people believe blindly in science and theories such as darwin's theory of evolution without even reading 'The Origin of Species'.
This mirrors the same blind faith of most religous followers. So is science the new religion?
Originally posted by Churlant Science isn't new and science is not faith. Those who "blindly" believe in any theory, scientific or otherwise, are basing that opinion in faith.
-JC
As I said blind faith that same as religous blind faith
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 Is science the new religion?
people believe blindly in science and theories such as darwin's theory of evolution without even reading 'The Origin of Species'.
This mirrors the same blind faith of most religous followers. So is science the new religion?
Some people believe it blindly, but most scientists I think do not. I personally take with some scepticism any theory that I dont understand. I also am sceptical of many conclusions drawn on insufficient evidence and poor science or statistics. I also notice a lot of bias amoungst scientists. However I accept as fact most of the major scientific Theories, even though I may not have studied them in detail or understand them fully, based solely on the fact that they are accepted by the scientific community in general.
I dont think this is blind faith and I am willing to change my views if evidence to the contrary becomes available. That is why it is not 'blind' faith.
I have not read 'The Origin of Species' (except for a few pages). But I do think I understand most of the Theory of Evolution and can see that it makes sense and have personally seen lots and lots of evidence for it.
I also dont see why you used the word 'new' as science and its adherents is as old as religion, and is in fact older than all the major religions of today.
Originally posted by Churlant Except your implication is that all science can be qualified as "blind faith". This is incorrect. Science by definition is the opposite of faith.
-JC
You're misinterpreting me guys......not science , but the believers of science have blind faith, not the priests of science the scientists, buit the followers who 'blindly' believe the theory of evolution as an accepted fact with out readind Darwin and so on. In this sense the general public (most not all) become like a cult and belive blindly the doctrine of science without questioning it ...phew...
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 You're misinterpreting me guys......not science , but the believers of science have blind faith, not the priests of science the scientists, buit the followers who 'blindly' believe the theory of evolution as an accepted fact with out readind Darwin and so on. In this sense the general public (most not all) become like a cult and belive blindly the doctrine of science without questioning it ...phew...
Eventually I have no real idea of your ultimate point.
Is science the "new religion" because some people have blind faith in the theory of evolution?
On The Simpson's last night, the voice of reason, Lisa, found herself in a struggle against "the myth of creationism." Exasperated at the ignorance of the myth propogators, she offers as proof of evolution's veracity, the so-called consensual opinion of the scientific field.
Everytime the issue is raised, the same argument is made, lending it an authority undeserved and unsupported by the facts. There are many scientists who reject evolution as a viable explanation for life. Here's a quote from the Discovery Institute along these lines:
"Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution."
Lisa Simpson was used to represent the everyman of reason, and yet the everyman who follows (either way) based on the numbers game truly lives by faith. Blind faith.
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 Read the above post.......Thanks KBH
KBH's post is irrelevant. If this thread is supposed to be about science in general, then it is important to point out that even those who ignorantly follow a specific scientific premise can view the evidence available and form a truly educated opinion at any time. This means that "blind faith" can be replaced with a reliance on facts. "Blind faith" as it pertains to religion will always remain blind because there is a lack of physical evidence and verifiable fact.
If this thread is becoming yet another anti-evolution rant, the same support applies. Evolutionary theory is based in large part on physical evidence, as well as experimental and verifiable scientific conclusions. Despite what agenda-driven organizations such as the Discovery Institute would have us believe, evolution rests on very solid ground.
Originally posted by Churlant KBH's post is irrelevant. If this thread is supposed to be about science in general, then it is important to point out that even those who ignorantly follow a specific scientific premise can view the evidence available and form a truly educated opinion at any time. This means that "blind faith" can be replaced with a reliance on facts. "Blind faith" as it p ...[text shortened]... the Discovery Institute would have us believe, evolution rests on very solid ground.
-JC
Todays truth is tomorrows lie...
But this thread is NOT about science but about the generic populace and how they follow scientific propaganda like it was the ultimate truth, some people have replaced their need for religion with science. Yes science is verifiable with the contemporary resources we have but thats not the point its the sheep like or herdlike as Nietzsche would say, mentatlity that the public adhere to when it comes to any world view be it religous scientific or otherwise........................
Originally posted by Vladamir no1 Todays truth is tomorrows lie...
But this thread is NOT about science but about the generic populace and how they follow scientific propaganda like it was the ultimate truth, some people have replaced their need for religion with science. Yes science is verifiable with the contemporary resources we have but thats not the point its the sheep like or h ...[text shortened]... o when it comes to any world view be it religous scientific or otherwise........................
I simply reject your premise. The "need" for religion is unlikely to be replaced with a "need" for science because the two perform different psychological functions. People may be willing to accept a statement as fact with little or no supporting information, but this habit only points to a general behavior which is present in all manner of discussions - from science to religion to fast food ingredients.
Today's truth may be tomorrow's error, but no scientific truth becomes a "lie". More often today's truth evolves to become tomorrow's truth, and so on.
15 May '06 14:19
If religion is a belief system
Back to Top