Those "religious" people....

Originally posted by Coletti
"Science seeks truth" can be read as a religious statement.

Science is not a person who can seek things. By personifying science, you have made Science you object of worship. Your deity.

"Science seeks truth" means "science is a truth-directed activity". This is a description. To say it is in no way to "personify" science.

[EDIT: The rest of you post is equally nonsensical. Even if he had personified science, this would be in no way to deify it - e.g. "Scientists seek truth"]

Originally posted by KellyJay
Science. 🙂
Kelly

Science is a philosophical process by which we come to understand our universe based upon observations of the real world. It does not require belief, but actually flourishes best in environments where a lack of belief is present. It is our lack of belief that makes us investigate the world, it makes us unsure of our results and leads us to analyse and reanalyse them. It makes us develop statistical methods that tell us how much or how little confidence we should place in the information we have observed.

It differs from religions in that it does not require any outside influence, no gods, no creators, no mystical energies or miracles. It requires only the use of logic upon the real world.

Kelly, I've said this to you before, and I'll say it again - you'd better reconcile your apparent distaste and distrust of science, it is science that underpins our society, everything from the air you breathe to the food you eat and the gasoline that you put in you car. The medicines in your cupboard, the training that the surgeons who operate on you (which the christain church held back for 1500 years by their ban on human disection), right through to the computer that you write your drivel upon.

Regards
Louis

Originally posted by sasquatch672
How do you call science a "religion"? Science is a process of discovery. Science seeks truth.

But science (or to be more precise, the scientific method or 'methodological naturalism'😉 excludes supernatural explanations for natural phenomena.

If it truly sought the truth, it would keep all its options open - even the [possibly] improbable one of a supernatural explanation.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Ouch dude!

How do you call science a "religion"? Science is a process of discovery. Science seeks truth.

Religion fears science, not the other way around.

I believe people put their faith in science as much as people do
the religions of the world to color how they view the universe and
all that is within it. Science starts with nothing and seeks to build,
seeks to understand, always looking for something new to add
to the data base with which to use. It can never come to know
anything, because it will be seeking a new view, it is ever learning
and never coming to knowledge. With science there is no recognition
of anything, no truth, only the seeking of it.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Science is a philosophical process by which we come to understand our universe [b]based upon observations of the real world. It does not require belief, but actually flourishes best in environments where a lack of belief is present. It is our lack of belief that makes us investigate the world, it makes us unsure of our results and leads us to anal ...[text shortened]... man disection), right through to the computer that you write your drivel upon.

Regards
Louis[/b]

I agree with you, you are quite right science does not require belief,
but without a doubt people do. I have no distaste for science, it does
underpin my society to a degree. Science is just a methodology
or as you put it a process nothing more. I'm all for trusting our
processes as far as we can, but when we start making claims that
can only be taken on faith, then we should say that, and not attempt
to make it out to be something of a factual nature when it is not.
Opinions and conclusions are not always factual, data points are
data points, what they mean can be one thing, or something else
if we don't have all that is really required to understand what is going
on being taken into account.

You are very condescending in my opinion.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I agree with you, you are quite right science does not require belief,
but without a doubt people do. I have no distaste for science, it does
underpin my society to a degree. Science is just a methodology
or as you put it a process nothing more. I'm all for trusting our
processes as far as we can, but when we start making claims that
can only be taken ...[text shortened]... what is going
on being taken into account.

You are very condescending in my opinion.
Kelly

You feel I'm condescending, and that's fine by me - you have your opinion and I have mine. I feel that you are unwilling to accept evidence when it is presented to you if it doesn't fit with your world view. I also feel that people who deliberately attempt to undermine science whilst also relying on it for the quality of life they enjoy are hypocritical.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Science is a philosophical process by which we come to understand our universe [b]based upon observations of the real world. It does not require belief, but actually flourishes best in environments where a lack of belief is present. It is our lack of belief that makes us investigate the world, it makes us unsure of our results and leads us to anal ...[text shortened]... man disection), right through to the computer that you write your drivel upon.

Regards
Louis[/b]

You are wrong. Science does require some beliefs - or rather philosophical axioms.

First, science assumes external reality, independent of the mind that can be studied and known. External reality exhibiting order and laws that result in repeatable experimentation - making it understandable. As a Christian, a scientist understands that the universe displays order, design and nature's laws because the Creator built them into his creation.

Second, science assumes the law of cause and effect. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This law is foundational for the scientific enterprise, but it cannot be proven by the scientific method.

Third, science assumes the uniformity of nature, the present being like the past - the future being the same as well. It assumes that certain things in the natural world would remain constant - e.g. the boiling point of water at sea level would always remain the same... (err... provided sea-level remained the same)

The main disadvantage I see to science (as LH said above) is it excludes the possibility of the supernatural. This makes it in its philosophy a closed-minded system. Whatever you may be investigating "scientifically" the answers are already limited to mere natural explanations.

As to you selective history lesson about medicine - I'm sure you are aware that most of the hospitals in Europe during the so-called "dark-ages" were run by the church -- monks and nuns were providing the health care that you seem to claim the church was against. Also, some of the pioneering work on medicine and health-care was done by Christians (Louis Pasteur comes to mind); so blaming the Christian church for inhibiting surgical advancement just doesn't cut it. Incidentally, without Pasteur's work, had there been surgical work done, it would have become infected anyway, result in a painful gangrenous death.

Originally posted by Halitose

You are wrong. Science does require some beliefs - or rather philosophical axioms.
Agreed. Good post.
This pertains to the curtain many in the sundry science fields attempt to hide behind. They want their belief system to appears as cold, uncalculating, objective and balanced as is humanly possible, and therefore, adopt the clinical definition of science as their credo.

Those parts of the formula they add constitutes their 'mystery doctrine.' It remains a mystery, owing to their semantic gymnastics, hidden behind harumphs and technical jargon, purposely obfuscated, less the essence of their agenda be denuded.

As posted here before, some (not all) are attempting to use one legitimate field (science), illegitmately as a replacement to faith in God (rightly taught or otherwise), as the 'accepted' party-line rationale.
This was clearly not the intent of the fathers of modern-day science. Those Christians (surprise!) would be rolling in their graves, were they to see the chicanery that passes for science, and were their graves able to grip their spirits.

Originally posted by Halitose
You are wrong. Science does require some beliefs - or rather philosophical axioms.

First, science assumes external reality, independent of the mind that can be studied and known. External reality exhibiting order and laws that result in repeatable experimentation - making it understandable. As a Christian, a scientist understands that the universe displa ...[text shortened]... surgical work done, it would have become infected anyway, result in a painful gangrenous death.

Science requires belief?!

All science has been built up over a period of many years of experimentation, observation and refinement of models that explain the world in which we live. Axioms are really just a logical method of exploring the world using a synthesis of ideas built from core underlying facts.

Science assumes external reality.

Yes, this is true. And religion doesn't? We have huge amounts of data that it indicative of the world actually existing. We likewise have huge amounts of data the suggests that the universe does have rules - but there is no evidence that those rules were created by any supernatural power.

Science assumes cause and effect.

To an extent. As far as we know, the Big Bang had no cause, it just happened. Before the Big Bang there was no time for anything to happen in, so there could be no cause. That doesn't mean it didn't happen though. It was bound to happen eventually, given enough 'time' (time didn't exist, but it's the best word I can think of).

"Third, science assumes the uniformity of nature, the present being like the past - the future being the same as well."

Not entirely true. We know the universe has changed immensely over time. I think you're getting confused - it is christians that believe the universe has never changed. The boiling point of water depends on many things, atmospheric pressure being one of those. If the atmosphere were at a lower pressure then boiling would also be decreased. We have absolutely no reason to believe that the laws of physics have not changed since the Big Bang, indeed, we can explain the way the universe is better by keeping physics just as is.

Science does not rule out the supernatural per se. If there were direct evidence of supernatural intervention then science wouldn't have a problem, but there isn't. The fact that some scientists were christians does not alter the way science is now. There are many christian scientists out there now, and I have no problem with that, it's up to them to reconcile their faith with their work.

You seem to believe that without Pasteur germ theory would never have came about. It is perfectly simple, germ theory would have been discovered by someone else. Possibly earlier, possibly later. It would have happened, provided the discoverer had the opportunity to look at the real world and experiment. As soon as the Christian church banned human dissection they took away mankinds ability to learn about the human body.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You are wrong. Science does require some beliefs - or rather philosophical axioms.
Agreed. Good post.
This pertains to the curtain many in the sundry science fields attempt to hide behind. They want their belief system to appears as cold, uncalculating, objective and balanced as is humanly possible, and therefore, adopt the clinical definition o ...[text shortened]... to see the chicanery that passes for science, and were their graves able to grip their spirits.[/b]

What are you talking about? There is no mystery to science. Feel free to look up scientific journals of which there are many, and do some reading. Some will provide free access, and some you will need to pay. If science was a mystery, how would people be trained, and why do we teach it at both school level and university?

We use technical 'jargon' to describe our work because new words are necessary to describe new things. It's up to you to learn about them.

You try to say that science is 'obfuscatory', but I've always been told to sedulously eschew obfuscatory hyperverbosity or prolixity.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Science requires belief?!

All science has been built up over a period of many years of experimentation, observation and refinement of models that explain the world in which we live. Axioms are really just a logical method of exploring the world using a synthesis of ideas built from core underlying facts.

Science assumes external reality.

Ye ...[text shortened]... an church banned human dissection they took away mankinds ability to learn about the human body.

Before the Big Bang there was no time for anything to happen in,




Again, the Big Bang. Explain please this concept and where the material came from....

Originally posted by scottishinnz

As far as we know, the Big Bang had no cause, it just happened. Before the Big Bang there was no time for anything to happen in, so there could be no cause. That doesn't mean it didn't happen though. It was bound to happen eventually, given enough 'time' (time didn't exist, but it's the best word I can think of).
As far as we know, God has no cause, He just 'is.' Before the creation, there was no time for anything to happen in, so there could be no cause. That doesn't mean He didn't create though. He was bound to create eventually, given His attribute of sharing Himself.
Sounds eerily familiar, doesn't it?

I think you're getting confused - it is christians that believe the universe has never changed.
We do? Not counting the convoluted torture-mingling of bad science with bad hermeneutics, those who rely on the Bible accurately divided are of a right mind with relation to the conditions of the universe.

I would say you are getting closer to your goal, while unwilling (or unable) to declare the same.

Originally posted by AMX
Before the Big Bang there was no time for anything to happen in,




Again, the Big Bang. Explain please this concept and where the material came from....

Why do you have to have a 'where it came from'? I already explained that this is not a valid question because we cannot know the answer.

Time did not exist before the big bang. In one sense there was no before the big bang. That's kind of why the phrase 'big bang' is so apt - everything came into being.

You likewise cannot say what created god, and yet there must be an explanation. The hypothesis of scientists that the big bang created everything is more parsimonious than the idea that god created everything.

As you are so fond of pointing out, science can only operate in an environment where things exist - to ask science a 'what was before the big bang' doesn't make any sense because there was no before.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Science requires belief?!

All science has been built up over a period of many years of experimentation, observation and refinement of models that explain the world in which we live. Axioms are really just a logical method of exploring the world using a synthesis of ideas built from core underlying facts.

Science assumes external reality.

Ye ...[text shortened]... an church banned human dissection they took away mankinds ability to learn about the human body.

All science has been built up over a period of many years of experimentation, observation and refinement of models that explain the world in which we live.

Not 'all' science. For instance, Hawking's "multiverse" model has nothing to do with observed evidence. Also, IIRC, some of the assumptions of string theory went under the explicit assumption that strings cannot be observed empirically. I'm paraphrasing here - but you get the point.

Science assumes external reality.

Yes, this is true. And religion doesn't?

Some religions don't. Some philosophies don't (e.g. solipsism). The point is - science does make a very huge philosophical assumption here.

Your point about data about the rules of the universe is irrelevant here.

"Third, science assumes the uniformity of nature, the present being like the past - the future being the same as well."

Not entirely true. We know the universe has changed immensely over time. I think you're getting confused - it is christians that believe the universe has never changed.

Couldn't avoid slipping in an insult, could you? Actually read what he's written before jumping off to one of those "Oh you Christians are such idiots" speeches.

We have absolutely no reason to believe that the laws of physics have not changed since the Big Bang

Did you intend that double negative?

indeed, we can explain the way the universe is better by keeping physics just as is.

You may want to look up some recent research that indicates that certain universal constants (like the speed of light in vacuum, for instance*) has changed over time and is still changing.

---
* http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]All science has been built up over a period of many years of experimentation, observation and refinement of models that explain the world in which we live.

Not 'all' science. For instance, Hawking's "multiverse" model has nothing to do with observed evidence. Also, IIRC, some of the assumptions of string theory went under the explicit a ...[text shortened]... ged over time and is still changing.

---
* http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6092[/b]

The point I am making is that whilst there is some speculative science, there is typically some reason for that speculation, whether it is in the form of a development of a theory from axioms (themselves normally based on measurable phenomenon, such as the Universal background radiation for the big bang) that is consistant with the universe as we perceive it. String theory is like many other theories, explanations of the way the universe or one part of it works. Look at it this way, light is neither a wave nor a particle, but it can be described by the properties of both. 'Strings' cannot be observed directly, but they are a sound way of explaining certain phenomena.

Science on existance / nonexistance.

Science is a philosophical endeavor. That's why the qualification is a Doctor of Philosophy. The best anyone can do is say 'I think therefore I am'. However, if the universe does exist science is a method for probing and explaining that existance.

I did not 'slip in an insult' I merely pointed out that it is creationists who typically require the laws of physics to have changed to justify their viewpoint that the world is not 4 billion years (-ish) old. I have never said 'Christians are stupid'. I believe they are misguided, and they believe the same of me I'm sure.

Sorry, you are correct - I did not mean the use of a double negative there.

The speed of light varying has not been conclusively proved. From that article, it looks like the jury is still out. Indeed, even were it to be proven it would lead to revisions in our current science, but would not allow the changes that would be required for a 6,000 year old earth.