially as to What goes with What, and Whats wrong with Black and White? its better than the Beige and Brown or the 70s or the Lime Green and Orange of some of the immigrants homes I've seen don't you think?

Regards, Danny

Shall I assume that is "Misses Bigdan"?