Will science ever overtake religion?

[Stargazer]

There are a number of reasons why science is not "popular":

 

- Science hard, religion easy. It's easy to believe in a myth that gives answers and demands no investigation of the truthness of the statements. Indeed, it must discourage investigation and observation that could lead to a more accurate understanding of the world - what if they saw that the world is in fact not like in the religious texts? Oh, the horror.

 

- Science limits the possibilities. Or that is what some people think, anyway. But, we know that God did not create the entire universe within a week, that Jupiter's position on the sky at the time of your birth affected your personality in absolutely no way at all, and that Sol is not a goddess zooming across the sky in her chariot. Sorry to shatter your precious illusions.

 

- Science is severely misunderstood. Some people seem to think that science is just another set of myths or belief systems. They say that biological evolution is a religion. They say that one person's belief is just as true as anyone's belief. People don't know that science is radically different from any religion.

[InfiniteNow]

Frankly, I'm very amazed at how even this poll is right now:

 

View Poll Results: Will science ever overtake religion in popularity?

 

This poll will close on 05-26-2006 at 01:46 AM

Yes: (5) 26.32%

No: (6) 31.58%

Can't say?: (4) 21.05%

It is already far ahead: (4) 21.05%

 

Voters: 19.

[hallenrm]

I was lately going through the Intelligent design poll thread, and looking at the attitude of certain scientists, I indeed dobt that science can really overtake religion. The reason for my such an opinion is because the attitude of these scientists differs very little from that of high priests in most religions.:) ;) :(

[Boerseun]

I was lately going through the Intelligent design poll thread, and looking at the attitude of certain scientists, I indeed dobt that science can really overtake religion. The reason for my such an opinion is because the attitude of these scientists differs very little from that of high priests in most religions.:) ;) :(

With the difference, of course, that if you disagree with a scientist, and you can bring the goods to prove him wrong, even the cockiest of scientists will concede defeat of their theories and accept the results.

Religion don't do this. They don't seem to be mature enough to accept when they're wrong.

If you don't agree with them, you get stoned, bombed, put to the sword, etc.

[hallenrm]

With the difference, of course, that if you disagree with a scientist, and you can bring the goods to prove him wrong, even the cockiest of scientists will concede defeat of their theories and accept the results.

 

Is it really true? Is this assertion has held out in the entire history of science!!!;) :)

[ronthepon]

With the difference, of course, that if you disagree with a scientist, and you can bring the goods to prove him wrong, even the cockiest of scientists will concede defeat of their theories and accept the results.

Religion don't do this. They don't seem to be mature enough to accept when they're wrong.

If you don't agree with them, you get stoned, bombed, put to the sword, etc.

 

I agree to the second point fully and partially to the first.

 

When I was 10, my scripture teacher (yes I was in a missionary, place where they try to convert children of other religions to their own) used to beat the hell out of me if I asked questions.

And now when I point out basic points of error in my Bio teacher, who is a PhD he flares up like a phoenix!

[Boerseun]

Unfortunately, that's true. Scientists are also human, and prone to human mistakes. There are a few famous cases where renowned scientists have fudged the results of experiments in order to back their theories, because it's either a pride thing, or they were needed to impress their sponsors with the results in order not to lose research money.

That happens.

 

Fortunately, the way it works is that each and every scientific experiment must be repeatable in any lab anywhere in the world. And the results must match if the experiment was carried out the same way. The Michaelson-Morley experiment serves as a good example - if you can repeat the experiment the same way and obtain different results, then you'd force the scientific world to rethink many properties assigned to light and space. And nobody said it would be impossible - scientists say with a fair degree of certainty that you can repeat MM and get the same result, because that was the result of 100% of the repeats of MM after the first experiment. But you might just be the first to obtain different results, thereby throwing a lot of what we know out the window. Science will never reach the Final Answer (which might just be 42, by the way), and that's what's so cool about it!

 

You will get scientists fudging results to support their personal theories, but they soon get exposed via the peer review process.

[hallenrm]

Unfortunately, that's true. Scientists are also human, and prone to human mistakes. .....................Fortunately, the way it works is that each and every scientific experiment must be repeatable in any lab anywhere in the world. And the results must match if the experiment was carried out the same way. The Michaelson-Morley experiment serves as a good example - if you can repeat the experiment the same way and obtain different results, then you'd force the scientific world to rethink many properties assigned to light and space. And nobody said it would be impossible - scientists say with a fair degree of certainty that you can repeat MM and get the same result, because that was the result of 100% of the repeats of MM after the first experiment. But you might just be the first to obtain different results, thereby throwing a lot of what we know out the window. Science will never reach the Final Answer (which might just be 42, by the way), and that's what's so cool about it!

 

 

That's all very true for experimental science. But, all science is not only experimental. Often scientists advance theories, say the string theory or the Hubble's constant. That are not amenable to experiments.

 

How does scientific methodology and heirarchy reacts in such cases. The constitution of science is beautiful, but only in theory. In practice there are many loopholes; there is seldom any real transparency. Sychophancy and nepotism is as rampant in the establishment of science as elsewhere.:esmoking:

[Boerseun]

I see your point Hallen, but you should keep in mind that everything unproven, like String Theory, is only that - a theory.

 

String theory goes from the assumption that different particles are simply different vibration patterns of fundamental units that can be imagined as 'strings'. Where String Theory does gain momentum is in the predictions it makes, and in its internal consistency. It doesn't make it final, though, and could be replaced any day by a more comprehensive theory making predictions that comes closer to observed phenomena. Granted, the fact that they start from an assumption is a weakness, but the amazing predictions made by it gives it some authority, if only mathematically. Matter of fact, it is also conjectured that they aren't even 'strings', but shapeless, dimensionless particles, where the vibration gives rise to observed dimensions.

 

There are branches and sub-branches of different fields of Science which is way over my head, which I won't even pretend to understand. The instinct is there to believe in an understandable description of Nature, but that doesn't make it necessarily so, and that same instinct serves as a wellspring for antagonism against science. And that is sad, but true. :esmoking:

[hallenrm]

A very honest admission Boerseun! I really admire you for that.

 

Now that we have travelled together in the world of thoughts so far together, tell me if such is the case why do scientist dismiss spirituality so easily.

 

Why do we dismiss telepathy point blank, isn't it possible that it is a theory that needs different methods to prove?:)

[Boerseun]

A very honest admission Boerseun! I really admire you for that.

Thanks! :)

 

...tell me if such is the case why do scientist dismiss spirituality so easily.

Science isn't 'dismissing' spirituality easily, or at all. What Science is saying to 'spirituality' proponents, is "bring the evidence, let's test it, and see what the results say". Spirituality have failed to do so. You shouldn't be blaming Science for spirituality's lack of evidence.

Why do we dismiss telepathy point blank, isn't it possible that it is a theory that needs different methods to prove?:)

Telepathy have been tested extensively, for years, now. There is not a single shred of evidence supporting it. If you believe there is, or you can prove it, go to http://www.randi.org and buy me a beer with the million bucks you get if you can prove it. Not to say there might not be a novel new way of testing for it - but if you can come up with a way that's scientifically sound, go for it! Just lemme know if you succeed!

[hallenrm]

Sounds very splendid indeed and believe me I do believe in you and your good attitude, but my experience with many scientists tends me not to be so optimistic!

 

Here are the reasons!

 

To collect proofs in present day science is not very cheap. One needs huge investment and most state organizations would not care to fund any such research because they are biased against these so called non scientific pursuits.

 

But, suppose one succeeds in finding the funds, spiritual organizations and gurus are floating on funds, thanks to the ordeals modern capitalists society puts on very many people, who then seek the refuge of spirituality, and then suppose one collects some kind of proof too, will the scientific establishment accept it. No, it will conveniently look the other way, and just refuse to see the validity of the experiments. There is a vested interest of many big moneybags in keeping the status quo. For example, even though the practice Yoga and the Ayurvedic system of healing, has been known to be successful, the most of western scientists have refused to pay any heed to it, only because it is perceived a threat to the influential and powerful drug industry.

 

Same would be the case with evidence in support of telepathy, meaningless questions would be raised which would dissuade even an ardent believer to pursue the efforts needed. I have indeed gone through the procedures and methods employed but several scientists trying to disprove telepathy, you may find some links even on wikipedia.

 

The fact remains that to prove or disprove any hypothesis or theory is totally at the mercy of the all powerful 'the so called scientific aristocracy!:hihi:

[ronthepon]

In my opinion, one of the reasons that even the most scientific persons take to supernaturalism being true is periods of physically induced mental weaknesses.

I do not mean pain etc, I am reffering to times when their rationalism is overridden by very strong emotions.

 

Such happenings can occur due to special environmental factors, like darkness , fog, high wind, moonlit night. Also some musics (enigma style) with long and continuous constant tones hovering in the background of the song have potentials to do so.

[Jules Grimm]

Sounds very splendid indeed and believe me I do believe in you and your good attitude, but my experience with many scientists tends me not to be so optimistic!

 

Same would be the case with evidence in support of telepathy, meaningless questions would be raised which would dissuade even an ardent believer to pursue the efforts needed. I have indeed gone through the procedures and methods employed but several scientists trying to disprove

 

telepathy, you may find some links even on wikipedia.

 

Anyone can put information in wikipedia regardless of whether they are qualified to make the statements or not. Always triple check everything you read. And what experiences have you had with scientists to make such a sweeping statement?

 

If something - in this case telepathy - is tested in a range of conditions and ways then there is a chance that a different method is needed, but far more likely that it just doesnt work, but apparently reality is way too difficult for most people to grasp. What is so hard about realising that something doesnt work and more importantly - admitting it?

 

The fact remains that to prove or disprove any hypothesis or theory is totally at the mercy of the all powerful 'the so called scientific aristocracy!;)

 

Who exactly are they? The regulating body that make sure things actually work as they are supposed to. The ones that act so people cannot just make claims to get money from people who believe the rubbish they spew out? No claims that cannot be substantiated is definitely the way things should be run. What's so wrong with that? Unless of course you cannot back what you say up with concrete facts and are taking refuge behind rhetoric against people who are asking for facts?

 

But, suppose one succeeds in finding the funds, spiritual organizations and gurus are floating on funds, thanks to the ordeals modern capitalists society puts on very many people, who then seek the refuge of spirituality, and then suppose one collects some kind of proof too, will the scientific establishment accept it. No, it will conveniently look the other way, and just refuse to see the validity of the experiments. There is a vested interest of many big moneybags in keeping the status quo. For example, even though the practice Yoga and the Ayurvedic system of healing, has been known to be successful, the most of western scientists have refused to pay any heed to it, only because it is perceived a threat to the influential and powerful drug industry.

 

I have heard people make these excuses about alternative health treatments and similar things too often to believe this. "Oh, well it must be the fault of pharmaceutical companies (Or insert appropriate derogatory name here) that are suppressing threats to them" - the people in those company are normal people too and i'm sure that many people have relatives who are suffering and who need these cures - if they work! - so why suppress them? This is a ridiculous premise, if something works then people will use it and its usage will spread and increase. Of course if it doesn't work then its supporters need an excuse as to why it isn't wide spread - like "it has been suppressed" - anything under the sun except actually admitting that it doesnt work.

 

Is it going to kill you to realise that pharmaceutical companies do a lot of good for many people? I'm not saying they're saints by any means, but at least they're regulated unlike this alternative treatment stuff. I would feel far safer taking a pharmaceutical product than some herbal that has never been tested and has never had it's results substantiated.

 

To collect proofs in present day science is not very cheap. One needs huge investment and most state organizations would not care to fund any such research because they are biased against these so called non scientific pursuits.

 

But of course there is no such thing as integrity left in scientists, either professional or personal - they are all biased horrible individuals who are ruled by the money that supports their research. At least not according to those people whohaven't been able to get research grants and the like since they haven't been able to produce anything other than unsubstantiated words. Saying that people, especially scientists, are like that is a major insult to any person in that field and you need to rethink your accusation.

 

And before you say it - as no doubt you will :) - I do not work for "Big Pharma" as i believe its known in the states. I actually work for a person who sells alternative health products...

/forums/images/smilies/mad_2.gif

 

 

--End rant

 

After all that - All i wanted to say originally was that i hope that science overtakes religion so my answer is an optimistic one :) Sorry for the rant, but there are certain types of thinking that i have a major problem with and that was one of them.

[IDMclean]

I will quietly point to a quote.

Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

- Albert Einstein, in The New Convergence

 

I believe in strange happenings, mostly because I believe in Quantum mechanics. Telepathy is not outside my view of science, and as I've posted else where I believe that psionics exist and that they adhere to the standard model of Quantum Physics.

 

there are mutlitudes of questions that one can ask but cannot be answered, koans are an example of this. There is much within the realm of human understanding at current, however there is even more outside. Any phenomena that has occured, does occure, or will occure is a phenomena that I am concearned with. rather than attach strings that get tangled to a given concept such as "religious" or "supernatural", I perfer to judge claims by merit and probablility of being eventually explainable.

 

I'm not claiming to believe that crop circles are communications from other planets, however until I can, to my satisfaction, disprove them I will not say they are not possible.

 

I observe in day to day interactions odd occurances that happen far to often to simply be random. Minor things like needing coinage and it happening to make itself available to me, a street light turning green as a car happens to get to a pressure plate just in time for me to cross the street, getting a person to turn around and look directly at you simply by staring at them. There is evidence that suggest that thoughts can make things happen, that you can actually affect the world around you just by how you think.

 

Further, there is infact a sizable collection of data regarding ESP. Some of that data is rather astounding. My favorites being conducted by one Gertrude Schmeidler.

 

parapsychology (that is Psionics) is a fascinating field with an odd covet, it's main unifing theme is that belief is critical... I've often wondered how we would reconcile traditional Science with the science of belief.

 

Gertrude mentions that those that weren't open to the concepts were less sensitive and scored lower on the tests than those whom were open to the concepts.

 

In Psionic Theory, there is a clear distiction between Open minds and Closed minds. These are like Particles and Anti-particles, or perhaps the better analogy is Like Charges.

[Kriminal99]

No.

 

But objective, non religious philosophy can. Why? Because the basic ideas behind science having a social signifigance are flawed.

 

Attempting to disprove a theory in order to validate it is great. But its a mute point if you have depend on an "authoritative source" to tell you that it has been done.

 

If its possible that

 

A) the scientits could have biased the sample he used to conduct the experiment, intentionally or otherwise

 

B) the scientist could have biases that would cause him to alter the experiment or outright lie about the results

 

C) the scientist could draw conclusions that are not a direct result of the experimental results and communicate those conclusions instead of directly communicating the experimental results.

 

Then all of sciences philosophical foundations go down the toilet. (With respect to non scientists, not the scientists themselves and anyone who knows they can trust them... such as the organization they work for perhaps) And these things are proven to be the case on a yearly basis.

 

On the other hand, if write in a philosophy book "I can concieve of ideas such as a unicorn which consists of merging parts of a horse and a goat", and millions of people read the book past this point indicating that they agree, then for anyone who reads the book, an attempted disproof has been made in relation to that person.

 

And then if I reason in a simple and mechanical manner in this book step by step from this simple "true or false" fact, and people still read and agree then every person reading is an attempted disproof to some degree, meaning they could disagree and have something to say which would contradict my claims. A single disagreement doesn't constitute a disproof, but if we are willing to consider every such person's arguments objectively and give them ample opportunity to express their argument then a fairly vigorous attempt at disproof has been made. And those arguments can include physical evidence.

 

Also science is a specialized discipline. The findings of psychologists are pretty useless if they cannot communicate them to non psychologists in a manner that convinces the non psychologists to believe they are true. In fact as a philosopher, for the above reasons, I would claim that their findings are potentially wrong as long as they are unable to convince others who might have different biases. Meaning the use of discipline specific terminology goes against what science claims to be trying to accomplish at least if you are talking about non scientists accepting it.

 

@ Jules

 

Many people such as yourself tend to straw man claims about scientists sharing biases. Taking the alternative medicine example, it could be more about brainwashing then some kind of conspiracy. Brainwashing in the form of an 8 year long education, which is often supported by pharma companies who donate money to universities. It is easy to underestimate how subtle such an education could be in making you think the way they want you to. There might have been people who would question certain information given at various points such that they would have come to the conclusion that beliefs that support contemporary thinking are wrong, but they are labled troublemakers and probably flunk out either because teachers do it with an attitude like "oh he thinks hes smarter than everyone else" or because they have trouble memorizing and regurgitating ideas that they think are incorrect. So youve got artifically restricted entrance into the medical profession (takes 2 years to train a doctor in war time) and everyone who makes it in has been regurgitating and acting according to belief sets endorsed by the pharma companies for the past 8 years.

 

Sound unrealistic? I remember years ago I went to a young dermatologist for teen acne. He told me he was 100% sure that food did not effect breakouts. He prescribed me many antibiotics that wreaked havoc on my immune system, as well as other drugs including steroids for limited use etc. Later came the whole low carb diet craze and the effects of carbohydrates, as well as greater recognition for ideas like the glycemic index. People started taking the background information about what causes acne, and that for diabetes and weight gain, and seeing obvious connections. Foods with high glycemic indexes dump large amounts of sugar into the blood quickly, and cause large amounts of hormone fluctuation. Hormone fluctuations can cause acne. HMMM... Cheap chocolate has high glycemic index carbohydrates... potatoes french fries etc... all the things grandma said not to eat... I haven't read about it recently but I think its common knowledge now that diet often is the cause of acne. And there are probably tons of situations like this that have occured in the past.

 

What could have caused that dermatologist to be so sure when he was wrong? Do I think he was evil and just wanted to sell me drugs? No. I think he was taught something and didn't question it enough that lead him to believe what he said.

[hallenrm]

Anyone can put information in wikipedia regardless of whether they are qualified to make the statements or not. Always triple check everything you read. And what experiences have you had with scientists to make such a sweeping statement?

 

 

Do you really believe so?

 

Well then I know, who is posting.

 

I never made generalizations like you, I am as much, a scientist, but I do not have blind faith. I would not believe in any thing, only because there is a publication saying so; as much I will not disbelieve anytthing only because a so called scientist want the world to believe so.

 

I have had a long experience, to know the intricasies of the scientific world of the day!B)