Science Cannot Replace Religion

[YYYY]

Science Cannot Replace Religion

Science changes and improves our understanding of the universe all the time; however, we will always find God at the end of every scientific footpath, now and forever.

 

 

Your whole essay is ruined by this simple statement

[ldsoftwaresteve]

GAHD:

Science should not replace religion. SCience is a completely different thing than relgion.

I'm not religious but I do recognize that religion deals with an important part of the human experience and certain elements of our lives have been abdicated and surrendered to it.

It's an illusion that is not helped by having a dichotomy between science and religion for the two are very much alike. Nobody can argue that Einstein and Newton are not looked upon as a prophets of 'science'.

But of course they're not completely alike (science and religion).

Religion starts with a huge assumption and builds from there. (God exists). And the proof backing up the assumption isn't perceivable and testable. And that is the BIG RUB. It isn't good methodology to do that because now one has allowed a stain to enter into one's mental fabric and by extension it is not inconceivable that all missing information will be handled with the same (weak) method. All conclusions then are going to have a pretty weak truth value. Nice to believe to be sure, but if it were ice, I sure as hell wouldn't want to walk on it.

But before you assume that 'science' is so freaking strong, consider that it (science) has abdicated real actual issues in human life. In a word, Morality. 'Science' and all 'scientists' have turned their backs on Morality and given it up to Religion. Big mistake. We've handed off the most important subject to a methodology that allows huge logical fallacies as a way of life.

And a consequential tragedy is that people who are really fundamentally good who at a gut level know that morality is really, really important have to accept a such a piss poor methodology to study it. In other words, they have to become religious.

How dumb is that? And I consider that the fault of 'science' and 'scientists'.

[Edella]

But before you assume that 'science' is so freaking strong, consider that it (science) has abdicated real actual issues in human life. In a word, Morality. 'Science' and all 'scientists' have turned their backs on Morality and given it up to Religion. Big mistake. We've handed off the most important subject to a methodology that allows huge logical fallacies as a way of life.

.

Many religious folk think morality only exists because of a "higher power",some thinking that only their specific brand of religion can explain morality.I see increasing attacks on science in America from some religious communities in recent years,and a study of morality by science(when given the proper spin) would outrage many,furthering the resentment some have for science.This of course doesn't mean that science shouldn't dare touch morality,but I can see it now:"The atheists have taken over the schools,the courts,and now morality,clearly defined by the Lord in the Bible,will be reduced to ones and zeros by the atheistic scientific community."The wedge some try to drive between science and religion truly scares me.

[CerebralEcstasy]

"The atheists have taken over the schools,the courts,and now morality,clearly defined by the Lord in the Bible,will be reduced to ones and zeros by the atheistic scientific community."The wedge some try to drive between science and religion truly scares me."

 

For myself, as explained in an earlier post I actually see science as an explanation of all of the great things God has done. When examining the bible you see there are certain scriptures which talk about scientific things. Job mentions how the earth is a sphere and hangs upon nothing. So while some religious groups might like to attack science, I don't share all of their reservations.

 

While there are other things that the bible and science do not agree on currently, I feel that there is a lack of information on either our parts, or a lack of understanding. For example, Genesis states that the earth was created in six days. When further referencing the bible you see that to God, one day is equivalent to 1000 years, however there really is no mention how long it took him to make the surrounding solar systems and so forth.

 

There are some things surfacing that some may or may not believe, such as scientists examining the earths magnetic field, more specifically its rate of decay. Several scientists - not sure how reliable their information is, state that this rate points to a much younger earth than scientists originally thought.

 

Since I believe in a creator, I feel that science will actually be able to prove the existence of God, rather than disprove him. It's just a matter of time.

[CerebralEcstasy]

Religion starts with a huge assumption and builds from there. (God exists). And the proof backing up the assumption isn't perceivable and testable.

 

There are many incidents in science where a hypothesis was not testable until a later time, yet was accepted by most as fact. Einstein's theory of relativity happens to fall into this category, but has been widely accepted by the scientific community as the most plausible.

 

Only recently are we able to actually test it. From the vault, I pulled this particular article.

 

02:00 AM Aug, 07, 2004

NASA's Gravity Probe B spacecraft could begin testing Einstein's general theory of relativity as early as this week, according to mission controllers at Stanford University.

The probe, said to be one of the most precise scientific instruments ever assembled, was initially scheduled to begin taking measurements within 45 to 60 days of its April 20 launch into Earth orbit. But mission controllers were forced to delay operations time and again after discovering minor malfunctions in the spacecraft's microthrusters and observing unexpected behavior from its four gyroscopes.

Project managers said they now believe they have all the kinks worked out and are ready to give the thumbs up to the science portion of the mission if some final procedures go as planned.

"All four gyros are now spinning at high spin speed," wrote mission controllers in a recent status report. "The spacecraft is in excellent health, and all subsystems are continuing to perform well. Next week we will be performing a few final operations prior to beginning taking science data."

The optimistic tone is characteristic of the weekly status reports, which have remained upbeat despite the steady stream of obstacles that have cropped up in the past three and a half months.

Within two weeks of the launch, mission controllers discovered that one of 16 microthrusters used by the spacecraft to maintain its position was stuck partially open. A week later, software on the spacecraft's main computer was scrambled by a blast of radiation while passing over the Earth's southern magnetic pole. Command errors, another broken microthruster and the detection of an unexpected amount of helium leaking from one of the gyroscopes caused further headaches and delays in later weeks.

None of the setbacks proved to be permanent, however, thanks to some forethought by project engineers. A backup computer, for instance, allowed the spacecraft to continue on its mission after the radiation blast while the first computer was rebooted. And a combination of an advanced microthruster design and a speedy software upgrade allowed the remaining 14 thrusters to compensate for the two that were taken offline.

With those bugs out of the picture, the $700 million mission is now on its way toward helping scientists test Einstein's general theory of relativity.

Though many of the theory's underlying concepts have been tested and proven in the 89 years since Einstein first published them, the proof for two concepts has remained elusive.

The first concept suggests that Earth -- and almost any body in space -- creates a dimple in the universe's so-called space-time fabric. The second suggests that the rotation of the Earth twists that fabric.

Gravity Probe B will attempt to measure those effects by aligning itself with a distant star and then measuring tiny changes in the direction of its four spinning gyroscopes with respect to the line of the star. If Einstein was right, the twist in the space-time fabric should push the spinning spheres at the center of the gyroscopes ever so slightly off their axes. According to project scientists, the angle of that shift would be so small that if the spheres' axes were a kilometer long, the ends would only move by the width of a human hair.

To make measurements this small, Gravity Probe B engineers had to ensure that the spheres in each of the spacecraft's four gyroscopes would not wobble enough to ruin the measurements. To do this, they designed and developed some of the most perfect spheres ever created by humans. Composed of fused quartz, the objects the size of a Ping-Pong ball have no imperfections greater than 40 atomic layers in height. In other words, if the spheres were the size of the Earth, there would be no hills or valleys taller or deeper than 12 feet.

The price of such precise gyroscopes? The cost of the raw, machined quartz alone hit $75,000, according to Bill Bencze, the mission's payload and electronics manager. Bencze declined, however, to provide a cost for an entire gyroscope, saying that it was difficult to calculate because of all the work that goes into their assembly.

"The housings and rotors need to be coated, cleaned, assembled and tested at both room temperature and cryogenic temperatures," he said. "To function at the level of precision desired, the entire GP-B spacecraft is needed. It is truly an integrated experiment."

NASA has set aside $700 million for the entire mission. Mission controllers expect to have all the measurements they need by late 2005, at which point scientists will start analyzing the data in hopes of proving -- or disproving -- Einstein's theory.

 

With that being said, as we move forward with science and technology, I find it reasonable to conclude that there are ways, to prove the existence of creator.

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Edella:

The wedge some try to drive between science and religion truly scares me

. And will exist as long as we allow morality to be dictated by unknown, unknowable, unseen, unperceivable higher powers. But if we can show what morality really is, why it's necessary for human survival, that it might actually be linked to understanding existence and maintaining life and all 'goodness', and has a basis in our identity as a living thing, then we won't need dictated moral codes.

And perhaps by having a common definition of morality and a solid moral code across all human beings we will be able to stop the bloodshed in the name of this God or that God.

[YYYY]

Your whole essay is ruined by this simple statement

I am sorry I retract my statement. It was un called for.

 

I was over hyped from batteling with idiots.

 

Regards

Y

[Edella]

But if we can show what morality really is, why it's necessary for human survival, that it might actually be linked to understanding existence and maintaining life and all 'goodness', and has a basis in our identity as a living thing, then we won't need dictated moral codes.

How I wish that were so ldsoftwaresteve,but how often does reason,logic,or preponderance of evidence separate a believer from his/her faith?Even if we could show with overwhelming evidence that morality is most likely a natural occurrence,few that believe that moral codes are dictated from above will accept it and many will be irate.Morality is religion's bread and butter.

 

And perhaps by having a common definition of morality and a solid moral code across all human beings we will be able to stop the bloodshed in the name of this God or that God.

 

In no way am I suggesting a scientific study of morality and all it entails is a bad thing.I just don't think any results would convince many believers,and in the short term possibly hurt science not least of all in its quest for public funding.I hope I am wrong.

[Pyrotex]

...In no way am I suggesting a scientific study of morality and all it entails is a bad thing. I just don't think any results would convince many believers...

As a matter of fact, there is a new book out. An incredible book:

 

"Breaking the Spell -- Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" by Daniel C. Dennett, author of "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" (a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize).

 

In this book, Dennett calls for (and initiates) a detailed scientific study of religion (and morality) as a natural (not supernatural) phenomenon peculiar to the Human race, and explanable by natural processes of biology, evolution, and cultural forces. It is an excellent read, written as it is by one of the finest wielders of the English language alive today. Dennett is University Professor, professor of philosophy, and co-director of the Center for Cognitive Studies at Tufts University.

[Edella]

Thanks for the info Pyrotex,it sounds fascinating.Often it is hard to make such topics enjoyable to read. I will certainly check it out.

[Edella]

I was over hyped from batteling with idiots.

 

From Dark Mind's signature:Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

- unknown

[ldsoftwaresteve]

Edella:

How I wish that were so ldsoftwaresteve,but how often does reason,logic,or preponderance of evidence separate a believer from his/her faith?Even if we could show with overwhelming evidence that morality is most likely a natural occurrence,few that believe that moral codes are dictated from above will accept it and many will be irate.Morality is religion's bread and butter.

Thank you in advance for having an open mind. ;)

The ones that will understand quickly will help prime the others to understand eventually. And the ones that don't understand, well, not everyone does you know. We can only lament the loss up to a point and then we must let it go.

And there is always the chance that we are wrong so it's best to not have universal agreement on everything. I'm always very nervous when too many people agree on something; makes me think we're a herd heading for a cliff. Hey, I had an actual original thought (until Pyrotex shows me that someone else already had it!). :)

[Pyrotex]

.... Hey, I had an actual original thought (until Pyrotex shows me that someone else already had it!). :D

I would not even begin to start to initiate the first thought of even presupposing that I might originate even the outline of a plan to do that.

:) :frown: :lol:

[Pyrotex]

"The atheists have taken over the schools,the courts,and now morality,clearly defined by the Lord in the Bible,will be reduced to ones and zeros by the atheistic scientific community."The wedge some try to drive between science and religion truly scares me."....

What newspapers are you reading??!! :) :frown: :lol:

 

The so-called "christian right" is fighting tooth and nail to control the schools and courts, to eliminate real science from the classroom and eliminate real judges from the courts. And it looks like they are succeeding.

 

What the educated, intelligent and rational communities are doing is just trying keep the Jesus fanatics from destroying everything that our Constitution stands for and everything that makes this country such a wonderful place to live.

 

The "christian right" is neither.

[Edella]

Pyrotex,CerebralEcstasy was quoting(trying to)from an earlier post of mine(#37).In context it reads much differently.

[Pyrotex]

Pyrotex,CerebralEcstasy was quoting(trying to)from an earlier post of mine(#37).In context it reads much differently.

Aha!!

Thank you very much for pointing this out. My psychiatrist has me under orders to make one egregious mistake a day and that was it.

My apologies if I derailed the thread.

[CerebralEcstasy]

Aha!!

Thank you very much for pointing this out. My psychiatrist has me under orders to make one egregious mistake a day and that was it.

My apologies if I derailed the thread.

 

 

I'm used to other boards where people put items in "quotation" marks in order to quote things.

 

I'll try to use the boxes from now on, so that others aren't confused.