When science gets mistaken for just another kind of faith
The reason they'd call science our "religion" is very similar to why the word "atheist" exists : it's because we do not have a religion, therefore it must be called a "non-religion" and a "non-religion" has got to be just like a religion. Obvious, right?! Poor Aristotle must be turning over in his grave. If everyone is a sports fan and you're not, does that make you something? Of course it doesn't, but whenever there's a majority doing something, one will feel tempted to assign a qualificative to the minority that isn't doing it. It sounds like a way to justify the majority and make them think that we're forming "another team", playing their ridiculous game too. In fact, we're only just watching, although it does worry us when they make too much noise or when the result of their passion ends up affecting our own lives. Pushing the non-religious analogy a bit, if they start lobbying around and give us less opportunities to succeed in life because they dislike that we're not playing their game, then we have to somehow promote and defend our right to not be playing, even if it is ironic to the core. Looking up the definition of religion and the definition of science, we see that science is fundamentally different from religion. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe; science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. If they won't even read their dictionary, let them think what they want. But we won't allow them to deny any of our liberties simply because they're pissed that we don't share their passion for nonsense.
As Sam Harris said, however, religion is probably just failed science. If he's right, that would help explain why these two get so often and easily compared. Remember that with natural selection, it takes many, many unsuccessful attempts before something actually starts working right. For example, while the brain of a human baby is being formed, 10X the number of available connections have to be discarded because they just end up not having any use. What a waste! Not mentioning that our eyes are wired to the brain... backward...! If we really have a designer, that designer should have been fired a long time ago. He's such a slacker. What I really want to say is that, over tens of thousands of years, the same kind of "trial and error" process should have naturally happened with religion as well. As time passed, we had to build new models, or improve existing ones so that they could fit our new understanding of nature. Thousands of religions that could not adapt to these changes simply vanished. Such selective process also involved that a lot of energy would go to waste, creating relatively frequent regressions. In conclusion, we should not be too surprised at the current state of things; although I think it's safe to say that any religion will naturally disappear as soon as our understanding of the natural world has made it completely unfit to explain even a single thing. We've seen some religions disappear throughout history... and thanks to science, I'm confident that we'll see it again.
When Science Gets Mistaken For Just Another Kind O
|
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
When science gets mistaken for just another kind o
When science gets mistaken for just another kind o
I firmly believe science and religion should stay at least 200 meters away from each other at all times, then we wouldn't have these kind of issues.
[+]
In my mind, the main difference between science and religion is this:
Science is pursuing facts religion is believing faith
[+]
I'm not a man of faith but i still hate your threads
[+]
Ragnarok.Psyence said: When science gets mistaken for just another kind of faith The reason they'd call science our "religion" is very similar to why the word "atheist" exists : it's because we do not have a religion, therefore it must be called a "non-religion" and a "non-religion" has got to be just like a religion. Obvious, right?! Poor Aristotle must be turning over in his grave. If everyone is a sports fan and you're not, does that make you something? Of course it doesn't, but whenever there's a majority doing something, one will feel tempted to assign a qualificative to the minority that isn't doing it. It sounds like a way to justify the majority and make them think that we're forming "another team", playing their ridiculous game too. In fact, we're only just watching, although it does worry us when they make too much noise or when the result of their passion ends up affecting our own lives. Pushing the non-religious analogy a bit, if they start lobbying around and give us less opportunities to succeed in life because they dislike that we're not playing their game, then we have to somehow promote and defend our right to not be playing, even if it is ironic to the core. Looking up the definition of religion and the definition of science, we see that science is fundamentally different from religion. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe; science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. If they won't even read their dictionary, let them think what they want. But we won't allow them to deny any of our liberties simply because they're pissed that we don't share their passion for nonsense. As Sam Harris said, however, religion is probably just failed science. If he's right, that would help explain why these two get so often and easily compared. Remember that with natural selection, it takes many, many unsuccessful attempts before something actually starts working right. For example, while the brain of a human baby is being formed, 10X the number of required connections have to be discarded because they just end up not having any use. What a waste! Not mentioning that our eyes are wired to the brain... backward...! If we really have a designer, that designer should have been fired a long time ago. He's such a slacker. What I really want to say is that, over tens of thousands of years, the same kind of "trial and error" process should have naturally happened with religion as well. As time passed, we had to build new models, or improve existing ones so that they could fit our new understanding of nature. Thousands of religions that could not adapt to these changes simply vanished. Such selective process also involved that a lot of energy would go to waste, creating occasional regression. Because of this, we should not be too surprised at the current state of things. In conclusion, I think it's safe to say that any religion will naturally disappear as soon as our understanding of the natural world has made it completely unfit to credibly explain a single thing. We've seen some religions disappear throughout history... and thanks to science, I'm confident that we'll see it again. Your entire argument is void. Aristotle would facepalm reading what you wrote. Your argument is that religion is outdated and will naturally disappear when our understand of the natural world has made it uncredible. You're upset because you think that religion inhibits your freedom because it isn't based on fact. Here is a list of everything in the world that is not based on fact: 1. All ideology 2. All Laws(they arent real, they are man-made constructs of reality) 3. All government 4. All money 5. All society 6. All standards of living 7. All human thoughts 8. Science is not a fact, it is also created by man 9. Logic was created by man, what seems logical in our reality is subjective to the knowledge we posses; our knowledge is finite. Einstein has proven this. Here are some examples of how you can live based up only facts: 1. Your girlfriend can be fat, ugly, and never shave her underarms/legs. Beauty is an idealist construct created by your own mind. Why the *** should she confirm to your non-factual standards? 2. Your kid no longer has to listen to you. Authority is a man-made and idealist construct. You truly have no authority over him beyond what artifical laws have granted you. 3. You can go ahead and burn all of your money. Money is a man-made construct. Money itself has no value, why should you give a *** about it? It's only an idea, not real. Should I go on? Religion is a culture. Science is a system of explaination. If we were to draw a venn diagram it would consist of two catagories: 1. Everything that is science 2. Everything that is religion These catagories would never overlap and thus are independent. If religion didn't exist then science could still exist and vice versa. The point: You're bitching about religion being called the same thing as science. Then you're saying that religion is being interpreted as fact in order to justify laws that you do not agree with. Basically you're saying that you're disagreeing with policys that are subjective to beliefs and not facts. All reality is subjective; you are ***. GGFgt.
[+]
Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Psyence said: When science gets mistaken for just another kind of faith The reason they'd call science our "religion" is very similar to why the word "atheist" exists : it's because we do not have a religion, therefore it must be called a "non-religion" and a "non-religion" has got to be just like a religion. Obvious, right?! Poor Aristotle must be turning over in his grave. If everyone is a sports fan and you're not, does that make you something? Of course it doesn't, but whenever there's a majority doing something, one will feel tempted to assign a qualificative to the minority that isn't doing it. It sounds like a way to justify the majority and make them think that we're forming "another team", playing their ridiculous game too. In fact, we're only just watching, although it does worry us when they make too much noise or when the result of their passion ends up affecting our own lives. Pushing the non-religious analogy a bit, if they start lobbying around and give us less opportunities to succeed in life because they dislike that we're not playing their game, then we have to somehow promote and defend our right to not be playing, even if it is ironic to the core. Looking up the definition of religion and the definition of science, we see that science is fundamentally different from religion. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe; science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. If they won't even read their dictionary, let them think what they want. But we won't allow them to deny any of our liberties simply because they're pissed that we don't share their passion for nonsense. As Sam Harris said, however, religion is probably just failed science. If he's right, that would help explain why these two get so often and easily compared. Remember that with natural selection, it takes many, many unsuccessful attempts before something actually starts working right. For example, while the brain of a human baby is being formed, 10X the number of required connections have to be discarded because they just end up not having any use. What a waste! Not mentioning that our eyes are wired to the brain... backward...! If we really have a designer, that designer should have been fired a long time ago. He's such a slacker. What I really want to say is that, over tens of thousands of years, the same kind of "trial and error" process should have naturally happened with religion as well. As time passed, we had to build new models, or improve existing ones so that they could fit our new understanding of nature. Thousands of religions that could not adapt to these changes simply vanished. Such selective process also involved that a lot of energy would go to waste, creating occasional regression. Because of this, we should not be too surprised at the current state of things. In conclusion, I think it's safe to say that any religion will naturally disappear as soon as our understanding of the natural world has made it completely unfit to credibly explain a single thing. We've seen some religions disappear throughout history... and thanks to science, I'm confident that we'll see it again. Your entire argument is void. Aristotle would facepalm reading what you wrote. Your argument is that religion is outdated and will naturally disappear when our understand of the natural world has made it uncredible. You're upset because you think that religion inhibits your freedom because it isn't based on fact. Here is a list of everything in the world that is not based on fact: 1. All ideology 2. All Laws(they arent real, they are man-made constructs of reality) 3. All government 4. All money 5. All society 6. All standards of living 7. All human thoughts 8. Science is not a fact, it is also created by man 9. Logic was created by man, what seems logical in our reality is subjective to the knowledge we posses; our knowledge is finite. Einstein has proven this. Here are some examples of how you can live based up only facts: 1. Your girlfriend can be fat, ugly, and never shave her underarms/legs. Beauty is an idealist construct created by your own mind. Why the *** should she confirm to your non-factual standards? 2. Your kid no longer has to listen to you. Authority is a man-made and idealist construct. You truly have no authority over him beyond what artifical laws have granted you. 3. You can go ahead and burn all of your money. Money is a man-made construct. Money itself has no value, why should you give a *** about it? It's only an idea, not real. Should I go on? Religion is a culture. Science is a system of explaination. If we were to draw a venn diagram it would consist of two catagories: 1. Everything that is science 2. Everything that is religion These catagories would never overlap and thus are independent. If religion didn't exist then science could still exist and vice versa. The point: You're bitching about religion being called the same thing as religion. Then you're saying that religion is being interpreted as fact in order to justify laws that you do not agree with. Basically you're saying that you're disagreeing with policys that are subjective to beliefs and not facts. All reality is subjective; you are ***. GGFgt. mind. blown. Bahamut.Drevin said: Phoenix.Excelior said: Ragnarok.Psyence said: When science gets mistaken for just another kind of faith The reason they'd call science our "religion" is very similar to why the word "atheist" exists : it's because we do not have a religion, therefore it must be called a "non-religion" and a "non-religion" has got to be just like a religion. Obvious, right?! Poor Aristotle must be turning over in his grave. If everyone is a sports fan and you're not, does that make you something? Of course it doesn't, but whenever there's a majority doing something, one will feel tempted to assign a qualificative to the minority that isn't doing it. It sounds like a way to justify the majority and make them think that we're forming "another team", playing their ridiculous game too. In fact, we're only just watching, although it does worry us when they make too much noise or when the result of their passion ends up affecting our own lives. Pushing the non-religious analogy a bit, if they start lobbying around and give us less opportunities to succeed in life because they dislike that we're not playing their game, then we have to somehow promote and defend our right to not be playing, even if it is ironic to the core. Looking up the definition of religion and the definition of science, we see that science is fundamentally different from religion. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe; science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. If they won't even read their dictionary, let them think what they want. But we won't allow them to deny any of our liberties simply because they're pissed that we don't share their passion for nonsense. As Sam Harris said, however, religion is probably just failed science. If he's right, that would help explain why these two get so often and easily compared. Remember that with natural selection, it takes many, many unsuccessful attempts before something actually starts working right. For example, while the brain of a human baby is being formed, 10X the number of required connections have to be discarded because they just end up not having any use. What a waste! Not mentioning that our eyes are wired to the brain... backward...! If we really have a designer, that designer should have been fired a long time ago. He's such a slacker. What I really want to say is that, over tens of thousands of years, the same kind of "trial and error" process should have naturally happened with religion as well. As time passed, we had to build new models, or improve existing ones so that they could fit our new understanding of nature. Thousands of religions that could not adapt to these changes simply vanished. Such selective process also involved that a lot of energy would go to waste, creating occasional regression. Because of this, we should not be too surprised at the current state of things. In conclusion, I think it's safe to say that any religion will naturally disappear as soon as our understanding of the natural world has made it completely unfit to credibly explain a single thing. We've seen some religions disappear throughout history... and thanks to science, I'm confident that we'll see it again. Such sincerity >.> Phoenix.Excelior said: +1 Excelior
[+]
I don't have anything add to this, I just want to say thank you Excelior for making a nice an neat little response. You made my eyes much happier after the Wall of Text. Organization and Spacing = win xD.
[+]
Is there a point to this post?
Sounds like you were high! kinda like when i post stuff on here! It was interesting though. "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
-Albert Eintein
[+]
ill say this one thing about science... they are willing to accept any idea ... but a religious one
scientists that even think maybe possible remotely towards religious ideas are black listed from science. Pawnskipper said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Eintein The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. For me the Jewish religion like all others is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. -albert einStein
[+]
Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Pawnskipper said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Eintein Either A: You're not very bright.
or B: You hit your head falling out of your booster seat. Judges? yep it's indeed A. salvadore said: Either A: You're not very bright. or B: You hit your head falling out of your booster seat. Judges? yep it's indeed A. <3 salvadore said: Either A: You're not very bright. or B: You hit your head falling out of your booster seat. Judges? yep it's indeed A. It could have been B because of A. Phoenix.Excelior said: salvadore said: Either A: You're not very bright. or B: You hit your head falling out of your booster seat. Judges? yep it's indeed A. It could have been B because of A. But it also could have been A because of B.
[+]
Asura.Authority said: Phoenix.Excelior said: salvadore said: Either A: You're not very bright. or B: You hit your head falling out of your booster seat. Judges? yep it's indeed A. It could have been B because of A. But it also could have been A because of B. i've always wanted to say that =D Ragnarok.Psyence said: When science gets mistaken for just another kind of faith The reason they'd call science our "religion" is very similar to why the word "atheist" exists : it's because we do not have a religion, therefore it must be called a "non-religion" and a "non-religion" has got to be just like a religion. Obvious, right?! Poor Aristotle must be turning over in his grave. If everyone is a sports fan and you're not, does that make you something? Of course it doesn't, but whenever there's a majority doing something, one will feel tempted to assign a qualificative to the minority that isn't doing it. It sounds like a way to justify the majority and make them think that we're forming "another team", playing their ridiculous game too. In fact, we're only just watching, although it does worry us when they make too much noise or when the result of their passion ends up affecting our own lives. Pushing the non-religious analogy a bit, if they start lobbying around and give us less opportunities to succeed in life because they dislike that we're not playing their game, then we have to somehow promote and defend our right to not be playing, even if it is ironic to the core. Looking up the definition of religion and the definition of science, we see that science is fundamentally different from religion. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of life and the universe; science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world. If they won't even read their dictionary, let them think what they want. But we won't allow them to deny any of our liberties simply because they're pissed that we don't share their passion for nonsense. As Sam Harris said, however, religion is probably just failed science. If he's right, that would help explain why these two get so often and easily compared. Remember that with natural selection, it takes many, many unsuccessful attempts before something actually starts working right. For example, while the brain of a human baby is being formed, 10X the number of required connections have to be discarded because they just end up not having any use. What a waste! Not mentioning that our eyes are wired to the brain... backward...! If we really have a designer, that designer should have been fired a long time ago. He's such a slacker. What I really want to say is that, over tens of thousands of years, the same kind of "trial and error" process should have naturally happened with religion as well. As time passed, we had to build new models, or improve existing ones so that they could fit our new understanding of nature. Thousands of religions that could not adapt to these changes simply vanished. Such selective process also involved that a lot of energy would go to waste, creating occasional regression. Because of this, we should not be too surprised at the current state of things. In conclusion, I think it's safe to say that any religion will naturally disappear as soon as our understanding of the natural world has made it completely unfit to credibly explain a single thing. We've seen some religions disappear throughout history... and thanks to science, I'm confident that we'll see it again. wow what a blabber full of horse ***, although that's fine cause almost anything on these forums, other then "what the forums actually are here for" are. In my opinion on religion/atheism/science/whatever else..it all is going to have to come down to believing in what makes the most sense. To say one is completly wrong vs. the other is HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE. Because you nor anyone on this planet knows the origin of the universe. so if you take any theory all the way back to that it all has to go on what makes the most sense. ktnxbai Pandemonium.Spicyryan said: salvadore said: Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Pawnskipper said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Eintein WTF, Darki? I wish anon accounts be stopped at this point since their purpose was for FFXIV. it would certainly be nice, but i'd guess it isn't going to happen Pandemonium.Spicyryan said: salvadore said: Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Pawnskipper said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Eintein WTF, Darki? I wish anon accounts be stopped at this point since their purpose was for FFXIV. pray about it slowlulz said: Pandemonium.Spicyryan said: salvadore said: Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Pawnskipper said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Eintein WTF, Darki? I wish anon accounts be stopped at this point since their purpose was for FFXIV. pray about it all over it forwarding request to my e-mail prayer circle Carbuncle.Sevourn said: slowlulz said: Pandemonium.Spicyryan said: salvadore said: Carbuncle.Sevourn said: Pawnskipper said: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." -Albert Eintein WTF, Darki? I wish anon accounts be stopped at this point since their purpose was for FFXIV. pray about it all over it forwarding request to my e-mail prayer circle you have my blessing |
All FFXIV and FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD.
FINAL FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.