Science IS religion

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I agree. Especially within certain aspects of evolution, do we see “belief”. Just like the “bird-to-dinosaur” paleontologists. Most apparently ‘believe’ that. Is it accurate? Well, there are some well-known scientists, like Dr. Alan Feduccia, who’ve grouped themselves together, as BAND: Birds Are Not Dinosaurs. They ‘believe’ the evidence does not support such a conclusion.

Scientists devoted to materialism may hate the word ‘believe’, but that’s what it is..

There are many fields of evolution where the scientists have no consensus as to the source or extent of change.

Nothing you posted above, is reasonable nor logical. But there you go-- creationists eschew logic every chance they get.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Making a cell phone, a bridge, flying in space, an airplane, a nuclear bomb etc etc.

All of that is engineering, not natural science.

Engineers use the findings of science to build technology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Nothing in vaccines has anything to do with sharing an ancestor with a flatworm.

The only reason people need new flu shots every year, is because the virus continually evolves - like all other biological entities, and the old vaccines no longer work.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Not only did He use evolving, it is a created trait. So? He did not use evolving in creating life though! Nor does science really know what was created and what may have evolved from original created kinds.

What "kinds"?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Just like the “bird-to-dinosaur” paleontologists. Most apparently ‘believe’ that. Is it accurate?

Bird to dinosaur? When you say things like that, it kind of exposes how ill-informed you are. Nobody claims that dino's evolved from birds.

Having said that... birds are dinosaurs.
Case in point: try to come up with a generic definition of "dinosaur" which includes ALL dino's but excludes birds, without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not birds".

You can't do it. Because birds fit that definition.

Just like you can't come up with a generic definition of "mammal" or "primate" to include all mammals or primates, while excluding humans without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not humans".
Because humans ARE mammals and primates.

Scientists devoted to materialism may hate the word ‘believe’, but that’s what it is..

It has nothing to do with materialism.
"Belief" is what you do with claims that don't have evidence.
Claims that have evidence, only require accepting the evidence.

As Krauss always says: "As a scientist, I don't believe anything. Instead, I consider things likely or unlikely. And how likely something is, is directly related to the evidence in support of it or lack thereof".

There are many fields of evolution where the scientists have no consensus as to the source or extent of change.

This statement is so vague that it is both correct and false at the same time.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion.

So anything belief based is religion now?

If someone were to believe another person can communicate with their dead relatives, that's religion?

If not, your premise fails, and this thread is a toolbox.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Bird to dinosaur? When you say things like that, it kind of exposes how ill-informed you are. Nobody claims that dino's evolved from birds.

Having said that... birds are dinosaurs.
Case in point: try to come up with a generic definition of "dinosaur" which includes ALL dino's but excludes birds, without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not birds".

You can't do it. Because birds fit that definition.

Just like you can't come up with a generic definition of "mammal" or "primate" to include all mammals or primates, while excluding humans without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not humans".
Because humans ARE mammals and primates.



It has nothing to do with materialism.
"Belief" is what you do with claims that don't have evidence.
Claims that have evidence, only require accepting the evidence.

As Krauss always says: "As a scientist, I don't believe anything. Instead, I consider things likely or unlikely. And how likely something is, is directly related to the evidence in support of it or lack thereof".



This statement is so vague that it is both correct and false at the same time.

Bird to dinosaur? When you say things like that, it kind of exposes how ill-informed you are. Nobody claims that dino's evolved from birds.

Having said that... birds are dinosaurs.
Case in point: try to come up with a generic definition of "dinosaur" which includes ALL dino's but excludes birds, without explicitly and arbitrarily adding "...but not birds".

You can't do it. Because birds fit that definition.

Typo. Thanks for pointing it out!

 

[sayak83]

Making a cell phone, a bridge, flying in space, an airplane, a nuclear bomb etc etc.

That's engineering not science.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Oh wonderful..."dad" is back.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Typo. Thanks for pointing it out!

Sure, no probs.

What about the other points made?

 

[Unguru]

"Belief" is what you do with claims that don't have evidence.
Claims that have evidence, only require accepting the evidence.

Why stay an Atheist then? you remind me of a Christian in your posts

 

[ChristineM]

Yes, of course so called sciences dealing with THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION are belief based. Just because we have some evolving happening now, does not mean that all life came about from that!

Just like the THEORY OF GRAVITY is belief based?

 

[Unguru]

Just like the THEORY OF GRAVITY is belief based?

Well a piece of paper and an elephant are the same weight thanks to the amazing powers of gravity-magic.

 

[Neutral Name]

Origin sciences are belief based so they are religion. Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

The speed of light can be measured. It can be proven that stars are many light years away. Therefore, they have existed for at least the number of light years that can be measured if not longer. The farthest star which we can see is 13.3 billion light years away. Therefore, the universe is at least 13.3 billion light years old.

This is operational science proven, not origins science.

Origins vs operational science - creation.com

 

[Brickjectivity]

Provide an example of what you consider "real science"?

This is the question the OP never answered.

 

[ChristineM]

Well a piece of paper and an elephant are the same weight thanks to the amazing powers of gravity-magic.

Depends how big the piece of paper is, it would need to be a big sheet of paper to weigh 5 tons at sea level on earth.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Sure, no probs.

What about the other points made?

I don’t agree. For one thing, not all related evidence leads to one conclusion. There is conflicting evidence. (You never watched Perry Mason? Lol.)

That’s why there are scientists with contradictory views on the same issues, as with BAND.

Lawrence Krauss saying he ‘considers’ something is ‘likely or unlikely’...(he can’t mean he knows it)...further, more detailed evidence can be found, which would change that ‘likely’ to ‘unlikely’. That’s belief, in most people’s book.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why stay an Atheist then?

Because I have no valid / rational reasons to be a theist.

you remind me of a Christian in your posts

Ok. No idea why, but ok. I guess.
Obviously what stuff reminds you of, is not under my control.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don’t agree. For one thing, not all related evidence leads to one conclusion. There is conflicting evidence

Such as?

And what about the stuff I mentioned about how it's impossible to come up with a generic definition of "dinosaur" which includes all dino's but excludes birds, without arbitrarily adding "but not birds"?

Which would mean that birds in fact ARE dinosaurs, since they fit the definition of the word "dinosaur"...

Lawrence Krauss saying he ‘considers’ something is ‘likely or unlikely’...(he can’t mean he knows it)...further, more detailed evidence can be found, which would change that ‘likely’ to ‘unlikely’. That’s belief, in most people’s book.

Not really... especially not when talking to theists.
Strictly speaking "to believe" means "to accept as accurate / true" - which is an expression of certainty, not an expression of gradations of "likely".

It surely is true that it depends on context. I myself will use the word "believe" as well to express my position on certain things. Part of my worldview though, is that claiming absolute certainty about anything is kind of dishonest, as in my view one can never be 100% certain about anything.

So whenever I use the word, I always mean some kind of gradation of "likelyness".
The word "belief" would mostly reflect the stance of "highly likely".

But theists tend to interpret that word as some kind of dogmatic position of absolute certainty. At least in my experience.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Real science has to do with actual knowledge and observations and how the world works now.

Science also deals with the history of the universe. The theory of biological evolution and the Big Bang theory are both about processes that unfolded over billions of years, and how our universe constructed itself without a conscious builder. This was the second wave of science. You're referring to the first wave - how the universe conducts its business day to day like a giant clockwork, also without the aid of gods. Electrons move through a wire in a circuit without needing angels to push them. The sun rises and sets without needing gods to drag it through the sky.

Real science is anything generated by the scientific method, the validity of which has been demonstrated repeatedly. The method generates ideas that anticipate nature, allowing us to do great things that have improved the human condition dramatically. That's how one knows that the underlying assumptions forming the foundations of science are valid.

It's also the way that we know that ideas like creationism are incorrect. They can't be used for anything - just like astrology, another faith-based system of beliefs.

Put some content into posts.

You first.

You haven't even given your definition of religion. If it includes science, it's not a definition of religion that I can use. I have no reason to group science, an evidence based system of thinking that generates useful ideas that allow us to anticipate outcomes and is useful even to people who don't understand it, with systems of thought like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - all faith-based ideologies invoking a god. To do so would render the word useless. Science will always stand in contrast to religion.

Would it be asking too much to address the topic?

The topic has been exhausted already. You equate belief and science with religion. I don't. A belief is anything that is considered true. You seem to define belief the way I define unjustified belief. There is also justified belief, justified by reason properly applied to evidence. For example, I believe that my car will start the next time I try to turn it over just like it did the last several hundred times I tested it. That's a justified belief - a belief justified by history.

I can even assign a probability of over 99% likelihood based on the fraction of past tests that have failed. I can't say for a fact that it will start next time, but I can state for a fact that it is exceedingly likely that it will. This is how we use evidence and reason to generate useful beliefs and accurately predict outcomes.

For me, what I call facts are a type of belief - justified belief with a high degree of certitude.

Nor does science really know what was created and what may have evolved from original created kinds.

"Kinds" is a vague, creationist religious belief. Science requires clear ideas.

Because you don't know something doesn't mean that it isn't known by others. With all due respect, why would we take our science from people that don't care about it except to try to undermine it? If you cared about the science, you'd already know it. You'd be able to recite the evidence for evolution, and explain how it implies what is presently being taught in universities.

As soon as you use a word like kinds, you disqualify yourself as a source of reliable scientific knowledge or argument with others who do know the science - people that never post things like, "it's only a theory".

There are many fields of evolution where the scientists have no consensus as to the source or extent of change.

There is no controversy about the theory of evolution in the scientific community. The extent of change described by the theory is from the first living population of cells to the tree of life we see today (common descent). The source is heritable genetic variation subjected to natural selection leading to differential survival and reproduction and evolving gene pools and populations.

The theory is pretty much worked out, and is unlikely to change much in the future. The work that needs to be done now is to determine the precise pathways nature took and over what timeline, but those answers won't affect the theory except perhaps to confirm its validity further.

So what are these fields of evolution to which you refer? Are you referring to fields like taxonomy and genetics? If so, I wouldn't call those fields of evolution. They are branches of biology like evolution, cell biology and ecology.